CO2 field experiment likely to cause "do-over" for climate models

I have two press releases here, one via EurekAlert, and one from Max Planck. Plus at the end a summary of points via WUWT regular Pierre Gosselin. First, a key point. You can see the CO2 respiration of the biosphere in the Mauna Loa CO2 record below:

CO2 Trend for Mauna Loa - note the dip in 2008 when global temperatures plummeted, and the step again from 2009 into 2010 when an El Nino occurred

Breath of the Earth: Cycling carbon through terrestrial ecosystems

New data on photosynthesis and respiration will improve models, researchers say

This release is available in Italian, German, Spanish, French, Chinese, and Japanese.

This is the Eddy-Flux-Tower in the Hainich National Park, Germany.

Two recent international studies are poised to change the way scientists view the crucial relationship between Earth’s climate and the carbon cycle. These reports explore the global photosynthesis and respiration rates—the planet’s deep “breaths” of carbon dioxide, in and out—and researchers say that the new findings will be used to update and improve upon traditional models that couple together climate and carbon.

The two reports will be published online by the journal Science at the Science Express Web site at 6 p.m., US ET, Monday, 5 July. Science is published by AAAS, the nonprofit science society.

Christian Beer from the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena, Germany, along with colleagues from 10 other countries around the world, first take a look at Earth’s Gross Primary Production, or GPP, which represents the total amount of carbon dioxide that terrestrial plants breathe in through photosynthesis each year. With a novel combination of observations and modeling, they estimate the total amount of carbon that the world’s plant life inhales annually is 123 billion metric tons.

Then, Miguel Mahecha, also from the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, and another international team of researchers settle a long-standing debate over the effects of short-term variations in air temperature on ecosystem respiration, or the Earth’s exhalation of carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. They show that the sensitivity of ecosystem respiration to short-term variations in temperature is similar around the world. The researchers also suggest that factors other than temperature, such as the slow, ongoing transformations of carbon in the soil and water availability, appear to play crucial roles in long-term ecosystem carbon balances.

Together, these findings shed more light on the global cycle of carbon into and out of the atmosphere and how those processes are coupled with Earth’s ever-changing climate. The researchers analyzed vast amounts of climate and carbon data from around the world, and they say their results should help to improve the validity of predictive models and help resolve how climate change might affect the carbon cycle—and our world—in the future.

“An understanding of the factors that control the GPP of various terrestrial ecosystems is important because we humans make use of many ecosystem services, such as wood, fiber, and food,” said Beer. “Additionally, such an understanding is important in the context of climate change as a consequence of carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels because vegetation greatly modulates the land-atmosphere exchanges of greenhouse gases, water, and carbon dioxide…”

In their report, Beer and his colleagues pooled large amounts of data from FLUXNET, an international initiative established more than 10 years ago to monitor exchanges of carbon dioxide between Earth’s ecosystems and the atmosphere, with remote sensing and climate data from around the world to calculate the spatial distribution of mean annual GPP between 1998 and 2006.

This is a view of the tropical forest in Ghana from the top of a flux tower.

The researchers highlight the fact that uptake of carbon dioxide is most pronounced in the planet’s tropical forests, which are responsible for a full 34 percent of the inhalation of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Savannas then account for 26 percent of the global uptake, although the researchers note that savannas also occupy about twice as much surface area as tropical forests.

Precipitation also plays a significant role in determining the gross global carbon dioxide uptake, the researchers found. They suggest that rainfall has a significant influence on the amount of carbon that plants utilize for photosynthesis on more than 40 percent of vegetated lands, a discovery that stresses the importance of water availability for food security. According to the study, climate models often show great variation, and some of them overestimate the influence of rainfall on global carbon dioxide uptake.

“We reached a milestone with this paper by using plenty of data from FLUXNET in addition to remote sensing and climate reanalysis,” Beer said. “With our estimation of global GPP, we can do two things—compare our results with [Earth system] process models and further analyze the correlation between GPP and climate.”

In the second study, Mahecha and his team of researchers also relied on the global collaboration within the FLUXNET network during their investigation of ecosystems’ sensitivity to air temperature. Compiling and analyzing data from 60 different FLUXNET sites, these researchers found that the respiratory sensitivity to temperature of the world’s ecosystems, commonly referred to as Q10, is actually quite set in stone—and that the Q10 value is independent of the average local temperature and of the specific ecosystem conditions.

