From the UNIVERSITY OF EXETER comes this wacky headline:
Forests ‘held their breath’ during global warming hiatus, research shows
Global forest ecosystems, widely considered to act as the lungs of the planet, ‘held their breath’ during the most recent occurrence of a warming hiatus, new research has shown
Global forest ecosystems, widely considered to act as the lungs of the planet, ‘held their breath’ during the most recent occurrence of a warming hiatus, new research has shown.
The international study examined the full extent to which these vital ecosystems performed as a carbon sink from 1998-2012 – the most recent recorded period of global warming slowdown.
The researchers, including Professor Pierre Friedlingstein from the University of Exeter, demonstrated that the global carbon sink — where carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere and stored in the natural environment – was particularly robust during this 14 year period.
The study shows that, during extended period of slower warming, worldwide forests ‘breathe in’ carbon dioxide through photosynthesis, but reduced the rate at which they ‘breathe out’ — or release the gas back to the atmosphere.
The team believes the crucial study offers a significant breakthrough for future climate modelling, which is used to predict just how different ecosystems will respond to rising global temperatures.
The pioneering study is published in leading science journal, Nature Climate Change, on Monday, January 23 2017.
Professor Friedlingstein, Chair of the Mathematical Modelling of Climate Systems research group at the University of Exeter said: ” Disentangling the feedback between global warming and the carbon cycle is critical for us to anticipate future climate change. In this study, we analysed what happened during the recent period of reduced warming, the so-called hiatus, highlighting the importance of ecosystem respiration as a key control of land carbon sinks.”
The Earth’s vast ecosystems, such as forests and oceans, are known to counteract the adverse climate impacts of fossil fuel consumption by removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere by acting as a carbon sink.
However, uncertainties remain about how these ecosystems will respond to future climate change, whether by consuming more carbon or, conversely, releasing greater volumes of carbon back into the atmosphere.
The study focused on Earth’s natural carbon cycle responded during both periods of rapid, and less rapid, warming that would normally be expected.
It revealed that the total amount of carbon taken up by land ecosystems slowed during periods of rapid warming, and sped up during periods of slower warming.
More significantly, the team demonstrated that while rates of photosynthesis remained constant during the periods of slower warming, the forests released less carbon back into the atmosphere – meaning the Earth is storing much more carbon during these warming hiatuses.
“The global carbon sink has been surprisingly strong during the period from 1998 to 2012, and we now begin to understand the causal mechanisms”, says Ashley Ballantyne of University of Montana, and lead author of the new research. Pekka Kauppi a forest ecologist from Helsinki University and co-author added the results were “As if forests have been holding their breath”.
‘Accelerating net terrestrial carbon uptake during the warming hiatus due to reduced respiration’ will be published online in Nature Climate Change on Monday, Jan. 23 2017.
###
Meanwhile, in the real world:
International team reports CO2 fertilization prompted plants and trees to sprout extra green leaves equivalent in area to two times the continental USA, or nearly 4.4 billion General Shermans (largest giant Sequoia tree)
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/04/25/inconvenient-study-co2-fertilization-greening-the-earth/
What’s even funnier is that Zeke Hausfather et al. has told us with absolute certainty, that the “hiatus” didn’t exist. Gosh, who to believe?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Yet another peer reviewed paper proving the existing climate models are worthless.
Well, I’m confused. Is the paper “wacky” nonsense or serious peer-reviewed science?
Yet another peer reviewed paper proving the existing peer reviews are worthless.
Off the charts stupid. Computer games versus Keeling curve reality. The wheels truly are coming off the CAGW wagon. See subcomment above for details. Nuff said.
The ‘lungs of the earth’ tale has been around for a while and is hauled out whenever it suits. Forests cover roughly 10 per cent of the earth’s surface, whereas plankton-laden seas cover about 70 per cent of it, so it is the seas that are the lungs of the earth.
Wanna believe that too and Ferdinand and I have been around and around on it. He makes a lot of good points (always) and my only surviving argument is the “7 micro-atmosphere disparity”. You can think of it as the “skin” of the atmosphere as we speak of the skin of the ocean. In the tiny boundary layer of the atmosphere at the ocean surface, the partial pressure of CO2 is 7 thousands of an atmosphere higher than the equilibrium value given by Henry’s law.
