Press Release 13-139
Seasonal carbon dioxide range expanding as more is added to Earth’s atmosphere
Northern Hemisphere land-based ecosystems “taking deeper breaths,” scientists find
![co2_weekly_mlo[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/co2_weekly_mlo1-e1376168771698.png?quality=75)
Levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere rise and fall each year as plants, through photosynthesis and respiration, take up the gas in spring and summer, and release it in fall and winter.
Now the range of that cycle is expanding as more carbon dioxide is emitted from burning fossil fuels and other human activities, according to a study led by scientists at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography (SIO).
The findings come from a multi-year airborne survey of atmospheric chemistry called HIAPER Pole-to-Pole Observations, or HIPPO.
Results of the study are reported in a paper published online this week by the journal Science.
The National Science Foundation (NSF), along with the U.S. Department of Energy, the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Office of Naval Research funded the study.
“This research provides dramatic evidence of the significant influence the land-based biosphere can have on the amplitude [amount of change] in seasonal trends of carbon dioxide exchange,” says Sylvia Edgerton, program director in NSF’s Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences, which funded the research.
Observations of atmospheric carbon dioxide made by aircraft at altitudes between 3 and 6 kilometers (10,000-20,000 feet) show that seasonal carbon dioxide variations have substantially changed during the last 50 years.
The amplitude increased by roughly 50 percent across high latitude regions north of 45° N, compared with previous aircraft observations from the late 1950s and early 1960s.
This means that more carbon is accumulating in forests and other vegetation and soils in the Northern Hemisphere during the summer, and more carbon is being released in the fall and winter, says study lead scientist Heather Graven of SIO.
It’s not yet understood, she says, why the increase in seasonal amplitude of carbon dioxide concentration is so large, but it’s a clear signal of widespread changes in northern ecosystems.
“The atmospheric carbon dioxide observations are important because they show the combined effect of ecological changes over large regions,” says Graven.
“This reinforces ground-based studies that show that substantial changes are occurring as a result of rising carbon dioxide concentrations, warming temperatures and changing land management, including the expansion of forests in some regions and the poleward migration of ecosystems.”
Adds Peter Milne, a program director in NSF’s Division of Atmospheric and Geospace Sciences, “We can easily measure the greenhouse gas budget from a single smokestack, but somewhat less well for a stand of trees. Knowing that for the entire planet is much more challenging.
“Taking advantage of the long-duration and high-altitude-profiling capabilities of the NSF Gulfstream V aircraft [also known as HIAPER], the HIPPO project was designed to take a ‘snapshot’ of the global troposphere [Earth’s lowest atmospheric layer] to see whether we can explain and model greenhouse gas distribution.”
In the study, the scientists compared the recent aircraft data with aircraft data gathered from 1958 to 1961 using U.S. Air Force weather reconnaissance flights.
The older data were analyzed by SIO geochemist Charles David Keeling, the father of Ralph Keeling, also an SIO scientist and a member of the research team.
These aircraft measurements were done at the time Charles Keeling was beginning continuous carbon dioxide measurements at Mauna Loa, Hawaii.
While the Mauna Loa measurements are now widely recognized as the “Keeling Curve,” the early aircraft data were all-but-forgotten.
Carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have varied between 170 and 280 parts per million during the last 800,000 years.
When Charles Keeling began collecting data at Mauna Loa in 1958, the concentration had risen to about 315 parts per million.
In May, 2013, daily carbon dioxide measurements at Mauna Loa exceeded 400 parts per million–for the first time in human history.
Recent observations aboard the Gulfstream V were made during regular flights conducted during the HIPPO campaign, from 2009 to 2011.
The aircraft repeatedly ascended and descended from a few hundred meters to roughly 12 kilometers (40,000 feet) in the skies between the North Pole and Antarctica. The goal was constructing a unique snapshot of the chemical composition of the atmosphere.
Additional recent data comes from regular flights conducted by NOAA at a network of locations.
Increasing carbon dioxide amplitude since 1960 had already been observed at two ground-based stations: Mauna Loa and Barrow, Alaska.
Other stations operated by Scripps and NOAA only began measuring carbon dioxide in the 1970s to 1990s.
The aircraft-based observations uniquely show the large area in northern high latitudes where carbon dioxide amplitude increased strongly since 1960.
The exact reasons for the wider seasonal swings in carbon dioxide concentration remain to be determined, say the researchers.
Although plant activity can increase with warmer temperatures and higher carbon dioxideconcentrations, the change in carbon dioxide amplitude over the last 50 years is larger than expected from these effects.
Carbon dioxide concentration has increased by 23 percent, and average temperature north of 30°N has increased by one degree C, since 1960.