For years, experts have debated the effect that air temperature has on global respiration, or the collective metabolic processes of organisms that return carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from Earth’s surface. Most empirical studies suggest that such ecosystem respiration around the world is highly sensitive to increasing temperatures, while the majority of predictive models suggest otherwise. Scientists say that global air temperatures may rise due to the presence of heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. But, this new result suggests that the temperature sensitivity of the natural exhalation of carbon dioxide from ecosystems has been overestimated and should be reevaluated.

This latest study, in settling the controversy, suggests that previous field studies failed to disentangle processes acting on different time-scales. Mahecha and his team considered the processes of the 60 different ecosystems on the exact same time-scale in order to nail the global mean Q10 down to a value of 1.4. Their new, standard value for various ecosystems’ sensitivity to air temperature suggests a less pronounced short-term climate-carbon feedback compared to previous estimates.

“Our key finding is that the short-term temperature sensitivity of ecosystem respiration to air temperature is converging to a single, global value,” Mahecha said. “Contrary to previous studies, we show that the sensitivity of ecosystem respiration to temperature variations seems to be independent from external factors and constant across ecosystems. In other words, we found a general relationship between variation in temperature and ecosystem respiration… Our findings reconcile the apparent contradictions of modeling and field studies.”

In the future, these two separate studies should allow for more precise predictions of how Earth’s warming climate will affect the exchange of carbon between our ecosystems and the atmosphere—and vice versa. They provide scientists with important tools for better understanding the world’s ecosystems and how the human race continues to influence and alter them.

###

The report by Beer et al. was funded by CarboEuropeIP, FAO-GTOS-TCO, iLEAPS, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, National Science Foundation, University of Tuscia, Université Laval, Environment Canada, and the U.S. Department of Energy.

The report by Mahecha et al. was funded by CarboEuropeIP, FAO-GTOS-TCO, iLEAPS, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, National Science Foundation, University of Tuscia, the U.S. Department of Energy, and grants from the European Research Council, the European Commission project CARBO-Extreme, and the Max Planck Society.

======================================================

Here’s the Press Release from the Max Planck Institute:

A new balance for the global carbon balance

Researchers determine how rates of photosynthesis and ecosystem respiration depend on the climate in order to obtain a better assessment of the consequences of climate change

Climate predictions could become more accurate and more reliable in the future – thanks to new findings on the role of terrestrial ecosystems in the global carbon cycle. International teams of researchers headed by the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena now present comprehensive data analyses in two related studies. The analyses also lead to more precise estimates of how the ecosystems could react to climate change. In most ecosystems, the photosynthesis rate at which plants fix carbon dioxide from the atmosphere changes relatively little as temperature varies. Over 40 percent of the Earth’s vegetated surface reacts very sensitively to changes in the amount of precipitation, however. The respiration of the ecosystems, when flora and fauna release carbon dioxide, also increases to a lesser extent than has recently often been assumed when the temperature rises. Moreover, this temperature dependence is the same all over the world – even in ecosystems as different as the tropical savannah and the Finnish needleleaf forest, for example. (Science Express, July 5, 2010)

Fig. 1: Countless measurement stations (red) around the globe record the exchange of carbon dioxide and water in different ecosystems.

Image: Ulrich Weber, MPI for Biogeochemistry

The climate is quite temperamental: countless factors are involved and many feedback mechanisms enhance effects such as the anthropogenic greenhouse effect. This makes it difficult to make predictions, especially as many processes in the Earth system are still not completely understood. More light is now being shed on the part played by terrestrial ecosystems in the global carbon cycle. This applies to the role of photosynthesis, whereby plants fix carbon dioxide, as well as the process of respiration, during which plants release carbon dioxide once again. The scientists are thus making an important contribution to understanding how the global carbon cycle reacts to global warming and climate change. “Our results suggest that the availability of water, in particular, plays a decisive role for the carbon cycle in ecosystems. It is often more important than temperature,” says Markus Reichstein, a scientist at the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry who has investigated these issues together with his colleagues and two international teams.

