Another negative climate feedback: more CO2 = more plants = more aerosols = cooling

Recall a couple of days ago that I posted on the aerosols released by trees: Those dirty trees: why hasn’t the EPA called for trees to be regulated?

Now, from the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis  comes a cause-effect for climate.

Plants moderate climate warming

As temperatures warm, plants release gases that help form clouds and cool the atmosphere, according to research from IIASA and the University of Helsinki.

The new study, published in Nature Geoscience, identified a negative feedback loop in which higher temperatures lead to an increase in concentrations of natural aerosols that have a cooling effect on the atmosphere.

“Plants, by reacting to changes in temperature, also moderate these changes,” says IIASA and University of Helsinki researcher Pauli Paasonen, who led the study.

Scientists had known that some aerosols – particles that float in the atmosphere – cool the climate as they reflect sunlight and form cloud droplets, which reflect sunlight efficiently. Aerosol particles come from many sources, including human emissions. But the effect of so-called biogenic aerosol – particulate matter that originates from plants – had been less well understood. Plants release gases that, after atmospheric oxidation, tend to stick to aerosol particles, growing them into the larger-sized particles that reflect sunlight and also serve as the basis for cloud droplets. The new study showed that as temperatures warm and plants consequently release more of these gases, the concentrations of particles active in cloud formation increase.

“Everyone knows the scent of the forest,” says Ari Asmi, University of Helsinki researcher who also worked on the study. “That scent is made up of these gases.” While previous research had predicted the feedback effect, until now nobody had been able to prove its existence except for case studies limited to single sites and short time periods. The new study showed that the effect occurs over the long-term in continental size scales.

The effect of enhanced plant gas emissions on climate is small on a global scale – only countering approximately 1 percent of climate warming, the study suggested. “This does not save us from climate warming,” says Paasonen. However, he says, “Aerosol effects on climate are one of the main uncertainties in climate models. Understanding this mechanism could help us reduce those uncertainties and make the models better.”

The study also showed that the effect was much larger on a regional scale, counteracting possibly up to 30% of warming in more rural, forested areas where anthropogenic emissions of aerosols were much lower in comparison to the natural aerosols. That means that especially in places like Finland, Siberia, and Canada this feedback loop may reduce warming substantially.

The researchers collected data at 11 different sites around the world, measuring the concentrations of aerosol particles in the atmosphere, along with the concentrations of plant gases, the temperature, and reanalysis estimates for the height of the boundary layer, which turned out to be a key variable. The boundary layer refers to the layer of air closest to the Earth, in which gases and particles mix effectively. The height of that layer changes with weather. Paasonen says, “One of the reasons that this phenomenon was not discovered earlier was because these estimates for boundary layer height are very difficult to do. Only recently have the reanalysis estimates been improved to where they can be taken as representative of reality.”

###

Reference

Paasonen, P., et. al. 2013. Evidence for negative climate feedback: warming increases aerosol number concentrations. Nature Geoscience doi: 10.1038/NGEO1800

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

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

66 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
BruceC
April 28, 2013 4:10 pm

Make that SI link….having a shocker.

Tom Harley
April 28, 2013 4:36 pm

It looks like my vocation for the last 12 years has been to prevent warming through producing and planting tens of thousands of trees. Damn! All this time I have been chasing a warmer climate, I have unwittingly been keeping it cool. http://pindanpost.com/2013/04/27/in-wattle-heaven/

Rob
April 28, 2013 5:14 pm

“…and Canada this feedback loop may reduce warming substantially.”
Noooooooooooooooooo! I’m curious about the 1%. Is it 1% of the IPCC models and thus more than 1% of lukewarming? If the models are 3 degrees and the reality is 1 degree then it would be 3%?

April 28, 2013 5:21 pm

Western Canada has cooled about .7C over the last 5 years. But I suspect that has more to do with the Pacific being cooler and the PDO.

Pat Michaels
April 28, 2013 5:35 pm

The KEY here is that this is IIASA. The IIASA constellation of RusComs and american lefty academics started this mess in 1978 with the infamaous Laxenberg report (which paved the way for the IPCC) in order to further their agenda-driven visions, and now their progeny see the writing on the wall and are trying for the graceful exit in order to preserve some type of credibility for their next apocalypse. That would be “ocean acidification”
Agree/disagree?

April 28, 2013 5:41 pm

The study also showed that the effect was much larger on a regional scale, counteracting possibly up to 30% of warming in more rural, forested areas…
Interesting that the warmists just happened to have shut out a whole slew of rural temperature gauges (circa 1993) in their move to overemphasize urban temperature stations. Hmm…

AndyG55
April 28, 2013 6:52 pm

phlogiston says
“However, rent-seeking politically driven scientists like Steve Mosher ”
I thought SM was a “Social scientist” and writer. ie NOT a scientist at all.

