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
Ed MacAulay
July 6, 2010 2:38 pm

Smokey says:
July 6, 2010 at 2:03 pm
“Could it have been this?”
Quite amusing to read the caption on the photo about 2/3 down the article. Note that the article was dated 2003.
“The growth of bristlecone pines in the Inyo Mountains of eastern California is limited by the extreme aridity of their climate, and by cold temperatures in the (relatively) damp spring. Increased rainfall or warmer winters would likely lead to a higher growth rate in these ancient forests. (Photograph Copyright Phillip Greenspun)

Rob Potter
July 6, 2010 2:51 pm

cagw_skeptic99 says:
July 6, 2010 at 9:30 am
I have a question for someone who understands the land based carbon cycle better than I do.
Not sure I can lay claim to that, but I’ll add my 2 cents anyway…
In a tropical forest, the plants take in carbon dioxide, water, and sunlight. They make cellulose and sugar and starch and it looks like a tree or a fern. After a few centuries, does the elevation continue to increase as carbon, in one form or another, builds up? Or does the amount of incoming CO2 settle into equilibrium equal the amount of outgoing CO2 as the dead plant matter decays?
There is a lot of research that has calculated mature forests do not sequester more CO2, precisely as you discuss. Young forests do, obviously, but exactly what constitutes “young” “mature” etc. is obviously in the eye of the beholder (and the slant of the researcher). What is clear is that re-growth of temperate forests across North America since the mid-late 19th Century is responsible for a very large sequestration of atmospheric CO2 (I’m still trying to re-find this paper – I’ll get it eventually), but the effects may be slowing down now as forest conservation is, perversely, reducing new growth. (Logging in temperate forests in developed countries is almost always follwed by re-planting.)
There seems to be an assumption here that a mature forest can somehow sequester an essentially infinite amount of matter, or am I missing something?
I think what you (and I) have a problem with is the terminology – what exactly is meant by “mature” and whether this really is what is happening in tropical forests.
Another factor that is missed by many people is the inefficiency of trees in fixing CO2 compared to crop plants. Soybean, corn and sugar cane (replacement for tropical forests in South America) fix CO2 at rates far exceeding forests and they are replanted each year. Granted, the recycling of a high percentage of this to atmospheric CO2 is pretty rapid in human and animal food, but this still represents are major sink which I don’t know has been fully accounted for. Many people have focussed on the stocks of agricultural commodities as the only possible sink, but the actual production of crops has massively increased in the last 50 years and the volume of fixed carbon at any one time is significantly greater than the size of these stocks.
One day (when I get time from my real job) I will try some number crunching to see how this stacks up. In the meantime, don’t be too quick to bemoan loss of old forests as what replaces them may be more valuable.

cagw_skeptic99
July 6, 2010 3:30 pm

Thank you Ron Potter.
To my original point, if you slash and burn a tropical forest, say to grow sugar and make alcohol for motor fuel, you release lots of CO2. When you quit making sugar and the forest returns, then there is lots of new capture of CO2. But on balance, it looks to me like NET nothing, unless the new forest never regains the mass of the old one. If the logs are cut and made into housing, then there is net capture until the houses are demolished, but I still don’t see much net change unless that forest never returns.
Same with cutting old growth. There are lots of reasons to preserve forests, but I just don’t see a big net difference in atmospheric CO2 unless the cut wood stays out of places where it would decompose. Most of the plant material from crops is decomposed, and even the grain or fruit gets there after some time.
It is hard to believe that the amounts of CO2 plus or minus from net land vegetation changes really matters much when compared to the existing CO2 dissolved in the ocean and the (relatively tiny) amount present in the atmosphere. Net new CO2 from burning fossil fuels would matter, but it just doesn’t seem to me that the land based vegetation absorbs enough to matter in global calculations over decades or centuries.

Michael T
July 6, 2010 3:31 pm

In all time my reading about photosynthesis and Internet searches, I have seen only 1 paper about plant root systems, O2, H2O in CO2 out. I dont believe the CO2 is kept around the root sytem otherwise we would have Forests looking like Horseshoe Lake in Mammoth Ca.. Does filter upward and lie around the base of the plant, or sideways, or downward? I would love to know.

George E. Smith
July 6, 2010 3:52 pm

“”” Enneagram says:
July 6, 2010 at 9:04 am
Do these guys, no matter how important and famous their institutions are (or rather were), prepare their breakfasts using hairdryers?. How does the air heat the oceans?
(BTW don’t forget hairdryers must be plugged into a power source). “””
Just remember those laboratory experiments that demonstrate that the air sample with the higher CO2 content reaches a higher Temperature than the air sample with less CO2; when both are irradiated by a heat lamp (taking good care of course that the heat lamp energy doesn’t fall directly on the thermometers).
But just remember that per Trenberth’s cartoon (official NOAA chaff) diagram of the earth’s energy budget; the average rate of LWIR emission from the surface is 390 W/m^2 corresponding the the BB total emittance from a surface at the mean global temperature of 15 deg C (288 Kelvins).
So next time you do that lab experiment to demonstrate the effect of CO2 on atmospheric warming; you have to use something like a brick at 15 deg C as your LWIR source; there are very few actual “heat lamp sources” pointing up from the average surface of the earth; and the human body does not register 10.1 micron peaked LWIR as “heat”; we cannot even sense it at all (with human sensors). Try holding up a nice red brick cooled down to 15 deg C up close to your delicate face, and feel the “heat” just pouring from that brick. Just imagine how much that is going to heat the atmosphere, and in turn just how much higher (Temperature) the surface is going to get from that LWIR heat returned (partly) from the atmosphere.
Yeah; now pull my other leg.

