From the Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres a clear indication for those “CO2 is plant food” scoffers that the plants don’t care what they think.
Productivity of land plants may be greater than previously thought
Researchers recommend the reworking of global carbon models in Nature
This press release is available in German.
London – The global uptake of carbon by land plants may be up to 45 per cent more than previously thought. This is the conclusion of an international team of scientists, based on the variability of heavy oxygen atoms in the carbon dioxide of the atmosphere driven by the El Niño effect. As the oxygen atoms in carbon dioxide were converted faster than expected during the El Niño years, current estimates for the uptake of carbon by plants are probably too low. These should be corrected upwards, say the researchers in the current issue of the scientific journal NATURE. Instead of 120 petagrams of carbon, the annual global vegetation uptake probably lies between 150 and 175 petagrams of carbon. This value is a kind of gross national product for land plants and indicates how productive the biosphere of the Earth is. The reworking of this so-called global primary productivity would have significant consequences for the coupled carbon cycle-climate model used in climate research to predict future climate change.
Lisa Welp of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography at the University of California in San Diego and her colleagues evaluated the data for the global isotopic composition of the greenhouse gas CO2 over the last 30 years. This analysis indicated regular fluctuations between years and a connection with the El Niño phenomenon in the Pacific. Overall, El Niño years are warmer. They are also characterised by greater precipitation in South America and less intensive monsoons in Southeast Asia.
The researchers found a more rapid recovery of the
 |
||||
 |
 |
|
 |
|
|
 |
  IMAGE:The global uptake of carbon by land plants may be up to 45 per cent more than previously thought. This is the conclusion of an international team of scientists, based…Click here for more information. |
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
||||
isotopic ratios following the El Niño events than assumed, indicating a shorter conversion time for CO2 in the terrestrial biosphere. On the basis of these data, the authors calculate the so-called global primary productivity (GPP). They now propose correcting this in the global models from 120 to 150-175 petagrams) of carbon annually.
Since 1977 the isotopic ratios in the carbon dioxide of the atmosphere (18O/16O und 13C/12C) have been measured in order to better understand the global carbon cycle, as the exchange processes between the biosphere, the atmosphere and the oceans are reflected in these values. “We assume that the redistribution of moisture and rain in the tropics during El Niño raises the 18O/16O ratio in precipitation and plant water and then signals this to the atmospheric carbon dioxide”, explains Lisa Welp the new approach of the researchers.
“Our atmosphere is a perfect blender. Changes in its levels of trace gases – such as carbon dioxide – reflect the overall release and uptake of trace gases from all sources. So if you measure the carbon exchange of a forest ecosystem, for example, you “only” get the net exchange of all the carbon taken up by the trees for photosynthesis and all the carbon released by the trees and soil “, writes Dr. Matthias Cuntz of the Helmholtz Centre for Environmental Research (UFZ) in his commentary in the same issue of NATURE. The gross-exchange fluxes, such as photosynthesis, are however accessible only with difficulty. “Global estimates therefore depend upon a number of assumptions. This includes, for example, how many of the CO2 molecules entering a plant are actually fixed by photosynthesis. The researchers of Lisa Welp’s team assume that around 43 per cent of all CO2 molecules entering a plant are taken up by the plant. If this were only 34%, the estimate would fall to about 120 billion tons of carbon – that is, to the currently accepted value”, for Matthias Cuntz reason of thought. In his opinion, the new findings do not completely upset the research to date. Nevertheless, they demonstrate an interesting new method for the determination of plant productivity over large areas. In future, the combination of several isotopic methods with conventional measurements represents a promising approach.
The now published study was carried out under the direction of Ralph F. Keeling, a professor of oceanography and the son of the late Charles David Keeling, after whom the so-called Keeling curve was named. This graph shows the concentration of CO2 of the volcano Mauna Loa on Hawaii since the year 1957. In the 1950s the CO2 fraction in the earth’s atmosphere was still around 315 ppm. In 2011, by comparison, it has already increased to 390 ppm. With his measurements Keeling was able to show for the first time that the concentration of the greenhouse gas increases in relation to changing land use and the combustion of fossil fuels. This new study underscores the importance of long-term measurements of the isotope 18O in the carbon dioxide of the atmosphere from the scientific point of view, as this occupies a key position between the carbon cycle and the hydrogen cycle.
Publications:
Lisa R. Welp, Ralph F. Keeling, Harro A. J. Meijer, Alane F. Bollenbacher, Stephen C. Piper, KeiYoshimura, Roger J. Francey, Colin E. Allison & Martin Wahlen (2011): Interannual variability in the oxygen isotopes of atmospheric CO2 driven by El Niño.
