Global warming: New study challenges carbon benchmark
Picture of the rainforest on the Costa Rican Pacific coast in 2005. The ability of forests, plants and soil to suck carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air has been under-estimated, according to a study on Wednesday that challenges a benchmark for calculating the greenhouse-gas problem.
The ability of forests, plants and soil to suck carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air has been under-estimated, according to a study on Wednesday that challenges a benchmark for calculating the greenhouse-gas problem.
Like the sea, the land is a carbon "sink", or sponge, helping to absorb heat-trapping CO2 disgorged by the burning of fossil fuels.
A conventional estimate is that soil and vegetation take in roughly 120 billion tonnes, or gigatonnes, of carbon each year through the natural process of photosynthesis.
The new study, published in the science journal Nature, says the uptake could be 25-45 percent higher, to 150-175 gigatonnes per year.
But relatively little of this extra carbon is likely to be stored permanently in the plant, say the researchers. Instead, it is likely to re-enter the atmosphere through plant respiration.
This will be a disappointment for those looking for some good news in the fight against climate change.
The more carbon is sequestered in the land, the less carbon enters the atmosphere, where it helps to trap heat from the Sun.
Lead researcher Lisa Welp, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in the University of California at San Diego, said figuring out the annual carbon uptake from the terrestrial biosphere had been one of the biggest problems in the emissions equation.
Scientists, though, were confident about current estimates for carbon sequestration in land and this was unlikely to change much in the light of the new findings, she said.
"More CO2 is passing through plants (than thought), not that it actually stays there very long," she said in email exchange with AFP.
"The extra CO2 taken up as photosynthesis is most likely returned right back to the atmosphere via respiration."
The research looked at isotopes, or variations, in the oxygen component of CO2, using a databank of atmospheric sampling going back three decades.
These isotopes are a chemical tag, indicating the kind of water the molecule has come into contact with.
The researchers looked at isotopes whose concentrations are linked to rainfall.
They were struck by a clear association between these isotopes and El Nino, the weather cycle which occurs in pendulum swings every few years or so.
The implication from this is that CO2 is swiftly cycled through land ecosystems, the researchers suggest. From that assumption comes the far higher estimate of annual carbon uptake.
(c) 2011 AFP
-
From lemons to lemonade: Reaction uses carbon dioxide to make carbon-based semiconductor,
32 comments
-
Thioridazine kills cancer stem cells in human while avoiding toxic side-effects of conventional cancer treatments,
3 comments
-
SpaceX private rocket blasts off for space station (Update),
42 comments
-
Climate scientists say they have solved riddle of rising sea,
31 comments
-
SpaceX capsule has 'new car' smell, astronauts say (Update),
4 comments
-
Hypothetical desert earth
18 hours ago
-
More human population = greater mass?
May 25, 2012
-
Conversion from aircraft bearing to normal degrees
May 23, 2012
-
Interpretation/Analysis of the Lab results(HEPA filter)
May 22, 2012
-
Has anyone here attended the The Urbino Summer School in Paleoclimatology?
May 22, 2012
-
Earthquakes: Mag 6 N. Italy and Mag 5.6 W. Bulgaria
May 21, 2012
- More from Physics Forums - Earth
More news stories
Land and sea species differ in climate change response: study
(Phys.org) -- Marine and terrestrial species will likely differ in their responses to climate warming, new research by Simon Fraser University and Australia’s University of Tasmania has found.
1 hour ago |
not rated yet |
1
|
Yale study concludes public apathy over climate change unrelated to science literacy
Are members of the public divided about climate change because they don't understand the science behind it? If Americans knew more basic science and were more proficient in technical reasoning, would public consensus match ...
3 hours ago |
4 / 5 (1) |
10
|
10 million years needed to recover from mass extinction
It took some 10 million years for Earth to recover from the greatest mass extinction of all time, latest research has revealed.
