Global warming: New study challenges carbon benchmark

September 28, 2011

A rainforest on the Costa Rican pacific coast

Enlarge

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 .

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 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 and El Nino, the weather cycle which occurs in pendulum swings every few years or so.

The implication from this is that is swiftly cycled through land ecosystems, the researchers suggest. From that assumption comes the far higher estimate of annual .

(c) 2011 AFP

4.4 /5 (12 votes)  

Filter


Move the slider to adjust rank threshold, so that you can hide some of the comments.


Display comments: newest first

Erscheinung
Sep 28, 2011

Rank: 1.8 / 5 (15)
Say whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat.

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?
Skultch
Sep 28, 2011

Rank: 3.5 / 5 (17)
Dude, give it a rest. If you can't even understand the scientific method, what are you doing commenting on a science news website?

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.
Gammakozy
Sep 28, 2011

Rank: 1.6 / 5 (16)
"The extra CO2 taken up as photosynthesis is most likely returned right back to the atmosphere via respiration."

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.

Shelgeyr
Sep 28, 2011

Rank: 3.2 / 5 (6)
The extra CO2 taken up as photosynthesis is most likely returned right back to the atmosphere via respiration.


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?
El_Nose
Sep 28, 2011

Rank: 2.8 / 5 (4)
i was wondering if this effect carbon dating -- isn't that based on how many isotopes are present in a sample -- if land is absorbing more CO2 than previously assumed how does that scew carbon dating -- my thoughts are that it would mean things are a little older than previously thought
Erscheinung
Sep 28, 2011

Rank: 2.4 / 5 (14)
Dude, give it a rest. If you can't even understand the scientific method, what are you doing commenting on a science news website?

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.


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.
Skultch
Sep 28, 2011

Rank: 4.1 / 5 (14)
Just because a prediction goes to a certain decimal point, doesn't mean that is also the margin of error. Your post also implies that you didn't know that we don't have "perfect understanding," nor does anyone claim it. That's hyperbole (since you claim to know) and it's 101 for people who attack the scientific method, undermining reason itself to further their extreme right wing and/or religious agenda.

Be careful with sarcasm on this site; too many cranks on here for it to be obvious.
Erscheinung
Sep 28, 2011

Rank: 1.7 / 5 (11)
Just because a prediction goes to a certain decimal point, doesn't mean that is also the margin of error.


If the models truly predict with the precision claimed they wouldn't have to rely on trends, which are known before hand.

Your post also implies that you didn't know that we don't have "perfect understanding," nor does anyone claim it.


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."
mrmortgage
Sep 28, 2011

Rank: 4.5 / 5 (2)
Attempting to do a carbon balance on mother earth is almost as meaningless as trying to do and energy balance on mother earth. There is no known experiment that i am aware that will allow us to determine if the earth is in Thermodynamic equilibrium, thus requiring only one temperature to be quoted in order to describe the state. Knowing where all the carbon is coming from (or going) is a daunting task so we should not put all our scientific eggs in the one computer modeling basket. We need DATA to observe.

hush1
Sep 28, 2011

Rank: 3 / 5 (4)
The key word is "would". Or 'could'. Or 'should'. Or 'might'. Or 'if'. Or 'but'. Or 'maybe' Or 'suggests' Or 'appears'.

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.
Skultch
Sep 28, 2011

Rank: 3.3 / 5 (9)
You apparently want a plus minus margin of error for every climate model publication's finding. In an *abstract*. Good luck with that.
Skultch
Sep 28, 2011

Rank: 3.3 / 5 (9)
If it's not hardcore fact, with several lines of direct evidence, then it's of no value whatsoever? How do you guys learn at school/work? You do know that no one sees any of these as absolute, permanent, proclamations, right? Oh, no. You don't. Cuz ur trolz. nvrmd

(not you hush, we cool)
jsdarkdestruction
Sep 28, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (3)
[
hush1
Sep 28, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
No worries, Skultch. Just trying to raise the bar or awareness of wording. Some are susceptible to this if not aware.
Jayded
Sep 29, 2011

Rank: 4.8 / 5 (4)
Ladies. Why draw such wide ranging conclusions? All that is being discussed here is the efficiency of the uptake mechanisms for carbon use in a plant. I would imagine it is fairly similar to humans, in that we breath more oxygen then our body effectively makes use of. It is not something that is previously measured as there is no net decrease in the amount of propagated CO12 carbon isotope. Thus the models for climate prediction whether right or wrong would not be influenced by the finding.
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.
omatumr
Sep 29, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (11)
Say whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat. ... now this?