29 September 2011, Vol. 477, Nature 579, 579-582. doi:10.1038/nature10421
Matthias Cuntz (2011): A dent in carbon´s gold standard.
29 September 2011, Vol. 477, Nature 579, 547-548.
Links:
CO2- and Isotopic Measurement Program of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, USA:
http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/atmospheric_co2.html
Atmospheric Measurement Program of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, USA:
Cape Grim Baseline Air Pollution Station, Tasmania, Australia:
http://www.csiro.au/places/Cape-Grim.html
El Niño – Southern Oscillation (ENSO):
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Ni%C3%B1o
==============================================================
Here’s an interesting illustration of the effect increased CO2 has on plants, and unlike Mr. Gores’s faked high school physics experiment, you can see this one in time lapse from start to finish as it actually occurred.
If plants keep sucking up all that heat-inducing CO2, my veggies will cook right on the vine; convenient. The popped corn is going to be messy though.
What impact will this have on Salby’s upcomming paper?
http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/
Now they need to quantify the rates of uptake of the ocean’s greater biomass. Then they will find that natural processes control the atmospheric concentration of CO2 not anthropogenic.
So… We humans emit ~8.5 GtC worth of CO2 per year… And according to the Hockey Team, the rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1850 is attributed to humans because of a “simple accounting” of the natural carbon flux plus our emissions… And now we find out that all this time, plants were taking up 30 to 55 more GtC per year than the Hockey Team had accounted for…
It’s becoming increasingly obvious that the Hockey Team defines the natural carbon flux as whatever it needs to be in order for their simple accounting to work.
Next thing you know, we’ll find out that the d13C depletion since 1850 is actually a rebound from the d13C enrichment of the Little Ice Age.
This means that the European CO2 market will be flooded with CDM credits and the prize for a CO2 permit will drop to zero real soon now… (more supply than demand).
(Just guessing – I don’t know how many Ugandans have actually been evicted for such CDM credits and whether it will affect that market severely. But I would expect it. So every careful investor will run for cover RIGHT NOW.)
Who would have thought???
Give plants more CO2 and they “fix” it more effectively!!!!!!!!!!!
However a nice piece of work, using existing measurements in a novel way.
REAL SCIENCE!
duh…………..
Why do they think CO2 levels are so low in the first place
Plants, algae, bacteria, plankton, etc take up fertilizer until it becomes limiting
I posted yesterday some investigation from Portuguese scientists where they demonstrated that Port vines love that extra CO2! Two of their main conclusions:
“The elevated [CO2] concentration increased net photosynthetic rate (A), intrinsic water use efficiency (A/gs), leaf thickness, (…) Yield, cluster weight and vigour showed an increase in elevated [CO2] treatment but yield to pruning mass ratio was unaffected.”
“This study showed that the predicted rise in [CO2] did not produce negative effects on the quality of grapes and red wine. Although some of the compounds were slightly affected, the red wine quality remained almost unaffected.”
Post, mainly in Portuguese:
http://ecotretas.blogspot.com/2011/09/vinho-do-porto-com-mais-co2.html
As if any data will really change their beliefs….
Mr. Bussjaeger, we are 200 years and maybe 1C away from the year without a summer. Don’t worry about your vegetables cooking on the vine.
It’s funny how proper forest and farming management can help suck up EPA defined bad stuff. Ever since we started going away from crappy socialist forest and farming management techniques by using certain types of fast growing grass, crops and trees, to suck all that really bad stuff out of the ground they also suck more CO2 out of the air.
Although it is quite weird, the communist hippies want everything to just lay were it falls and no branch, tree or hindu kush bush is to be harvested for green energy production even, all the while promoting green energy and less EPA toxic stuff like CO2 in the air. 0_o
“They now propose correcting this in the global models from 120 to 150-175 petagrams) of carbon annually.”
Nuh-uh! The science is already settled so move along and get with the program already.
This value is a kind of gross national product for land plants and indicates how productive the biosphere of the Earth is.
=================================================================
Algae, phyto, bacteria, etc take up a lot more…….
If this “adjustment” is just for land plants, and it’s that far off…………
You don’t say.
Suppose this might have something to do with the world’s rising agricultural productivi… Nah. Crazy idea.
REPLY: Actually NASA has documented that the entire biosphere is booming.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/24/the-earths-biosphere-is-booming-data-suggests-that-co2-is-the-cause-part-2/
-Anthony
David Middleton says:
September 29, 2011 at 10:25 am
And according to the Hockey Team, the rise in atmospheric CO2 since 1850 is attributed to humans because of a “simple accounting” of the natural carbon flux plus our emissions…
The new finding only shows that the total flux in and out is larger than expected, but that is only throughput and not of the slightest interest for the material balance. It is the difference between what the biosphere takes away and what the biosphere emits that makes the balance.