In one of the current studies, the researchers involved in the Fluxnet initiative measured how the respiration of ecosystems reacts to short-term variations in temperature at 60 stations spread across the globe. They found that the rate at which plants and microorganisms convert sugar into carbon dioxide does not even double when the temperature increases by ten degrees from one week to the next, for example. “With the aid of suitable models it is then possible to calculate how climate change could affect the respiration of the ecosystems and the global carbon cycle,” says Markus Reichstein.

Some earlier investigations at the ecosystem level resulted in threefold to fourfold accelerations, which would enhance the greenhouse effect. It was not possible to reconcile these data with global models and atmospheric measurements of carbon dioxide concentrations and their seasonal variations, however. “We can now settle obvious contradictions between experimental and theoretical studies,” says Miguel Mahecha, who played a crucial role in coordinating and evaluating the new measurements on ecosystem respiration. His colleague Markus Reichstein adds: “Particularly alarmist scenarios for the feedback between global warming and ecosystem respiration thus prove to be unrealistic.”

These measurements also contradict a further assumption which earlier investigations seemed to suggest: that the respiration of the ecosystems in the tropics and temperate latitudes is influenced to a lesser degree by temperature than at higher latitudes. As the Jena scientists have now discovered, the respiration of very different ecosystems intensifies to the same extent when it becomes hotter. The factor which determines the acceleration of the respiration thus obviously does not depend on the local temperature conditions and the specific characteristics of an ecosystem. “We were very surprised that different ecosystems react relatively uniformly to temperature variations,” says Miguel Mahecha. “After all, for example, we analysed savannahs, tropical rain forests, and also central European broadleaf and needleleaf forests and agricultural ecosystems.”

Fig. 2: Anemometers measure the wind speed ten times per second over leaf canopies and grasslands. With the movement of the air, gases such as carbon dioxide are exchanged between ecosystems and the atmosphere.

Image: MPI for Biogeochemistry

Climate researchers must now examine how the new findings affect the predictions for the carbon dioxide balance and climate change. “It is still not possible to predict whether this attenuates the positive feedback between carbon dioxide concentration and temperature,” says Markus Reichstein. “The study shows very clearly that we do not yet have a good understanding of the global biogeochemichal cycles and their importance for long-term developments.”

The researchers want to change this with their investigation of the rate of photosynthesis. According to this, the terrestrial ecosystems store 123 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide annually. “Although a similar value had been assumed before, it was only an hypothetical estimate,” says Christian Beer, who was in charge of the study. Sixty percent of the carbon dioxide which plants globally take up from the atmosphere is swallowed up by the tropical rain forests and savannahs. The savannahs owe their comparatively important role to the huge area which they cover. The rain forests, in contrast, take up particularly large amounts of carbon dioxide over relatively small areas in order to produce biomass.

The global analysis has also enabled the researchers to establish that the amount of carbon dioxide which is fixed by photosynthesis in leaves is influenced by different climatic factors in different vegetation zones. Sometimes the temperature plays a more important role, sometimes the intensity of the solar radiation, and sometimes the amount of water which the plants can take up from the ground.

From a global point of view, however, water is the factor which has the strongest effect: over 40 percent of Earth’s vegetated surface plants photosynthesize more when the supply of water increases, and less during droughts. In temperate grasslands and shrublands, the amount of carbon dioxide which plants fix as sugar depends to 69 percent on their water supply, in the tropical rain forest this figure is only 29 percent. The researchers call the amount of carbon dioxide which ecosystems annually take up primary production. “We were surprised to find that the primary production in the tropics is not so strongly dependent on the amount of rain,” says Markus Reichstein. “Here, too, we need to therefore critically scrutinize the forecasts of some climate models which predict the Amazon will die as the world gets drier.”

