Why measure charcoal in soil?
There's charcoal running across the chart dead straight. It never changes. Why, then, do we measure it at all? It is said to be costly. It takes us no closer to a reliable baseline methodology. That's all we need for trade to commence. Soil Carbon Credits Now!
100 years: it's political, not scientific
Some believe that 100 years is the time it takes for a tonne of CO2 to cycle through the atmosphere. It is not. This is a common misconception. Eg. "The internationally accepted timeframe for ensuring sequestration is equivalent to emissions is 100 years. This is based on the estimated life of one tonne of carbon pollution in the atmosphere." - Carbon Farming Initiative Handbook (P.17)
Let's ask a scientist:
john.friend@industry.nsw.gov.au wrote
"Regarding your questions about where did I get the "100 year" figure for carbon dioxide and its relation to the issue of permanence. The figure has its origins in the Kyoto protocol. The IPCC have then used 100 year horizon values to compare the other greenhouse gases to carbon dioxide (the IPCC table is here). Regarding a specific reference for the 100 year value, I can't find one. From what I can gather, the rationale behind using 100 years is from this paper which states an "adjustment time" of 50-200 years". This paper actually states that the decay of excess CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be expressed in a single figure, so the 100 year figure seems to be more politically correct than scientifically correct."
Dr John Friend, Leader, Soil and Salinity, Natural Resources Advisory Services, Department of Primary Industries, NSW Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Services
“This 100 year timeframe is a policy-determination, not a technical one,” reveals a peer--reviewed report by Pedro Moura Costa and Charlie Wilson.(1) It is a period chosen by the IPCC for calculating the Global Warming Potential of each different Greenhouse Gas compared to CO2. For instance, Nitrous Oxide has a GWP of 298 (ie., one tonne of N2O is equivalent to 298 tonnes of CO2).
Some believe that 100 years is the time it takes for a tonne of CO2 to cycle through the atmosphere. It is not. This takes only 4 years, according to an IPCC Report. “The turnover time of CO2 in the atmosphere, measured as the ratio of the content to the fluxes through it, is about 4 years. This means that on average it takes only a few years before a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is taken up by plants or dissolved in the ocean.” (2.) However, it can take far longer for the atmosphere to adjust to the new levels of CO2, up to 200 years. (3.)
The EcoSecurities analysts calculate that removing a tonne of CO2 and holding it for 55 years is sufficient to counteract its effect on Global Warming. The IPCC uses 20, 100 and 500 year periods in much of its analysis. “The Kyoto Protocol set the time horizon against which [GWPs] are to be determined at 100 years (addendum to the Protocol, Decision 2/CP.3, para. 3)." (4.)
"To be consistent, it can be implied therefore that the Protocol also requires the benefits of sequestration in counteracting the radiative forcing effects of CO2 emissions to be evaluated over a 100 year time horizon. Any uncertainties derive from both this choice of time horizon, as well as future scenarios of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, are not technically driven but rather are a natural consequence of ‘arbitrary’ policy selections.”
“Functional Permanence”
Clearly, there is no definition of Permanence for Biosequestration that is dictated by Scientific Fact. The periods quoted range from 4 years to ‘forever’, with points of 20, 50, 55, 100, 200 and 500 years in between. The choice of 100 Years appears to have been a function of the need to find a scale on which to compare the Global Warming Potential of various Greenhouse Gases. Its choice as a time horizon took place as part of the negotiations around the Kyoto Protocols and was based on functional considerations. One function – the engagement of farmers in soil carbon sequestration activities – was overlooked.
FOOTNOTES:
(1.) Pedro Moura Costa and Charlie Wilson, An equivalence factor between CO2 avoided emissions and sequestration – description and applications in forestry, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Volume 5, Number 1, 51-60
(2.) Watson, R.T., Rodhe, H., Oeschger, H. and Siegenthaler, U. 1990. Greenhouse gases and aerosols. In IPCC Report No 1, World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme, Cambridge University Press.
