Earth's CO2 sinks increasing their uptake

Readers may recall these WUWT stories:  Earth’s biosphere boomingCalifornia’s giant redwoods inconveniently respond to increased carbon dioxide, and Forget deforestation: The world’s woodland is getting denser and change could help combat climate change. NASA satellite imagery pointed this out long ago.

Now confirmation from another source: From the University of Colorado at Boulder

The SeaWiFS instrument aboard the Seastar satellite has been collecting ocean data since 1997. By monitoring the color of reflected light via satellite, scientists can determine how successfully plant life is photosynthesizing. A measurement of photosynthesis is essentially a measurement of successful growth, and growth means successful use of ambient carbon. This animation shows an average of 10 years worth of SeaWiFS data. Dark blue represents warmer areas where there tends to be a lack of nutrients, and greens and reds represent cooler nutrient-rich areas which support life. The nutrient-rich areas include coastal regions where cold water rises from the sea floor bringing nutrients along and areas at the mouths of rivers where the rivers have brought nutrients into the ocean from the land.

Earth absorbing more carbon, even as CO2 emissions rise, says CU-Boulder-led study

Planet’s carbon uptake doubles in past 50 years, researchers ponder how long trend can continue

Despite sharp increases in carbon dioxide emissions by humans in recent decades that are warming the planet, Earth’s vegetation and oceans continue to soak up about half of them, according to a surprising new study led by the University of Colorado Boulder.

The study, led by CU-Boulder postdoctoral researcher Ashley Ballantyne, looked at global CO2 emissions reports from the past 50 years and compared them with rising levels of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere during that time, primarily because of fossil fuel burning. The results showed that while CO2 emissions had quadrupled, natural carbon “sinks” that sequester the greenhouse gas doubled their uptake in the past 50 years, lessening the warming impacts on Earth’s climate. 

“What we are seeing is that the Earth continues to do the heavy lifting by taking up huge amounts of carbon dioxide, even while humans have done very little to reduce carbon emissions,” said Ballantyne. “How long this will continue, we don’t know.”

A paper on the subject will be published in the Aug. 2 issue of Nature. Co-authors on the study include CU-Boulder Professor Jim White, CU-Boulder doctoral student Caroline Alden and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientists John Miller and Pieter Tans. Miller also is a research associate at the CU-headquartered Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences.

According to Alden, the trend of sinks gulping atmospheric carbon cannot continue indefinitely. “It’s not a question of whether or not natural sinks will slow their uptake of carbon, but when,” she said.

“We’re already seeing climate change happen despite the fact that only half of fossil fuel emissions stay in the atmosphere while the other half is drawn down by the land biosphere and oceans,” Alden said. “If natural sinks saturate as models predict, the impact of human emissions on atmospheric CO2 will double.”

Ballantyne said recent studies by others have suggested carbon sinks were declining in some areas of the globe, including parts of the Southern Hemisphere and portions of the world’s oceans. But the new Nature study showed global CO2 uptake by Earth’s sinks essentially doubled from 1960 to 2010, although increased variations from year-to-year and decade-to-decade suggests some instability in the global carbon cycle, he said.

White, who directs CU-Boulder’s Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, likened the increased pumping of CO2 into the atmosphere to a car going full throttle. “The faster we go, the more our car starts to shake and rattle,” he said. “If we drive 100 miles per hour, it is going to shake and rattle a lot more because there is a lot more instability, so it’s probably time to back off the accelerator,” he said. “The same is true with CO2 emissions.”

The atmospheric CO2 levels were measured at 40 remote sites around the world by researchers from NOAA and the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif., including stations at the South Pole and on the Mauna Loa Volcano in Hawaii.

Carbon dioxide is emitted into the atmosphere primarily by fossil fuel combustion and by forest fires and some natural processes, said Ballantyne. “When carbon sinks become carbon sources, it will be a very critical time for Earth,” said Ballantyne. “We don’t see any evidence of that yet, but it’s certainly something we should be looking for.”

“It is important to understand that CO2 sinks are not really sinks in the sense that the extra carbon is still present in Earth’s vegetation, soils and the ocean,” said NOAA’s Tans. “It hasn’t disappeared. What we really are seeing is a global carbon system that has been pushed out of equilibrium by the human burning of fossil fuels.”

Despite the enormous uptake of carbon by the planet, CO2 in the atmosphere has climbed from about 280 parts per million just prior to the Industrial Revolution to about 394 parts per million today, and the rate of increase is speeding up. The global average of atmospheric CO2 is expected to reach 400 ppm by 2016, according to scientists.

The team used several global CO2 emissions reports for the Nature study, including one by the U.S. Department of Energy’s Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center. They concluded that about 350 billion tons of carbon — the equivalent of roughly 1 trillion tons of CO2 — had been emitted as a result of fossil fuel burning and land use changes from 1959 to 2010, with just over half moving into sinks on land or in the oceans.

According to the study, the scientists observed decreased CO2 uptake by Earth’s land and oceans in the 1990s, followed by increased CO2 sequestering by the planet from 2000 to 2010. “Seeing such variation from decade to decade tells us that we need to observe Earth’s carbon cycle for significantly longer periods in order to help us understand what is occurring,” said Ballantyne.

Scientists also are concerned about the increasing uptake of CO2 by the world’s oceans, which is making them more acidic. Dissolved CO2 changes seawater chemistry by forming carbonic acid that is known to damage coral, the fundamental structure of coral reef ecosystems that harbor 25 percent of the world’s fish species.

The study was funded by the National Research Council, the National Science Foundation and NOAA.