The data forming the basis of the two reports now published originate from an international network of over 250 measuring stations which undertake long-term observations in different ecosystems across the world. Teams of researchers have high measurement towers above grasslands or forests to record the water and carbon dioxide concentrations in the air and the wind turbulences all over the world. This enables them to calculate how much carbon dioxide is taken up and released by a certain ecosystem. They relate these values to the local climate and divide the Earth’s surface into quadrants measuring 50 by 50 kilometres. The researchers derive the global primary production by using satellite data to extrapolate the photosynthesis rates of the individual ecosystems. The satellites measure how much light energy the vegetated surface of the Earth absorbs on a global basis. Until now, climate researchers have extrapolated the interplay of climate and photosynthesis or ecosystem respiration on the basis of hypotheses.

The new Fluxnet initiative, which Markus Reichstein and colleagues from Italy and North America initiated, brings together the results of the global measurements for the first time. “We are gaining new insights into Earth’s climate system because various research groups are prepared to disclose their data,” says Reichstein. “The current studies, in particular, prove the added value of long-term observations of the Earth system for research. They help to reduce the uncertainty of current climate predictions and exclude some model predictions.”

[JM / PH]

Related links:

[1] Fluxnet Initiative

Original work:

Miguel D. Mahecha, Markus Reichstein, Nuno Carvalhais, Gitta Lasslop, Holger Lange, Sonia I. Seneviratne, Rodrigo Vargas, Christof Ammann, M. Altaf Arain, Alessandro Cescatti, Ivan A. Janssens, Mirco Migliavacca, Leonardo Montagnani, Andrew D. Richardson

Global Convergence in the Temperature Sensitivity of Respiration at Ecosystem Level

Science Express online, July 5, 2010 | http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1189587

Christian Beer, Markus Reichstein, Enrico Tomelleri, Philippe Ciais, Martin Jung, Nuno Carvalhais, Christian Rödenbeck, M. Altaf Arain, Dennis Baldocchi, Gordon B. Bonan, Alberte Bondeau, Alessandro Cescatti, Gitta Lasslop, Anders Lindroth, Mark Lomas, Sebastiaan Luyssaert, Hank Margolis, Keith W. Oleson, Olivier Roupsard, Elmar Veenendaal, Nicolas Viovy, Christopher Williams, F. Ian Woodward, Dario Papale

Terrestrial Gross Carbon Dioxide Uptake: Global Distribution and Covariation with Climate

Science Express online, July 5, 2010 | http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1184984

Max Planck Society

for the Advancement of Science

Press and Public Relations Department

PDF (300 KB)

======================================================

Here is a summary of key points via Pierre Gosselin:

1. In most ecosystems, the photosynthesis rate at which plants fix carbon dioxide from the atmosphere changes relatively little as the temperature varies.

2. The respiration of the ecosystems, when flora and fauna release carbon dioxide again, also increases to a lesser extent than has recently often been assumed when the temperature rises.

3. Moreover, this temperature dependence is the same all over the world – even in ecosystems as different as the tropical savannah and the Finnish needleleaf forest.

4. The climate is quite temperamental: countless factors are involved and many feedback mechanisms enhance effects such as the anthropogenic greenhouse effect. This makes it difficult to make predictions, especially as many processes in the Earth system are still not completely understood.

5. Results suggest that the availability of water, in particular, plays a decisive role for the carbon cycle in ecosystems. It is often more important than temperature.

6. Particularly alarmist scenarios for the feedback between global warming and ecosystem respiration thus prove to be unrealistic.”

7. The factor which determines the acceleration of the respiration thus obviously does not depend on the local temperature conditions and the specific characteristics of an ecosystem. “We were very surprised that different ecosystems react relatively uniformly to temperature variations.”

8. “It is still not possible to predict whether this attenuates the positive feedback between carbon dioxide concentration and temperature,” says Markus Reichstein. “The study shows very clearly that we do not yet have a good understanding of the global material cycles and their importance for long-term developments.”

9. “We were surprised to find that the primary production in the tropics is not so strongly dependent on the amount of rain,” says Markus Reichstein. “Here, too, we therefore need to critically scrutinize the forecasts of some climate models which predict the Amazon will die as the world gets drier.”

