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

warm-nights
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.

Next!

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

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
209 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
December 7, 2015 7:32 pm

If we draw some straight lines on current trends, we can conclude that soon nights will be warmer thans days… generally speaking.

Chris in Hervey Bay
Reply to  Joel O’Bryan
December 7, 2015 9:37 pm

That has already happened. In the Australian Temperature Record, there have been numerous occasions where the Minimum Temps exceeded the Maximums.

Chris in Hervey Bay
Reply to  Chris in Hervey Bay
December 7, 2015 9:39 pm

OH, I forgot to add, “In the same day”.

hunter
December 7, 2015 7:42 pm

Think of hardcore fundamentalist seminary students sitting around at night drinking too much coffee and figuring out new ways to interpret how the Bible proves the wrath of God is coming, rapture and all. These authors are just sciencey secular version of that process, obsessed with CO2 instead of a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible.

Evan Jones
Editor
Reply to  hunter
December 7, 2015 7:59 pm

sitting around at night drinking too much coffee
And, as always, input determines output.

Robber
December 7, 2015 7:45 pm

I’m sure that 97% of climate scientists will endorse this “science”.
“warm nighttime temperatures lead plants to put more carbon into the atmosphere”. Are they spitting out soot?
“more carbon flooding the atmosphere”. A flood of carbon – what a sight to behold. And I thought it was evil smokestacks, but no, it’s plants:-)
“tropical nighttime temperatures, which have risen by about 0.6 degrees Celsius (33 degrees Fahrenheit) since 1959” <or actually 1.1 degrees F – a schoolboy howler there from some PR junky who failed elementary maths, let alone science). So that trend equates to about 1 degree per century, hardly catastrophic.

Evan Jones
Editor
December 7, 2015 7:56 pm

“Life is like a sewer. What you get out of it depends on what you put into it.” –Tom Lehrer
And plants.

Merovign
December 7, 2015 8:53 pm

And the extra carbon comes from the carbon fairy! But it’s okay, because it’s absorbed by the carbon fairy, that’s why we don’t all suffocate!

James Hein
December 7, 2015 8:54 pm

Over the years I have seen some excellent articles here showing that the rise in minimum temperatures, as measured by the not so accurate ground stations, is due to the UHI. Quite simply while the max temps have not moved that much, due to the slower release of stored heat during the day from concrete, parking lots, buildings etc. the min takes longer to reach so on average it is warmer at night. The average between min and max then moves upwards due to this effect and as a result average temps also appear to move up. I suspect that satellite measurements are not subject to the same influences and would not show the same increase in min temps?

John Moore.
Reply to  James Hein
December 8, 2015 1:46 am

Exactly. I suggest the rise in night temperatures is entirely due to the fact that there are vast areas covered in roads and buildings which hold the heat of the day far more than the trees and vegetation which was there previously. Increasing a great deal in the last sixty years or so. And this is where most of the temperature readings are taken I think I have read.

Bruckner8
December 7, 2015 9:52 pm

…and the owners of all land will incur a carbon tax based on some kind of complex formula (think USA tax code), with loopholes, based on acreage, plant types, avg sunshine, etc, etc…just for having the gall to own land with such destructive vegetation!

Alan Robertson
December 7, 2015 10:37 pm

Own plants? Pay a tax. Simple.

sophocles
December 7, 2015 11:01 pm

Plants use oxygen as part of their respiration.
Animals use oxygen as a major part of their respiration,
Animals exhale CO2 as a metabolic by-product.
So how come the proportion of oxygen in the
atmosphere has remained so constant for tens of
millions of years with all those animals and plants
using it up?
Perhaps O2 is exhaled by photosynthesising critters
(plants) as part of their respiration and this has been
overlooked. I guess even Mr. Anderegg has the right
look foolish …

December 7, 2015 11:20 pm

This study is straight from the World of ‘might’ and ‘could’. If there were such positive feed-backs in existence, the World would have spiraled out of control long ago, As the amount of plant mass in the World, created with increased CO2 levels, increases, more CO2 is captured by the plants themselves, generally pro-rata. There might be more oxygen available, however.

ratuma
December 7, 2015 11:26 pm
prjindigo
December 7, 2015 11:41 pm

I *LITERALLY* predicted this bullshit on this website several years ago.

Peter
December 8, 2015 12:33 am

Add what this article says to the fact that dead plants rot and release CO2 to the air. Animals pass methane and CO2 on a continuous basis as they metabolize food. Dead animals release Carbon metabolites to the air.
This leads to an obvious conclusion, Clear all life, and bury it. No more CO2 released to the air.
The only source after that will be volcanoes.
Logical conclusion, even if deranged.

chris moffatt
Reply to  Peter
December 8, 2015 4:30 am

This is not actually very far from the desired solution for many of the rabid greenies. Certainly they would like to get rid of all people. Maybe a few cuddly furry animals (like polar bears) would be allowed to survive the speciecide.