(3.) “This short time scale must not be confused with the time it takes tor the atmospheric CO2 level to adjust to a new equilibrium if sources or sinks change This adjustment time… is of the order of 50 - 200 years, determined mainly by the slow exchange of carbon between surface waters and the deep ocean.” ibid
(4.) "Reaffirms that global warming potentials used by Parties should be those provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its Second Assessment Report (“1995 IPCC GWP values”) based on the effects of the greenhouse gases over a 100-year time horizon, taking into account the inherent and complicated uncertainties involved in global warming potential estimates. In addition, for information purposes only, Parties may also use another time horizon, as provided in the Second Assessment Report.” IPCC, REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES ON ITS THIRD SESSION, HELD AT KYOTO FROM 1 TO 11 DECEMBER 1997, PART TWO: ACTION TAKEN BY THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES AT ITS THIRD SESSION, 25 March 1998, P. 31, Decision 2/CP.3
Let's ask a scientist:
john.friend@industry.nsw.gov.au wrote
"Regarding your questions about where did I get the "100 year" figure for carbon dioxide and its relation to the issue of permanence. The figure has its origins in the Kyoto protocol. The IPCC have then used 100 year horizon values to compare the other greenhouse gases to carbon dioxide (the IPCC table is here). Regarding a specific reference for the 100 year value, I can't find one. From what I can gather, the rationale behind using 100 years is from this paper which states an "adjustment time" of 50-200 years". This paper actually states that the decay of excess CO2 in the atmosphere cannot be expressed in a single figure, so the 100 year figure seems to be more politically correct than scientifically correct."
Dr John Friend, Leader, Soil and Salinity, Natural Resources Advisory Services, Department of Primary Industries, NSW Department of Trade and Investment, Regional Infrastructure and Services
“This 100 year timeframe is a policy-determination, not a technical one,” reveals a peer--reviewed report by Pedro Moura Costa and Charlie Wilson.(1) It is a period chosen by the IPCC for calculating the Global Warming Potential of each different Greenhouse Gas compared to CO2. For instance, Nitrous Oxide has a GWP of 298 (ie., one tonne of N2O is equivalent to 298 tonnes of CO2).
Some believe that 100 years is the time it takes for a tonne of CO2 to cycle through the atmosphere. It is not. This takes only 4 years, according to an IPCC Report. “The turnover time of CO2 in the atmosphere, measured as the ratio of the content to the fluxes through it, is about 4 years. This means that on average it takes only a few years before a CO2 molecule in the atmosphere is taken up by plants or dissolved in the ocean.” (2.) However, it can take far longer for the atmosphere to adjust to the new levels of CO2, up to 200 years. (3.)
The EcoSecurities analysts calculate that removing a tonne of CO2 and holding it for 55 years is sufficient to counteract its effect on Global Warming. The IPCC uses 20, 100 and 500 year periods in much of its analysis. “The Kyoto Protocol set the time horizon against which [GWPs] are to be determined at 100 years (addendum to the Protocol, Decision 2/CP.3, para. 3)." (4.)
"To be consistent, it can be implied therefore that the Protocol also requires the benefits of sequestration in counteracting the radiative forcing effects of CO2 emissions to be evaluated over a 100 year time horizon. Any uncertainties derive from both this choice of time horizon, as well as future scenarios of atmospheric CO2 concentrations, are not technically driven but rather are a natural consequence of ‘arbitrary’ policy selections.”
“Functional Permanence”
Clearly, there is no definition of Permanence for Biosequestration that is dictated by Scientific Fact. The periods quoted range from 4 years to ‘forever’, with points of 20, 50, 55, 100, 200 and 500 years in between. The choice of 100 Years appears to have been a function of the need to find a scale on which to compare the Global Warming Potential of various Greenhouse Gases. Its choice as a time horizon took place as part of the negotiations around the Kyoto Protocols and was based on functional considerations. One function – the engagement of farmers in soil carbon sequestration activities – was overlooked.