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

79 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
July 6, 2010 10:23 am

John W.
I’d say the MPI is in general warmist as a whole, but are ready to change their minds as the science comes in. It is, after all, a worldclass organisation.
Our sceptic views are also not rock solid. I think it’ll take another 10 or 20 years before we get a good idea as to how much of an impact our emissions really do have on the climate (I suspect it won’t be that much, though).

cagw_skeptic99
July 6, 2010 10:26 am

Maybe a clearer way to state my question is this: Why so much focus on the land based CO2 cycle? Can there really be a material difference in the amount of land based CO2 contained in the flora of the earth from say, one decade to the next? More CO2 means more vigorous growth and an increase in the total plant matter, but then won’t the earth again reach equilibrium with respect to land based CO2 sequestered in plant material?
It seems to me that those curious about how atmospheric CO2 concentrations will change should be focused on the oceanic carbon cycle. Maybe this is harder to measure or doesn’t contribute in the politically correct direction?

DirkH
July 6, 2010 10:37 am

cagw_skeptic99 says:
July 6, 2010 at 10:26 am
“[…]
It seems to me that those curious about how atmospheric CO2 concentrations will change should be focused on the oceanic carbon cycle. Maybe this is harder to measure or doesn’t contribute in the politically correct direction?”
I think the efforts to measure the effect of temperature increase on photosynthesis were done because of concern that the CO2 uptake would drop, which would indeed have been a catastrophe for the land-based biosphere and for food production. So it was a valid concern and urgent enough to get funded.

wayne
July 6, 2010 10:38 am

“Our key finding is that the short-term temperature sensitivity of ecosystem respiration to air temperature is converging to a single, global value,” Mahecha said. “Contrary to previous studies, we show that the sensitivity of ecosystem respiration to temperature variations seems to be independent from external factors and constant across ecosystems. In other words, we found a general relationship between variation in temperature and ecosystem respiration… Our findings reconcile the apparent contradictions of modeling and field studies.”
So what caused the great greening of the globe over the last few decades if it’s constant. There was a WUWT post with before and after satellite pictures showing this “greening” effect but I can’t seem to find it in searches. Think it was titled “The greening of the world” or “The greening of the globe”, something like that and was some 5-9 months ago at least. Anyone remember that post?

Steven mosher
July 6, 2010 10:47 am

I wonder if this impacts the results of GCMs?
Time to ask some questions of gavin at RC.
I’ll suggest that folks go to every warmista site on the net and just ask the question.
Will these result require changes to GCMs? or not? will those changes get implemented before Ar5?

Richard111
July 6, 2010 10:59 am

From point 4 in Pierre Gosselin’s summary above:
The climate is quite temperamental: countless factors are involved and many feedback mechanisms enhance effects such as the anthropogenic greenhouse effect.
My emphasis. Always, always, countless factors ENHANCE AGW! Very disappointing.

cagw_skeptic99
July 6, 2010 11:00 am

Re DirkH:
“I think the efforts to measure the effect of temperature increase on photosynthesis were done because of concern that the CO2 uptake would drop, which would indeed have been a catastrophe for the land-based biosphere and for food production. So it was a valid concern and urgent enough to get funded.”
There are biospheres that range from below freezing to well over 100F/38C. My own little back yard vegetable garden experiences these extremes in Virginia, USA. Water and sunlight produce green material, and warmer temperatures produce green material faster than colder ones do unless I fail to provide enough water when it is hot.
I guess I go with some above who said: Duh? Can I express a concern that the earth’s orientation towards the sun might be changing and get funding to see what difference that would make? If the sun came up in the north and set in the south there would surely be changes in agriculture. Most anyone who actually puts seeds in the ground and tends to them would confirm that most plants grow faster when it is warmer, up to some tolerance point for some plants that don’t grow well in hot weather (lettuce and spinach bolt to seed, for example).
I guess I am just not well enough educated in the climate sciences or sophisticated enough to grasp the basis for the concern.