Space & Earth / Earth Sciences
3 hours ago |
not rated yet |
1
|
Sophisticated simulations predict future warming
The chances of our planet being hit by a global warming of 3 degrees Celsius by 2050 is as likely as it being hit by an increase of 1.4 degrees, new research shows. Presented in the journal Nature Geoscience, the British study ...
Space & Earth / Earth Sciences
May 22, 2012 |
4.4 / 5 (9) |
51
Aliens don't want to eat us, says former SETI director
Alien life probably isnt interested in having us for dinner, enslaving us or laying eggs in our bellies, according to a recent statement by former SETI director Jill Tarter.
Space & Earth / Space Exploration
May 25, 2012 |
4.4 / 5 (14) |
39
'Unzipped' carbon nanotubes could help energize fuel cells, batteries
Multi-walled carbon nanotubes riddled with defects and impurities on the outside could replace some of the expensive platinum catalysts used in fuel cells and metal-air batteries, according to scientists at ...
T cells 'hunt' parasites like animal predators seek prey, study shows
By pairing an intimate knowledge of immune-system function with a deep understanding of statistical physics, a cross-disciplinary team at the University of Pennsylvania has arrived at a surprising finding: T cells use a movement ...
Computer model used to pinpoint prime materials for efficient carbon capture
When power plants begin capturing their carbon emissions to reduce greenhouse gases and to most in the electric power industry, it's a question of when, not if it will be an expensive undertaking.
Change in developmental timing was crucial in the evolutionary shift from dinosaurs to birds: study
At first glance, it's hard to see how a common house sparrow and a Tyrannosaurus Rex might have anything in common. After all, one is a bird that weighs less than an ounce, and the other is a dinosaur that ...
Almost half of new vets seek disability
(AP) -- America's newest veterans are filing for disability benefits at a historic rate, claiming to be the most medically and mentally troubled generation of former troops the nation has ever seen.
Nvidia trumpets Tegra 3 phone design wins for 2012
(Phys.org) -- Nvidias competitive war paint has a name, Tegra 3. On the heels of Nvidia announcements about lowering costs of its Tegra 3 processors and Nvidia-enabled tablets running Android Ice Cream ...
Sep 28, 2011
Rank: 1.8 / 5 (15)
I was under the impression that since global temperature predictions were in the several tenths of one degree per century realm that everything was already understood with near perfect understanding,... now this? How is it possible that there is still more to learn about nature co2 cycles?
Sep 28, 2011
Rank: 3.5 / 5 (17)
How do trolls justify the wasting of their own time? Go out! Try something new! Hook up with women! Have actual fun instead of picking fights online and raising your blood pressure needlessly. You'll thank me on your death bed.
Me? I'm slacking off at work. What's your excuse? Truth? Justice? Yeah, right. Like you are actually going to *DO* something about this.
Sep 28, 2011
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (16)
MOST LIKELY? You mean they are not sure?
Also - "More CO2 is passing through plants (than thought), not that it actually stays there very long," she said in email exchange with AFP.
THAN THOUGHT? Was it never measured before and they just "thought", or made up up a figure?
NOT THAT IT ACTUALLY STAYS THERE VERY LONG? Is she suggesting that photosynthesis stops once the plant releases the "extra CO2" via respiration. If the process is ongoing and plants release only the "extra CO2" then the net result should be a lowering of CO2 in the atmosphere, should it not?
This is typical of the way the man made global warming zealots try to downplay and fudge any finding that does not fit their template that it is settled science.
Sep 28, 2011
Rank: 3.2 / 5 (6)
Oh man, I'm going to have to break out and dust off my ancient references and refresh myself on the Krebs cycle, because that just doesn't sound right. Or Google/Wikipedia, I guess...
Any biologists out there care to do an old man a favor and clarify this particular point?
Sep 28, 2011
Rank: 2.8 / 5 (4)
Sep 28, 2011
Rank: 2.4 / 5 (14)
What makes you think I don't understand the scientific method? The scientific method involves developing models in order to make predictions AND verifying those predictions against observational fact. Perhaps climate scientists can predict before hand, the average global temperature for each of the next five decades with margin of error a reasonable small % of the temperature change?
