From the DOE/LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY and the Department of Hungry Biomass comes this encouraging news that throws cold water on climate alarmism.
Study: Carbon-hungry plants impede growth rate of atmospheric CO2
New findings suggest the rate at which CO2 is accumulating in the atmosphere has plateaued in recent years because Earth’s vegetation is grabbing more carbon from the air than in previous decades.
That’s the conclusion of a new multi-institutional study led by a scientist from the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab). It’s based on extensive ground and atmospheric observations of CO2, satellite measurements of vegetation, and computer modeling. The research is published online Nov. 8 in the journal Nature Communications.
To be clear, human activity continues to emit increasing amounts of carbon, and the atmospheric concentration of CO2, now at 400 parts per million (ppm), continues to rise. But the scientists found that between 2002 and 2014, the rate at which CO2 increased in the atmosphere held steady at about 1.9 ppm/year. In addition, the proportion of the CO2 emitted annually by human activity that remains in the atmosphere declined by about 20 percent. This slowdown can’t keep pace with emissions, so the overall amount of human-caused CO2 in the atmosphere increased, just not as quickly. And for that, new research suggests, we can thank plants.
“This highlights the need to identify and protect ecosystems where the carbon sink is growing rapidly,” says Trevor Keenan, a research scientist in Berkeley Lab’s Climate & Ecosystem Sciences Division and the corresponding author of the paper.
The scientists attribute the stalled CO2 growth rate to an uptick in land-based photosynthetic activity, fueled by rising CO2 levels from fossil fuel emissions. It’s a snowball effect: as CO2 levels rise in the atmosphere, photosynthetic activity flourishes and plants take in more carbon, sparking more plant growth, more photosynthesis, and more carbon uptake.
They also identified another player. Plant respiration, a process in which plants use oxygen and produce CO2, did not increase as quickly as photosynthesis in recent years. This is because plant respiration is sensitive to temperature, and it was affected by the recent slowdown in global warming that was observed most significantly over vegetated land. So, between 2002 and 2014, plants took in more CO2 through photosynthesis, but did not “exhale” more CO2 into the atmosphere through respiration.
“These changes decreased the amount of anthropogenic CO2 that stays in the atmosphere, and thus slowed the accumulation of atmospheric CO2,” says Keenan.
Their findings provide a possible answer to a climatic mystery. The growth rate of atmospheric CO2 climbed steadily during the latter half of the 20th century, from 0.75 ppm/year in 1959 to 1.86 ppm/year in 2002. But Keenan and colleagues discovered an inflection point last year when they analyzed the latest data from the Global Carbon Project, which quantifies carbon emissions and their sources annually. Since 2002, the growth rate has remained flat.
This pause is especially surprising because it has occurred as human activity pumps more and more carbon into the atmosphere. All that CO2 must be going somewhere, so the scientists suspected something about the carbon cycle has recently changed in a big way.
“We believed one of the planet’s main carbon sinks had unexpectedly strengthened. The question was: which one?” says Keenan.
The scientists ruled out oceans as a dominant cause because most computer models agree the amount of carbon taken in by oceans has increased steadily in recent years. That left terrestrial ecosystems, which undergo a large year-to-year variability in carbon uptake, and the two biggest influences on this variability are photosynthesis and plant respiration.
To study these influences, the scientists used ten “global dynamic vegetation models” that predict how the terrestrial carbon cycle changes over time.
They also used a model that incorporates satellite measurements of vegetation cover and plant activity to predict global photosynthesis and respiration rates. They validated the model by comparing its results with data from AmeriFlux and FLUXNET, which are networks of eddy-covariance research towers that measure ecosystem carbon, water, and energy fluxes in North and South America. Berkeley Lab manages AmeriFlux for the Department of Energy.
Model projections were generated using different scenarios of atmospheric CO2 level, temperature, soil moisture, and other processes. This enabled the researchers to evaluate the impacts of these processes on the planet’s terrestrial carbon cycle.
