This is a question with no short answer, so I will try to focus on what I believe is the most important issue. 

From a global planetary perspective, the ocean is the biggest ecosystem, so we can assume that marine microbial communities can have a major impact on Earth as a whole if climate change can significantly affect this ecosystem. 

In this respect, there is an phenomenon called "oxygen minimum zones" or "dead ocean zones" in which microbes play an important role. Please take a look an emblematic scientific article called "Spreading Dead Zones and Consequences for Marine Ecosystems" published in Science in 2008. Follow from there papers more recent that cite that one and make your own idea of this issue.

I hope that can be a start point for your quest.

Best regards,

---sram 

Thank you very much Salvador for this in put. I will check out the article. It makes sense that in oxygen minimum zones and anaerobic zones, the microbes living in such conditions are probably strict anaerobes, facultative anaerobes or methanogens. And due to their fermentative processes, methanogenesis is bound to take place and as we know methane is one of the green house gases that contribute to destruction of the ozone layer. What scientists need to do is to be able to link such microbial processes to global warming and that's the hard part

Your are welcome Becky. I think the link is not so difficult, because as oxygen decrease, the energy from a system is more directed to microbes, because higher organisms demands higher oxygen concentrations. The hard part, as you said, is to quantify and predict in time the consequences...

I can suggest this other article, in case you are interested:

"Microbial ecology of expanding oxygen minimum zones"

http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v10/n6/full/nrmicro2778.html

which is a bit more recent

I'm glad you found this interesting!

Regards,

---sram 

I would start with my own body, which contains about 10-times more bacteria than human cells. I wonder with whom should I side if things go awry? But for now, the equilibrium is very robust and I rarely get diarrhea, no matter what I eat. The bacteria [and other creatures I rather not to name (fungi, protists and worms)] somehow take care of the business and I feel like a bystander most of the time.

---

And if it gets warmer, there are bacteria that relish sweaty armpits . . . which might lead to an increased demand for antiperspirants in biodegradable plastic containers; and then there are bacteria that eat the plastic.

What if I find out that some atoms in my human cells actually came from the degraded plastic!? I might actually rejoice because the atoms could come from more disgusting sources like . . . (my own feces, for example).

Thanks Salvador for the article. I am already on it. Its interesting how you put it Martin....its the beauty of nature that the microflora on and in our bodies under 'normal' conditions are actually friends to us and actually confer a lot of benefits to their human hosts. But we also reckon that these friends can turn into foes if the host environment is destabilized which could occur due to a number of reasons. The issue of biodegradation of polyethylene is actually what I am working on right now. If you have any helpful articles please share with me. I am not sure however how the bacteria that degrade plastics could end up into  your human cells. But what's for sure is that the climate is changing and we need to link microbes to that. This has already been done especially for vector borne diseases like malaria but what about water-borne or water related diseases? What about pathogens that thrive in warmer environments or microbes which are not pathogens but play enormous roles in the ecosystem. What if the changing climate affects them? This is a filed that really calls for attention

I would not underestimate the incredible buffering capacity of the biosphere. One's feces is another one's favorite dish.

Thank you for presenting the global concern. What & how much an individual can contribute. Population is booming on the earth, needing more meat, protein and calories. It needs both to contain the global warming & ensure food sustaiability, One little approach is a shift in diets from meat (higher animal protein) to sustaiable protein sources, such as microbial Single Cell Protein (SCP) and/or  plant/insect protein sources. because raising livestocks for meat, requires more feed grains, proteins, water, land and higher emmision of metthane gas that are all contributing to the warming. Although there are some moves already in this direction, it needs realization & conviction  for expanding.

Tapan: The rate of human population growth is decreasing. The total human population in this cycle will peak in a few decades. If there is a major climate shift happening (show me), there will be a massive human migration and with it a lot of social tension and (the zombies behind the scene hope) famine, war . . . eventually leading to the human population reduction (and consolidation of the power by the zombies behind the scene). "What comes up, must come down."

---

The man's (feminists should read: "human's") hubris is astounding. We do not understand our own gut contents and placebo effect but we want to manage the entire biosphere!? What a joke. Big data? Big NOTHING.

My motto for myself is "observe but do not interfere".

If one is worried about the human population growth---well---I have a solution: Stop reproducing.

If one is worried about the livestock "negatively" affecting the climate (show me)---well---I have a solution: Don't eat pork and beef.

The problem is if one attempts to enforce one's beliefs and way-of-life on others, which is actually the perverse idea of the State in a nutshell.

As long as the zombies behind the scene control science we will continue moving ever closer to the merger of Orwell's 1984 and Huxley's Brave New World.

I can see it: You-Eat-Too-Much-Beef tax; You-Eat-Too-Much-Sugar tax; You-Do-Not-Like-Your-Government-Enough tax.

I think that WATER is the key commodity. There is plenty of it everywhere; for the right FREE MARKET price, that is. If there is no interference by the zombies behind the scene (think: subsidies), FREE MARKET price would be set by FREE MARKET and any distortions (like people living in a desert with no water to drink) will be short-lived, and a natural incentive will exist for entrepreneurs to provide water; ever more efficiently, sustainably, and cheaply. All the human technological advancement is thanks to FREE MARKET; despite all the meddling by the zombies behind the scene.

