Apparently, 4 degrees spells climate doom

One has to wonder though, since CO2 residence time has been said to be anywhere from  five year to hundreds, or even thousands of years, with no solid agreement yet, how they can be so sure of themselves?

CO2_residence_times

From the University of Cambridge

4 degree rise will end vegetation ‘carbon sink’

Latest climate and biosphere modelling suggests that the length of time carbon remains in vegetation during the global carbon cycle – known as ‘residence time’ – is the key “uncertainty” in predicting how Earth’s terrestrial plant life – and consequently almost all life – will respond to higher CO2 levels and global warming, say researchers.

Carbon will spend increasingly less time in vegetation as the negative impacts of climate change take their toll through factors such as increased drought levels – with carbon rapidly released back into the atmosphere where it will continue to add to global warming.

Researchers say that extensive modelling shows a four degree temperature rise will be the threshold beyond which CO2 will start to increase more rapidly, as natural carbon ‘sinks’ of global vegetation become “saturated” and unable to sequester any more CO2 from the Earth’s atmosphere.

They call for a “change in research priorities” away from the broad-stroke production of plants and towards carbon ‘residence time’ – which is little understood – and the interaction of different kinds of vegetation in ecosystems such as carbon sinks.

Carbon sinks are natural systems that drain and store CO2 from the atmosphere, with vegetation providing many of the key sinks that help chemically balance the world – such as the Amazon rainforest and the vast, circumpolar Boreal forest.

As the world continues to warm, consequent events such as Boreal forest fires and mid-latitude droughts will release increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere – pushing temperatures ever higher.

Initially, higher atmospheric CO2 will encourage plant growth as more CO2 stimulates photosynthesis, say researchers. But the impact of a warmer world through drought will start to negate this natural balance until it reaches a saturation point.

The modelling shows that global warming of four degrees will result in Earth’s vegetation becoming “dominated” by negative impacts – such as ‘moisture stress’, when plant cells have too little water – on a global scale.

Carbon-filled vegetation ‘sinks’ will likely become saturated at this point, they say, flat-lining further absorption of atmospheric CO2. Without such major natural CO2 drains, atmospheric carbon will start to increase more rapidly – driving further climate change.

The researchers say that, in light of the new evidence, scientific focus must shift away from productivity outputs – the generation of biological material – and towards the “mechanistic levels” of vegetation function, such as how plant populations interact and how different types of photosyntheses will react to temperature escalation.

Particular attention needs to be paid to the varying rates of carbon ‘residence time’ across the spectrum of flora in major carbon sinks – and how this impacts the “carbon turnover”, they say.

The Cambridge research, led by Dr Andrew Friend from the University’s Department of Geography, is part of the ‘Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project’ (ISI-MIP) – a unique community-driven effort to bring research on climate change impacts to a new level, with the first wave of research published today in a special issue of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“Global vegetation contains large carbon reserves that are vulnerable to climate change, and so will determine future atmospheric CO2,” said Friend, lead author of this paper. “The impacts of climate on vegetation will affect biodiversity and ecosystem status around the world.”

“This work pulls together all the latest understanding of climate change and its impacts on global vegetation – it really captures our understanding at the global level.”

The ISI-MIP team used seven global vegetation models, including Hybrid – the model that Friend has been honing for fifteen years – and the latest IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) modelling. These were run exhaustively using supercomputers – including Cambridge’s own Darwin computer, which can easily accomplish overnight what would take a PC months – to create simulations of future scenarios:

“We use data to work out the mathematics of how the plant grows – how it photosynthesises, takes-up carbon and nitrogen, competes with other plants, and is affected by soil nutrients and water – and we do this for different vegetation types,” explained Friend.

“The whole of the land surface is understood in 2,500 km2 portions. We then input real climate data up to the present and look at what might happen every 30 minutes right up until 2099.”

While there are differences in the outcomes of some of the models, most concur that the amount of time carbon lingers in vegetation is the key issue, and that global warming of four degrees or more – currently predicted by the end of this century – marks the point at which carbon in vegetation reaches capacity.

“In heatwaves, ecosystems can emit more CO2 than they absorb from the atmosphere,” said Friend. “We saw this in the 2003 European heatwave when temperatures rose six degrees above average – and the amount of CO2 produced was sufficient to reverse the effect of four years of net ecosystem carbon sequestration.”

For Friend, this research should feed into policy: “To make policy you need to understand the impact of decisions.

“The idea here is to understand at what point the increase in global temperature starts to have serious effects across all the sectors, so that policy makers can weigh up impacts of allowing emissions to go above a certain level, and what mitigation strategies are necessary.”

###

 

The ISI-MIP team is coordinated by the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria, and involves two-dozen research groups from eight countries.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

130 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 16, 2013 12:55 pm

It’s worse than we thought.