Obviously it was sarcasm,.. just poking some fun at the climate change models that seem to be able to predict to ridiculous precision. Sounds like you want an argument.
Sep 28, 2011
Rank: 4.1 / 5 (14)
Be careful with sarcasm on this site; too many cranks on here for it to be obvious.
Sep 28, 2011
Rank: 1.7 / 5 (11)
If the models truly predict with the precision claimed they wouldn't have to rely on trends, which are known before hand.
Well, obviously I did know that otherwise I wouldn't have made that sarcastic post; i.e. Climate science is claiming more understanding than is reasonable given the nature of the subject.
Here is a quote from a recent article from PhysOrg;
"Wigley found that a 50 percent reduction in coal and a corresponding increase in natural gas use would lead to a slight increase in worldwide warming for the next 40 years of about 0.1 degree Fahrenheit."
Sep 28, 2011
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (2)
Sep 28, 2011
Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
Run away. From anyone using these words in their research work.
Unless they explicitly state all statements following those words are non factual.
Too few are aware of this English manko.
Sep 28, 2011
Rank: 3.3 / 5 (9)
Sep 28, 2011
Rank: 3.3 / 5 (9)
(not you hush, we cool)
Sep 28, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
Sep 28, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Sep 29, 2011
Rank: 4.8 / 5 (4)
IMO long term climate models dont attempt accurate prediction, they rather create the framework in which more localised prediction can take place. There is no way that every weighted variable can be accounted for and as such you will find that around the world, work similar to this is being conducted to establish accuracy and weighting.
Sep 29, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (11)
Truth is slipping out!
To address the global carbon issue, we must abandon lock-step, consensus belief in:
a.) The 1967 Bilderberg dogma that Earth's heat source is a homogeneous ball of hydrogen, in equilibrium, generating constant heat by H-fusion.
b.) Auto-centric, pseudo-"scientific" dogma that humans cause global climate change.
These two flaws are the roots of many of society's present ills [1,2].
1. "Political roadblocks to scientific progress" (1971-2011)
http://dl.dropbox...oots.pdf
2. "Video summary of research career" (1961- 2011)
http://dl.dropbox...reer.pdf
With kind regards,
Oliver K. Manuel
Former NASA Principal
Investigator for Apollo
http://myprofile....anuelo09
Sep 29, 2011
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Oct 01, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
Oct 01, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
So what we urgently need is the implementation of cold fusion, which would replace the oil as a fuel in transportation and which will enable the economically viable capture of carbon from air. Global warming is IMO secondary problem - the real problems are droughts, which could be still of anthropogenic origin with compare to global warming itself. IMO they're resulting from sulphate aerosols, which are prohibiting the effective circulation of water in atmosphere.
Oct 02, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
give it up warmies
Oct 02, 2011
Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
Oct 03, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Oct 03, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Ad hominem. Good luck with that.
Oct 04, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Oct 04, 2011
Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
As for radiative forcing, it had seemingly escaped your notice that there are very many who either deny its existence or greatly misunderstand it.
Are you one such?
Oct 04, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Oct 04, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
Deepsand - if you have ever read the IPCC report or even taken the time to wikipedia radiative forcing you will note that it has been well covered by anyone claiming to know anything about climate change - Including the IPCC panel.
No logical reasoning person could doubt the basic mechanics of climate change. Its not some conspiracy, its scientific fact, its been happening since the earth was young. The debate as you call it is about the payload, not the mechanics. Come up with a good argument against climate change or global catastrophic climate change and I will tell youwhy you are wrong. Go on I challenge you.
Oct 05, 2011
Rank: not rated yet
And, yet, they do!
ROTFLMAO.
You may want to carefully re-read my 1st post in this thread, along with my many elsewhere on this forum, as you seem to have confused me with another.
Hint: I am NOT a "denialist."