Gosh, whouda thunk it? There goes Mann’s hockey stick. No wonder he had to truncate all the data after 1960 and splice on the instrumental record. Of course, as I’ve said before, Mann ignored Liebigs Law to make the “big lies” called “Mikes Nature trick” and “hide the decline“. Trees simply can’t be just a proxy for temperature, they are also a proxy for water, CO2, sunlight, nutrients, etc. The total growth response of a tree is the product of all environmental factors, not just temperature, something that any unbiased scientist should know and consider. Commercial greenhouse operators already know this.
![hiding-the-decline-hockeystick-mann[1]](https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/hiding-the-decline-hockeystick-mann1.jpg?resize=720%2C383&quality=83)
From the University of Exeter: Increased atmospheric carbon dioxide makes trees use water more efficiently
The increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration has allowed trees across Europe to use their available water resources more efficiently, new research has shown.
Over the course of the 20th century, the so-called water use efficiency has risen nearly 20% from the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
These results, produced by an international research team, including experts from the University of Exeter, are reported in leading scientific journal Nature Climate Change.
Trees take up carbon dioxide from the air through tiny pores on their leaves called stomata and they lose water through these same pores.
When the CO2 concentration in the air increases, the size of the stomatal opening reduces to regulate the amount of carbon acquired which minimises the water lost. As a result the so-called water use efficiency increases.
In this study the researchers used measurements of carbon from tree-rings and computer models to quantify tree and forest responses to both climate variation and increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations.
“Tree-ring data provide one of the unique opportunities to obtain long-term records of ecosystem responses to climate change”, said David Frank, a Dendroclimatologist at the Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL and collaborator at the Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Bern.
The researchers used data from 23 tree ring sites spanning Morocco to Norway to quantify variation in water use efficiency – the amount of water required to produce a given amount of carbon – and a basic measure of plant and ecosystem economy.
Professor Pierre Friedlingstein, Chair of Mathematical Modelling of Climate Systems at the University of Exeter and one of the authors of the report, said: “The observed water use efficiency increase, in response to atmospheric CO2 increase, is something we are able to reproduce with global vegetation models giving us more confidence in the whole ecosystem response to CO2.
“However, our models simulation also indicate that globally, other drivers, such as climate change and land use change, also impact on the plant hydrological cycle.”
“By measuring the ratios of heavy to light carbon isotopes of tree-ring cellulose we are able to reconstruct various physiological metrics such as water use efficiency and their environmental drivers”, said Kerstin Treydte co-author of this study and a specialist in tree-ring isotopes at the WSL.
On average, 100 kilograms of water released by a tree through the stomata equates to one kilogram of tree biomass created. The study showed that reduced stomatal opening increased water use efficiency by 14% in broadleaf species and by 22% in needleleaf species.
Despite the CO2 induced stomatal closure, the models showed that the consequences of a warming climate – lengthened growing seasons, increased leaf area and increased evaporation – resulted in a 5% increase in forest transpiration – the cycle of water through trees. This increase cancels out any savings in water from improved efficiency. Plants are therefore unlikely to reduce levels of atmospheric water vapour – an important greenhouse gas. It is also unlikely that plant responses to increased CO2 will substantially increase soil moisture or river run-off.
###
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
There conclusions at the end are wrong, the 5% increase in water vapour, was because of an increase in vegetation, this surely has to improve soil moisture and prevent run off.
Yes, and it also helps forests attract more precipitation.
We are nowhere near a 5% increase in water vapour.
The most one can get to from the data is 2.0% and then the data indicates the overall global level is controlled by the ENSO which has no trend over time. El Ninos are balanced off by La Ninas so cherry picking a timeline based on the ENSO can give you any number you want but the long-term trend in water vapour is a very small increase less than 50% of that predicted in the theory.
Rats, scratching for some feeling of significance here, and even the twice as much water as Carbon dioxide we produce with our fires is lunch money?
Tree rings have proven far less reliable
than hoped.
No surprise to those who frequent WUWT. Type “Tree rings” into the search window on the home page.
Studies reported on in CO2 science from back in 1965 show lower stomatal conductance. higher yields for c3 plants are an added bonus-these are the vegetable type plants which humans are supposed to eat, not wheat (C4.) Wheat is a survival food- it has some big negatives, but at least you do not starve to death.
Optimum CO2 is around 1600ppm, so humans have a long way to go to fulfil our role on earth-recycle carbon. Pretty well all WUWT readers would be well aware that below 150-200ppm, plant life stalls. Pre industrial era CO2 was around 280ppm, which is not that far from the life-stall figure. As I say, perhaps the ecological niche of our species is carbon recycling as well as asteroid deflection. Alas, with the “boy who cried wolf” , humanity could well not rise to thechallenge of deflectingan earth shattering asteroid because they have put all their energy in to reducing CO2 levels.
Gaia would not be happy. You listening, Tim Flannery. Gaia wants the carbon available for plants. gaia wants that asteroid nuked or deflected.