Theo Goodwin
April 28, 2013 7:02 pm

Steven Mosher says:
April 28, 2013 at 3:37 pm
“like good skeptics they didnt swallow the koolaid as some here perhaps did. they went out to prove it.”
How is that empirical work (by mainstream climate scientists) coming on cloud formation?
How is that empirical work (by mainstream climate scientists) coming on water vapor and the hot spot?
How is that empirical work (by mainstream climate scientists) coming on ENSO? Oh, I forgot, you told us that ENSO is not part of the natural world. ROTFLMAO! What are the empirical conditions that immediately precede cold water upwelling near the West coast of South America? How many guys are down there working on that?
To be continued…indefinitely long…
By the way, empirical science confirms or disconfirms hypotheses but proves nothing.

AnonyMoose
April 28, 2013 7:08 pm

“Climate warming” is now a thing?

Theo Goodwin
April 28, 2013 7:08 pm

Pat Michaels says:
April 28, 2013 at 5:35 pm
I agree that most are Commies. Watermelons. I agree that ocean acidification will get a big push.

April 28, 2013 7:37 pm

This hypothesis looks like an adaptation of Charlson’s hypothesis in which phytoplankton (in the ocean) emits dimethylsulfide (DMS) which then reacts to form a sulfate which serve as cloud condensation nuclei (to form clouds). This was one of the negative feedback mechanisms for “justifying” Lovelock’s Gaia hypothesis. See, Charlson, R.J. Lovelock, J.E., Andreae, M.O., and Warren, S.G. 1987. Oceanic phytoplankton, atmospheric sulfur, cloud albedo and climate: a geophysiological feedback. Nature 326;655-661.
The major difference seems to be that this is developed for land (as opposed to ocean).

Rob
April 28, 2013 8:23 pm

I’ve heard that the acidification studies showing shells not developing alter ph by adding acid in, while the ones that have seen the animals grow much bigger did a direct study of elevated CO2 which takes much longer to work through the system, hence the acid shortcut. It seems like any acidification studies should be taken with a major grain of salt until it’s known how it was done.

AndyG55
April 28, 2013 9:36 pm

Theo,
You know that ‘mainstream climate scientists ” are ABOVE actually doing empirical stuff.
Models…models , models..
juggle, jiggle, fudge.

Elizabeth (not the queen)
April 28, 2013 9:39 pm

Any respectable biologist would passionately fight to support the cause against deforestation.
Or, conversely, they could build a ginormous home in the Vancouver area, eat lots of pretzels, and persist in self-serving behaviour, under the guise of saving the world from anthropogenic climate induced destruction. Just saying.

MrX
April 28, 2013 9:41 pm

Kinda ironic that the green movement has decided to attack one of the main substances that makes the Earth greener, ie. CO2.

Elizabeth (not the queen)
April 28, 2013 9:46 pm

True that, MrX

AndyG55
April 28, 2013 9:52 pm

And that the Green poster child of wind turbines is probably among the most environmentally destructive and avian life minimising devices ever created by man.

AndyG55
April 28, 2013 9:53 pm

The very NON-green Greens !!!

April 28, 2013 11:12 pm

Man-made CO2 is responsible for destruction of the entire universe. You heard it here first folks.

Richard111
April 28, 2013 11:19 pm

Hah! James Lovelock found over 40 years ago that that phytoplankton released DMS from the ocean to form cloud overhead to cool the surface. They are still doing it and I bet much more effectively than land plants.

Jimbo
April 29, 2013 12:46 am

Steven Mosher says:
April 28, 2013 at 3:37 pm
…………….
like good skeptics they didnt swallow the koolaid as some here perhaps did. they went out to prove it.

How about also offering this great piece of advice to the climate scientists. Let them ‘prove’ positive feedback via observations out there in the field over say Europe. By the way I thought you can’t ‘prove’ anything in science.
phlogiston:
Mosher is not a scientist and neither am I. 😉

Aelfrith
April 29, 2013 12:57 am

So, as predicted we now have a “Science” to prove CO2 causes Global Cooling…again.

Jimbo
April 29, 2013 1:05 am

I read from the above press release:

That means that especially in places like Finland, Siberia, and Canada this feedback loop may reduce warming substantially.

But I was told we are were doomed. I notice that the boreal forests have in recent years been hammered by more snow. Could it be that climate scientists have over the years been observing natural climate changes as opposed to anthropogenic induced thermageddon? Just askin’.

April 2007
Climate-induced boreal forest change: Predictions versus current observations
Abstract
……We suggest that there is substantial evidence throughout the circumboreal region to conclude that the biosphere within the boreal terrestrial environment has already responded to the transient effects of climate change. Additionally, temperature increases and warming-induced change are progressing faster than had been predicted in some regions,…..

Rhys Jaggar
April 29, 2013 1:06 am

A further point to consider with forests is that, in areas where snow lies in winter, the season that the snow remains is longer within the forest than on open ground. As a result, the reflective albedo effect of snow lasts longer in forested areas than in deforested ones.
It appears intuitively obvious, therefore, that sensible, strategic replanting of forests is one contributory factor toward abating warming scenarios.
To me, this is far more sensible than shutting down all power stations immediately.