A total of 33.6 billion tons of CO2 were emitted globally in 2010, climbing to 34.8 billion tons in 2011, according to the International Energy Agency. Federal budget cuts to U.S. carbon cycle research are making it more difficult to measure and understand both natural and human influences on the carbon cycle, according to the research team.

“The good news is that today, nature is helping us out,” said White also a professor in CU’s geological sciences department. “The bad news is that none of us think nature is going to keep helping us out indefinitely. When the time comes that these carbon sinks are no longer taking up carbon, there is going to be a big price to pay.”

###
0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

235 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Bart
August 5, 2012 12:24 pm

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
August 5, 2012 at 11:14 am
“My formula works for today and back to ice ages:”
In fact, it doesn’t work at all. It’s completely out of phase with the variations.
Edim says:
August 4, 2012 at 9:05 pm
“I predict a decline in CO2 annual change, in spite of the record emissions.”
In fact, it’s already happening, in perfect lock-step with the temperature rise slacking off in the last decade.

Bart
August 5, 2012 12:26 pm

“In fact, it’s already happening, in perfect lock-step with the temperature rise slacking off in the last decade.”
Even as human inputs keep rising at least super-linearly. That alone should be indication enough that humans are not driving it.

August 5, 2012 12:48 pm

Gary Pearse says:
August 5, 2012 at 6:58 am
Has anyone done the heavy lifting to determine that CO2 would not migrate under pressure or is this area left untouched so as not to spoil the picture?
I don’t know much about how rocks were formed in the past, but as far as I remember, most changes occured while still mud and/or under extreme pressures and/or temperature.
Ice is build up slowly to very slowly layer by layer from snow deposits. The pressure of the layers on top of the others compact the snow to ice, where underway the pores become smaller and smaller, until closing depth. Once the pores are closed, the air is trapped in isolated bubbles.
There are a few factors to be considered:
– “warm” (-20°C) ice cores still contain some liquid-like water at the air-ice surface, which may hide a few molecules of CO2 (not a problem, as at measuring time, vacuum is applied). The ice-ice crystals interface contains some unordered watermolecules, which may or may not pass some CO2, but that is not very clear. And inclusions of dust and salts definitively gives liquid islands which may extent to the bubbles in either direction.
– “cold” (-40°C) ice cores don’t show any water, except at huge dust/salt inclusions.
– As far as I remember, there was an article from some Japanese researchers, which tried to estabish the migration of CO2 through ice at the temperature and pressure conditions of the Vostok ice core, but that was against ambient pressure, quite different than for a migration over the differential pressure under 2000 meter and 2001 meter of ice…
– There was one investigation that calculated the theoretical migration of CO2 in a “warm” core, based on the migration measured over remelt layers:
http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/3773250
The results are that at medium depth the migration broadens the resolution from 20 to 22 years and at full depth (~70 kyr gas age) the resolution doubles to 40 years. No big deal at all.
– The most important point against a substantial migration in the cold ice cores, in my opinion, is the near constant ratio between the CO2 measured in the gas phase and the temperature “proxy” (dD and d18O) measured in the ice layer over 800 kyr in the cold Vostok (420 kyr) and Dome C ice cores. If there was a huge migration, the ratio should fade away for each interglacial/glacial period back in time.

August 5, 2012 1:23 pm

Bart, I know it’s already happening, but it will get more clear if the cooling really gets going and the annual change drops to ~1,5 or ~1.0 ppm/year and lower.

August 6, 2012 12:06 am

Edim says:
August 5, 2012 at 1:23 pm
Bart, I know it’s already happening, but it will get more clear if the cooling really gets going and the annual change drops to ~1,5 or ~1.0 ppm/year and lower.
Some years ago, I had the same discussion with the late Ernst Beck, who did predict that the CO2 levels should get even or even fall down some 5 years after the 1998 peak (thus rate of change zero or even negative). All based on his 1942 “peak” of some 80 ppmv, caused by a temporarely temperature rise (1910-1945) and decrease (1945-1975). Seems that his prediction didn’t materialize…

Edim
August 6, 2012 1:05 am

Ferdinand, the global temperature anomaly (HADCRUT3) needs to drop to approx. -0.6 °C (~1910s level) for the zero rate of change. More realistic is 0.0 to 0.2 °C by 2020 and that would be 1.2 to 1.6 ppm/year. Roughly.

August 6, 2012 2:48 am

Ferdinand E says
Some years ago, I had the same discussion with the late Ernst Beck, who did predict that the CO2 levels should get even or even fall down some 5 years after the 1998 peak (thus rate of change zero or even negative). All based on his 1942 “peak” of some 80 ppmv, caused by a temporarely temperature rise (1910-1945) and decrease (1945-1975). Seems that his prediction didn’t materialize…
Henry Edim, Ferdinand
He was right about the peak of 1998, and from my results I would (also) expect a levelling off of the CO2 or at the very least a decrease in the increase from 1998. However, my results show that we have come through a continuous warming period, from about 1944 or 1945 until 1995, when viewed by energy input, which would equal ca. 1998 when viewed from the energy output by earth, following the appropriate parabolic rate during this period.
Someone fiddling with the results or “trying to make certain theories fit’ is coming to my mind. “We cannot show that CO2 is dropping, now can we? (Just think of how much money we would lose???)
OTOH he seemed wrong about the 1910-1945 rise in temps. My results seem to suggest a general cooling period from 1895 to 1945. Remember the hunger winter of 1944?
http://www.letterdash.com/henryp/global-cooling-is-here

August 8, 2012 4:12 am

It was snowing in Pretoria (South Africa) yesterday. I have never seen that happening here, ever. It was also freezing cold.

August 11, 2012 8:59 am

Yep, in 20 million years we will have “a price to pay”, as we come out of the next ice age we are currently heading into and realise some of us were wrong…

1 8 9 10