I’m really quite surprised to find this paper in Nature, especially when it makes claims so counter to the consensus that model projections are essentially a map of the future climate.
The Hockey Shtick writes: Settled Science: New paper ‘challenges consensus about what regulates atmospheric CO2 from year to year’.
A new paper published in Nature “challenges the current consensus about what regulates atmospheric CO2 from year to year” and finds “semi-arid ecosystems in the Southern Hemisphere may be largely responsible for changes in global concentrations of atmospheric CO2.”
The authors find links between the land CO2 sink in these semi-arid ecosystems “are currently missing from many major climate models.” In addition, they find that land sinks for CO2 are keeping up with the increase in CO2 emissions, thus modeled projections of exponential increases of CO2 in the future are likely exaggerated.
The paper joins many other papers published over the past 2 years overturning the “settled science” of the global carbon cycle.
Climate science: A sink down under
- Nature (2014) doi:10.1038/nature13341
- Published online21 May 2014
The finding that semi-arid ecosystems in the Southern Hemisphere may be largely responsible for changes in global concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide has repercussions for future levels of this greenhouse gas.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature13341.html
more here: http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Can’t speak to the particulars, but seemingly excellent news that this paper has seen the light of day in the current repressive atmosphere. Is it possible things are changing a bit?
I stopped reading at the assertion that in the first sentence that CO2 is the main driver of global climate change. I also note that there are no citations to support this claim.
1 Month 10 Days until the second-coming of the Orbiting Carbon Observatory.
http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/
While the assertion that CO2 is *the* climate thermostat is dubious, at least this article is exploring one of the significant failings of the current CO2 obsession.
Ah, more “settled science”, right?
Well, I mean really….
who was stupid enough in the first place to think an additional 2 ppm/yr would overwhelm the system
Nature itself (and Nature Geoscience) still look like reputable journals to me
(whoops, I hope The Team don’t read that, and send in the enforcers)
Its that “Nature Climate Change Whores” (no offense to that fine profession) that is the comic for Green coffee tables.
Better go find that little Dutch boy, because the dike has a hole in it.
RayG says:
I stopped reading at the assertion that in the first sentence that CO2 is the main driver of global climate change. I also note that there are no citations to support this claim.
Obama said it’s a fact. So it’s gotta be true, right?
oops, forgot the “sarc” tag.
Actually sounds like a dubious proposition but good to see Nature managing to publish anything other than the usual AGW fodder.
I am reminded of this from 2009
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10584-009-9626-y
Irrigated afforestation of the Sahara and Australian Outback to end global warming
Abstract
Each year, irrigated Saharan- and Australian-desert forests could sequester amounts of atmospheric CO2 at least equal to that from burning fossil fuels. Without any rain, to capture CO2 produced from gasoline requires adding about $1 to the per-gallon pump-price to cover irrigation costs, using reverse osmosis (RO), desalinated, sea water. Such mature technology is economically competitive with the currently favored, untested, power-plant Carbon Capture (and deep underground, or under-ocean) Sequestration (CCS). Afforestation sequesters CO2, mostly as easily stored wood, both from distributed sources (automotive, aviation, etc., that CCS cannot address) and from power plants. Climatological feasibility and sustainability of such irrigated forests, and their potential global impacts are explored using a general circulation model (GCM). Biogeophysical feedback is shown to stimulate considerable rainfall over these forests, reducing desalination and irrigation costs; economic value of marketed, renewable, forest biomass, further reduces costs; and separately, energy conservation also reduces the size of the required forests and therefore their total capital and operating costs. The few negative climate impacts outside of the forests are discussed, with caveats. If confirmed with other GCMs, such irrigated, subtropical afforestation probably provides the best, near-term route to complete control of green-house-gas-induced, global warming.
At the time I first saw this i did some very rough back of the envelope engineering calcs which suggested the irrigation water could be acquired more frugally by collecting icebergs shed from Antarctic ice sheets, hauling them to coastal areas of Australia, Africa, and South America and using the melt water as a source.
“I stopped reading at the assertion that in the first sentence that CO2 is the main driver of global climate change. I also note that there are no citations to support this claim.”
Perhaps that was the price to pay to get the paper through toll gate known as peer review. If there is one unsupported claim that you probably can publish in any climate journal that’s probably it.
RayG says:
Ray, it may be that that statement was the only way that this study could have been published. I suspect that if the man-made, developed countries driver for C02 is shot down there will be much less interest in government funding of AGW research.
As Don Easterbrook pointed out (do not recall the thread), a change from 300ppm to 400ppm is NOT a 30% increase in Co2, as alarmists constantly shout.
