Claim: positive CO2 feedback from plants due to "warm nights" will flood atmosphere with carbon


A study led by Princeton University researchers suggests that hotter nights may wield more influence than previously thought over the planet’s atmosphere as global temperatures rise — and could eventually lead to more carbon flooding the atmosphere. The researchers determined that warm nighttime temperatures, specifically in the tropics, lead plants to release more carbon through a process known as respiration. Average nighttime temperatures in tropical regions such as Manaus, Brazil, (above) have risen by 0.6 degrees Celsius since 1959. Further temperature increases risk turning Earth’s land-based carbon-storage capacity, or sink, into a carbon source. CREDIT William Anderegg, Princeton Environmental Institute.


From the PRINCETON UNIVERSITY and the department of 97% consensus and 911 Trutherism comes this study that I’d put zero stock in for two reasons: 1) Author William Anderegg, forerunner of the widely debunked 97% consensus meme and Pieter Tans, keeper of the official CO2 record and an avowed 911 “truther”. 2) Besides, the study itself is nothing new, as biologists, farmers, botanists, and greenhouse operators have known for decades that warmer temperatures increase plant growth. In this case, they are arguing for a positive feedback that will put leave more CO2 in the atmosphere. Given a fixed amount of biomass, that “might” be true, but satellite remoste sensing studies have shown that the planet is greening, and biomass is increasing thanks to increased CO2.


Warm nights could flood the atmosphere with carbon under climate change

The warming effects of climate change usually conjure up ideas of parched and barren landscapes broiling in a blazing sun, its heat amplified by greenhouse gases. But a study led by Princeton University researchers suggests that hotter nights may actually wield much greater influence over the planet’s atmosphere as global temperatures rise — and could eventually lead to more carbon flooding the atmosphere.

Since measurements began in 1959, nighttime temperatures in the tropics have had a strong influence over year-to-year shifts in the land’s carbon-storage capacity, or “sink,” the researchers report in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. Earth’s ecosystems absorb about a quarter of carbon from the atmosphere, and tropical forests account for about one-third of land-based plant productivity.

During the past 50 years, the land-based carbon sink’s “interannual variability” has grown by 50 to 100 percent, the researchers found. The researchers used climate- and satellite-imaging data to determine which of various climate factors — including rainfall, drought and daytime temperatures — had the most effect on the carbon sink’s swings. They found the strongest association with variations in tropical nighttime temperatures, which have risen by about 0.6 degrees Celsius (33 degrees Fahrenheit) since 1959.

First author William Anderegg, an associate research scholar in the Princeton Environmental Institute, explained that he and his colleagues determined that warm nighttime temperatures lead plants to put more carbon into the atmosphere through a process known as respiration.

Just as warm nights make people more active, so too does it for plants. Although plants take up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, they also internally consume sugars to stay alive. That process, known as respiration, produces carbon dioxide, which plants step up in warm weather, Anderegg said. The researchers found that yearly variations in the carbon sink strongly correlated with variations in plant respiration.

“When you heat up a system, biological processes tend to increase,” Anderegg said. “At hotter temperatures, plant respiration rates go up and this is what’s happening during hot nights. Plants lose a lot more carbon than they would during cooler nights.”

Previous research has shown that nighttime temperatures have risen significantly faster as a result of climate change than daytime temperatures, Anderegg said. This means that in future climate scenarios respiration rates could increase to the point that the land is putting more carbon into the atmosphere than it’s taking out of it, “which would be disastrous,” he said.

Of course, plants consume carbon dioxide as a part of photosynthesis, during which they convert sunlight into energy. While photosynthesis also is sensitive to rises in temperature, it only happens during the day, whereas respiration occurs at all hours and thus is more sensitive to nighttime warming, Anderegg said.

“Nighttime temperatures have been increasing faster than daytime temperatures and will continue to rise faster,” Anderegg said. “This suggests that tropical ecosystems might be more vulnerable to climate change than previously thought, risking crossing the threshold from a carbon sink to a carbon source. But there’s certainly potential for plants to acclimate their respiration rates and that’s an area that needs future study.”


This research was supported by the National Science Foundation MacroSystems Biology Grant (EF-1340270), RAPID Grant (DEB-1249256) and EAGER Grant (1550932); and a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Climate and Global Change postdoctoral fellowship administered by the University Corporation of Atmospheric Research.

William R. L. Anderegg, Ashley P. Ballantyne, W. Kolby Smith, Joseph Majkut, Sam Rabin, Claudie Beaulieu, Richard Birdsey, John P. Dunne, Richard A. Houghton, Ranga B. Myneni, Yude Pan, Jorge L. Sarmiento,? Nathan Serota, Elena Shevliakova, Pieter Tan and Stephen W. Pacala. ” Tropical nighttime warming as a dominant driver of variability in the terrestrial carbon sink.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, published online in-advance of print Dec. 7 2015. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1521479112


newest oldest most voted
Notify of

But maybe the Carbon will be in pure crystallized form and will cover the floor of the forests with pretty diamonds that the unicorns can graze on!!


That’s obviously ridiculous. If the amount of plant mass increases with increased CO2 levels, the plants are converting CO2 into plant matter at a greater rate, and regardless of how they breathe, more carbon is captured in the plant itself as plant matter. The plants don’t create CO2 out of nothing. For the plants to increase the atmospheric CO2 level, they would have to decrease in mass themselves which is the opposite to reality (ref. the greening of the planet and case/control studies of plant growth under enhanced CO2 levels)


Plants and trees survive darkness by converting sugar to energy and heat, the warmer the night the LESS they need that energy for warmth. There is an effect where trees will actually protect the grass underneath them in parts of the world where frost is just an early morning event that then goes away. The trees are generating heat, the average plants DO NOT DO IT. They simply die.
Its the energy cycle of the plants. This is why in dense no-breeze conifer copses you can get that “not enough air” effect, they’ve chewed up a higher average of the ambient oxygen overnight and replaced it with a denser gas.

Well, since you replied to tobyglyn’s post, I have to assume you’re one of those horrible “de-nayers” with his head in the sand. Running off on some crazy rant about “more plants means more breathing” or some-such nonsense whilst refusing to address – at all – the unicorn issue!

Bob Burban

You are so wrong … 97% of scientists agree that unicorns poop diamonds

My dog doesn’t bark and eats glass… from a well known poet… …… this study makes about as much sense

Evan Jones

“My dog doesn’t bite. My dog wears a muzzle. My dog is fenced in. My dog is tied down. My dog has no teeth. And, besides, I don’t even own a dog.” (From a lesser-known attorney.)


