Carbon sources (SOC & NPP) & the Facts of Life on a Non-flat Earth – RJB, May, 2020, Zama.

Yet again, 27th May is Rachel Carson's birthday. In her Silent Spring Chapter 5, Realms of the Soil she says:"The thin layer of soil that forms a patchy covering over the continents controls our own existence and that of every other animal of the land. Without soil, land plants as we know them could not grow, and without plants no animals could survive."

So in the Spring spirit of Rachel here is an update on Soil and Biodiversity, SOC & NPP...

Charts showing soil (brown) as proportion of global Biomass (Gt C) and Biodiversity (Millions of Spp). Mora et al. (2012) have my estimate of at least ~550M Spp in total (99.6% terrestrial). Blakemore (2012, 2017, 2018) more than doubled land/soil and thus terrestrial Spp. There is a scaling law between biomass, biome and biodiversity and Some other estimates using scaling laws to predict species go as high as a trillion taxa when all virus and microbes are tallied, e.g., Locey & Lennon (2016). As stated (Blakemore 2018: fig. 5): “A single gramme (~1 cm3) of fertile topsoil may have three billion microbes (Bacteria, Actinomycetes, Archaea, Fungi, Protozoa, etc.), up to 60 km of fungal hyphae, with 10,000 to 50,000 microbial species having 1598 km of DNA some dating to the beginning of life four billion years ago .” As average soil carbon is ~1–2% and soil organic carbon alone now amounts to >10,000 Gt, then the total soil biodiversity must be truly astronomical and the values in the figure above likely very modest.

Scripp’s Keeling curve in Hawaii that is about average for the globe, shows daily drawdown (~4ppm or 8 Gt C) is about the same as annual emission of CO2 in fossil fuels (~10 Gt C). The daily “bounce back” is due mainly to plant respiration at night and soil humus decomposition.

Carbon is the major element of life being about half the dry weight of most organisms. That the atmosphere contains about 860 Gt C or about 410 ppm as CO2 and this is increasing are all solid, undeniable facts. Not much else is as reliable though. That this carbon is completely recycled by photosynthesis of land plants – themselves (in shoots & roosts) comprised of at least 1,000 Gt C – every two years as the most restricted of essential elements is, for some reason, not so well known. Thus most inventory reports are wrong, such as from IPCC or WMO (2015) saying: “Total cumulative emissions from 1870 to 2014 were some 400 GtC from fossil fuels and cement, and about 145 GtC from land use change. The total of 545 GtC was partitioned among the atmosphere (230 GtC), ocean (155 GtC), and the land (160 GtC).” Why this is wrong is that the loss from soil probably amounts to more than total fossil emissions but the extra carbon has been mostly taken up by land plants and re-stored in soil as humus; secondly, the increases in the ocean carbon budget are mostly from soil erosion not from the atmosphere. This loss of soil humus is the major cause of atmospheric accumulation. Without natural humus plants grow less well; without plants there is less humus. It is a negative feedback loop.

Houghton & Nassikas (2017) estimated land use change depleted 145 Gt SOC from 1850-2015. I think this is a massive underestimation and that soil loss is in the 1,000s of Gt SOC, mainly to the ocean and only partly to the air. Happy to be disproven, but only if you prove a flat-Earth.