Taken together, the models zeroed in on rising CO2 levels as having the biggest impact on photosynthesis and plant respiration. The result is a boost in terrestrial carbon uptake, particularly in tropical and high-latitude ecosystems. Specifically, the models suggest rising CO2 levels caused terrestrial ecosystems to double the rate at which they take in carbon, from between one and two petagrams of carbon per year in the 1950s, to between two and four petagrams of carbon per year in the 2000s. For comparison, human activity emits between nine and ten petagrams of carbon per year (one petagram is one trillion kilograms).
The scientists conclude this increase in carbon uptake put the brakes on the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 between 2002 and 2014.
[and here is the obligatory alarm statement -AW]
“Unfortunately, this increase is nowhere near enough to stop climate change,” says Keenan, adding that their results answer questions and pose new ones. “We’ve shown the increase in terrestrial carbon uptake is happening, and with a plausible explanation why. But we don’t know exactly where the carbon sink is increasing the most, how long this increase will last, or what it means for the future of Earth’s climate.”
###
The research is partly funded by the Laboratory Directed Research and Development Program of Berkeley Lab and the Department of Energy’s Office of Science.
Say it with me …. “negative feedback ”
Who would have thunk it?
think, thank, thunk ?? or does it mean a combination of thank and thought?
So they modeled vegetation but didn’t bother to monitor phytoplankton in the ocean? Gotta love this modeling…
Warming, less warming less CO2 growth, may indicate we are not driving CO2 growth
Congratulations to the United States.
Kudzu.
Gesundheit!
The planet is warming and greening? Its a complete disaster. How ever will we manage?
ironic that in their modelling of the “greenhouse effect” they undervalued the very purpose of what greenhouses are actually used for…..
For once, I would like to see a climate scientist use the actual numbers. They can’t. They just need to make up the numbers. They were the students who were failing math classes and switched to environmental science. That is what this is all about. We have an entire science that just ignores the actual data and makes it up because they don’t understand numbers but they like the narrative that GHGs are BAD.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2_data_mlo_anngr.png
Bill
Thank you for some sanity. There is nothing quite like raw data
You have it, Bill. The post-normal scientist leans of “narrative” rather than data.
george e. smith November 8, 2016 at 8:09 pm
“Actually when the oceans really cool and freeze then they emit copious amounts of CO2 which is not happy in the solid state environment of ice.”
As someone who never progressed beyond school physics and has long forgotten even that, how then can ice cores provide accurate evidence of CO2 levels in previous centuries?
(As someone who has been involved in fruit farming, I do not believe that dendrology can really provide accurate records of past levels of CO2 without significant subjective input.)
So how do we know the true level of pre-industrial CO2? Should we cease disparaging Ernst Georg Beck?
The CO2 is preserved as microscopic bubbles in the ice, it is not dissolved in the ice like it is dissolved in the water.
TLM
Thanks but how do we differentiate the between the bubbles that have been formed from “the copious amounts of CO2” that have just been emitted from the freezing water and that which is already in the surrounding atmosphere? And, while CO2 might not dissolve in ice, does that apply to other atmospheric gases? Particularly when under pressure?
I am sure the answers must be simple. I really must start learning more chemistry, which I also gave up after leaving school!
“how do we differentiate the between the bubbles …”
Not necessary since both source of CO2 track together. All the cores tell us is that there are relative differences, the size of the difference and absolute magnitude of the concentrations are just guesses.
Its the same with temperatures which are determined primarily by the ratio of Deuterium to Hydrogen in the water since heavy water and light water have slightly different temperature dependencies on evaporation. Again, all we can tell is that there are relative differences, but the size of the differences and the absolute magnitudes are also just guesses. In addition, the ratio of D to H is dependent on the temperature of the ocean water that evaporated to produce the snow that turned to ice and not dependent on the temperature of where the core was drilled.
> Kinetics come from the deltas between 2 snapshots
I have never heard that argument used in context of climate change.