You and I might still be right. Planktonic respiration could be doing this. If so, It would blow the doors off current conceptions of the Carbon cycle. As Bart has repeatedly pointed out, biology is exempt from Henry’s Law.
OK – these clowns are officially INSANE.
Barbara,
INANE I could go with.
I am not a medical professional, so am unable to certify them as insane.
Deluded.
Desperate.
Despicable.
Differently moralled – perhaps. . . . . .
Some or all of the above.
Auto
We (humans) breath in O2 an out CO2, Trees breath in CO2 (photo synthesis, sigh, they do not have lungs, but if we are going with the analogy sure) and breath out O2 and H2O if I remember my Jr High biology. So they are not holding their breath. If they did they would not release CO2. Al Gore talked about the Planet breathing in CO2 (when plants grow in the summer) and breath out (when plants decompose and die including the leaves on the trees in the winter) this can not stop, so if they are referring to the Al Gore planet the only way for the planet to hold its breath is to have a higher concentration of evergreens or warmer winters where fewer things die (oh crap global warming) but these *********** even missed that point and talk about Trees holding their breath which is whacko in so many ways my head just exploded.
Oh great! So not only do we have heat “hiding” in the deep oceans, but now we have pent-up carbon in trees, ready to explode all that deadly, poisonous “carbon” into the atmosphere at any time.
We’re doomed.
Eric writes: “More significantly, the team demonstrated that while rates of photosynthesis remained constant during the periods of slower warming, the forests released less carbon back into the atmosphere – meaning the Earth is storing much more carbon during these warming hiatuses.”
Which is a hypothetical, maybe true?
It’s an organic and adaptive system after all. We don’t know how it works, maybe this is a clue? Have the investigators suggested a course of action? A method for validating the hypothesis?
Crazy ideas aren’t bad. It’s acting on crazy ideas that’s bad. Never rundown someone just because they have a crazy idea. But it’s OK after they’ve had a crazy idea and it’s been proven stupid. Then you can run them down 🙂
This is a new one on me. Maybe he’s right? You can either get out the popcorn, the laurel wreaths or the pitchforks. For me, it’s too soon to tell.
‘Course you are anthropomorphising. Why would anyone thing an entire forest would “hold its breath”?
The forest holds its breath because it is not getting its way. Breath-holding is followed by kicking and screaming and stompy fits. If that doesn’t work, there is always throwing pacifiers out of prams.
And if that doesn’t do the trick, they report all of your credit cards stolen.
Not so much as holding its breath, more like holding it nose for the last 8 years.
And since the world forest doesn’t/can’t breath through its mouth, there was the effect of not breathing at all.
Don writes:“Not so much as holding its breath, more like holding it nose for the last 8 years.”
I had to go with absorbing nicotine through my skin. It was tough but my dog survived it.
Beat me to it again. The forest has been holding its breath since the beginning of the Pleistocene, just like we do when we avoid some nasty smoke. The forests are our reciprocals, they choke on Oxygen.
These guys are saying that during periods of rapid warming the forests are especially disinclined to exhale. Perhaps because they have been holding their breath for so long…
There’s “nasty” smoke? Certainly not tobacco? Not dope. Burning dog hair?
Sorry Jim, I couldn’t resist.
Oxygen.
Our favorite conifer writes: “The forest has been holding its breath since the beginning of the Pleistocene, just like we do when we avoid some nasty smoke.”
I was thinking about something far more personal. Kid’s love fart jokes…
Disentangling? Jesus wept. Does anyone know if that is the same thing as untangling?
These “scientists” think that adding yet another degree of freedom will make their models work.
Most O2 comes from the oceans. Most CO2 is absorbed by oceans. Forests have relatively small impact.
Actually, the Keeling curve NH seasonality suggests your statement is not true. More like 50-50. Go look at the Keeling curve in seasonal detail, think about what it shows, then get back better educated.
It depends what your read, or perhaps in this case, what you want to believe. I just did a quick read and found one suggestion that it is 60 per cent from the oceans. More to the point, it does not state that the remainder is from forests. But I suppose there is 97 per cent consensus on that!