FOOTNOTES:
(1.) Pedro Moura Costa and Charlie Wilson, An equivalence factor between CO2 avoided emissions and sequestration – description and applications in forestry, Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, Volume 5, Number 1, 51-60
(2.) Watson, R.T., Rodhe, H., Oeschger, H. and Siegenthaler, U. 1990. Greenhouse gases and aerosols. In IPCC Report No 1, World Meteorological Organization and United Nations Environment Programme, Cambridge University Press.
(3.) “This short time scale must not be confused with the time it takes tor the atmospheric CO2 level to adjust to a new equilibrium if sources or sinks change This adjustment time… is of the order of 50 - 200 years, determined mainly by the slow exchange of carbon between surface waters and the deep ocean.” ibid
(4.) "Reaffirms that global warming potentials used by Parties should be those provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its Second Assessment Report (“1995 IPCC GWP values”) based on the effects of the greenhouse gases over a 100-year time horizon, taking into account the inherent and complicated uncertainties involved in global warming potential estimates. In addition, for information purposes only, Parties may also use another time horizon, as provided in the Second Assessment Report.” IPCC, REPORT OF THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES ON ITS THIRD SESSION, HELD AT KYOTO FROM 1 TO 11 DECEMBER 1997, PART TWO: ACTION TAKEN BY THE CONFERENCE OF THE PARTIES AT ITS THIRD SESSION, 25 March 1998, P. 31, Decision 2/CP.3
Carbon increases create miracle soils: GRDC
They call them “suppressive” soils because they suppress disease in crops. Scientists are racing to find out why. But they know two things:
- Soil microbes are responsible for them.
- Soil carbon increases are the key.
“There are soils right across the country where the incidence or severity of disease is suppressed, even in the presence of the pathogen that causes it, a host plant and a favourable environment,” says Associate Professor Pauline Mele, LaTrobe University and principal research scientist, Department of Primary Industries Victoria (DPI).
Disease suppression is the result of increased species density among microbial communities in soils associated with increased carbon levels. We know that, when soil carbon levels are rising, biodiversity increases and this has the effect of increasing resilience (or disease resistance). “We know the effect is due to the presence of a diverse range of ‘good’ micro-organisms,” says Professor Mele.
Three facts Dr Mele mentioned provide further evidence that soil carbon is a key influence:
“HIGH rainfall zone (HRZ) grain growers stand to increase yields and save significant amounts of money on chemicals, if the secrets of suppressive soils can be unlocked,” reports The Land. Growers lose an estimated $250 million each year from root lesion nematodes alone. “Soil biology is tipped to be the ‘next big thing’ in terms of productivity gains and a five-year research program is currently being funded by the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) to address some of the knowledge gaps.” Having poured scorn on soil biology as “snake oil” and ‘witches brew’ for so long, the GRDC’s epiphany is welcome.
“The soil biological resource under our feet is seen as something of the ‘last frontier’ for the grains industry… We know it’s about competition for resources. If we create a habitat that favours one type of soil microbe, say through repeated use of the same management practice such as addition of fertiliser or sowing the same plant types, the community may end up with fewer types of biota present; thereby reducing the resilience of the system,” says Professor Mele.
The writing is on the wall for chemical companies. “Using biological suppression to reduce crop losses, without chemicals or with minimum chemical input, could improve the profitability of growers worldwide,” says the Professor.
More information about the Soil Biology Initiative II is available here. Research partners include the Victorian Department of Primary Industries (DPI Vic), Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestries (DAFF), Department of Agriculture and Food WA (DAFWA), and CSIRO.
“These disease-suppressive soils have been found to develop under management practices that supply higher levels of carbon inputs for more than five consecutive years. The carbon from plant roots and crop residues is biologically available and provides an important food source for soil biota, ” says CSIRO’s Dr Gupta Vadakattu in GRDC’s GroundCover 96 Soil Biology Supplement.
Disease suppression is the result of increased species density among microbial communities in soils associated with increased carbon levels. We know that, when soil carbon levels are rising, biodiversity increases and this has the effect of increasing resilience (or disease resistance). “We know the effect is due to the presence of a diverse range of ‘good’ micro-organisms,” says Professor Mele.
Three facts Dr Mele mentioned provide further evidence that soil carbon is a key influence:
- Balance in the microbial community is critical: “upsetting the balance or sterilising the soil can cause the disease to strike with a vengeance”.
- It is not soil type specific; it could therefore be a soil health agent – such as carbon – that is at work: “ we believe every soil has the potential to be suppressive”
- It is a feature of soil heavily influenced by a farmer’s management practices: “it’s just a matter of working out what management techniques will encourage it.”
“HIGH rainfall zone (HRZ) grain growers stand to increase yields and save significant amounts of money on chemicals, if the secrets of suppressive soils can be unlocked,” reports The Land. Growers lose an estimated $250 million each year from root lesion nematodes alone. “Soil biology is tipped to be the ‘next big thing’ in terms of productivity gains and a five-year research program is currently being funded by the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) to address some of the knowledge gaps.” Having poured scorn on soil biology as “snake oil” and ‘witches brew’ for so long, the GRDC’s epiphany is welcome.
“The soil biological resource under our feet is seen as something of the ‘last frontier’ for the grains industry… We know it’s about competition for resources. If we create a habitat that favours one type of soil microbe, say through repeated use of the same management practice such as addition of fertiliser or sowing the same plant types, the community may end up with fewer types of biota present; thereby reducing the resilience of the system,” says Professor Mele.
The writing is on the wall for chemical companies. “Using biological suppression to reduce crop losses, without chemicals or with minimum chemical input, could improve the profitability of growers worldwide,” says the Professor.
More information about the Soil Biology Initiative II is available here. Research partners include the Victorian Department of Primary Industries (DPI Vic), Queensland Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestries (DAFF), Department of Agriculture and Food WA (DAFWA), and CSIRO.
Breaking the 100 years barrier (25 is better)
"The Coalition... says it's committed to repealing the carbon tax, but supports the Carbon Farming Initiative and will honour carbon credits earned under the scheme," reported ABC Radio earlier this week. In fact, shadow environment minister Greg Hunt says, in Government, he would look to expand the Initiative. Greg says it's not reasonable to expect farmers to lock up areas of land for carbon sequestration for 100 years in order to earn credits.
"Our view is we will work to make a 25-year approach... It's a view which is almost universal across the sector that a quarter of a century, which is still a long time, is realistic, it allows people to long-term investments, but it's not binding beyond the lifetime of one particular farm."
We believe in the principle of healthy diversity and ‘let the market decide’. We advocate a plurality of offerings: 100 year contract, 25 year contract, 5 year renewable contracts – renewable 4 times. The latter is the most acceptable to farmers, according to our research. However prices are likely to be lower at this end of the continuum.
We have long advocated the logic of a shorter option for the Permanence requirement because:
We believe in the principle of healthy diversity and ‘let the market decide’. We advocate a plurality of offerings: 100 year contract, 25 year contract, 5 year renewable contracts – renewable 4 times. The latter is the most acceptable to farmers, according to our research. However prices are likely to be lower at this end of the continuum.
We have long advocated the logic of a shorter option for the Permanence requirement because:
- No sane farmer would sign a contract for 100 years with all the uncertainties and penalties associated with soil carbon as it has been presented;
- Soil Carbon sequestration can play an important interim role in the next 50 years while renewable energy sources grow to baseload capacity, according to prominent scientists
- The 100 years period is not scientifically significant; it is not the time it takes for a molecule of CO2 to cycle out of the atmosphere. It was selected as a convenient period for comparing the warming potential of different greenhouse gases.
- 100 years was chosen supposedly to equalise offsets based on sequestration with offsets based on avoided emissions. But the permanence of the avoided combustion of a tonne of coal via the use of renewable energy has been questioned on the grounds that there is no guarantee that the tonne of coal won't be dug up and burnt at a later date.
- The co-benefits of soil carbon are so many and so beneficial, including reducing the need for chemical inputs and suppressing disease in crops, according to the latest reports.
Commitment from farmers ‘significant’ or too much?
The Government understands that it is asking a lot of farmers wanting to take part in the Carbon Farming Initiative. The commitment asked of farmers is significant, to ensure that credits generated by the scheme meet the strictest global standards, according to parliamentary secretary for climate change, Mark Dreyfus. "Australia comes to this with a very high reputation for scientific integrity, for regulatory integrity. We're expecting that Australian carbon credits will be in world demand for those reasons.” he said. Australian farmers will benefit from having to meet high standards to earn carbon credits.
To earn credits for native revegetation projects, for example, that land must be locked up for 100 years.
But will the enthusiastic buyers find any growers willing to take the risk of signing a contract that lasts longer than their lifetime? Will the rules that make CFI Carbon Credits so attractive to buyers have the reverse effect on sellers?
Could it be that locking up land is overkill, especially in the environmental plantings methodology?
But Mark Dreyfus says there is some good news: farmers will not face financial penalties if the credits they've earned are destroyed by a bushfire or drought. Now you're talking.
But will the enthusiastic buyers find any growers willing to take the risk of signing a contract that lasts longer than their lifetime? Will the rules that make CFI Carbon Credits so attractive to buyers have the reverse effect on sellers?
Could it be that locking up land is overkill, especially in the environmental plantings methodology?
- The methodology requires a planting density that reaches only 20% ‘crown cover’ at maturity, leaving 80% of the project area grassy vegetation that will need grazing to avoid baring of the soil due to desertification (rank and dead grasses stifle fresh grasses emerging).
- The carbon in the understory is not factored into the sequestration equation anyway.
- Occasional grazing can reduce fire loads.
- The methodology itself makes allowances for occasional grazing from 3 years after establishment.
But Mark Dreyfus says there is some good news: farmers will not face financial penalties if the credits they've earned are destroyed by a bushfire or drought. Now you're talking.
Carbon not so expensive?
So, there seems to be a picture being built up, now that the scary 'price on carbon' is here. Such a political hot potato has detracted from the job we can all do to ensure the sustainability of our way of life, as well as ensure the security of our soils, and farms.
Firstly, Climate Spectator has reported on the research you may have heard on the news as well. Click here to read the article. Then, Crown Melbourne announced a 'carbon neutral' option for rooms - and it costs so little to offset your stay, at $3.80 extra per day down to just 65c per day for a conference room. This is an 'opt in' system like the airlines.
While these businesses are buying carbon from overseas projects at the moment, once there are Australian Carbon Credit Units available, you might be able to assist an Australian farmer as you sleep!
We will soon be announcing our first Carbon Neutral company - a company which we have assisted to walk through this mine field. A regional business that's leading the way in this area.
A word of warning on these prices - If we are to assist our own farmers to become and maintain sustainable (regenerative) practices, the price of a tonne of carbon cannot be as low as what is offered overseas at the moment. HOWEVER, don't forget you will be assisting an Australian farmer to improve the Australian air!
Firstly, Climate Spectator has reported on the research you may have heard on the news as well. Click here to read the article. Then, Crown Melbourne announced a 'carbon neutral' option for rooms - and it costs so little to offset your stay, at $3.80 extra per day down to just 65c per day for a conference room. This is an 'opt in' system like the airlines.
While these businesses are buying carbon from overseas projects at the moment, once there are Australian Carbon Credit Units available, you might be able to assist an Australian farmer as you sleep!
We will soon be announcing our first Carbon Neutral company - a company which we have assisted to walk through this mine field. A regional business that's leading the way in this area.
A word of warning on these prices - If we are to assist our own farmers to become and maintain sustainable (regenerative) practices, the price of a tonne of carbon cannot be as low as what is offered overseas at the moment. HOWEVER, don't forget you will be assisting an Australian farmer to improve the Australian air!
SAVE THE DATE: 2012 CARBON FARMING WEEK COMING IN OCTOBER
Our 6th annual Carbon Farming Conference and Expo, which is part of Carbon Farming Week, is coming soon - Don't miss the best 2 days (and more) on the calendar. Independent and educational, our aim is to arm people with the tools they need to make their own decisions in this area. October 22nd to 25th Dubbo!
The first soil carbon methodology arrives
The first soil carbon meth has been published for public comment. It is a good example of the way meths can be made up from modules plucked from other people's work. This meth is submitted by a company from Queensland called GroundWorks, that sells a product called Ecoblanket® - a seeding method that involves compost and a spray technique. Its name says it all: a "Methodology for Quantifying Carbon Sequestration by Permanent Environmental Plantings of Native Species established through Direct Seeding, Planting or application of Ecoblanket® using the CFI Reforestation Modelling Tool [and Sample Testing for Soil Carbon] Prepared by Groundworks Pty Ltd".
They started by taking the Government's own environmental plantings meth in (total), adding their seeding system and adding a soil carbon measurement system from a 2008 UNFCCC CDM reforestation and aforestation methodology (in total). The weakness in the soil carbon meth is that the crediting period is 20 years. That means you have to wait for 20 years to see a return. Too long for most people.
PS. Clever approach to meth making. Like Duplo.
What Gillard should have said about the carbon tax
It is amazing how Governments (of all persuasions) manage to complicate things. Climate Spectator's letter is a wonderful, plain English, easy to understand explanation for why we need a price on carbon! Very hard to say no when things are explained in these terms.
Forests losing soil carbon to the CO2 Effect
Increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide accelerates soil carbon loss in forests, new research has found. Carbon stored in soils, as opposed to in the wood of trees, is desirable in that soils are more stable over time, so carbon can be locked away for hundreds to thousands of years and not contribute to atmospheric carbon dioxide increases. But new evidence supports an emerging view that although forests remove a substantial amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, much of the carbon is being stored in living woody biomass rather than as dead organic matter in soils.
The research was conducted at the Duke Forest Free Air Carbon Dioxide Enrichment site in North Carolina, where mature pine trees were exposed to increased levels of carbon dioxide for 14 years. Indiana University biologist Richard P. Phillips, said, "It's been suggested that as trees take up more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, a greater amount of carbon will go to roots and fungi to acquire nutrients, but our results show that little of this carbon accumulates in soil because the decomposition of root and fungal detritus is also increased. Nitrogen cycled faster in this forest as the demand for nutrients by trees and microbes became greater under elevated CO2. "The growth of trees is limited by the availability of nitrogen at this site, so it makes sense that trees are using the 'extra' carbon taken up under elevated CO2 to prime microbes to release nitrogen bound up in organic matter," Phillips said. "What is surprising is that the trees seem to be getting much of their nitrogen by decomposing root and fungal detritus that is less than a year old."
“Microbial priming” is a process where soil microbes are stimulated to decompose old soil organic matter via an increase in new carbon and other energy sources, and the faster turnover of recently fixed root and fungal carbon.
"We call it the RAMP hypothesis -- Rhizo-Accelerated Mineralization and Priming -- and it states that root-induced changes in the rates of microbial processing of carbon and nitrogen are key mediators of long-term ecosystem responses to global change," Phillips said. "Most ecosystem models have limited representations of roots, and none of them include processes such as priming. Our results demonstrate that interactions between roots and soil microbes play an underappreciated role in determining how much carbon is stored and how fast nitrogen is cycled. So including these processes in models should lead to improved projections of long-term carbon storage in forests in response to global environmental change'" he said.
“Microbial priming” is a process where soil microbes are stimulated to decompose old soil organic matter via an increase in new carbon and other energy sources, and the faster turnover of recently fixed root and fungal carbon.
"We call it the RAMP hypothesis -- Rhizo-Accelerated Mineralization and Priming -- and it states that root-induced changes in the rates of microbial processing of carbon and nitrogen are key mediators of long-term ecosystem responses to global change," Phillips said. "Most ecosystem models have limited representations of roots, and none of them include processes such as priming. Our results demonstrate that interactions between roots and soil microbes play an underappreciated role in determining how much carbon is stored and how fast nitrogen is cycled. So including these processes in models should lead to improved projections of long-term carbon storage in forests in response to global environmental change'" he said.