Current atmospheric CO2 of 410 ppm is about 140 ppm above stable levels (ideal ~280 ppm) this requires drawdown of 140 ppm CO2 or about 280 Gt C which is about how much land plants process each year (ca. 220 Gt C/yr NPP). The challenge is to effectively re-store this as humus which require land rehabilitation, reversing desertification and reducing burning. The best first step is to reduce meat that places an inordinate burden on land for pasture and stock feed. The final straw (literally!) is introducing sheep and goats to degraded lands. The penalties for reduced meat eating are few as often too much protein is consumed by affluent people who may be invited to pay extra for this privilege or, more likely, have a slight change of habits. The other major shift required is the transition back to 100% organic farming. Chemical farming has mainly been an extension of military disposals (nitrates and biocides) purely for profit and on the advice mainly of chemists and marketers, neither of which are qualified to comment on Ecology. This too would be costless once subsidies for chemical farming are removed and the externalized health and environmental costs are charged to the polluters. The savings in public spending could be redirected to retraining new agricultural pioneers and to cover the initial couple of years of transition (as indeed happened to the two or three states in India that converted to 100% organic in recent times). Less red meat and 100% organic farming requires less land and the farms also operate as nature reserves thus biodiversity is restored. A healthy, organic diet improves human and animal health allowing better decisions. And finally, the increased vegetation and humus draws down excess carbon reversing the climate catastrophe.

Increasing, human-induced desertification around the globe caused by fires, sheep and goats.

Crazy goats can climb and strip trees or eat down to the bare soil causing desertification.

Amazonian rainforest cleared for European or American beef – cruel and crazy people too.

All this obvious soil damage seems to be almost totally disregarded, for example from UN’s SGDs, here I quote from Rattan Lal et al. (2018 www.schweizerbart.de/publications/detail/isbn/9783510654253/Soil_and_Sustainable_Development_Goals_): “In 2015, the UN formulated seventeen global Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), among them ending poverty, eliminating hunger, protecting the planet and ensuring peace and prosperity. Although judicious management of soils is critical to advancing most of these goals, the word soil is not once mentioned in any of these laudable goals. SDG#15, for example, mentions land degradation but does not specifically focus on soils. In line with previous UN programs, SDGs thus reflect an utter lack of awareness of the importance of the most basic of all natural resources on which depends all terrestrial life – soils.”

Carbon Brief (2020) too claim: “Our findings show that the annual average CO2 concentrations will still increase through this year, even though emissions are reducing. Across the whole year, we estimate CO2 levels will rise by 2.48 parts per million (ppm). This increase is 0.32ppm smaller than if there had been no lockdown – equivalent to 11% of the expected rise. ...An analogy is filling a bath from a tap. If the tap represents CO2 emissions, and the water level in the bath is CO2 concentrations, while we have slightly turned the tap down temporarily, water is still flowing into the bath and so the level is still rising. To slow climate change, the tap needs to be turned right down – and permanently.”

I think this is mistaken as the main cause of carbon increase is SOC loss and the bath analogy may be correct but if soil were preserved rather than being destroyed as at present, it would allow a global carbon stock to be maintained (bath water!) at a much lower level and the whole atmospheric carbon could still be recycled each couple of years, but at a slightly higher rate. That this is achievable in a generation is sure as the global response to the corona virus shows: we can change our behaviour and lifestyles when faced with disaster. The issue is getting people to realize that loss of biodiversity is real and a much greater threat than corona.

Here, most simplistically is the Earth’s main carbon cycle (ocean is largely irrelevant!).

Supposedly, the extra plant growth due to CO2 fertilization effect draws down about half of the excess FF emissions of +10 Gt C/yr but there is net loss of soil carbon too so this is not being stored. I do not believe the oceans contribute to drawdown, more likely erosion of SOC supplies oceans with extra C. More likely too is that annual SOC loss is more than FF emissions. Rectification is simple & safe: Less red meat, fewer fires and 100% conversion to organic farms.

SOC (Soil Organic Carbon)

