
Losses of soil carbon under global warming might equal U.S. emissions - reirob
http://news.yale.edu/2016/11/30/losses-soil-carbon-under-global-warming-might-equal-us-emissions
======
mturmon
People have been trying to examine this from several directions, including
remote sensing to quantify how much CO2 is being generated as these stocks
warm
([http://above.nasa.gov/about.html?#about](http://above.nasa.gov/about.html?#about)).
The overview article in _Nature_ that this press release refers to is:

[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7631/full/540047a...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7631/full/540047a.html)

and the technical article by Crowther et al. is:

[http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7631/full/nature2...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v540/n7631/full/nature20150.html)

~~~
ramonvillasante
Thanks for the links

------
giarc
Obviously the landscape is going to be drastically affected, would the melting
permafrost not allow for more tree growth which might squash some of the
increase in C02 release (albeit a tiny fraction)?

~~~
Brakenshire
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it's a common misconception that trees
store a really large amount of carbon, usually it is dwarved by the carbon
associated with the soil where the trees grows. Over generations, in
particular in a rainforest, enormous amounts of carbon are put into the soil,
and burning down the forest doesn't just release the carbon from the trees,
but many times that number from the soil. Regrow the trees, and you only
recapture a fraction of what is released. I imagine you're going to get a
similar effect from permafrost melting.

~~~
mturmon
This is correct, even for Arctic regions.

According to [1], net production of carbon in Alaskan Arctic regions is about
0.14 kg / meter-squared, per year. But soil content is about 14 kg / meter-
squared. Crudely, that means 100 years of net carbon production would be
sequestered in soil carbon.

[1]
[http://www.biogeosciences.net/11/4271/2014/](http://www.biogeosciences.net/11/4271/2014/)

~~~
Brakenshire
Thanks for the link, very interesting.

------
skvale
I wonder if the losses of soil carbon are not solely caused by global warming.
Poor land management via grazing methods, biodiversity loss and
desertification, deforestation, and ocean life die offs could all release co2
into the atmosphere independent of fossil fuels. Can we measure these?

------
Florin_Andrei
So... self-sustaining feedback loop? :(

------
Shivetya
Let us be a bit more honest here. Current numbers are near four hundred ppm
and not even most exaggerated places them past eight hundred. Commercial
greenhouses can hit 1k and even that isn't hazardous exposure levels. Man made
levels are dropping but in the end, we are actually very close the lowest
levels in our planet's history and may be too low.

Plants prefer higher numbers and being below 500 is actually been shown to be
bad for them while double that is beneficial to greenery.

So there are issues with the climate we will face but CO2 levels are probably
the least of them

~~~
soVeryTired
I just wanted to point out the downvote button isn't a "disagree" button. One
can make the case that arguing over climate science is flamebait, so if you
want to downvote on those grounds then go ahead. But people shouldn't be
punished for making specious arguments.

Unless someone is deliberately trolling, it's better to engage with them than
to negate them by downvoting. Such engagement is what makes hackernews more
highbrow and interesting than, say, reddit.

~~~
adevine
Huh? IMO, the parent's comment is a perfect example of something deserving of
downvotes: "Why are you arguing something that has absolutely nothing to do
with the article, or really even global warming in general, and displays a
complete lack of understanding about what the discussion is even about."

In other words, I can't imagine that engaging with someone whose argument is
basically "CO2 isn't a problem because plants love CO2" is going to lead to
any sort of insightful discussion.

~~~
soVeryTired
I don't think it will lead to particularly insightful discussion either. But
my point is that on the assumption the OP is acting in good faith, it's better
to try to persuade them than to silence them. You don't convert people by
taking away their voice.