If we assume climate as average over 30 years, so in _worst case_ since start of warming in 1970 we have already one data point!
In 2020 we can draw a line.
In 2050 we can use Taylor series to get a curve, and so on.
**Unfortunately, this increase is nowhere near enough to stop climate change,” says Keenan,**
He has to get his lick in even though he cannot prove it.
The only nearby astronomical body that doesn’t undergo climate change is the Moon. Arguably, Venus and Mercury don’t, but Mars does.
Important findings. Remember, the relationship between emissions and concentrations is what caused Hansen’s 1988 predictions that were the basis of his Senate testimony to be so completely wrong.
Good point.
Emissions have been dramatically higher than Hansen’s worst case Scenario A. But actual concentrations in the atmosphere have verified lower… more like Scenario B.
So, Hansen apologists always say that “Scenario A did not happen” so his forecasts just look bad instead of terrible.
But part of the error in forecasting is knowing all the feedbacks. Duh! One of the negative feedbacks is that CO2 drives plant growth which mitigates CO2.
So, lets be clear. Hansen verified an “A+”. More emission have been dumped than his highest estimates. His errors… more was mitigated naturally and the ECS is also lower. The combination has been mighty rough on the famous 1988 forecasts.
Forecasting is tough, especially when it concerns the future. Just ask pollsters.
My comments above are broad-brushed…. would love to hear from some who know more specifics about exact Hansen values than I do
2016 is being touted as the warmest on record. The problem is that it’s still below the lowest predictions. The models are wrong. A, b, or c .
Plants like plant food.
Who’d a thunk it.
Looks like they have described a negative(-) CO2 feedback loop.
I think this is in response to the huge amount of anthropogenic co2 that is is missing. During one year, I estimate that 80% of anthropogenic co2 just up and vanished. Over the last 10 years, NOAA says 50% goes into the sink. Overestimating the atmosphere, no year since 1998 has the amount been below 67% . Only this year has co2 ppm been consistent with production. And of course the rhetoric is 2016… warmest ever. Waiting for NOAA to adjust the numbers.
I don’t know about anyone else, but the WUWT site has become almost unusable to me. The screen is constantly flipping back to whatever ad video is playing, and it freezes up constantly, with a message that I have an unresponsive script.
I may have found the solution for me. I had to block extensions for this site.
It happened to me as well. Same solution unfortunately, since the ads help Anthony run this site.
this layman says DUH….more plant FOOD = BETTER healthier plants and more of them = DUH
Excerpted from article:
And of course you had to ask yourself ……. just how in hell do those Climate Scientists tell the difference between the atmospheric CO2 that was emitted annually by human activities ……. and the atmospheric CO2 that was emitted annually by other processes?
Well now, that is a CAGW secret they don’t want you to know ….. but I will tell you what it is, to wit:
This is that nasty ole Anthropogenic Global Warming secret about CO2 that the proponents of CAGW are not telling you. Surprise, surprise, there are actually two (2) different types of CO2.
There is both a naturally occurring CO2 molecule and a hybrid CO2 molecule that has a different physical property. The new hybrid CO2 molecule contains an H-pyron which permits one to distinguish it from the naturally occurring CO2 molecules.
The H-pyron or Human-pyron is only attached to and/or can only be detected in CO2 molecules that have been created as a result of human activity. Said H-pyron has a Specific Heat Capacity of one (1) GWC or 1 Global Warming Calorie that is equal to 69 x 10 -37th kJ/kg K or something close to that or maybe farther away.
Thus, said H-pyron is very important to all Climate Scientists that are proponents of CO2 causing Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) because it provides them a quasi-scientific “fact” that serves two (2) important functions: 1) it permits said climate scientists to calculate an estimated percentage of atmospheric CO2 that is “human caused” ……. and 2) it permits said climate scientists to calculate their desired “degree increase” in Average Global Temperatures that are directly attributed to human activity.