4p1000.org with its manifesto by Minasny et al. (2017)[3] states their case thus: “a global estimate of soil C stock to 2 m of soil depth of 2400 giga tonnes (2400 × 1015

g) (Batjes, 1996)” and “If we take the land area of the world as 149 million km2

[14.9 Gha], it would be estimated that on average there are 161 tonnes of SOC per hectare” which also gives (14.9 Gha x 161 t/ha =) 2400 Gt SOC. Tracing back to source data from Batjes (1996)[4] shows his values were based upon “FAO-UNESCO (1991)” with soil areas mapped on a ‘flat-Earth’ projection that FAO totals to just “13.2 billion ha” (= 13.2 Gha) ice-free land. When other estimates (e.g. by IPCC and others) double SOC to >5,000 Gt C, this doubles their value to 322 t/ha SOC. While this may seem excessive my current calculations of 10,000 Gt C on 30 Gha land gives about 333 t/ha SOC. This is outside the range given by Minasny et al. (2017) for non-boreal soils of “<10 t/ha in arid regions and 250 t/ha in cooler and wetter regions” (depth?) yet well within the range given by Shuur

(2019: fig. 1) for permafrost carbon of 0–260 kg/m2 with median about 100 kg/m2 = 1,000 t/ha to just 3 m. My SOC value is >10,000 Gt and soil-covered land area for its calculation is about 30 Gha to give a value of about 333 t/ha SOC on average, about double 4p1000’s figure but representative of a mean field range.

Including permafrost, Shuur (2019) has global SOC to 3 m or more seemingly of around 3,746 Gt C that doubled for terrain is about 7,492 and with ~500 Gt of neglected peatlands this gives about 8,000 Gt SOC. Rather importantly, he indicates that the northern circumpolar permafrost region occupies only 15% of the total global soil area. This is supported by Blakemore (2018: fig. 3) having polar tundra & taiga occupying ~14% of land area and accounting for~9% of terrestrial NPP.

NPP (Net Primary Production)

The major global carbon cycle event is annual drawdown of CO2 in the boreal region starting from about mid-May when temperatures rise above 10°C and there is more sunlight. The flux from NOAA’s Alaskan Barrow site shows mean of -20 ppm = -40 Gt C in short summer. This is twice the value recorded at Mauna Loa thus it may be surmised that the boreal component is at least -20 Gt C/yr (allowing for plant and soil respiration). As the boreal region occupies just 15% of total soil area (and similar vegetation proportion) then the other land has yearly NPP of (5 x 40 Gt C =) 200 Gt C plus the boreal NPP gives a total of >220 Gt C/yr. Another calculation if boreal NPP at 20 Gt is just 9% of total (Blakemore 2018: fig. 3), also gives total >220 Gt C/yr. NOAA (www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/isotopes/c13tellsus.html) also state: “Oceanic exchange.. appears to play little to no role in determining overall CO2 levels at Barrow.”

Commane et al. (2017: figs. 1, 2 4C - https://www.pnas.org/content/114/21/5361) show Alaskan drawdown is mainly by boreal forests but net gain is about twice as much from tundra melt (and small fossil fuel contribution) correlating to increasing polar air temperatures. Shuur (2019) concludes: “This circumpolar estimate suggests that carbon release in the cold season offsets net carbon uptake during the growing season such that the region as a whole could already be a source of 0.6 Pg C per year to the atmosphere.” Terrain doubling is +1.2. Gt C/yr.

Thus corona shutdown emissions reduction of ~10% or -1 Gt, would be the same or less than polar pluses increasing due to greatly increased temperatures in the massive boreal biomes.

At the same time complacency is replaced by idiocy in putting solar panels on land that can sequester carbon, provide food and support biodiversity. This is a form of ecocide and implied suicide through stupidity. This obscenity is also known as natural deselection...

Idiocy on Darling Downs, Qld: Don’t they know that only trees can remove CO2 from the air and that transpiration makes rain clouds? This destroys living soil and makes more bushfires.

This type of solar lunacy is being enthusiastically implemented around the world by green idiots. Even Japanese rice fields are being replaced by solar panels. Why not use geothermal energy instead? Then there are the huge untapped potential of trompe compressed air systems based upon any falling water with constant supply and no pollution. Especially suitable for countries such as Japan with high and reliable rainfall on a mountainous spine that mostly washes rapidly to the sea in short rivers. Its potential energy could be easily converted into compressed air and used to power cars or trains or any other mechanical devises. So easy.