Thank you very much Tapan for your contribution in this very interesting topic. I agree that interventions can start even at individual levels as you have highlighted. On the issue of shifting from high animal protein, I liked the way a professor once said it...that small fishes are at the same trophic level as grazers like livestock that feed on primary producers and that eating the big fish/big animals which require a lot of energy and resources to produce, is like eating the lions and eaters of lions like dragons-the tertiary and quaternary consumers.

I support the issue of shifting consumption to Single Cell Protein but a lot needs to be done especially on acceptability. In fact, my colleagues and myself did  a review on the use of SCP in 2013 and we were looking at them especially from the point of view that they can be produced from organic wastes creating the issue of environmental sustainability. We also reviewed the advantages and disadvantages of each group of microbes that can be used as food

The issue of usage of insects as food and feeds is also being given attention even in Kenya, research on these is currently going on in some of our universities. So this could also be a way to go..

Production of livestock is very harmful to the environment and this needs to be resolved sooner or later. The endosymbiotic bacteria and methanogens in their rumens release a lot of methane into the environment. And in some cultures, wealth is actually measured by the number of cattle you have!

The whole situation is very compex and requires a lot of attention and multidisciplinary approach

Its really interesting how you look at it Martin....and  a lot of people still see it that way. That some people are making a big fuss out of nothing...but the situation is very dire actually. My views on the whole issue changes after attending a two-week course on Climate change, water and global health. Look for this video online..I think its sold. Its  called ' A journey into the future of water'. It might change the way you look at this issue

This is very interesting and I also wonder what we should do in view of conservation and the interdependence of mater in biosphere natural cycles. I believe that there are many ruminants other than livestock. Even if we agree not to depend on livestock for our protein needs, what will we do about wildlife? Are we suggesting human created artificial world?

Thank you for the input. I agree the matter is very complex and intriguing and even if we do away with the livestock, we won't be anywhere near the solution..it will be just like a drop in the ocean. It calls for interdisciplinary action and research for better understanding and deliberations.

The livestock factor is just a small part of the equation.as greenhouse gases are emitted from several other sources including automobiles and industries.

In some countries (e.g Ireland) now, to stop the evolution of the harmful gases, they have started using water-driven buses and electric buses which use 'clean' and renewable energy. But what about the industries...that are the major economic pillars in industrialized countries?

Even microorganisms as small as they are play a very important part in the evolution of these gases. The question is what can be done to mitigate these problems..or should humans just look for mechanisms to adapt and survive in their changing environment?

I would invite cows to the round-table discussion. Otherwise, it is "about us, without us".

Thank you all for a wider discussion from different agles. But I try to confine my talks  within the boundary of the original topic presented by Becky Aloo " - - - - on the role of microorganisms of global warming and climate change? "  Livestoks hanbor millions of microbes in their rumens (good for fermentation and the host health) that are efficient methane producer. 

As mentioned by Matin, Human intestine also harbors trillions of micromes of good, bad and opportunistic nature. Maintaining a good balance among these micorbes is essential for human health & wellness, and a disturbance will give rise to wide ranges of health problems from halitosis (bad breath) to severe chronic diseases. The bad breath may contain methane gas (but not as major as the ruminants are). 

As we humans need to take a balanced diets with enough fibers of plant origin, to feed the good guys and to ensure their dominance in the intestine, the earth also needs plantation & reforestration to trap CO2 and O2 release.

There are also some microbes (Methylotrophs)  that can capture and use methane as their energy source. Although here were a few attempts to utilize methylotrophs for industrial processes as, for production CoQ10 & others, but with lower efficiencies. Present advancements in genetic engineering and cell design technologies, may make a difference today, by improving the efficieny of methane trap & utilization by these methane eaters.are).

The situation is complex and requires concerted efforts from different spheres & disciplines. It has nothing to do anything with imposing one's faiths or beliefs etc.      It si important  what  one can do to make positive change of any scale.

Thank you very much Tapan Raput for this very wonder-full input. I agree that the microbes, we have the good ones and the ugly ones...and that some of them actually feed on the wastes of others like the Methylotrophs feeding on methane from methanogens. Its like the proverbial one man's meat is another's poison. These microbes are very tiny and minute in deed but their effects both good and bad are experienced throughout the ecosystem...minute but great!

The ones we have to worry about are the bad guys especially the microbes that contribute to green house gas emissions. Probably one of the interventions to be made would be to genetically engineer methylotrophs and make them take up more and more of the methane.Food for thought.

Or introduce the genes from methylotrophs into other bacteria that multiply fast...food for thought as well. About plantations and reforestation..I think this can count as well...however I still think that the rate at which the CO2 gas is being released is faster than can be taken up by the green organisms

What do you think?

Thank you Becky for constructive approaches to this problem.

I agree on the severity and vastness of CO2 problem that requires urgent solution, and I think, no single approach is enough for a quick fix. It demands concerted & multi-directional approaches from all angles & levels.

We have seen dramatic advance in DNA manupulation and cell design technologies during the laset 3 decades, and I wonder why scietists have not yet successful in designing super-methylotrophs or super CO2 eaters (autotrophs), although there are progress in plant genetics & transgenic plants.  We ocasionally hear & see  some plantation efforts in the middle-eastern countries,  but de-forestration of the Amazon areas and others are prograssing at alarming rates. Plantation as a whole, though a slow CO2 fixer, it releases O2, protects landscapes, and provides fuel enegy etc and that is one that be done even at individual level.

 Is it too much to expect that someone will develop some efficient catalysts of biological, organic or inorganic nature for quick CO2 fiix in the near future?