“They found the strongest association with variations in tropical nighttime temperatures, which have risen by about 0.6 degrees Celsius (33 degrees Fahrenheit) since 1959.”
From paragraph 3 of the article as quoted above at 1835 Z/8th.
Apologies if others have commented appropriately below.
In my view this qualifies the authors for an entry level job asking ‘You want fries with that?’

Flooded with Carbon? Is that the equivalent of saying water evaporation is flooding the atmosphere with Hydrogen? Help me with this logic. Someone?


The logic tells us that we must now deforest all lands that have hot nights.


It seems to be the equivalent of claiming that if AGW causes higher rainfall, sea levels will rise.

They found the strongest association with variations in tropical nighttime temperatures, which have risen by about 0.6 degrees Celsius (33 degrees Fahrenheit) since 1959. Is this correct at all ?

Not annually. In total. 1.08 F. Given that this time period cover large increases in deforestation and slash and burn agriculture in tropical areas, changing temperatures is hardly surprising.

george e. smith

Well if that atmospheric carbon engorgement consists of ” soot “, that will nucleate the mother of all Monsoon rains, which will just wash all of that carbon back down to the ground. Problem solved.
If instead it is in the form of CO2, then the increased atmospheric water vapor (due to the warmer air’s holding capacity) will result in more clouds and more rain, and block more sunlight, to cool down the surface at least.
Don’t mention the word ” feedback ” unless you are going to describe … ALL … of the feedbacks that come into play, including the very powerful and negative cloud feedback.
Why is it that these doom and gloomers feel that they are free to abrogate all the laws of physics, and keep things constant except the two variables they want to study ??
When ‘something’ changes, EVERYTHING changes.



george e. smith

Well the crystalline form of carbon that is likely to be stable at climate temperatures is graphite; not diamond.

Yet another promising theory, the investigation of which will attract more of our money. This AGW meme has been an absolute godsend to scientists everywhere, and this is just another example of the way in which they are becoming more and more inventive in their expansion of the CO2 scare.


A godsend? Or a temptation of Satan?

Mumbles McGuirck

I suppose that depends on which god they are praying to. Verdad?


I’m starting to think they got their thermometers up Satans…

Philip Bradley

0.6C rise in nighttime temperatures probably derives from surface minimum temperature measurements and doesn’t reflect warmer nights. Rather it results mainly from earlier minimums due to increased early morning insolation from decreased urban air pollution (and decreased seeded lowlevel clouds).


“Nighttime temperatures have been increasing faster than daytime temperatures and will continue to rise faster,” Anderegg said.

So adjusting daytime SST to show the same warming rate as nocturnal marine air temperature is not “correcting” the data , it is CORRUPTING it.
This is why Karl et al are refusing to comply with the congressional subpoena.


If nighttime temperatures continue to rise faster than daytime temperatures, how long will it take until it is warmer at night than during the day? But for that to happen, the sun would have to exert a cooling effect on temperatures. Is that possible, even after factoring in the magical capabilities of CO2?


With ‘Climate Change’ all things are possible (apparently).

chris moffatt

Not perhaps with the magical properties of CO2 but certainly with the magical properties of models; note the authors’ reliance on “scenarios” – which are derived from magic models

george e. smith

Before night time temperatures can continue to rise faster than daytime temperatures, they first have to start rising faster than daytime temperatures.
Wake me when that happens. I’ve been up before sunrise and seen how fast daytime temperatures can rise once the sun rises.


When did 0.6C convert to 33 F I wonder? Even without the order of magnitude howler there is something wrong with the arithmetic.

comment image
After a crossover in the early 60’s average lows have indeed lead the charge in the BEST data, but nowhere near as strikingly as highs led previously. A convergence (and impending crossover?) took place early this millenium at the end of the dataset.

Is your y axis °C or °F?

Like most of the warmist propaganda, this assumes that CO2 has a strong effect on the surface temperature owing to an excessively high sensitivity that’s so wrong its absurd as it violates many laws of physics (Stefan-Boltzmann for one). One of the problems I see is that many are reluctant to doubt the ‘consensus’ because they can’t comprehend how so many ostensibly intelligent scientists can be so incredibly wrong about something so important especially since being wrong either way is harsh and which wrong is worse is itself debatable.

old construction worker

……comprehend how so many ostensibly intelligent scientists can…….
Their paycheck depends upon e agenda.


It’s a matter of confusing “being earnest”, with “being right”.

Albert Brand

Are we accounting for the carbon that was sequestered by the plant as hydrocarbons?s


Yes- it’s worse than we thought. With all that extra food consumed, unless they exercise more those plants will get fat and suffer from cardio-vascular diseases and die younger. Millions will starve, unless they get run over first by those exercising trees. After all, who ever heard of a tree using its horn to let someone know they are in its way?
Another major study needed, but either way, it’s worse than we thought.


Another triumph for the National Science Foundation and NOAA.
Paging Lamar Smith, Ted Cruz…


I can’t believe it took Princeton so long to get around to this angle on the Sky-Is-Falling alarm-ism. I’ll put money on the idea that we’ll be able to grow more food than we can eat by orders of magnitude, requiring us to make more humans post haste. Hmmm….

When the next ice age inevitably gets going, the biggest challenge man will face is how to pump as much CO2 into the atmosphere as possible to keep agriculture viable. If man is still around, this post will be somewhere in the cloud, so In the words of Nelson; Ha Ha.


More Biomass = higher atmospheric carbon dioxide
Hike around a mature forest in the Northern Hemisphere and look around the forest floor. A lot of carbon being liberated. Much more than being sequestered.
The greener you are the more carbon you emit.
Just open your eyes .




Why not provide some evidence rather than just gainsaying what John said. WattsUpWithThat had a good story in October. link The final map shows the CO2 averaged over the whole year. While it shows forested areas with high CO2 concentrations it also shows other forested areas with low concentrations. The thing that gets me is that the whole Canadian Shield has high CO2 levels. WUWT?


@ commieBob:
John claims that in a mature forest, more carbon is liberated than sequestered. “Much more”, actually.
If this situation were to persist, (“mature”) eventually the soil carbon store will be exhausted and the soil will be totally depleted, unable to support life. This is similar to the situation in the barren volcanic ash fields of Iceland. But we know that this does not happen. In fact, we know that just the opposite happens. Life builds up organics in the soil.
The assertion is contradicted by huge amounts of prior observation, therefor DOA.
As far as OCO2 goes, I do not think anyone is going to be using it to measure the full Carbon mass balance of a biome or whole ecosystem any time soon.


Mature forests fix the balance in nature by eventually burning due mainly to lightning storms. Then a new forest grows. For the last hundreds of millions of years this is how Life On Earth processed itself over and over again.

DD More

Johnny – “Carbon liberated more than Sequestered.” ??
Reminds me of a tree at the home place blown over in the 1962 Columbus Day Storm in Oregon. At least 40 years old when it went down and still visible today. Pretty slow with the liberating.

Both excessive cold and excessive heat affect the various processes involved with plant biology which has adapted to a range of climate extremes that dwarfs even the worst case scenarios claimed by alarmists. But like all other natural processes, the alarmists deny them in favor of speculative causes by man. The usual case when “Carbon liberated more than Sequestered” in plants occurs in the fall as decreased sunlight limits photosynthesis, the plant dies and decomposes into CO2 to start the cycle over. Along the way, CO2 is sequestered as carbonates and fossil fuels, so if not replenished by natural or artificial means, the planets biosphere will die. Our CO2 emissions allow the biosphere to flourish independent of its reliance on natural replenishment. and this seems to be the only effect that we can actually observe.


Hey DD,
Whatever grows eventually dies. Been to Oregon, just as much biomass on the forest floor decomposing as there is upright sequestering carbon if not more. Pretty sure, reforestation of the Northern Hemisphere correlates better with atmospheric carbon dioxide than coal emissions.

Rick K

“The greener you are the more carbon you emit.”
So… to be ‘green’ you have to kill as many living plants as possible, including old growth forests and my favorite… shrubbery.
Interesting concept. Talk about having your cake and eating it too. I still say, “Ni!” to the whole thing.


Rick – Everything lives and eventually dies. Forests, initially sequester carbon until they mature and then they release carbon over time as they age and die.
Just take a walk around a mature forest and observe before you discount it.

Evan Jones

“Ni!” to the whole thing.
And Peng, and Neuuwhom!

We all know how much CO2 is required to build an acre of trees suitable for logging, right? According to the US Forestry it requires the stripping of 20 cubic kilometers of air to obtain the carbon needed (0.04% CO2 .. not much C per cubic meter).
those trees are starved of CO2 and the bacteria and fungi on the forest floor breaking those leaves back down don’t do it awfully fast.
Please – just go look at a tree. it’s built from gas that resides at 400ppm in the air. Now think about it..

David A

…”Hike around a mature forest in the Northern Hemisphere and look around the forest floor. A lot of carbon being liberated. Much more than being sequestered.”
As a satirical rebuke to the study, this is not bad. (It was a satirical rebuke correct?)
If not please explain where the CO2 came from that grew the carbon sink, (forest) and how a larger forest equates to a smaller sink, or a non existent forest is a greater sink then an existent forest.


I did what you suggested … I went out, walked around in the woods, I looked for carbon being liberated and I didn’t see any.
Please help me out, how will I know when I am seeing liberated carbon; what does it looks like? I saw some bugs that utilize the organic mass for food, I saw a lot of fungus that also seem to use the dead and living organic mass as an energy source. Is this somehow tied into the liberated carbon?
When a person passes the Professional Surveying licensing exam they are issued special glasses that allow them to see the property lines on the ground (this is somewhat of a secret, I’m really not supposed to talk about this); in the same vein, are there other special glasses that I can get, so I can see the liberated carbon (plumes)? Do I need to pass some sort of test to qualify for the carbon glasses, or is it a type of society/association that I would need to join?
Help me out here John,


This crap weasel is conflating basic physical science with biochemical pathways which are regulated by enzymes. Positive feedback in living organisms kills and is not evolutionary favored except rarely, eg., pregnancy. In the test tube, yes increased temperatures and concentrations of reactants speeds reactions from products to reactants. Besides, the carbon is needed by plants for their mentobolism. Likely this mendacious twit failed organic and bio chemistry. Dumbass.


“which have risen by about 0.6 degrees Celsius (33 degrees Fahrenheit)”
Should read “0.6 degrees Celsius (1 degree Fahrenheit)”


I hope that was Ander-egg that did that and not AW !!

It’s official!
November 2015 was the coldest November on record. Weather events included heavy rain in the Northeast, bitter cold and snow in the Midwest, and cooler temperatures in California (and elsewhere).


It’s official!
November 2015 was the hottest November
LAST month was the dullest November ‘on record’, according to provisional statistics from the Met Office.
Only 36.6 hours of sunshine were recorded, making it the dullest November since 1929
a mild month, with a UK mean temperature of 8.2C, 2.0C above the November average.
**However, both November 1994, 8.8C, and 2011, 8.7C, were warmer. For the individual nations, it was the third warmest on record in England, second warmest in Wales, seventh warmest in Scotland and fourth warmest in Northern Ireland.
Read more:
So the coldest, the hottest (or 2nd or 4th or 7th) & the dullest = Average !!!


Nearly all the warmist weather sites run by our governments here in America and England and elsewhere begin their ‘hottest whatever’ based on data that begins in 1978 which was the coldest year of the previous cold cycle. This dishonesty permeates everything.


Seeing red, sorry. Reac to prod. Seeing skeptics on wanted flyers in Paris after terror attacks is a bridge too far…


Plants are close to carbon neutral. They take in carbon to grow. The carbon goes back to the environment when they die and decay. Some carbon is sequestered in the soil.
The folks who wrote this study should go back and take high school chemistry and biology.

Owen in GA

And then they need to remember that the largest plant biomass in the world is in the oceans, where the die-off byproducts fall to the ocean floor not to be heard from again for thousands of years if ever. Lots of sequestration going on there.

Evan Jones

~2 BMTC per year, as I have read.

I thought that the fact that plants use oxygen to generate energy by oxidising carbohydrates, fats and proteins via the Krebs cycle was common knowledge, likewise the fact that non-warm-blood organism’s metabolic rate is governed by their environments temperature and of course photosynthetic plants are only photosynthetic during daylight, which is about half the time in the tropics; so yes plants are going to respire more CO2 per night the warmer the night is.
That’s why fish sometimes suffocate during hot summer nights in still water, the algae use so much O2 it kills them!

But conservation requirements dictate that plants can never emit more CO2 than they absorb. Of course, conservation requirements are yet another manifestation of reality alarmists causally disregard. For example, for an 0.8C temperature increase to arise from 1 W/m^2 of forcing, the surface must emit 4.3 W/m^2 more Stefan-Boltzmann emissions. How can 1 W/m^2 be amplified into 4.3 W/m^2 without violating COE? If each of the 239 W/m^2 of total input forcing increased emissions by 4.3 W/m^2, the surface temperature would be close to the boiling point of water! It seems that they miss the basic COE requirement that the climate must be linear in the power domain and that any joule of energy captured by the atmosphere can only be returned to the surface and/or emitted out into space once and only once.

As a rule, never rely on the paper’s PR or the authors PR statements. Paper is paywalled and not worth the price (see below) but there are always two fast free checks. 1. Read the abstract, carefully. 2. Read the SI, which is always free, and usually where bodies get buried.
One might think that with such an important assertion about changing carbon sinks, there might be some actual plant data. You know, from greenhouse experiments. Night and day differences at difference temps and CO2 concentrations, C3 vs C4 plants, that sort of thing. Does increased daytime photosynthsis and biomass sequestration (since greening and increased GPP is an observed fact at least for C3 plants) more than offset nightime respiration? (Logically, it has to if there is a net biomass increase like in the Sahel). NOPE.
Statistical models all the way down. Even for GPP ( gross primary [plant] production). Even though there are over 277 studies actually measuring GPP down to ‘roots and shoots’ in 14 different regional ecosystems! Essay Bugs, Roots, and Biofuels.
And, the SI admits that things like deforestation and fires (Malaysia) create great uncertainty. But, since the authors could not find any suitably broad convenient prepublished datasets to throw into their lazy models, they ignore the issue except acknowledging resulting uncertainty in the SI.
This is not science. This is pseudoscience, reporting the results of obviously logically faulty toy computer simulations. A new low. Even for Paris.

Curious George

Actually, this is a new, amazing science. We have always thought that plants take CO2 from the atmosphere to grow, These geniuses discovered that plants actually grow by releasing CO2. There is a Nobel – possibly even an ig-Nobel – there.


Sorry ristvan, this is not pseudoscience, it is science of the most fantastical kind. No models or computer simulations, experiments, or even data, just pure imagination and wonderful logic. The most important point is of course, “But there’s certainly potential for plants to acclimate their respiration rates and that’s an area that needs future study.” Future studies can show anything and these guys are covered … just show me the money!

gary turner

Let me see if I got this right. Plants eat CO₂ which through photosynthesis is converted to sugar, starches, cellulose and lignin (for the most part). Then throughout the day [u]and[/u] night, the sugars are burned for energy. Right? And on warm nights they respire more CO₂, which may cause a net increase in CO₂. Right?
You’d think we’d have heard about these guys finding a perpetual motion machine. I hope their tuxes are clean and pressed; I’m sure the Nobel committee will be calling just any day now.
How the hell does the plant exhale more food than it ingests? A lot of that CO₂ isn’t even converted to starch, it is converted to cellulose and lignin, the parts of the plant that allow it to stand up, the same parts that the plant cannot autolyse. The same parts that caused the coal seams to be laid down prior to a few cellulose digesting bacteria evolving to fill the niche in the food chain.
Princeton, NSF, NOAA and PNAS are satisfied with this sorry level of scholarship? Oh my god!

Said the same just above. You said it much better. Simple irretrievable logic fail. +10.

Eric Gisin

I was going to say that. I can’t believe it passed “peer review”!

Pal review!


Science is dead.


Science is not dead. It just has a crazy uncle called climate science.

JJM Gommers

Don’t blame them so hard , they used green doctrine when you produce something, in this case mass, you cause pollution, CO2. It’s just that simple.

Isn’t that how they are taught to do it in university now?

One of the earliest measurements by C.D. Keeling in the early 50’s was in Big Sur state park in California. He sampled CO2 every hour in during day and night and saw a huge diurnal change. He was smart enough to test the samples on their δ13C (a measure for the 13C/12C ratio) level, which showed a nice reverse correlation: the extra CO2 at night was from the trees…
That was one of the reasons he was later looking for places to measure CO2 far from vegetation, which he found at the South Pole and Mauna Loa.
That the biosphere is growing can be seen by satellites, but the net increase is also seen in the oxygen balance: there is less oxygen used than calculated from burning fossil fuels, thus the biosphere is a net sink for CO2, at least since 1990 when (night) temperatures were still increasing, be it that during an El Niño the (tropical) biosphere is a temporarily source, which turns into an extra sink with a La Niña:


“the extra CO2 at night was from the trees”
Just looking at the CO2 graph it would actually appear that the trees acted as a sink in daytime and the CO2 levels returned to “normal” (relative to Mauna Loa) during the night.

The Mauna Loa levels in 1958 were around 315 ppmv, begin 1950’s probably around 310 ppmv. Thus the nighttime levels are a lot higher than “background”. A modern station at Giessen, Germany, semi-rural shows a similar change under inversion:
Compared to the “background” levels at Barrow, Mauna Loa and the South Pole (all raw data), the night time levels are a lot higher (including an extra peak by traffic in the morning hours) while the daytime levels are below background: a mix of photosynthesis and more turbulence, mixing in air and CO2 from the higher layers.

richard verney

Whilst I was working my way through the comments, I was waiting to see this very much this type of response from you.
But it seems to me, to be a matte of where you draw the line. For example, is it that during the day, CO2 is reduced, and during the night, CO2 is increased (expired by the forest)?
What was global CO2 at the time when the data taken for the plot? I guess it was probably at least 370ppm, and if this is so it suggests that forest overall sequester more CO2 and that the night time peak is very short lived.
As we have been exchanging for many months now, CO2 is anything but well mixed at and near ground level. CO2 is only a well mixed gas at high altitude, and your plot once more establishes this.
You are an expert in this. What is your view? Do you consider that forests/plants are a net CO2 sink, or not?
Do you consider the way in which the globe has been greening these past 30 or so years, is one reason why carbon sinks have increased in total capacity?
Your further views would be appreciated.

Richard Verney,
As said in my response to BFL, CO2 levels around 1950 were about 310 ppmv.
Levels don’t say much about fluxes, as during the night there is often no wind and inversion, thus CO2 can build up near ground. During the day, the warming of the ground and vegetation gives more turbulence and thus more mixing with the above air layers.
The net effect since at least 1990 anyway is that the biosphere as a whole is a net sink for CO2: more uptake than decay/feed/food.
That is seen in the oxygen balance: plants use CO2 as building bloc, meanwhile releasing O2. If they decay or are eten, that porcess needs oxygen. As there is less oxygen use than calculated from fossil fuel burning, the difference shows that the biosphere as a whole is a net producer of oxygen, thus a net sink for CO2 and preferentially of 12CO2. Thus the biosphere is not the cause of the CO2 increase, neither of the δ13C level (13C/12C ratio) decline. See:
For most (not all!) plants the growth is proportional to the CO2 levels in the atmosphere if all other necessities: water, nutrients, are available in abundant quantities, which is the case in greenhouses. In nature, that is often not the case, where other items necessary for growth are the main restrictions: drought, nutrients,… For drought, more CO2 helps, as the plants need less stomata and thus loose less water as vapor: the semi arid areas (like the Sahel) are greening.
The 30% increase of CO2 in the atmosphere gives currently ~1 GtC/year extra uptake for a land biomass of ~550 GtC, or an increase of ~0.02 %/year. Not really much, but that is the net uptake, which is the balance of human destruction (slash/burn tropical forests) and extra growth…

David A

…until the plant dies or begins to deteriorate, it has to be a net sink. CO2
The authors next study will demonstrate that in the fall CO2 enhanced trees will drop more leaves, thus they will release more CO2 into the atmosphere, which will be very bad creating more terrorism in the middle east.

That’s why they put o2 in the greenhouses, I was wondering. (Sarc)
Another feeble attempt to explain why the carbon sink is currently bigger than all of the co2 produced in 1965 by 7 billion metric tons. Deflection… oh look at this, plants produce co2 at night.


We’re doomed again, aren’t we?

Yeah, it never stops.

And to think a few years ago I got a letter from these people wanting to buy the carbon sinking rights to my timberland. Whoa! Another tax steam! Since it is a net producer of co2, I guess they’ll have to tax that to.

which have risen by about 0.6 degrees Celsius (33 degrees Fahrenheit)

Who were the peer reviewers?

Owen in GA

By orders of magnitude, the oceans are the lungs of the planet!


Photosynthesis and respiration are the two sides of plant growth, public school level biology.
If respiration dominated, plants would shrink, not grow. This sort of thing is embarrassingly bad for any sort of science. This is from Princeton University and published in PNAS? Even a school kid knows better. These sorts of assertions are an insult to everyone who passed a college science course.
Consider this:
A) Photosynthesis (daytime) – CO2 out from the air.
B) Respiration (nightime) – CO2 back into the air.
C) Overall, the plant acquires mass – photosynthesis wins out, something any kid with a house plant knows.
Seems you can publish anything in service to the Great Global Warming, but there is a consequence.
It has now been shown that (previously prestigious) Princeton University has lower academic standards than your basic American high school.


“…Princeton University has lower academic standards than your basic American high school.”
Common Core will soon fix that.

“I’d put zero stock in” this as well. Some of us live in the tropics AND monitor CO2 levels, but only from time to time as we don’t get funding. No evidence of temperature change here other than the well-known cycles. Airport measurements allegedly show a 1°C rise since the 40’s. Unlikely to be UHI as 60% of the airflow is over open land and off the Pacific, but the change from occasional prop planes to far more frequent military and civil jets would have had an effect.
Daytime CO2 in the 60% airflow is around 380 – 390. Goes over 400 after sundown (6 – 6:30), peaks at 425 – 450 at 9pm, so yes, that could be respiration occurring after dark. Could also be the enormous brew from the mangrove swamps.


Why wouldn’t that just be the affect of water vapor condensing out of the atmosphere?


about 0.6 degrees Celsius (33 degrees Fahrenheit)

They can not do grade school math either, how the mighty have fallen.


No, no TonyL, they’re right. 0.6 deg. C is 33 deg. F. You can put 0.6 deg. C into any online converter and get that result. ROTFL Some of God’s children really need His help.

Owen in GA

Wow! What idiots the PR writers are. I hope that isn’t in the paper. A 0.6C change in temperature is 1.08F. A temperature of 0.6C is 33F (ok 33.08F). Apples and Oranges don’t directly add, but they can be a good basis for fruit salad.


It is amazing this simple feed back (forcing) hasn’t already killed off every living thing given nobody has been in charge of this kind of thing for billions of years.

Why naming Pieter Tans at the same level as William Anderegg? He was only one of the many co-authors and indeed the keeper of the Mauna Loa CO2 data, which he does as rigorous as can be. He has no problems to admit that something can go wrong, as can be seen in his reply already several years ago when the hard disk at Mauna Loa crashed:
After that, he made a good overview of what is done at Mauna Loa to maintain the quality of the data:
After simple request, I received several days of 10-second voltage readings from the NDIR equipment at Mauna Loa, so I could check the calculations myself…
If he is avowed 911 “truther”, I don’t know, maybe he is, but his work at Mauna Loa is impeccable…

Gary Pearse

Yeah, but you don’t need to go to the 911 truther. This report is enough to guage silliness. You all of all people should be critiquing the paper itself. Isn’t CO2 mass balance one of your specialties? You don’t accept that the atmosphere is going to be flooded because more CO2 is being produced than emitted by healthy vegetation. Let’s accept Tans may be a nice fellow.


When anyone will show images of the plane and its remnants that allegedly hit the Pentagon…

I did comment on the paper here
I don’t know what Pieter Tans contribution to the paper was, but as far as I know, he is an integer researcher on the main aspect of CO2: the measured rise in the atmosphere. He did some work on the influence of temperature and drought on tropical forests, see:
from slide 11 onwards.
That may be the base of this paper, but that doesn’t imply that he agrees with the claims made by Anderegg…

James Hein

I have a friend who was driving into the Pentagon when the plane hit. As she describes it she heard it then saw it clip a light pole right near her then watched as it crashed into the side of the building she was facing.
As she described it all she could do was tighten her grip on the steering wheel and watch helpless as it happened.
Certainly no doubt in her mind that it was an airpane.

James Hein,
Thanks for that info. Was a few weeks after 911 in Washington and saw the hole in the side of the building. Either it was from an enormous inside explosion of from an outside impact. As there are many witnesses which have seen the plane crashing, that rests the case…


At the risk of kickback on 911, there are a lot of intelligent people, many of whom were there, in his corner: NYPD/NYFD personnel, pilots, engineers, architects, doctors, researchers and others. Realizing of course that a false flag operation required at this level would be very destructive to public morale and even sanity, just better to go with patriotic disbelief. A similar situation occurred with Kennedy in that the 3rd round impact acted just like a .223 frangible M-15 round (Secret Service/Mortal Error bk), but that would have again been extremely upsetting to not only the SS but the public in general. Better to go black.