Mike H
July 6, 2010 11:08 am

I enjoy reading the results of these incredibly (no doubt) expensive and time consuming studies because they reassure me that what I was taught in high school was in fact for the most part true. That is, the plant world adapted to large temperature variations in order to survive. Since photosynthesis is a biological process that is rather unaffected by temperature changes and since planet earth experiences a wide range of temperature variation (diurnal and annual), photosynthesis was the evolutionary winner among all the other possible ways to survive. Having “chosen” photosynthesis as the best way to handle large temperature variations, evolution turned to the next greatest challenge for plant life which is to find and be able to uptake water. Since water supply variations are common, the greatest variety of evolution in plant lifeforms is expressed in the plants ability to adapt and handle those water supply variations. This study is yet another demonstration of the validity of the evolutionary process.

jaypan
July 6, 2010 11:08 am

Be curious. Be open.
Measure what happens.
Publish results and methods.
Stay away from anything “settled”.
That’s what real science is all about.
Good job done in Jena. Weiter so.

wayne
July 6, 2010 11:14 am

There you go…. finally something that makes some science sense.
… says Markus Reichstein. “Here, too, we need to therefore critically scrutinize the forecasts of some climate models which predict the Amazon will die as the world gets drier.”
So a warmer globe by a few tenths of a degree (if it stays) means a wetter globe by increased the evaporation and therefore increase the rainfall and allow plants to fix more carbon. Now that’s properly a better science suspicion, broken GCMs (global climate computer models), not broken chemistry, physics, nad science in general.

Hilary Ostrov (aka hro001)
July 6, 2010 11:22 am

Looks like somewhat of an upset for the alarmist applecart. Not likely to warm the cockles of the hearts of the dedicated carbon-traders, is it?!
Meanwhile, over at RC, I see that in their attempts to overcome the “problem in communicating the science to the public”, someone has devised a “simple recipe” that could not have been made more mind-numbingly, eye-glazingly complex to the casual reader if they tried. Yet I can read and understand the above articles with no difficulty. When will they ever learn, eh?!
It will be interesting to see how long it takes before the dedicated alarmists roll-out the usual spin … “this does not affect the soundness of the underlying science … everything’s happening faster than we thought and we must act now”.

JPeden
July 6, 2010 11:30 am

latitude says:
July 6, 2010 at 9:05 am
What Douglas said. ditto
“Douglas DC says:
July 6, 2010 at 8:04 am
In other words:” We have no bloody idea of what is really going on.”

And we also know and accept that we don’t know – much or enough – thanks to that weird little “sceptic” feature of…er…our pre-Postmodern individual critical thought processes, which – like the pre-Postnormal Scientific Method’s incorportation of open access to the “materials and methods” involved in any truely Scientific study or conclusion, so that everyone who wants to can evaluate the study or conclusion, too – always asks, “What’s wrong with it?”
Ah, but Armchair Science, now becoming even more progressively a.k.a. “true” Climate Science, based upon its mostly rigged Models, given its foundational “tenets”, and, ergo, its Selected Peers is just so much easier and less “inconvenient” = less sceptical – and more lucrative! So what’s wrong with that? [sarc.]

DirkH
July 6, 2010 11:30 am

cagw_skeptic99 says:
July 6, 2010 at 11:00 am
“[…]I guess I am just not well enough educated in the climate sciences or sophisticated enough to grasp the basis for the concern.”
Well. It was never my concern; you don’t have to argue with me. But the argument has been brought up all the time by some AGW people. So that’s why MPI got the money for this research, that’s my guess. And i guess it was politicians who greenlighted the check.

Jim G
July 6, 2010 12:25 pm

Ditto 3: “in other words we have no idea what is going on”. Said this before and I’ll say it again, too many exogenous independent variables, which themselves cannot be predicted, to be capable of predicting future climate. We don’t do that well at predicting weather from day to day other than that which we can SEE coming our way from satellite info and radar.

July 6, 2010 12:37 pm

DonS: July 6, 2010 at 8:43 am
So, if a brown lawn is watered it will take up more CO2 and get green? Over a temperature range of 45f to 105f? Wow.
No, first it will green up and *then* take in more CO2.
Of course, if you’d watered it properly all along, it wouldn’t have browned out in the first place.