December 8, 2015 2:49 am

Where do these people live? Nights are warmed by CLOUD far more than by anything else.
What’s the plan to eliminate cloud after hours?

December 8, 2015 3:01 am

Another utterly ridiculous paper published by PNAS.
I tried to help these people with their warmist delusions years ago – really!
Here is my correspondence to them from 2012:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/08/an-incovenient-result-july-2012-not-a-record-breaker-according-to-the-new-noaancdc-national-climate-reference-network/#comment-1054285
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_July_2012.png
To:
Heads of Departments,
Proceedings, National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
Dear PNAS Heads:
UAH Global Temperature Update for July 2012: +0.28C,
COOLER than June, 2012: +0.37 deg.
If one wants to argue about GLOBAL warming, should one not look first at GLOBAL temperatures?
Respectfully, Allan

knr
December 8, 2015 3:11 am

When all you can make is BS , then BS is all you have to sell.
The good news , for these people , is that this is not actually a drawback in their ‘profess’ , but instead it is regards has a virtue.

Richard
December 8, 2015 4:47 am

Make a claim, any claim, about global warming, rising CO2, and the End of the World, and it will be believed.
Proof not required.

Tom O
December 8, 2015 4:56 am

Got one question for the author regarding this part of his post – Pieter Tans, keeper of the official CO2 record and an avowed 911 “truther”. Ever do any studies on 911? There is enough thermal energy in a full load of JP-4 to heat all the steel in either tower 100 degrees Fahrenheit, did the math myself to make sure. If you haven’t heated those bottom floors to the point fireman can’t climb to the 60th floor, you aren’t bringing that tower down in near free fall speed.. If you AREN’T a 911 “truther,” you are probably a gullible idiot, but fortunately, you are writing about an area of “anti-science” that has far more gullible idiots that you can shake a stick at. Knock Tans for being a CO2 idiot, but you showed your own ignorance by throwing out “avowed 911 truther” to discredit him.

RWturner
Reply to  Tom O
December 8, 2015 10:10 am

Agreed, that’s a type of Ad Hominem known as guilty by association. And besides, there’s never been a conspiracy that has turned out to be true involving the U.S. government *eye roll*.
I would love to know, how many on here that simply pooh-pooh “truthers”, have even heard of 7 world trade center? [trimmed.]
[Not a topic open for debate here. Trimmed per site policy. .mod]

RWturner
Reply to  RWturner
December 8, 2015 11:36 am

Then trim the opening paragraph of the essay why don’t you if that topic is not allowed? I thought objection to blind loyalty was encouraged on this site.

H.R.
December 8, 2015 5:07 am

Self correcting problem…
After electricity is priced out of the reach of all but the 1%-ers, every burnable tree and shrub will be used for heat and cooking within a matter of months. No more vegetation. Oh, that’ll briefly spike CO2 levels, but then the earth will do its usual best to sequester CO2 in ocean sediments and pretty soon, Gaia will be rid of all those pesky humans and the nasty CO2.
/end Swift-like proposal

December 8, 2015 5:57 am

Has anyone seen this facebook post from arnold schwarzenegger ( AltE posted it on their facebook ) https://www.facebook.com/notes/arnold-schwarzenegger/i-dont-give-a-if-we-agree-about-climate-change/10153855713574658
It seems rather contradictory. Don’t these morons know manufacturing solar panels makes hazardous waste? Do they not care about clean water? There is a story on yahoo that admits this. Don’t get me wrong, solar panels are great way to hedge against possible carbon taxes and higher electricity costs.

MarkW
December 8, 2015 6:15 am

Plants take in more during the day, and release some of it at night. So what?

December 8, 2015 6:40 am

Wind turbines raise nighttime temperatures. Wind advocate claim that’s irrelevent because “it’s local”. However, wind turbines are all over the place raising temperatures. In light of this study, take the turbines down and save the planet.

Dackombe
December 8, 2015 6:52 am

The title mentions carbon being put into the atmosphere – I thought it was CO2.

Reply to  Dackombe
December 8, 2015 8:23 am

Dackombe,
One uses “carbon” as that doesn’t change in mass if that is absorbed by trees (into sugars, starch, cellulose and a host of other stuff). In the oceans it is 1% CO2, 90% bicarbonate and 9% carbonate. To avoid all the recalculations, “carbon” is used, as 1 Gt carbon or 1 Pg carbon going from the atmosphere into vegetation or back remains 1 GtC, in whatever form it is/was residing…

December 8, 2015 8:14 am

“carbon flooding the atmosphere.” Not sure if they realize this, but C02 is a trace gas (and always will be). The term ‘flooding the atmosphere’ is simply disingenuous!