Comprehensive coverage

The buried carbon threatens to increase global warming

Huge amounts of carbon are "buried" in the world's soils and it turns out that global warming will cause the release of carbon in much larger quantities than was predicted until now.

A "mud volcano" in Romania emits methane. Photo: shutterstock
"Mud volcano" in Romania, emits from a carbon cell. Photo: shutterstock

Huge amounts of carbon are "buried" in the world's soils and it turns out that global warming will cause the release of carbon in much larger quantities than was predicted until now. It was found that "in a warming world, the emission of carbon dioxide by bacteria in the soil will increase." It turned out that soils from cold regions and soils that hold more carbon will emit more carbon dioxide as the temperature rises."

According to a study published innature There is twice as much carbon in the world's soils as in the atmosphere and more than in all the animals and plants (biomass).

Populations of bacteria that breathe in the soil emit carbon into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide. Every year soil bacteria release about sixty trillion tons of carbon dioxide into the world's air.

Short-term experiments have shown that the respiration of soil bacteria increases with the increase in temperature. Information collected from the experiments is weighted into the carbon system in the soil and the living systems and the models show that the warming causes an increase in the emission of carbon dioxide from the soil. That is, a positive feedback loop is created that can affect climate change. The magnitude of the feedback is not clear since the population of soil bacteria changes the levels of carbon dioxide emissions or absorption depending on the increase or decrease in temperature.

When the temperature drops significantly, a reverse process occurs, the bacteria absorb carbon dioxide, but the tendency for the reverse process is much smaller and not significant. Moreover, when there is a drop in temperature the bacteria become more sensitive and when the temperatures rise again they emit more carbon dioxide.

During the research, soils were collected from different habitats in climate zones from the Arctic Circle to the Amazon. The researchers heated and cooled the soils over relatively long periods of time (about 90 days), and tested the reactions and sensitivity of the bacterial populations to changing temperatures, it was found that "the bacterial population responds more to an increase than to a decrease in temperature."

Despite assumptions that the bacteria will adapt to high temperatures and thus the emission of carbon dioxide from "sensitive" soils will decrease. It turned out that "there is no acclimatization of the bacterial populations and the emission of carbon dioxide does not decrease."

Agricultural soils were less vulnerable, while the most extreme reactions were in soils with a high carbon to nitrogen ratio and in soils in cold climate zones. This means that soils in cold areas will be more sensitive to warming and will emit more carbon dioxide than the forecasts to date predict.

Although the researchers are not clear about the process as a whole, the study showed that the estimates of the effect of warming on living systems and soils were lower than expected since the soil, especially in the northern regions, has huge amounts of carbon that will be released as the temperatures rise.

10 תגובות

  1. skeptic
    Please explain to me - why do you believe a newspaper article and not a study carried out on many thousands of articles by serious scientists?

    Please explain to me - why there are no (peer-reviewed) articles by Nir Shabiv that contradict the warming (at least I haven't found any.

    Please explain to me - which of the following sentences is incorrect:
    1) The person emits PADH in high quantities
    2) PADH is a greenhouse gas
    3) The climate is changing and becoming warmer on average

    The medical articles you so despise have tripled life expectancy. Just an anecdote to remember.

  2. Miracles… some reading material….
    The 97% is also not the true number of believers according to this -

    An example of a scientist and a theory that refutes the sacred global warming -

    And to your question - I would not agree to any medical procedure, without checking its success statistics, regardless of the number of doctors who believe or claim its success. In the context of global warming there are mainly theories, not experiments or findings.
    By the way, in medicine the situation is much worse than in weather science,
    Most of the articles that are published by doctors are complete nonsense written just to get more research grants....
    And most of them won't even dispute that...

  3. skeptic
    The hole in the ozone is closing due to a very significant reduction in the emission of substances that break down into chlorine. I didn't know there was a debate about that?
    97% believe... you're right, belief is bullshit. But, the 97% I said refers to the examination of a huge number of articles - over 12,000. Do you understand? That's how science works. Articles by experts, and not the ramblings of certain uneducated people whose names I will not mention.
    Let me point out another fact. I don't know a single research institute in the world that claims there is no man-made warming.

    And again my question - are you ready to perform a medical procedure that 97% of doctors tell you is dangerous? Yes or No?

  4. Miracles…
    Did you choose the hole in the ozone?
    They recently announced that the hole was closed.... probably all thanks to us of course !!
    In short, no one has a clue, but they sound very convinced of themselves...
    And regarding the 97% percentage of scientists who believe in global warming...I think and hope that the number is smaller, but
    In any case, this only indicates the symptom of the lack....
    There is no shortage of examples - of other nonsense that the majority believe -
    Just as 100% of scientists recently believed they had found proof of the cosmic expansion of the universe, it turned out to be nonsense.
    90% believe in an imaginary friend... Maybe this is also a fait accompli that I should accept?
    98% believe that orbital radiation is harmful to them.... Without a theory, and without an experiment that proves the claim?
    suggests that you maintain a degree of skepticism... especially regarding theories according to which man is the center of the universe,
    Some of these theories have already been debunked in the past…

  5. skeptic
    Do you want to argue about the hole in the ozone too? About the amount of fish in the sea? About species extinction? Have you ever looked at the lighting picture of the world from space?
    How can you say that a person has no influence?

    And regarding the scientists - 97% say there is man-made warming. Are you willing to undergo a medical procedure that 97% of doctors tell you is dangerous?

  6. Clarification questions assuming that the research conclusions are accurate:
    1. What is the volume of a ton of CO2 in the data of the article?
    2. The emitted gas, what is the thickness of the atmospheric shell it creates per year?
    3. The meaning that approximately 43 trillion of oxygen evaporates from the earth per year. What does it mean for the amount of extra charge left?
    4. Shouldn't such a large amount of material that "evaporates" have any effect on the force of gravity?
    5. The number trillion is according to the American method of (10 to the 12th power) or European (ten to the 18th power)

  7. Once again we are being pushed these pseudo-scientific ecological agendas of global warming,
    As if this is a fait accompli.
    There are enough famous scientists who think that -
    There is no global warming (glaciers that actually grow in certain places, problematic measurements and only over a short period of time, which may be affected by placing sensors close to cities and settlements...)
    Even if there is warming over a period of time, most likely it is controlled by forces stronger than us
    (Yes, you will be surprised, man, the crown of creation, is not the greatest and most influential force on KA, there are volcanoes, solar activity, cosmic radiation and a host of other forces in the equation)
    In short, we always arrive at the same philosophy where man is at the center of the world, man does evil, man will be punished by a higher power.
    Only the imaginary friend is missing...

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.