Dr A Burns
July 6, 2010 4:02 pm

I gather that the paper is suggesting that a 10 degrees ( no units … assume C ) temperature rise gives a global average 140% increase in the rate of CO2 uptake. That is, as we would have hoped, the earth has a nice negative feedback in place.
Man’s CO2 contribution to the atmosphere is about 0.8% of the total, the rest being natural sources (from the IPCC’s carbon cycle diagram). On the above basis, a temperature rise of around 0.2 deg C should be enough to balance man’s added CO2 contribution to the atmosphere (it’s a log relationship of course, not linear)
The above ignors the effects of temperature on ocean outgassing etc etc etc …
Am I missing something here ?

Bruce of Newcastle
July 6, 2010 5:10 pm

“1. In most ecosystems, the photosynthesis rate at which plants fix carbon dioxide from the atmosphere changes relatively little as the temperature varies.”
Most = not all. My favourite example of this comes from the following:
http://carbon-sense.com/2010/06/03/tree-growth-near-power-stations/
Tree growth triples near a coal fired power station, wow tree heaven, who’d a thought!

rbateman
July 6, 2010 5:27 pm

Bruce of Newcastle says:
July 6, 2010 at 5:10 pm
Mushrooms that normally get only 2-3″ high are found next to a freeway 12-14″ high.
Almost forgot about that one, but your post reminded me.
It’s the c02 exhaust.

George E. Smith
July 6, 2010 5:29 pm

Well that’s all well and good; I’m glad that someone is willing to pay good money to find out just how the biosphere takes up carbon.
It would be nice if someone would spend a similar amount of money to show that in any case; carbon doesn’t have much to do with earth’s climate; well as far as causing it; that is.
IT’S THE WATER !

wayne
July 6, 2010 6:55 pm

Smokey says:
July 6, 2010 at 2:03 pm
Could it have been this?
Close Smokey, but this was two side by side satellite photos a few to a decade apart at the same time of year. The reason I remember that post (it could possibly been some other article from another source, I thought here) is that the difference was so striking. Well, if you ever come across on it, take a look, it makes you wonder how some of these claims are made when the photos say the opposite.
And Ed, I think it was more all three to some degree even though they now say temperature has little to do with general growth (think I’ll wait for some confirmation on that one).

dave Harrison
July 6, 2010 6:57 pm

The conclusion seems to be that plants will grow well and fix carbon dioxide even when it is hot as long as there is sufficient water! Actually I, and every other person with a garden could have told them that without spending any research money.

jorgekafkazar
July 6, 2010 7:03 pm

Both of the above studies (and others) seem to assume that loss of atmospheric CO2 is due to the biosphere alone. And maybe that is correct. But I note that the point of fastest CO2 removal is approximately July 1, summer in the NH, but winter in the SH. Does the SH winter cool the oceans there enough to absorb significant CO2?

JimF
July 6, 2010 8:50 pm

@DirkH says:
July 6, 2010 at 10:22 am
“…This research beautifully destroys one foundation of the catastrophist’s fantasies: That an increase in temperature will reduce the photosynthetic capabilities of vegetation severely, leading to a much higher accumulation of CO2….”
If they thought that, then they are not paying attention to the earth and its historical legacy. The Mississippian and Pennsylvanian periods (aptly, the Carboniferous period) apparently (cannot be sure, but the research strongly says so) featured high temperatures (~6 ºC warmer) and much higher CO2 content (+2000 ppm). Massive deposits of coal (dead trees and ferns stacked one upon another for millions of years) formed during those times.
Similarly, the rock formations from the Cambrian (~600 mybp) through the Permian (~250 mybp) are dominated by carbonate (limestone and dolomite) rocks – reefs, associated fore and back reef carbonates, and platform carbonates – massive deposits of CO2-bearing rocks. Trillions of tons of CO2-bearing rocks! Although CO2 exhibits reverse solubility (its solubility decreases as temperature rises, as opposed to, say, salt), there was so much of it in the atmosphere that the deposition of limestone – calcium carbonate CaCO3 – was forced.
Today we’re in an historical dearth of CO2. Yet these plants that clothe the earth, and various critters that swim in the seas, and just about everything else on this planet, evolved in a time of greater warmth and CO2 abundance. I would say that the last 20 million years or more have been tough on the planet’s flora and fauna – sort of like a summer in San Francisco.
And to extend that, in the lip-flapping about “sustainability”: what period do we want to sustain? Vast numbers of critters lived and evolved in much warmer and CO2-rich times than our present time. Should we sustain that? Woolly mammoths were perfectly adapted to a time of much greater cold (and low CO2), but died out when that changed to the interglacial warmth. Should we sustain that fauna and flora? Or, maybe, should we accept that the earth is ever-changing, and just insure that we aren’t the agency of mass changes (like the slaughter of the buffalo and the passenger pigeons?)

