Skip to main content

Soil carbon release accelerating global warming.

Could the release of carbon from the soil be accelerating global warming and climate change?  The answer from the latest research published in Nature appears to be a resounding 'yes.'  Perhaps it is not surprising given that the soil acts as a significant store of global carbon.  It isn't merely locked in place. Organic processes release it into the atmosphere. 

Carbon is a vital ingredient of our living planet and plays a major role in the balance of our ecosystem.

All life on earth is 'made' of carbon and carbon circulates. Carbon enters the atmosphere as carbon dioxide from respiration and combustion. It is absorbed by plants to make carbohydrates in photosynthesis using energy from the sun.

Animals feed on the plants passing the carbon compounds along the food chain. Most of the carbon they consume is exhaled back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. The animals and plants eventually die, and these dead organisms get eaten by decomposers (microbes and animals in the soil), and thus carbon returns to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide.

The  bulk of the planet's terrestrial carbon is retained in the soil. In this sense, the soil acts as a carbon buffer or 'store,' and it is this way that the exchange of carbon between the soil and atmosphere represents a restraint on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming. 

Organisms (plants, microbes, and animals) living in the soil drive the carbon cycle, and these organic processes are enhanced when the temperature rises.  Thus, a key question is whether anthropogenic (man-made) global warming in turn acts to increase the amount of carbon released from the soil.  

A recent study shows not only that this is the case,  but also suggests that this release of carbon from the soil is now having a significant impact on global warming.

In a significant international collaboration, scientists from universities and climate centres across the world have analysed soil samples from across the globe, from the arctic permafrosts to the dry Mediterranean forests.   They found the effects of temperature on soil carbon were variable but predictable.  The amount of carbon 'stored' in the soil varied inversely with temperature.

The findings of this study provide support for the contention that the release of carbon from the soil is having a significant effect on atmospheric carbon.  More carbon enters the atmosphere as global temperatures rise, accelerating global warming.

As the authors of the study warn, reducing greenhouse gas emissions is vital if we want to avoid the most damaging effects of this carbon feedback over the course of the century.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As