As an added note, oftentimes one may hear said climate scientists refer to those two (2) types of CO2 as “urban CO2” and ”rural CO2” because they can’t deny “it is always hotter in the city”.
And there you have it folks, the rest of the story, their secret scientific tool has been revealed to you.
Yours truly, Eritas Fubar
Samuel
Very interesting -thank you
I’ve always wondered how that extra 3% of C02 could cause so much extra warming over the other 97% – I guess it’s just sticky.
Plants eat C02. Who knew?
Once again researchers tie themselves in knots trying to make their results fit the IPCC statement “we are certain that increasing CO2 concentration causes increased temperature”. The error in this proposition can clearly be seen in a plot of the residual time series, after removal of the seasonal variation, for CO2 concentration, almost a straight line of positive slope, against satellite lower tropospheric temperature, a fluctuating time series whose slope is small compared to the variations from that trend.
For example, the CO2 record for Mauna Loa relative to the satellite lower tropospheric temperature for the Tropics – Land component has been analysed using a First Order Autoregressive model. The correlation coefficient was 0.002 with 451 degrees of freedom and a t statistic of 0.047 implying a probability of 96% that the correlation coefficient is equal to Zero from the two-sided t-test.
The authors contradict themselves with their statement “ we report a recent pause in the growth rate of atmospheric CO2, …………..We attribute the observed decline to increases in the terrestrial sink during the past decade, associated with the effects of rising atmospheric CO2 on vegetation and the slowdown in the rate of warming on global respiration.” The fact is that CO2 concentration has been rising continuously at the Mauna Loa Observatory since measurements began in 1959 so the supposed cause of their pause would always have been in effect.
Instead of the multitude of effects, mathematical equations and computer simulations invoked by the authors there is one simple explanation, namely, that the rate of change of CO2 concentration is dependent on the temperature level. There was a pause in the increase in temperature for the 2002 to 2014 period which has been reflected in a pause in the rate of change of CO2 concentration.
Confirming of this thesis is the analysis of the annual rate of change for CO2 at Mauna Loa verses the satellite lower tropospheric Tropics – Land temperature again using a First Order Autoregressive model. The correlation coefficient was 0.25 with 445 degrees of freedom and a t statistic of 5.38, implying an Infinitesimal probability that the coefficient is equal to zero from a two-sided t-test.
This quote from the article is bass-ackwards, no?
“Plant respiration, a process in which plants use oxygen and produce CO2, did not increase as quickly as photosynthesis in recent years.”
Billions on carbon capturing has been spent. How about stopping the production of biofuels and giving the land back to nature instead. Seems like it does a better job than we can ever do.
I predicted here at wuwt this would happen after it was reported that the planet is greening and that photo-plankton were increasing a few years ago. I recall that although Ferdinand Engelbert was active on the thread, my idea didn’t get any traction with commenters. Could it be that Berkley Labs noticed my simple, self evident prediction? One day with the internet it will be possible to claim prior “discovery” and one can have their idea added to the bibliography at least.
Dang iPhone corrected! Englebeem.
Bartemis & gallopingcamel
Not exactly what you are looking for, but this may be of interest: http://www.biogeosciences.net/1/101/2004/bg-1-101-2004.pdf.
The d13C data is the key here, but in the absence of specific numbers there are some general concepts worth keeping in mind.
1. During a La Nina, upwelling of nutrients is high, CO2 content in the ocean waters is high and O2 is very low. In this situation, phytoplankton are busy reproducing like there’s no tomorrow and using up lots of CO2 and hence less is released to the atmosphere (but with a d13C of around zero). In addition, O2 is very low and hence one might expect more to move from air to ocean (see paper).
2. During an El Nino, the upwelling of nutrients is shut off and the phytoplankton die off. This will presumably lead to high levels of CO2 in the near surface waters and, in these warmer waters,, this might lead to an increased release of CO2 into the atmosphere with plant-level d13C content (i.e closer to -26 per mil).
Just saying.