And that is known, be it with large margins of error, based on the oxygen balance. When plants grow, they produce oxygen (about 1.2 molecule for 1 molecule of CO2 captured). Conversely, when in fall leaves and plant parts are decaying or soil bacteria at work the whole year round, that uses oxygen.
The net result of the oxygen balance is that the whole biosphere (including ocean plants, animals, insects, bacteria) takes about 1.0 +/- 0.6 GtC/yr out of the atmosphere. That is in quantity about 1/6th of what humans emitted in the same period. The oceans take about 1.6 GtC/yr, that is about 1/3rd of the human emissions. Both together thus take about halve the human emissions (as mass) out of the atmosphere. The rest of the human emissions (as mass) accumulates in the atmosphere, already 150 years…
See: http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
Does this study call into question the assumptions regarding the half-life of atmospheric CO2 emissions? As I recall the GCMs assume that CO2 resides in the atmosphere for 100+ to 200+ years after emission. I recall that there are also empirical ch studies that conclude the CO2 half-life is 5 to 7 years. Which is correct or closer to actuality?
I must confess that I would feel very guilty if I tried to STARVE the plants of the Earth by reducing my CO2 footprint. I therefore will plan to increase my production of CO2 many-fold by stocking up on my wood pellets, which will be burned this winter to produce heat (for me) and lots of CO2 for the plants. Its a win-win scenario for the biosphere!
Ferdinand
This is the classic IPCC view of the carbon cycle.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
Has anything we have learnt since AR4-including this latest study-changed the totals or the proportions?
tonyb
So, it’s worse than we thought.
We thought we were only putting out so much CO2 and now we find it was 45% more than what we thought because the bushes were cleaning up 45% more than we thought. I knew it would turn out to be Bush’s fault. And for sure, it’s worse than we thought.
Sweet!
Everyone plant a couple fast growing trees problem solved. Or is it? With all the extra trees we now sink more carbon and by the AGW theory I have just thrown us into an ICE AGE. I won’t be able to sleep tonight knowing that I may have ended the world..
All silliness aside how many trees would you have to plant to bring atmospheric CO2 levels down to the ever changing (Norm) of around 300ppm?
Latitude says:
September 29, 2011 at 11:00 am
‘If this “adjustment” is just for land plants, and it’s that far off…………’
And, who is to say that the “adjustment” is the final word?
All that had been done to date was to create a narrative with which the data at hand superficially agreed, to a rough order of approximation. I expect the warming plank of AGW to fall first, as Global Cooling kicks into high gear in the next decade. Eventually, the subsequent decline in CO2 concentrations will drive the final stake through the heart of the entire scientific farce.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
September 29, 2011 at 11:13 am
“”The new finding only shows that the total flux in and out is larger than expected, but that is only throughput and not of the slightest interest for the material balance.”
Thanks for the clarification, Ferdinand!
So, just like plants in a greenhouse where CO2 is artificially raised, the plants “in the wild” will also take advantage of an increased CO2 level.
Now, I don’t like the “c” word (“conspiracy”), but it sure looks like this activity by planet-wide flora is more than mere coincidence.
We need to be vigilant. That extra fruit hanging from a tree maybe be part of their grand scheme.
Are the Triffids on the march?
Jeff says:
September 29, 2011 at 11:44 am
Sweet!
Trees! Many trees have brown/black trunks and dark green leaves. Plant them at a mid-to-high latitude (say the northern tier of US states and farther north) and the intercepted energy can raise the temperature more so than light colored plants (say dead grass in fall and winter), reflecting water, and snow.
About 10 years ago planting trees was the thing that was going to save the planet. Then studies were done. We haven’t heard much about it since.
http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2006/12/18/trees-in-wrong-places-could-hasten-global-warming.htm
“And that is known, be it with large margins of error, based on the oxygen balance.”
Uh, when the (undoubtedly underestimated) margins of error are approximately the same size as the measurement, dont you think that throwing the word ‘known’ around is a bit cheeky?
When plants grow, they produce oxygen (about 1.2 molecule for 1 molecule of CO2 captured). Conversely, when in fall leaves and plant parts are decaying or soil bacteria at work the whole year round, that uses oxygen.
“Both together thus take about halve the human emissions (as mass) out of the atmosphere. The rest of the human emissions (as mass) accumulates in the atmosphere,”
Uh, no it doesnt. Currently, the carbon budget is not closed. The rate of increase in the atmospheric CO2 concentration cannot be accounted for – it is much slower than would be expected according to the accounting you propose. By about 50%. Currently, we cannot even pretend to account for an amount of anthropogenic carbon equal to the amount we think we see as an increase in atmospheric concentration.
The issue of the carbon budget is nowhere near ‘known’.