From the “But the science was settled!” department.
You may remember just four days ago, WUWT ran this story: Oops, Science Was “Settled”—Until It Wasn’t: Plants Absorb 31% More CO₂ Than We Thought
Now, hot on the heels of that one, another underestimated CO₂ absorption has been found: New Study Reveals Oceans Absorb More CO2 Than Previously Thought. The article states:
New research confirms that the cooler temperature of the ocean surface layer enhances CO₂ absorption, with the Atlantic absorbing 7% more CO₂ annually than previously estimated.
…
Scientists studied the “ocean skin” – a sliver less than 2 mm deep at the ocean surface that is fractionally cooler than the rest.
Theoretical and lab work have suggested this temperature difference should increase the amount of CO₂ absorbed by the ocean – but this had never been successfully observed at sea before.
The new study – led by researchers from the University of Exeter’s Penryn Campus in Cornwall – used precision measurements to confirm that the temperature of the ocean skin does indeed aid carbon absorption.
Carried out in the Atlantic, the findings suggest this ocean absorbs about 7% more CO₂ each year than previously thought. It might sound small, but when applied across all oceans this additional carbon absorption is equivalent to one and half times the carbon captured by annual forest growth in the Amazon rainforest.
Now, cumulatively, within a week, we now have a 38% difference in CO₂ absorption not previously known to climate science. That’s big.
The two recent studies on oceanic and terrestrial CO₂ absorption reveal significant, previously underestimated roles of natural carbon sinks, which have strong implications for climate models and predictions. Here’s an quick analysis of these findings and their combined impact on climate sensitivity and modeling.
- Increased CO₂ Absorption by Oceans: The study led by the University of Exeter shows that the oceans absorb 7% more CO₂ annually than previously estimated. This is due to the “ocean skin” – a cooler, thin layer on the ocean’s surface that enhances carbon uptake. These findings suggest that the global ocean absorbs an amount of CO₂ equivalent to 1.5 times the carbon captured by Amazon forest growth, highlighting oceans’ role in moderating atmospheric CO₂ levels.
- Higher CO₂ Absorption by Terrestrial Plants: In parallel, research by Oak Ridge National Laboratory finds that plants absorb 31% more CO₂ than prior models indicated. By tracking carbonyl sulfide, scientists achieved a more accurate estimate of global photosynthesis, especially in tropical rainforests, which emerged as vital carbon sinks. The revised figure raises the annual global Gross Primary Production (GPP) from 120 to 157 petagrams of carbon, further underscoring the importance of natural carbon dioxide sequestration for climate balance.
Cumulative Impact on Climate Models and Climate Sensitivity
The combined effect of these findings suggests that current climate models might be underestimating the natural carbon cycle’s role in moderating atmospheric CO₂ concentrations. With both oceans and land absorbing more CO₂ than previously thought, climate models need to incorporate these increased absorption rates to predict temperature and atmospheric CO₂ levels more accurately.
- Climate Sensitivity Adjustments: The increased CO₂ absorption could reduce climate sensitivity estimates in the short term, as more CO₂ is removed from the atmosphere than expected.
- Long-term Climate Projections: Enhanced natural absorption may temporarily ease the pace of CO₂ buildup, but as oceans approach saturation and deforestation pressures mount on terrestrial carbon sinks, this buffering effect may diminish over time. Including these findings could lead to more refined, temporally dynamic climate models that adjust carbon dioxide sink efficiency based on environmental changes.
- Policy and Mitigation: Acknowledging the ocean and terrestrial ecosystems as increased carbon dioxide sinks emphasizes the importance of reevaluating climate science used to drive policy.
We’ve known for some time that climate models have been running “hot” due to some of the emission scenarios like RCP 8.5 being unrealistic in CO₂ growth rates in the future. See: New Confirmation that Climate Models Overstate Atmospheric Warming. Perhaps these new findings will cool some of those models (assuming climate science has any integrity left) and we’ll hear less about a projected climate doomsday being just around the corner.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
CO2 is Hugely beneficial to earth and humans! And the increased absorption will greatly increase the benefit!! Bring on the CO2!!
Please thank China for the bulk of the heavy lifting in this regard.
China’s contribution to manufacturing has improved my life measurably.
I can recall a mining machinery exhibition in Sydney, Australia in the late 1980s where China offered samples of their mining machinery. I went over the machines with the Chinese representative highlighting some of the many indicators of poor workmanship. It would not matter what the price was you would be buying problems. But within two decades their high volume manufactured goods represented extraordinary value. Not premium products but low cost and useful. Most of the stuff on my desk was made in China.
How often have you mistaken a HAVAL SUV for a Volvo SUV. Are they made in the same factory? My auto mechanic still recommends avoiding Chinese made road vehicles but I expect by the 2030s, China will own the automotive market.
How much of that improvement in the quality of Chinese products was the result of IP theft from Western firms?
The IEA reckons China will be responsible for 80% of electric vehicle growth in 2024.
IEA ‘World Energy Outlook 2024’ (Oct 24)
Nice to have this information. The IPCC during COP 29 should be expected to accordingly drop by 38% their former “projections” / sarc
Not a chance of that happening. They have to pumping out global warming doom and gloom to keep the millions of Swiss francs from the donor countries rolling in.
Bare in mind that these studies use imperical data and, once the studies using modeled data are completed, climate scientists will show that plants and oceans actually absorb less CO2 than previously thought.
The climate catastrophe chorus is like “Facts? Facts? We don’t need no stinkin’ facts!” Fear is their only currency.
Politicians should be made to read this well researched material and made to respond if it questions their policy. They ought to, after all they are civil SERVANTS paid by us.
As soon as they get into the club, politicians are definitely not civil & see US as the servants & themselves as the masters.
The richest enclaves in America are to be found around Washington DC , places that manufacture nothing but derive their wealth from tax payer money. Not talking of salaries but the grift of being politicians and politician adjacent.
Indeed. Nancy Pelosi is America’s greatest investor, far surpassing Warren Buffet.
sinecure city’s surroundings
It only shows how easy it is to surprise “climate scientists”, but it does not explain the Keeling curve, or the greening of the planet. In short, it only shows that models are really bad – but that’s no news.
The rising Keeling Curve is explained by fossil fuel combustion, proven by d12/d13 carbon isotope ratio changes (d12 increasing, d13 decreasing, since photosynthesis favors lighter d12—so as fossil fuels accumulated the ratio of atmospheric d13 increased, and as fossil fuels are burned, it decreases). