Role of terrestrial biosphere in counteracting climate change may have been underestimated

From the UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM

New research suggests that the capacity of the terrestrial biosphere to absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) may have been underestimated in past calculations due to certain land-use changes not being fully taken into account.

It is widely known that the terrestrial biosphere (the collective term for all the world’s land vegetation, soil, etc.) is an important factor in mitigating climate change, as it absorbs around 20% of all fossil fuel CO2 emissions.

However, its role as a net carbon sink is affected by land-use changes such as deforestation and expanded agricultural practice.

A new study, conducted by an international collaboration of scientists and published in the journal Nature Geoscience, has analysed the extent to which these changing land-use practices affect carbon emissions – allowing the levels of CO2 uptake by the terrestrial biosphere to be more accurately predicted.

The results not only show that CO2 emissions from changing land-use practices are likely to be significantly higher than previously thought, but also imply that these emissions are compensated for by a higher rate of carbon uptake among terrestrial ecosystems.

Co-author of the study, Dr Tom Pugh from the University of Birmingham, says:

‘Our work shows that the terrestrial biosphere might have greater potential than previously thought to mitigate climate change by sequestering carbon emissions from fossil fuels. However, to fully realise this potential we will have to ensure that the significant emissions resulting from land-use changes are reduced as much as possible.’

Co-author Professor Stephen Sitch from the University of Exeter adds:

‘The results imply that reforestation projects and efforts to avoid further deforestation are of the utmost importance in our pursuit to limit global warming to below 2oC, as stated in the Paris climate agreement.’

###

The study: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2882.html

Historical carbon dioxide emissions caused by land-use changes are possibly larger than assumed

The terrestrial biosphere absorbs about 20% of fossil-fuel CO2 emissions. The overall magnitude of this sink is constrained by the difference between emissions, the rate of increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, and the ocean sink. However, the land sink is actually composed of two largely counteracting fluxes that are poorly quantified: fluxes from land-use change and CO2uptake by terrestrial ecosystems. Dynamic global vegetation model simulations suggest that CO2emissions from land-use change have been substantially underestimated because processes such as tree harvesting and land clearing from shifting cultivation have not been considered. As the overall terrestrial sink is constrained, a larger net flux as a result of land-use change implies that terrestrial uptake of CO2 is also larger, and that terrestrial ecosystems might have greater potential to sequester carbon in the future. Consequently, reforestation projects and efforts to avoid further deforestation could represent important mitigation pathways, with co-benefits for biodiversity. It is unclear whether a larger land carbon sink can be reconciled with our current understanding of terrestrial carbon cycling. Our possible underestimation of the historical residual terrestrial carbon sink adds further uncertainty to our capacity to predict the future of terrestrial carbon uptake and losses.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

92 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 31, 2017 12:52 am

Please don’t read more in the article than is realistic…
The amount of CO2 sequestered by the biosphere each year is rather well known: there is a fixed ratio between CO2 uptake and O2 prduction and reverse when the leaves/wood are decaying or eaten by bacteria, molds, insects and animals. Thus by measuring the oxygen content of the atmosphere, minus what is used by fossil fuel burning, one can know the net result of the whole biosphere over a year and its trend over the years.
Since ~1990, the biosphere is a small, but growing source of oxygen: less oxygen is consumed than is calculated from fossil fuel burning. Thus the biosphere as a whole (land + sea plant growth and decay, soil bacteria, insects,…) is a net O2 producer, thus a net CO2 sink, the earth is greening:
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/287/5462/2467.short
and
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~mbattle/papers_posters_and_talks/BenderGBC2005.pdf
There is no way to make a differentiation between the biosphere uptake/decay and human land clearing, besides the seasonal changes in O2 and δ13C. Thus it is unknown what the real fluxes are: a net sink of ~1 GtC/year may be from 3 GtC/year extra uptake and 2 GtC/year land clearing or shift to agriculture by humans or it can be 9 GtC/year extra uptake and 8 GtC/year human influence…
That is what the article is about: the “potential” for more CO2 uptake is larger than what is currently seen as net sink, as land clearing is difficult to estimate (even by satellites)…

paqyfelyc
January 31, 2017 3:55 am

bottom line: we don’t even know enough of the carbon cycle.

Gloateus Maximus
January 31, 2017 4:51 am

Burning wood releases a lot more CO2 than oil and oil a lot more than gas.
The developing world is to blame for CO2, not the West. Not that anyone should be blamed, as man-made CO2 has been a great boon to the planet. Four to six times as much human input again would be ideal.

rbabcock
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
January 31, 2017 5:07 am

Wait a minute. If I burn one molecule of cellulose, C11 or C1 (CH4) I do get more CO2 from the longer chains but I also get a lot more heat. Let’s do apples to apples.
On another note, plants get bigger and grow faster with more CO2 in the atmosphere, so the more CO2, the bigger the tree, the bigger the forest and more carbon is stored in the forest.

rxc
January 31, 2017 6:33 am

Yet another phenomenon that is not well understood, and which can be significant. Unless you have a good handle on all of these phenomena, as demonstrated by comparison of separate effects models to actual data, you can’t write a meaningful integrated model of the system. You are forced to either (1) make “informed” guesses, (2) do a Monte Carlo simulation of the system using values that are randomly chosen by expert opinion to see how the end distribution turns out, or (3) use “conservative” estimates to try to bound the results to something that you know that you can tolerate. When you are trying to nail down the temperature in the system over the next one hundred years, to an accuracy of around 1C, it can become very hard to justify. the results.

January 31, 2017 8:46 am

“As CO2 increases, so too do those who consume it. This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind”.
The Teacher.