December 16, 2013 1:04 pm

My area experiences a 100-degree annual temperature swing. The notion 4 degrees would have any noticeable effect on vegetation is laughable.

December 16, 2013 1:05 pm

They put in “real” data and get what-if scenarios showing total drought with a 4C temperature rise and plants not functioning? And we are modeling “how the plant” grows? How does one get data on photosynthesis where one size fits all plants? Sounds like most of their “data” are computer output with pre-determined end points. Are the results more believable when you have a super computer in a model comparison project?
I’m just a bit skeptical.

December 16, 2013 1:07 pm

“We then input real climate data up to the present”
Ha.

December 16, 2013 1:08 pm

German and Austrian taxpayers who are funding this sort of alarmist nonsense from the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany and the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis in Austria should feel savagely aggrieved. One glance at the chart of peer reviewed literature would tell one that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for less than 10 years, not 100 years. The IPCC might as well claim 1,000 years and make a real meal of it all.

RHS
December 16, 2013 1:08 pm

I’m with talldave2, being in Denver, we’ve experience lows last week of minus 10 and an expected high today of 60. With a swing of 70 degrees in about 7 days, it is hard to imagine we’d notice a thing with a 4 degree difference.

Bulaman
December 16, 2013 1:12 pm

Scroll down this list and you will find a series of 4 degree papers delivered by the NZ Primary Industry ministry. Main reference 2007 IPCC
http://www.mpi.govt.nz/news-resources/publications

December 16, 2013 1:12 pm

Its important to distinguish between the average residence time of a single molecule and the time needed to remove an accumulated stock of carbon. I wrote a brief article a few years back that might be helpful: http://www.yaleclimatemediaforum.org/2010/12/common-climate-misconceptions-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide/
Most estimates of CO2 residence time are based either on carbon cycle models or on paleoclimate estimates.

Mike86
December 16, 2013 1:15 pm

Every 30 minutes right out there for over 50 years. Yep, that little sucker will be right accurate.

December 16, 2013 1:20 pm

Actually now that I read it again this makes perfect sense, they just forget a term.
“Researchers say that extensive modelling shows a four 4+/-25 degree temperature rise will be the threshold beyond which CO2 will start to increase more rapidly, as natural carbon ‘sinks’ of global vegetation become “saturated” and unable to sequester any more CO2 from the Earth’s atmosphere.”
There. Totally plausible now.

December 16, 2013 1:23 pm

Temperatures were about 3.0C to 4.0C higher in the Miocene from about 15 Mya to 20 Mya. The Carbon cycle does not appear to have been any different since CO2 was about 250 ppm to 280 ppm in the period (although there a few random estimates at 400 ppm but these are just a few random estimates amongst hundreds of others in the 250 to 280 range).

Richard111
December 16, 2013 1:26 pm

A warmer world will create drought??? I stopped reading at that point.

Gene Selkov
December 16, 2013 1:28 pm

From Wikipedia: “Clare is known as a liberal and progressive college.”
That figures. Science is never sufficiently progressive or liberal.

Rob Potter
December 16, 2013 1:29 pm

Wait a minute, all the discussion of residence time has referred to CO2 in the atmosphere, not plants. In the very first sentence they have re-defined this as “the length of time carbon remains in vegetation during the global carbon cycle – known as ‘residence time’ -“. This is a bait and switch as non-one is concerned with residence time in plants, only in the atmosphere.
And even more junk when they use 4 degrees as the end of the world scenario, but the effect on plants is the supposed widespread drought that this 4 degree rise creates. Really? Such a rise in temperature is going to remove water vapour from the atmosphere? Despite the fact that such an increase would release a great deal of frozen water from glaciers and get it into liquid form where it will evaporate easier? The simplistic idea that warmer equals drier is the complete opposite of the basic CAGW meme that CO2 effect in the atmosphere is amplified by the increased water vapour which it causes.
No, pile of junk from the first to the last. No basis in physical or biological fact (as the people who have pointed out how well plants grow at a wide range of temperatures have already pointed out).

December 16, 2013 1:33 pm

If that is true, then how did we have the Carboniferous period?

jai mitchell
December 16, 2013 1:39 pm

When a single molecule of carbon dioxide containing an atom of light carbon (carbon-12) is released into the atmosphere from fossil fuel burning, it remains in the atmosphere for about 5 years. During that 5 year period it has a 50% chance of being absorbed by the ocean’s surface every 12 months. So, after 5 years, there is only a 3.5% chance that that same molecule still exists.
of course, when a carbon dioxide molecule is absorbed by a liquid at saturation (the surface of the ocean is operating at saturation) concentrations, the liquid immediately outgasses another molecule of CO2 so that it stays in partial pressure equilibrium with the atmospheric concentration.
so, yes, the individual molecule is removed, but it is replaced by another molecule, so the essential increase in the atmospheric concentration of CO2 caused by burning fossil fuel is preserved, for about 1000 years (the time it takes for the deep water ocean convection to produce a single overturn.
I hope that this has laid to rest your concerns on the issue. . .