But BCS,
Poor simple bum boatie here thought the science was settled.
Irrevocably settled.
The believers know everything – that is, EVERYTHING (shouty shouty) – there is to know about climates, climate change, global cooling, forest and oceans, clouds, and out-gassing, sun-spots, cosmic rays, tectonic plate movement and its effects and all the rest . . . . .
Can it be that there may be some tiny area where The Team might have some doubt?
Mods – sorry – /sarc.
Auto
Since CO2 is food to plants, wouldn’t the drop in night CO2 output be relative to an increased amount of stored energy? This would help explain why plants grow faster in higher concentrations of it. Is it possible that plants have a built-in guard against depleting the CO2 in the local biosphere, by simply respiring instead of growing? Then, as CO2 gets to healthier levels, the plants can safely process more into growth and don’t need to conserve.
That would make focusing on the warming a bit off-track.
Never mind, after reading Bill Illis I guess I’m “Son of Flubber” again.
So, negative feedback instead of positive feedback.
Sonce poants take in more CO2 than they release, this is more like plants inhaling deeply (to use their own flawed analogy), rather than holding their breath, surely?
My understanding is that when a forest is mature or becomes mature, the absorption of CO2 is the same as that which is released.
This means that the use of forests as carbon sinks is time limited as newly planted forests reach their maturity.
The only way to encourage further CO2 absorption is to harvest the timber and use it for accomodation.
Which in turn presupposes a growing population.
Which in turn is considered a bad thing by the progressive left.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com
Roger:
That is a common misconception (gross assumption) from researchers who rarely visit the field.
Trees keep getting larger and larger as long as they are alive.
Just look at any crosscut section of tree trunk and start calculating volume each new annular ring contains.
Large trees grow an incredible amount of leaf cover with a likely equal root system.
Locust cycles, 11 and seventeen years, are a natural so to speak, method of pruning many hardwoods. The locusts lay their eggs near the woody growing branch of a leaf cluster. Killing the leaf cluster when the eggs hatch. Each lost leaf cluster results in several branching leaing structures the following spring.
Locusts are just one kind of insect laying their eggs into a leafing branch.
And the models predicted this, right? Right?? Hello???
Try “projected this”, BB . . siantists can be real finicky .. .
I read what is available from Nature Climate Change and I can’t tell what these guys were doing.
Now, just guessing from it is available, but probably what they are talking about here is that there is a basic Carbon Uptake and a Carbon Release from vegetation. Maybe they mean “respiration”, is the net Carbon release part of the equation. The release is mainly from decaying vegetation material which mainly happens in the winter. So, it is not “respiration” but simply release from the vegetation as it decays in the fall and winter and early spring season as part of the Carbon Cycle.
There are various estimates for what these numbers are but generally vegetation is taking in 110 to 165 billion tons of Carbon per year and releasing 108 to 163 tons of Carbon each year – net uptake of 2 billion tons. (Ocean are another net uptake of 2 billion tons).
But this net uptake numbers have been increasing over time as the partial pressure of CO2 has increased. It used to be net 0.1 billion tons and now it is net 4.0 billion tons. Someday, it will get to 9.0 billion tons or so and plants will be a net Carbon intake of 4.5 billion tons.
In addition, the only people who can really answer what is going on with vegetation Carbon Uptake and Carbon Release are the people who are running the experiments with CO2 towers in forests and also in similar set-ups on grassland. These are actually serious studies running for many years and have been instrumental in resolving these issues.
The last study I saw which used all the data from these CO2 uptake and release experiments said that Carbon uptake and release was on the very highest end of the vegetation Carbon cycle nearer to the 165 billion tons numbers.
From what I can tell, this particular study did not use any of that data, however, but simplly crunched numbers and produced a number of “Fake Science: graphs.
Plants will continue to take in and release more and more Carbon (CO2) as the level in the atmosphere gets higher and higher. (The climate scientists just do not seem to be able to grasp this concept which is why we end up with the Bern Carbon Model and the alarmist position that CO2 will stay in the atmosphere for thousands of years).