It is one thing to argue that the incompetence and ill-fitted ideology of the neo-cons in the Bush Administration contributed to leaving the nation vulnerable in the face of overwhelming evidence of a pending terrorist attack. It is another thing entirely to argue that the Bush Administration was directly involved in the attacks themselves.
The former argument respects all the evidence. The latter argument ignores evidence and/or makes stuff up, depending on the amounts of Kool-Aid and tinfoil involved.


“The latter argument ignores evidence and/or makes stuff up, depending on the amounts of Kool-Aid and tinfoil involved.”
I’m sure that the numerous NYPD & NYFD professionals on site are glad to hear what you think of them…..

Nothing that I say (or that others might make up) can diminish the incredible heroism displayed by members of the NYFD and NYPD (along with others) on 9/11.
Considering that the Bush team screwed up just about everything they tried to accomplish it is nonsensical to assert that they actually could have pulled off a false flag op, even if they’d wanted to.


Maybe the Bush team (meaning Cheney/Rumsfeld) maybe not. A lead intelligence member was once asked by congress just how many (U.S.) intelligence agencies there were (most “black”) and the response was, only God really knows. Many of these are way beyond any control at prez, cabinet or secretary level and are really sub-governments (see bk Blank Check). I am only pointing out that the independent 911 websites by the professional groups listed in my opening comments bring out many, many discrepancies in the investigations.


The question to ask is why Night Time Temperatures are increasing:

All of this is all a fancy way of saying “nights have warmed more than days.”
I spoke with Phil Duffy, Climate Central’s chief scientist, about why nighttime lows are warming faster than the daytime highs. He replied that the answer isn’t straightforward, and then he referred me to research that has shown that an increase in cloudiness (as well as a few other factors) has warmed nights more than days. During the day, clouds both warm and cool, as they act like a blanket to reflect heat back to the surface (warming), but they also reflect sunlight back to space (cooling). At night, they only warm temperatures, acting like an insulating blanket. Thus, nights warm more than the days, and this is exactly what climate models predict. In fact, this is a good example of climate models making a prediction (warmer nights), and then having the prediction born out by the data.

Lewis P Buckingham

But this is not the explanation given by those who believe adding incremental amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere causes warming of the troposphere.
They don’t talk about or model clouds.
They talk about CO2 acting as a greenhouse gas of itself, so warming the lower atmosphere, inducing more water vapour.
They don’t go to the next step and talk about convection and water vapor condensing to clouds and falling as rain or snow.

I can’t find any loss of nightly cooling in the surface station measurements since 1940


I can’t find any loss of nightly cooling in the surface station measurements since 1940

Can’t this whole CO2 issue be boiled down to a simple control experiment?
1) Daytime temperature variations are due to incoming radiation, not trapped radiation outgoing.
2) The most significant greenhouse gasses are H20 and CO2.
3) The Deserts and Antarctica have very low H2O, Rain Forest have extreme H2O levels, all have 400ppm.
If CO2 was the cause, wouldn’t you find that the difference between desert/Antarctica day and nights would be narrowing, as more CO2 traps more heat? Mars has I think 16x (adjusted for the relative density) as much CO2 as Earth’s atmosphere, and it has huge swings between day and night.
Bottom line, is there any evidence that desert/Antarctica nights are warming relative to their peak daytime temperatures?

Bottom line, is there any evidence that desert/Antarctica nights are warming relative to their peak daytime temperatures?
This zip has a ton of surface station data from the US SW Deserts.
Average daily values, annual values, station info and individual station counts, slope of the seasonal change in temp, average daily rising and falling temps, there are even google maps KML files with a map pin for each station.
including the data used to make both of these chartscomment imagecomment image
It’s not Co2.


Wow, great job micro6500. I am always amazed at how when you take a logical approach and look for the data, the data always confirms the hypothesis that CO2 isn’t the cause. I made that hypothesis without having any knowledge of the data sets, but for some reason the real climate “scientists” don’t seem to think in terms of using the scientific method to make their point. They simply rely on politics. The data certainly doesn’t support their conclusions, unless they can explain how increasing CO2 hasn’t warmed the deserts, the best controls we have for their CO2 theory. They also then can’t explain why other areas are warming, if the deserts aren’t.

Bill Illis

Math = Plants grow faster absorb more CO2 = Plants release even more CO2 that they absorb.
= Failure in Grade 1


To add to the already confused state of affairs, someone should write one of those computer generated papers and tweak it a bit to set forth the discovery of transmutation of elements via cold-fusion in plants thereby internally creating more carbon than they take in from the atmosphere. The heat on those nights is explained by the cold fusion of course. …well, with enough weasel words it would probably pass peer review!

Gary Pearse

What is going to make this stop? If they haven’t given a quantitative analysis of the CO2 flows (they appear to prefer informationless prose instead of numbers). Also, it is an old chestnut that, gee if this keeps going on like this, we will flood (?) the atmosphere with CO2. Mark Twain speculated on a news story that Mississippi was shortening by a mile and a half a year (engineers were cutting off meanders to improve navigation). M.T reckoned “..And by the same token any person can see that seven hundred and forty-two years from now the lower Mississippi will be only a mile and three-quarters long. . .”
In Samuel Clemens time this was meant to be a joke!! Today, we are paying trillions for this kind of stuff.

Owen in GA

Hey! He was paid a lot of money for his witticisms by the papers in his day. So obviously, straight line interpolation leads to pay days, just like for the climate scientists™.

Just today someone asked me for a good method for constructing simple models. The example he was looking at was CFC emissions. I pointed out that the obvious simple linear model implied that some time ago we were emitting an Earth mass of CFCs every year and in the future we’d be absorbing them, so that it made no sense to use a linear fit outside the range of the data. “Models should make sense” is, astonishingly, a difficult concept for people to grasp.

Also in PNAS …

In most plants, the uptake of CO2 through photosynthesis is reduced by a side reaction called photorespiration. The research group has now found that the CO2 increase in the atmosphere over the 20th century has shifted the balance between photosynthesis and photorespiration toward photosynthesis. This shift has so far contributed to the global vegetation’s ability to dampen climate change by absorbing a third of human-caused CO2 emissions. The photorespiration pathway is known to increase with temperature, which means that temperature and CO2 effects predictably oppose one another. This implies that the CO2 -driven metabolic shift will be counteracted by future temperature increases.