Other factors may be changes in the amount of carbon in leaves, wood or roots; changes in the extent or species composition of ecosystems; or changes in the timing of plant photosynthesis and respiration.
Simulating complex processes in land-based ecosystems with models is a challenge, scientists have found.
The observed change in carbon dioxide amplitude is larger than that simulated by models used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
While this underestimate does not call into question the response of climate to carbon dioxide concentration in the IPCC models, the researchers say, it does suggest that a better understanding of what happened during the last 50 years could improve projections of future ecosystem changes.
The bottom line, according to Graven, Ralph Keeling and colleagues, is that Northern ecosystems appear to be behaving differently than they did 50 years ago.
In addition to Graven and Ralph Keeling, Science paper co-authors include Stephen Piper, Lisa Welp and Jonathan Bent of SIO; Prabir Patra of the Research Institute for Global Change in Yokohama, Japan; Britton Stephens of NCAR; Steven Wofsy, Bruce Daube and Gregory Santoni of Harvard University; Colm Sweeney of NOAA and the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado, Boulder; Pieter Tans of NOAA; John Kelley of the University of Alaska, Fairbanks and Eric Kort of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif.
-NSF-
Related Websites
NSF News: First Global Picture of Greenhouse Gases Emerges from Pole-to-Pole Research Flights: http://nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=121566
HIAPER Pole-to-Pole Observations (HIPPO) Study: http://hippo.ucar.edu/
NSF Award: Collaborative Research: HIAPER Pole-to-Pole Observations (HIPPO) of Carbon Cycle and Greenhouse Gases: http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/showAward?AWD_ID=0628575
A 1 year graph-I’m overwhelmed.
Too much data to absorb in one sitting-don’t ‘cha think?
Hmmm, so the earth has been greening because of CO2. Wouldn’t it stand to reason that if there is more vegetation, that more CO2 would be absorbed by the extra vegetation during the spring and summer months? Or is this too rocket-sciency?
Maybe it’s as simple as farmers raising more crops, and doing better at making fertilizer in the winter.
“Northern ecosystems appear to be behaving differently than they did 50 years ago.”
What about 500, 5,000, 50,000, 500,000, and 5,000,000 years ago? 50 years is nothing in the grand scheme of things. For everything there is a season, perhaps we’re just in a season for this. why jump to the conclusion that it’s CAGW?.
And how much of the total atmospheric CO2 can be directly attributed to humanity?
Let’s talk about sensitivity instead.
Finally, an anthropogenic signal understandable and believable by all. The warmists are happy in the spring, when they aren’t paying attention to the weather and everyone is enjoying the outdoors. Then, the warmists get too hot in the summer and start paying attention to tornadoes, record high temperatures and annual thinning of the arctic ice. Then, the weather starts producing hurricanes and the warmists start hyperventilating, increasing the CO2 output. Finally, in the winter the warmists are all locked inside with each other and start slinging back beer, which really ups the ante in CO2 and methane production. Then spring comes again and the cycle repeats.
“This means that more carbon is accumulating in forests and other vegetation and soils in the Northern Hemisphere during the summer, and more carbon is being released in the fall and winter, says study lead scientist Heather Graven of SIO. It’s not yet understood, she says, why the increase in seasonal amplitude of carbon dioxide concentration is so large, but it’s a clear signal of widespread changes in northern ecosystems”
I wonder how this squares with David Coe’s Figure 1.2 here:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/storage/Atmospheric%20Carbon%20Dioxide%20Control%20Mechanisms-Part%201.pdf
… seemingly NOT produced by decaying vegetation in the frozen northern winter. Hmm…
Stupid question of the day (or is it?).
Where else in the world are carbon dioxide levels measured and how many parts per million are the readings for that, or those, monitoring stations?
” Seasonal carbon dioxide range expanding as more is added to Earth’s atmosphere ”
And that’s a bad thing?
.
In short, photosyntesis depending species grow better at higher carbondioxide levels.
It would have been easier to ask a tomato farmer who uses greenhouses …
This is hardly a new concept.
The Idso’s have been all over this for more than 20 years.
http://www.co2science.org/subject/other/co2amp.php
-Chip
I would investigate wildfires as a function of changes to land use management practices.
I’m not sure that they are accounting for the changes in atmospheric circulation; but 50 years doesn’t even cover one warm/cooling cycle.