July 6, 2010 9:28 pm

George E. Smith,
The R. W. Wood experiment result is corroborated by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner using Thermodynamic Theory; The trapped infrared radiation does not transfer heat back to the surface.
http://www.oarval.org/ClimateChange.htm

Editor
July 6, 2010 9:38 pm

Markus Reichstein adds: “Particularly alarmist scenarios for the feedback between global warming and ecosystem respiration thus prove to be unrealistic.”
There, case closed. Joe Romm, get out.

Roger Knights
July 6, 2010 9:46 pm

jorgekafkazar says:
July 6, 2010 at 7:03 pm
Both of the above studies (and others) seem to assume that loss of atmospheric CO2 is due to the biosphere alone. And maybe that is correct. But I note that the point of fastest CO2 removal is approximately July 1, summer in the NH, but winter in the SH. Does the SH winter cool the oceans there enough to absorb significant CO2?

I read on this site that the reason is that there is so much more land area in the NH than the SH, which explains the out-of-balance CO2 removal pattern.

Pete Hayes
July 6, 2010 10:19 pm

6. Particularly alarmist scenarios for the feedback between global warming and ecosystem respiration thus prove to be unrealistic.”
That would seem to be a sure way of ensuring the grant money stops and also to have groups of scientists gang up to ensure you will not be allowed to publish future work in any “reputable” journals! /Sarc off.
Real empirical experiments! Whatever next!

wayne Job
July 7, 2010 1:58 am

When our climate scientists realise that adding all the two and four legged animals together, we are but a pimple on a bum the size of the moon. The huge volume of biological life on our world is insects, germs, enzymes,plankton, etc, these busy little devils are burying or converting CO2. These little guys out weigh us thousands to one more CO2 = more food for them= more productive soil and ocean= a better world.
This is a win win situation, more warming even better. Why are these people so anti a better world. This study at least shows a break through in common sense.

Shevva
July 7, 2010 2:27 am

PJB – “We have faith-based beliefs ( = religion ), we have data-based beliefs ( = science ), and now we have computer model-based beliefs ( = ??? ).”
Hocus Pocus?
Post modern dogs dangles?
Consensus science?

steveta_uk
July 7, 2010 2:50 am

rbateman says:
July 6, 2010 at 5:27 pm
Mushrooms … 12-14″ high … It’s the c02 exhaust.
Hmmm… Mushrooms do not photosynthesize – CO2 is NOT mushroom food.

Jimbo
July 7, 2010 4:42 am

““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.”

Amazon anyone?

“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.”

As Lord Monckton would say “measure it.”

“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.”

Couple this with: CO2 amplification is less than we thought
“Ensemble reconstruction constraints on the global carbon cycle sensitivity to climate”
Nature: December 2009
/sarc on/
The science becomes more and more settled as time rolls on.
/sarc off
IMHO it is the above and many other reasons known and unknown that accounts for the continual failure of the climate models.

DonS
July 7, 2010 6:20 am

Tuttle: Don’t water the lawn at all. Here in Montana water comes concurrently with an event known as “Spring”.

July 7, 2010 11:15 am

DonS: July 7, 2010 at 6:20 am
Tuttle: Don’t water the lawn at all. Here in Montana water comes concurrently with an event known as “Spring”.
What a coincidence — our township snow removal plan is called “Spring”…!

July 7, 2010 3:27 pm

JimF – don’t be too ready to repeat the conventional wisdom about the fate of the buffalo and the passenger pigeon.
Charles Mann’s ‘1491’ (http://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelations-Americas-Before-Columbus/dp/1400032059), quoted by Stewart Brand (the Whole earth Catalog guy) in ‘Whole Earth Discipline’ (http://www.amazon.com/Whole-Earth-Discipline-Ecopragmatist-Manifesto/dp/0670021210), notes that the Americas were extensively gardened/tended by their original inhabitants. What did for the buffalo (almost) and the passenger pigeons (entirely) was the removal of most of their human competitors for food by the effect of Western microbes. The passenger pigeon population overshot, then crashed.
As the delicious quote in Mann has it: “Faced with an ecological problem, the Indians fixed it. Rather than adapt to Nature, they created it. They were in the midst of terraforming the Amazon when Columbus showed up and ruined everything”.

July 7, 2010 10:48 pm

I’m still not seeing a human influence in the CO2 levels measured at Mauna Loa. The US economy came to a crashing halt starting in December of 2007 or the Global Recession of 2008. The US uses a greater volume of CO2 producing fossil fuels than any other nation (including China – which exports most of its production to the US). Still – the Mauna Loa CO2 graph only shows seasonal variations.
What type of economy limiting measures (and/or ‘Green Jobs’ programs) will have to be enacted to show a response in the CO2 measurements?