December 16, 2013 1:46 pm

Somehow Bruce Cockburns’ lyrics of ‘If I had a rocket launcher’ come to my mind although the context is a little different.

Resourceguy
December 16, 2013 1:47 pm


Answer: There was no one to redistribute wealth from and to back in the days of the Carboniferous. That is the only difference.

RockyRoad
December 16, 2013 1:50 pm

There’s somehow a limit to how many trees grow, or how much grass the earth supports, or how many newspapers end up in landfills, or….
These guys are lying like a lot of other politicians I’m familiar with.

joe
December 16, 2013 1:57 pm

“talldave2 says:
December 16, 2013 at 1:04 pm
My area experiences a 100-degree annual temperature swing. The notion 4 degrees would have any noticeable effect on vegetation is laughable.”
The answer is yes and no – many plant species have quite large geographical ranges. Some plant species have very narrow geographical ranges due to limits in ability to live at temps over or below certain levels. Most citrus trees have northern limit whereby they can survive once temps go below a certain level.
The norway/red pines common in north central minnesota and wisconsin have a very narrow range whereby the species has a very definite upper and definite lower temp limits. The species only has a north-south range of 200 or so miles. So a change of 4 degrees would be significant for that species and other species that have narrow ranges. Most all other plant species would be significantly less affected by 4 degrees

a jones
December 16, 2013 1:58 pm

jai mitchell says:
December 16, 2013 at 1:39 pm
Balderdash
Kindest Regards

Greg
December 16, 2013 1:58 pm

” Hybrid – the model that Friend has been honing for fifteen years – and the latest IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) modelling. …. and that global warming of four degrees or more – currently predicted by the end of this century – marks the point at which …..”
So all this is based on known to be broken models referred to by the IPCC and especially the hot end of the range that estimate 4C by 2100.
We know we’re wrong but we’ll just keep on repeating it long enough maybe people won’t notice the snow drifts in the middle east and will start to believe us. Got to give credit for trying.
“The ISI-MIP team is coordinated by the Potsdam Institute “. AH! right , now I see. Ramsdorf behind this by any chance? Sounds like his kind of fairy tale numbers.

Rob Dawg
December 16, 2013 2:02 pm

““This work pulls together all the latest understanding of climate change and its impacts on global vegetation – it really captures our understanding at the global level.””
Back tested that did ya? I am satisfied. Now that everything is understood you won’t be needing any more funding. Right? Right?

December 16, 2013 2:03 pm

Rob Potter says:
December 16, 2013 at 1:29 pm
Wait a minute, all the discussion of residence time has referred to CO2 in the atmosphere, not plants. In the very first sentence they have re-defined this as “the length of time carbon remains in vegetation during the global carbon cycle – known as ‘residence time’ -”. This is a bait and switch
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yeah, I noticed that too. Plus, their whole analysis depends on uptake of CO2 by the biosphere becoming saturated due to a “moisture deficit) in the mid latitudes. Well, most of the biosphere actually lives in the oceans, which in turn comprise 2/3 of the earth surface. So, “mid latitudes” is a small portion of 1/4 of the earth’s surface… in other words, diddly squat. Not to mention that a “moisture deficit” actually increases the rate at which energy is lost to space as water vapour accounts for 80+ % of the greenhouse effect in the first place, so increased aridity actually = global cooling. If you’ve ever been in a desert at night, it cools off very fast because there is no water vapour and so once the sun goes down it gets cold fast. Then there’s the problem of assuming a sensitivity that is way higher than actual evidence supports and extrapolating from what amounts to a fiction with no basis in reality. I didn’t read the paper, but expect they also didn’t factor in positive feedback from increased biosphere activity in places currently frozen (ie they cannot claim both that the ice caps will melt AND that nothing will grow there because it is too cold).
This paper is so sad that mocking it gives it more credibility than it deserves.

Greg
December 16, 2013 2:06 pm

jai Mitchel: says: “.. of course, when a carbon dioxide molecule is absorbed by a liquid at saturation (the surface of the ocean is operating at saturation) concentrations, the liquid immediately outgasses another molecule of CO2 so that it stays in partial pressure equilibrium with the atmospheric concentration.”
Garbage, very little of the ocean is in equilibrium with the atmophere, where did you get that from? Oh, you just made it up because it sounded right. Sorry.
http://climategrog.wordpress.com/?attachment_id=715

1 2 3 6