“The release is mainly from decaying vegetation material which mainly happens in the winter.”
As anyone knows who actually measures CO2 levels, some sort of “release” occurs on a daily basis. Experiences will vary, but here at 19°S 146°E, CO2 levels in daylight are around 380 – 390 ppm. At sunset, levels start to rise, reach 420 ppm at around 9 pm, stay at that level until sunrise. Large “forest” of mangrove upwind, dominant airflow is off the Coral Sea. No explanation other than photosynthesis turning off/on. Little variation throughout the year, but occasional “spikes” occur during late summer afternoons that could be decay boost from the continual mangrove brew, or possibly “carbon pipe” effect. Pattern and levels haven’t changed in 5 years. No vehicles, air-conditioners or power stations up-wind. (A large diesel engine idling 10 metres upwind from the sensor will show up, but me cussing round under it with the lawn mower doesn’t register.)
…but…but…but, don’t these people know there was never a warming hiatus? Denialists! Lock ’em up!
The group that performed this research must have enjoyed daily self gratification parties while sitting in a circle.
Start with assumptions.
Apply new assumptions.
Apply plenty of wishful thinking modeling and formula twisting.
Thoroughly blender the numbers.
From the caption of one of their graphs:
They averaged 4,500 simulations to get their “median” line.
Somehow, their 4.500 simulations made for very small uncertainty bars.
Isn’t it amazing how accurate numbers one can get by averaging “garbage out”?
Bad modelers of the world! Average your troubles away with the new multi-thousand simulation master!
As demonstrated by NOAA climate models.
“The group that performed this research must have enjoyed daily self gratification parties while sitting in a circle.”
Were they mass debating ?
Yes, hence their fear of “doing it with skeptics” – the fear of poor performance.
With the exception of the initial sprouting phase, powered by an investment of carbohydrates packed into the seed by the parent, growth can only occur when the CO2 input of a plant exceeds the CO2 output.
So they are just trying to say, in a desultory and “poetic” way, that plants flourished during “the pause”.
Yes, that was essentially how my brain processed their twisted double speak – so plants grew, vigorously.
Druids and tree worship. The primary photosynthetic biome is water. The limit to its oxygen production is iron in a bioavailable form. Plenty of iron oxide falls into the oceans but it sinks long before it can become available UNLESS there is sufficient sulfur trioxide in the atmosphere. That is my hypothesis. Stand by for the proof:
After the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, every atmospheric gas analysis trend showed carbon dioxide levels dropping. Aligns with Dr. John Martin’s iron seeding hypothesis except for duration. Why? Assumption that iron would remain at the surface is wrong. Plants are food, especially in oceans. But animals like coropods and others are themselves food. And they all migrate vertically every day. Iron sedimentation is therefore assisted by herbivory.
Give me a supertanker of iron and I will drop carbon dioxide by a few ppm.
So, there is no problem with coal then. This is just the forests exhaling after some number of millions of years. Say that to your local Gaia worshiper and watch their mind melt.
And they wonder why climate science is the clown of the sciences. Can’t wait for the funding spigot to shut off.
Umm, so this ‘holding their breath’ would I take it this impacts on the annual growth rings of the trees?
If not why not! If they do what does it say about the validity of the famous hockey-stick graph and it’s data? Growth patterns are not, by this research, only affected by warmth, moisture, etc but now a more troubling process by which growth slows during a temperature hiatus.
Firefox…Edit…Find…griff..stokes…tone…mcleod…bin somebody. Crickets.
They are also holding their breath, just shows how stupid this is if that bunch wont rush to defend it
If trees have an unexpected effect on CO2 levels, then the author is conceding that the world is not exactly how the current climate “scientific consensus” shows it to be. Any admission of there being factors showing that it is not perfect opens up the possibility that the scientific consensus is not exactly correct. Therefore, he is a science denier.
Publish Whatever keeps the Gravy Training rolling and delivering the
gravygrant money…….sighI’m sure the papers and documentaries being released now, were timed to be part of the ‘doubling-down’ on climate change by the victorious progressive president, while she cemented all the “congressional bypasses” made by her predecessor into permanency.