philc
July 6, 2010 12:38 pm

It’s great to see that once again that our old friend, Svante Arrhenius comes to the rescue of the climate “scientists”. k = A e^{{-E_a}/{RT}} Similar to his influence on the radiative effects of CO2, Arrhenius’ equation was the first comprehensive estimate of the rate of reaction that applied to ANY chemical reaction, including the reactions of carbon dioxide in the biosphere. To me it is quite incomprehensible that any scientist who got through Chem 101 would not immediately think of this when faced with something like CO2 respiration. The Arrhenius equation, and its later refinements, have been proven to work very reliably over a tremendous range of reactions and temperatures. It seems a pretty obvious place to look when trying to estimate the rates of CO2 uptake and production in the biosphere. Despite the complications of the climate, the basic chemistry wouldn’t change and result in extreme rates of either production or uptake, and, while it’s good to have experimental confirmation, it’s no surprise that the chemical reactions involved vary primarily with temperature and the rate doesn’t miraculously change with increased temperature.
Good job for the Max Planck scientists to publish this work.

cagw_skeptic99
July 6, 2010 1:04 pm

DirkH My apologies if I appear to be arguing with you. I am just (maybe stunned is the right word) at what qualifies for funded research.
Somewhere I read that a big chunk of the US Government’s stimulus billions was allocated for these research projects. Obviously it must all be spent (or wasted) by the deadline, so anything that claims a relationship to AGW qualifies, no matter how silly it seems to someone like me who pays taxes.

Ed Caryl
July 6, 2010 1:04 pm

cagw_sceptic99,
(can I call you #99 for short)
Don’t forget the peat-bog to coal cycle.
Well, aren’t we lucky that rainfall isn’t decreasing!
Comment 3: why isn’t cutting Rainforest a Capitol offense? Has anyone calculated the loss in CO2 sequestration from the rainforest already lost? Does that match the CO2 increase? The timing looks right.

July 6, 2010 1:06 pm

“In most ecosystems, the photosynthesis rate at which plants fix carbon dioxide from the atmosphere changes relatively little as the temperature varies.”
Doesn’t the growth rate of trees, i.e. tree rings depend directly on the photosynthesis going on in the tree leaves? If this process “changes relatively little as the temperature varies”, then one could conclude that the validity of tree rings as a proxy for temperature is questionable.
I just finished Bishop Hill’s book, “The Hockey Stick Illusion” and I would highly recommend it. The data selection process (Others may call it cherry-picking) and the contortion of science to create a hockey stick described in this book is mind blowing. I raised the question,
“Does a tree’s growth rate respond to temperature?” on my website, http://www.socratesparadox.com

k winterkorn
July 6, 2010 1:22 pm

We have faith-based beliefs ( = religion ), we have data-based beliefs ( = science ), and now we have computer model-based beliefs ( = ??? ).
We need a new word for what the climate alarmists are doing. It is not science.

Ed MacAulay
July 6, 2010 1:41 pm

wayne says:
July 6, 2010 at 10:38 am
So what caused the great greening of the globe over the last few decades if it’s constant. There was a WUWT post with before and after satellite pictures showing this “greening” effect but I can’t seem to find it in searches. Think it was titled “The greening of the world” or “The greening of the globe”, something like that and was some 5-9 months ago at least. Anyone remember that post?
CO2 was the factor assumed to be responsible for the greening effect. This paper would tend to reinforce the CO2 effect since there is an apparent lack of temperature response.

John W.
July 6, 2010 1:53 pm

pgosselin says:
I’d say the MPI is in general warmist as a whole, but are ready to change their minds as the science comes in. It is, after all, a worldclass organisation.
Our sceptic views are also not rock solid. ..

I know. (The “/sarc” got left out of the post.) The problem with the AGW crowd is their careful avoidance of scientific method – a problem, as this work demonstrates, we won’t see occuring at MPI.

PJB
July 6, 2010 1:58 pm

We have faith-based beliefs ( = religion ), we have data-based beliefs ( = science ), and now we have computer model-based beliefs ( = ??? ).
We need a new word for what the climate alarmists are doing. It is not science.
How about “fantasy”?

July 6, 2010 2:03 pm

Ed MacAulay says:
“wayne says:
July 6, 2010 at 10:38 am
So what caused the great greening of the globe over the last few decades if it’s constant. There was a WUWT post with before and after satellite pictures showing this “greening” effect but I can’t seem to find it in searches.”
Could it have been this?

Tenuc
July 6, 2010 2:29 pm

How nice to see some genuine climate science being published for a change! One by one the tenets of CAGW are being destroyed. Just got to get the political motivation weakened and it’s job done.