I’ve raised the possibility that the ozone hole may vary with magnetic field strength because O2 is strongly paramagnetic (attracted to the poles of a magnet – ie the polar regions of the earth) while all other atmospheric gases including O3 are diamagnetic and are therefore repelled from magnetic poles. The NASA imagery does indeed show that the O3 isn’t in fact depleted but is rather “rolled back” like a turtle-neck sweater’s collar – supporting my hypothesis.
http://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/Scripts/big_image.php?date=2013-08-09&hem=S&source=IOMI_PAURA_V8F_MGEOS5FP§ion=HOME
Moreover in a recent post on the ozone hole here at WUWT, I predicted there would also be a “hole” of all the other gases in the atmosphere except O2 which would push its way in to the polar region, both displacing the other gases and assisted by the diamagnetics of the others that would force them toward the equator. One commenter reported there was another paper that reported on the coincident N2 hole in the polar regions.
I also searched out a NASA image of global CO2 and lo and behold, it also displays the same concentrated collars and a CO2 “hole” at the poles although there is some weird radial zoning of CO2 at the south pole along with deeply depleted zones (instrument?).
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2008-189
It would be interesting to see what the other gas Scripps analysis patterns were along their pole to pole traverses. Presumably it supports the Nasa imagery. Also this effect could, in part, compromise the Mauna Loa CO2 representativeness globally (see Hawaii on the CO2 distributioin link. Indeed, if carbon dioxide emissions actually doubled, ML may record a tripling globally because of the polar roll back effect. Or the “Pearse Effect” has a nice ring! There is no way that CFCs caused all the atmospheric gases other than O2 to exit the poles. Occam would suggest the magnetic effects are the common cause. Also, the magnetic effects are increased in cold temperatures. I thought I’d better say all this before Scripps “corrects” its data.
So much for the claim that CO2 is going to ‘accumulate in the atmosphere for centuries’ – the biosphere will just increase in the presence of CO2 and the rate of conversion to plant material will increase. Why are mathematicians so fond of inventing constants?
I suggest they see how well their results correlate with seasonal Arctic sea ice cover.
Robert Wykoff – You wonder whether the extra vegetation is the reason why “the increase in seasonal amplitude of carbon dioxide concentration is so large”. It was my first thought too, but the increase in vegetation is reported as being only about 6% over 2 decades (http://www.impactlab.net/2008/06/09/scientists-surprised-to-find-earths-biosphere-booming/), probably not enough to explain the reported amplitude increase of 50% over 50 years. Anonymoose mentions increased agriculture, but that would presumably be included in the “6%”. It would appear that plants become healthier and more vigorous with increased CO2, as reported in the link supplied by Chip Knappenberger (http://www.co2science.org/subject/other/co2amp.php).
Paul – try http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/atmospheric_co2.html for CO2 measuring stations and their data.
Gary Pearse on August 12, 2013 at 2:05 pm
But Mauna Loa emits carbon dioxide, like any vulcano (active, dormant and “dead”)!
Doesn’t it affect the measurements …?
Does this also mean summer levels of oxygen are higher due to the increased photosynthesis?
Science WIN: Measuring CO2 levels with that degree of accuracy
Science FAIL: Assuming all variations are from human causes
Science WIN: Observing massive reduction in CO2 levels during NH growing season
Science FAIL: Assuming all variations are from human causes
Science WIN: Description of resources used to get detailed measurements
Science FAIL: liberally peppering the description with assertions that the variations are from human causes
Has anyone compared (global) deforestation with carbon dioxide levels? Some countries have basically no forest left, like Easter Island. Indonesia isn’t far from …
Ian W – Net biosphere takeup is just not enough to make a decent dent. “3.4 petagrams of carbon over 18 years” (see impactlab link in my prev comment) is about 16 mmt per month, vs some 2,600 mmt per month from fossil fuels.
SasjaL – deforestation is outweighed by growth elsewhere, see impactlab link in earlier comment.
This is becoming typical of climate science. Take two readings, draw a line and conclude it represents a “trend”.
Same thing happened with the gulf stream “stopping”. One measurement was taken, then ten years or so later another estimation was lower. OMG, the gulf stream is stopping. Only, the third time it was measured it was back up and we realise that it is not some imuable constant of climate the has gone haywire but a parameter that varies.
Then there was the ozone “hole”… which closed up again.
Now if we look at rate of change of CO2 ( or the rate of rate of change in this graph ) we see that the amplitude varies up and down over time in what looks to be due to interference patterns between different oscillations:
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=225
Two punctual measurements set 50 years apart really don’t tell you anything apart from the fact the two are different.
But when such respected scientists report : “The bottom line, according to Graven, Ralph Keeling and colleagues, is that Northern ecosystems appear to be behaving differently than they did 50 years ago.” , it is made to sound like OMG even the annual carbon cycle is getting “weird” now.
In fact it says nothing about patterns 50 years ago and whether those patterns are the same or different now. This is really a non result. There is insufficient data so say anything other than the annual variation is variable.
My suspicion is that what happens in the oceans (most of the planet) is a lot more important than what the forests are doing. It isn’t only the land that greens with higher CO2.