Very possibly, Mr Anderegg was in a muddle about respiration as distinct from photorespiration, but that doesn’t explain how he was able to have plants not merely conserve matter but create it.
One does have to admire the inventiveness of the doom-sayers; no apparent benefit of increased CO2 could ever overwhelm its malign essence. So, it seems we have reached the pinnacle of plant potential.


nighttime temperatures in the tropics…
I thought global warming was supposed to have the least effect on the tropics.
…it’s the higher latitudes that increase night time temps

Bruce Cobb

Carbon change! We’re doomed! Again!

Curious George

“tropical ecosystems might be more vulnerable to climate change than previously thought, risking crossing the threshold from a carbon sink to a carbon source.” Supported by NCAR. They may have built this into their climatic models.
We should award the authors a medal. The name ig-Nobel has been taken; better ideas?

The medal should be the Cookie.


A quote from a response to one of Mr Anderegg’s earlier efforts regarding that 97%… and pondering why it should have beentpublished in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences …
“Publication of this article as an objective scientific study does a true disservice to scientific discourse”.


Mr Watts, here is something you may want to do an article on because it undermines one of the strongest arguments the warmists have, the C12/C13 ratio. The warmists clearly blame man.
These charts show a clear natural cause of the variation. The closer to vegetation, namely grass like vegetation, the higher the variation.
Slight problem here, the C12/C13 ratio is not just effected by fossil fuel consumption… In fact quite of lot of existing processes (both natural and man made) also ‘interact’ with the ratio. Namely:
C4 metabolism plants absorb more C13 than do C3 metabolism plants. Basically C4 plants are grasses, and grasses grow fast and include a lot of farmed field crops (like wheat). So we grow more C4 plants, the C13 goes down and the C12/13 ratio is effected in the same way as fossil fuel….
The C12/C13 ratio varies in the fossil fuel source used (i.e coal and oil), see this paper ….
Bacteria make methane with even less C13 in it than natural gas, after oxidization. Lots of bacteria of different types around….
These are just some of the known simpler to explain ‘other things’ that effect the C12/C13 ratio. If you would like to learn more see this excellent article.
Did the smoking gun just go ‘pop’ instead of bang?
Basically I think using just C12/C13 ratio as the ‘smoking gun’ that its humans polluting with Co2 is looking at serious risk of not being sound or significant.
This deserves a lot more direct research to ascertain if it is a valid mechanism for measuring human Co2 contributions. In the meantime, take human Co2 atmospheric measurements with a healthy dose of salt.,_man_made_Co2_measurement_problems/-cdf48


excellent post co2islife……thank you!


Thanks Latitude.

Curious George

There are C3 grasses as well as C4 grasses. C4 seem to be almost absent away from tropics., Figure 1.


Are they green as grass?

That research was already done 10 years ago: the seasons in the NH show a huge up and down in CO2 and opposite δ13C variations as extra-tropical plants start to regrow in spring, where higher temperatures give show a drop of CO2 and shed their leaves in fall, releasing a lot of CO2 with colder temperatures. In the SH that is a lot less: more ocean less vegetation. Here the averaged seasonal impact for Barrow and Mauna Loa:
The inter-annual changes where the report is talking about are different: CO2 and δ13C variations again are opposite of each other, pointing to vegetation as main cause, but CO2 goes up with temperature, not down. Temperature and drought in tropical vegetation reduce the uptake of CO2 and increase the decay of organic debris of previous years.
Does that give problems to know the cause of the δ13C decline? Not at all: there is a way out: the O2 balance. There is less O2 consumption than calculated from the burning of fossil fuels. Thus the biosphere as a whole is a net producer of O2, a net sink for CO2 and preferentially of 12CO2, thus not the cause of the δ13C decline. See:
As there are no other known huge sources of low-13C in nature and the levels in the atmosphere are following human emissions in near perfect ratio, that points to human emissions as the main cause…


As there are no other known huge sources of low-13C in nature and the levels in the atmosphere are following human emissions in near perfect ratio, that points to human emissions as the main cause…

Thanks Ferdinand Engelbeen, my understanding is that C13 is essentially fixed, and it is the change in C12 that drives the ratio. The theory being that fossil fuels contain mostly C12, so when burned the C12/C13 ratio increase. Plants are supposed to have mostly C12, and the oceans have a mix of C12 to C13 similar to the atmosphere. That is the theory. The problem is there are grasses that absorb C13 preferentially, and cold water absorbs C12 more than C13, and releases C12 when warmed. That is a natural cycle explanation for the fall in the C13/C12 ratio that is used as a smoking gun for fossil fuels.


Here is another issue with the C12/C13 Ratio:

Perhaps even more significant, cold ocean waters absorb lightweight C12 preferentially, resulting in lots of C13-deficient carbon in the oceans. This low-C13 carbon most certainly would have been released massively into the atmosphere over the course of the world’s warming trend since 1850, when the Little Ice Age ended.


thank you again!

The isotopic shift between air and water and reverse is known for decades.
The water – air shift is -10 per mil
The air – water shift is -2 per mil.
For the atmosphere that means that the δ13C level is about 8 per mil below the ocean’s per mil level, as the biosphere was rather neutral in the past and even a relative source of increasing δ13C in the past decades.
The deep oceans are average around zero per mil, while the ocean surface is around +1 per mil, locally up to +5 per mil, depending of bio-life. Bio-life is very abundant at deep ocean upwelling places like before the Peruvian and Chilean coasts, except during El Niño’s. Historical δ13C levels show -6.4 +/- 0.2 per mil in ice cores over the full Holocene, decreasing to less than -8 per mil nowadays in complete lockstep with human emissions since ~1850. The same drop is seen in ocean surface waters, where the drops follow the changes in the atmosphere with 1-2 years, not reverse.
Any huge release from the (deep) oceans would INcrease the current δ13C level of the atmosphere back towards about -6.4 per mil, while we see a firm drop…

This means that in future climate scenarios respiration rates could increase to the point that the land is putting more carbon into the atmosphere than it’s taking out of it
In a follow on study by davidmhoffer, the results on longer timelines are even worse.
“We took the study’s results and extrapolated them as a linear trend. The results are alarming.” said the researcher. “Assuming a linear trend, and we have no reason not to, the world runs out of oxygen completely in less than a millions years. If we don’t act now to limit plant growth by starving it of CO2, everything on earth could be sentenced to death.”
davidmhoffer was asked for further comment, but was apparently unavailable due to having passed out from laughing too hard.




due to having passed out

This was due to an imbalance in his physiological O2/CO2 ratio. However unfortunate this occurrence was, it provided dramatic proof that his theory is, in fact, correct.

it provided dramatic proof that his theory is, in fact, correct.
I’m sorry Tony, but it isn’t a theory. A linear extrapolation of a tiny segment of data is not a theory nor even a prediction. It is a projection. 97% of oxygen depletion scientists agree on this. Aw cr*p. I’m going to faint aga

Peter Fournier

“risking crossing the threshold from a carbon sink to a carbon source” and this in reference to living plants. So we shall witness, and soon, the majestic goliaths of the tropical rain forest quickly shrinking down to mere stubs scattered across the landscape. I expect a movie “Honey, I shrank the trees!”