RayG says:
May 22, 2014 at 11:14 am
This is the part of cli-sci they want you to believe is “settled”. It is not.
As many of the actual scientists who have been espousing the “CO2 as Devil” meme walk away from the bad science, this paper tries to reveal that humanity may not even be the cause of higher CO2 concentrations. Those to whom Warmism is a religion will pretend not to notice.
@Michael hart says:
May 22, 2014 at 11:16 am
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Orbiting Carbon Observatory (OCO) was a NASA Earth System Science Pathfinder Project (ESSP) mission designed to make precise, time-dependent global measurements of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So, why do these Californians name the thing an “Orbiting Carbon Observatory” ?
Measuring “Carbon” and measuring “CO2” are two quite different things I should think. I guess it is just another Obamination of the new dictionary making the meaning of carbon and carbon dioxide interchangeable. So when does the “War on Carbon” begin to include carbon based life-forms?
And these are scientists? Oops. I misspoke. Grant seeking scientists. Now it makes sense. Sorry I was so dense.
(Age must be making me cynical).
No, Its a 33 1/3 % increase in Co2.
@Dave Wendt
It does seem obvious that afforestation is a better solution than coal plant CCS – it is a venture that comes with all kinds of side benefits. Forests are certainly more useful than filling the ground with lethal concentrations of CO2. But I’d skip the RO plants and just use giant evaporation ponds. Add enough water vapor to the atmosphere and it’ll eventually rain out somewhere. Put the forests there. Aside from the forest production, you also get sea salt and clouds, which is good news for albedo.
As geoengineering experiments go, it wouldn’t be that different from when the US turned the great plains into irrigated cropland.
Its probably a discrete “first” way out for NATURE so none of the big AGW shots notice. Its a climb down and we will be seeing more and more of this until the “norm” will in fact be the skeptic position, The whole AGW scam will only completely disappear when the funding dries out. For example, it is highly unlikely that Labor if they win the next election in Australia will pick it up again since Abbot has basically cut off all funding for AGW research and propaganda.
Scott Scarborough says:
May 22, 2014 at 11:54 am
“No, Its a 33 1/3 % increase in Co2.”
Firstly, have the courage to address me directly. Secondly, go back to math class.
The clue is ppm. Get a clue.
Friends:
I have lost count of the number of times during this month that I have been in an “I told you so” situation on WUWT.
On May 1, 2014 at 7:33 am I wrote here saying
Later that day, on May 1, 2014 at 2:37 pm in the same thread, I wrote here saying
I explained some of the evidence which refutes the Bern Model (i.e. the carbon cycle model used by the IPCC) during subsequent argument in that thread.
The recent paper in Nature will become very important if it induces a true consideration of the carbon cycle which is sorely needed and over the years has been prompted without success by our paper, by Salby, by and etc.
Richard
Funny that Londo and Rhoda were composing the same post at the same time regarding the price it takes to get a study into a journal these days.
vboring says:
May 22, 2014 at 11:56 am
@Dave Wendt
It does seem obvious that afforestation is a better solution than coal plant CCS – it is a venture that comes with all kinds of side benefits. Forests are certainly more useful than filling the ground with lethal concentrations of CO2.
At the time it struck me that this would be a wonderful “Put up or shut up ” proposal to brace the Climate Catastrophists with i.e if you insist we must as a prudent “precaution” urgently address the increase in atmospheric CO2, we will stipulate to your alarmist notions and fully fund this proposal. In return all we ask is that you punt on the bird chopping windmills, worthless solar plants, ethanol, biodiesel and other biofuels, carbon credits, carbon taxes, curly lightbulbs and the entire plethora of useless non solutions. We agree to provide you each with one way transport to your choice of either the Outback or the Sahara where you can plant and tend trees to your bleeding hearts content and kindly leave the rest of us completely the Hell alone for the duration.
@David Ball
You claim the following: “As Don Easterbrook pointed out (do not recall the thread), a change from 300ppm to 400ppm is NOT a 30% increase in Co2, as alarmists constantly shout.”
To Scott’s reply, you state: “Scott Scarborough says: May 22, 2014 at 11:54 am, “No, Its a 33 1/3 % increase in Co2.” Firstly, have the courage to address me directly. Secondly, go back to math class. The clue is ppm. Get a clue.”
Scott is correct. And no, the units are absolutely irrelevant when calculating percent changes, as they cancel out when doing this basic math.
Anyone who claims that “a change from 300ppm to 400ppm is NOT a 30% increase in Co2” is full of complete nonsense. If Easterbrook said that, he is entirely wrong.