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
Jayded
Sep 29, 2011

Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
Omatumr - .
Derick_Smith
Oct 01, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
I doubt CO2 is our problem its a fraction less than 1% of the atmosphere. Your talking about 400 PPM. I believe our issue is a weakening Atmosphere that were destroying.
Callippo
Oct 01, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (2)
We need to stop with fossil fuel burning ASAP not because of CO2 levels (which could be a consequence rather then reason of GW) - but because of geopolitical stability. The global nuclear war for fossil fuel sources will harm the civilization a much more, than any global warming. Even if we would stop usage of oil as a fuel, we will still need a huge amount of oil for plastic industry.

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.
vos
Oct 02, 2011

Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
I'm just plain totally barfing sick of the continued drumbeat of the warmies trying to explain away all of the endless failures of nature to follow their hyperventilating arm waving demands that we do what they tell us or we all boil in our own skins.

give it up warmies
deepsand
Oct 02, 2011

Rank: 2.3 / 5 (3)
And, they are equally "totally barfing sick of the continued drumbeat" of those who simply do not understand and accept the inescapable underlying Physics of radiative forcing, Physical Laws of Nature that are at work no matter the presence or absence of any models or projections.
Jayded
Oct 03, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
vos and deepsand - i wonder if its even worth while to explain how utterly stupid comments like yours actually sound? Me thinks it must take vast quantities of energy to maintain a clearly losing position. Deepsand - no matter how intelligent you try to sound you will forever be underscored by the concept against which you are arguing. Good luck with that.
deepsand
Oct 03, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
vos and deepsand - i wonder if its even worth while to explain how utterly stupid comments like yours actually sound? Me thinks it must take vast quantities of energy to maintain a clearly losing position. Deepsand - no matter how intelligent you try to sound you will forever be underscored by the concept against which you are arguing. Good luck with that.

Ad hominem. Good luck with that.
Jayded
Oct 04, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
Dude. Radiative forcing is not omitted in the calculation of climate triggers, everyone understands its role and it doesn't take some troll on a website to point it out. Its like taking something that you heard from someone else and dressing it up to make it sound like you have an argument. If you feel you have a good argument that thousands of scientists around the world missed out on, you should write a paper and submit it.
deepsand
Oct 04, 2011

Rank: 1 / 5 (1)
You'll find the dudes at the ranch down the road a bit.

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?
jsdarkdestruction
Oct 04, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
Oliver, do you not know of phase 2 of the plan? see kissinger and nixon knew about neutron repulsion and it being the main source of the suns power but chairman mao did not. as the world all followed their lead in the conspiracy they said it was to prevent nuclear war. however under the guise of that the united states had different reasons. as the climatoligists/scientists destroy our economy and power while funneling money to third world nations for supportung the scam the chinese will soon grow too strong and overpopulated for anyone but the us to even have a chance of stopping the chinese from taking over the world, at that moment neutron repulsion will be officially "discovered" and cheap easy neutron repulsion energy will be used both to power production of weapons and supplies and as weapons of mass destruction themselves in neutron repulsion bombs. saving the united states and allowing us to finally take over the whole world without looking like the bad guys.....
Jayded
Oct 04, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
Its like little children.
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.
deepsand
Oct 05, 2011

Rank: not rated yet
Its like little children.
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.

And, yet, they do!

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.

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."
Rank 4.4 /5 (12 votes)
Relevant PhysicsForums posts

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.

Space & Earth / Environment

created 1 hour ago | popularity not rated yet | comments 1 | with audio podcast

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 ...

Space & Earth / Environment

created 3 hours ago | popularity 4 / 5 (1) | comments 10 | with audio podcast

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

created 3 hours ago | popularity not rated yet | comments 1 | with audio podcast

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

created May 22, 2012 | popularity 4.4 / 5 (9) | comments 51

Aliens don't want to eat us, says former SETI director

Alien life probably isn’t 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

created May 25, 2012 | popularity 4.4 / 5 (14) | comments 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) -- Nvidia’s 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 ...