The only thing the carbon sink is doing is expanding, and not only is it expanding, it is eating it’s way into whatever we’re producing. The rise in output of co2 vs the rise in ppm per year proves it. Thats not a conjecture, projection, or prediction it’s happening right now., and has been happening.


99 barrels of climate hypothesis on the wall…you take one down you pass it around 98 climate thesis on the wall…..

My research focuses around two central themes:
1. What is the future of forests in a changing climate? Massive mortality events of many tree species in the last decade prompt concerns that drought, insects, and wildfire may devastate forests in the coming decades. I study how drought and climate change affect forest ecosystems, including tree physiology, species interactions, carbon cycling, and biosphere-atmosphere feedbacks. This research spans a broad array of spatial scales from xylem cells to ecosystems and seeks to gain a better mechanistic understanding of how climate change will affect forests around the world.
2. How do we communicate climate science to the public and policy-makers? Communicating expert consensus and scientific understanding, even with inherent uncertainties, is critical to addressing climate change. I’ve explored the dynamics of expert agreement in communicating the state of climate science and trends in public interest and attention to climate issues.

The Original Mike M

Forests are doing much better than when they were crushed by glaciers.


Your work is very similar to much ecology research I have seen in the past 15 or so years. Perhaps you can help me with a point I an confused on.
You study
forests in a changing climate
What changing climate? The temperatures have flatlined for nearly 20 years, and have no significant change for longer. Any metric you choose, extreme hot or cold, drought, flood, storms, no storms, snow, no snow, rain, no rain, have all been remarkably constant now for two or maybe three decades.
In biology terms, plants do not flower sooner or later, species have not changed their ranges, and the polar bears are doing just fine.
Straight Question:
What aspects of the climate are you observing to change, and how are you measuring that change?
How have you observed that change to impact the forests you study, and how did you measure it?

The Original Mike M

Haven’t we been saying all along that temperature drives CO2? Hello NPP!


“Dr. J. Leroy Hulsey, PE, SE, introduces the WTC 7 Evaluation study to the University of Alaska Fairbanks Student Chapter of the American Society of Civil Engineers, October 15, 2015.
Title: “A Presentation to the University of Alaska Fairbanks
Student Chapter of the American Society of Civil Engineers”
Project topic: World Trade Center (WTC) Building 7
World Trade Center Building 7 Evaluation is an engineering study at the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF) using finite element modeling to evaluate the possible causes of World Trade Center Building 7’s collapse. Dr. Hulsey is the Chair of UAF’s Civil and Environmental Engineering Department.”

They will be computer modelling (I know) building 7 based on NIST theory of the one column causing the total symmetrical destruction.


Fascinating for sure, but you are viciously off-topic. This topic, among just a few other, is forbidden here. The temptation for trolls is just too much, among other things.


Understood but since there was a ‘cheap’ shot at truthers in the lead post I felt a response was appropriate Sort of like ‘denialist’

Have they considered checking if the plant can actually put out more carbon than it absorbs if the area it’s in is extremely hot at night?
Sounds like the first step.

John F. Hultquist

I’ve seen house cats age until quite old. They apparently put out more carbon than they take in. They get smaller and smaller until there is nothing left, except maybe, a grin.

If this run-away CO2 flooding has not happened at any time over the last half billion years of multicellular life – during most of which CO2 has been at above 1000 ppm – then how exactly is it going to happen now?
Yet another example of how not to do science of a complex system. These zealots again ignore climate history and assume the earth was created in 1850.

The Original Mike M

“These zealots again ignore climate history and assume the earth was created in 1850.”
… and that you and I were born yesterday.

Mike the Morlock

seems china is having a bit of air quality problem. Should have had cop21 in Peking.
Oh not as much fun.


This research was supported by the National Science Foundation MacroSystems Biology Grant (EF-1340270), RAPID Grant (DEB-1249256) and EAGER Grant (1550932);

RAPID Grant , EAGER Grant …. wow, they don’t even hide it. What’s next years project called, EASY Grant, GRIFTER Grant , KICKBACK Grant ?


Useless Grant!


Seems that if the NSF were not within the Office of the President, and the NAS were independent of the President, and James Hansen were not a Fellow of the NAS, then perhaps something useful would be funded and published. Sadly, that will not be the case for many decades come I hazard a guess.
Ha ha

Remember when they laughed at Reagan who pointed out that by liberal standards and demands, trees were polluting?
Well…the Gipper is howling with laughter now.,

richard verney

We know that total capacity of carbon sinks are increasing, year by year, since the annual increase in atmospheric CO2 is less than the annual amount of CO2 that man emits.
It seems to me that IF forest/plants truly release more CO2 than they sequester during the day and/or during the growth cycle of the plant, then total biomass carbon sinks would be reducing and not increasing. (At any rate, if one leaves plankton and the like out of the biomass equation).
The assertion in this paper makes it difficult to explain why atmospheric CO2 is not increasing year on year by more than the amount of CO2 that man emits each year.
IF forests/plants are an increasing source of CO2, what is the sink that is absorbing all of the forest/plant additional CO2, and some part of the manmade emissions of CO2?
Perhaps Ferdinand can shed some light on what this new sink is, or which sink we have previously underestimated its sequestering properties and capacity.

David A

The authors next study will demonstrate that in the fall CO2 enhanced trees will drop more leaves, thus they will release more CO2 into the atmosphere, which will be very bad creating more terrorism in the middle east.


Yeah, but we can prevent that by raising taxes and banning fossil fuels, David A.

David A

Indeed, but, as they are “honorable” scientists, they will leave the taxes, no doubt funding their further astute studies, up to the politicians.

Tom in Florida

This kind of reminds me of those who say they don’t want to make more money because they would have to pay more taxes. They don’t realize that they do not tax you more than 100% of what you earn, although I am sure they are trying to find a way to do so.


“… they do not tax you more than 100% of what you earn, although I am sure they are trying to find a way to do so.” –Tom in FLA
Soon, Tom. Very soon.