Are soils the missing sink? More evidence
Scientists have discovered an abrupt increase in the uptake of atmospheric carbon dioxide by the land biosphere (which comprises all of the planet's plant and animal ecosystems) since 1988. The increase in uptake is about one billion tonnes of carbon per year. Equal to 10 per cent of the global fossil fuel emissions for 2010. Without this natural increase in uptake, the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would probably have increased even more rapidly over the last two decades.
These new results have been reported in a recent paper in the journal Global Biogeochemical Cycles, written by an international team of researchers at Princeton University (USA), NIWA (New Zealand), and the University of Missouri (USA). They applied a suite of statistical techniques to objectively determine the timing, size, and statistical significance of this shift. They explored whether it could be explained by volcanic eruptions or the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) – it can't.
"The scientific community has known for a long time that the land biosphere takes up CO2. What's new about this study is that we have discovered an abrupt shift towards more uptake by the land biosphere since 1988. Our team applied mathematical techniques that haven't been widely used in this field to detect the shift," says NIWA's Dr Mikaloff-Fletcher.
"While the increase was shown to be significant, the physical processes driving it remain a mystery. It poses big questions for us. What caused this shift? What can it tell us about how land's ability to take up CO2 is going to change in the future, and the sensitivity of the land carbon sink to climate? How is that going to feed back into climate conditions in the future?" says Dr Mikaloff-Fletcher
These new results have been reported in a recent paper in the journal Global Biogeochemical Cycles, written by an international team of researchers at Princeton University (USA), NIWA (New Zealand), and the University of Missouri (USA). They applied a suite of statistical techniques to objectively determine the timing, size, and statistical significance of this shift. They explored whether it could be explained by volcanic eruptions or the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) – it can't.
"The scientific community has known for a long time that the land biosphere takes up CO2. What's new about this study is that we have discovered an abrupt shift towards more uptake by the land biosphere since 1988. Our team applied mathematical techniques that haven't been widely used in this field to detect the shift," says NIWA's Dr Mikaloff-Fletcher.
"While the increase was shown to be significant, the physical processes driving it remain a mystery. It poses big questions for us. What caused this shift? What can it tell us about how land's ability to take up CO2 is going to change in the future, and the sensitivity of the land carbon sink to climate? How is that going to feed back into climate conditions in the future?" says Dr Mikaloff-Fletcher
Subscribe to our blog 
Recent Posts
- I'm a PC and the carbon tax was my idea
- Voluntary Carbon Market Lesson -2
- Opposition Climate Policy gets some flesh
- Getting to know the Voluntary Market.
- Quite a good, balanced view on what is happening.
- Voluntary Markets Power On!
- The Carbon Market for farmers is doomed, right?
- CSIRO wins funds for lowering the cost of soil C measurement!
- Voluntary Market Rules!
- Groovy Map re 'we are going it alone' on price on Carbon.
Tags
- 100 Years Rule (1)
- Allan Savory (1)
- Biochar (2)
- Carbon Cocky Awards (8)
- Carbon Credits (42)
- Carbon Emissions (21)
- Carbon Farming Conference (12)
- Carbon Farming Initiative (80)
- Carbon Farming Policies (46)
- Carbon Forests (8)
- Carbon offsets (19)
- Carbon sequestration (7)
- Carbon Tax (19)
- CDM (1)
- Climate Change (27)
- Common Practice Test (1)
- Conference Presenters (2)
- CSIRO (4)
- De-stocking (2)
- Emission Trading Scheme (3)
- Fracking (1)
- Global Warming (6)
- Media (1)
- Methane (2)
- Methodology (21)
- NFF (3)
- Nitrogen (1)
- No-Till Farming (1)
- Positive List (2)
- Recommendations (5)
- Soil Biology (13)
- Soils (54)
- Sustainable Farming (32)
- Webinars (4)
- Workshops (6)
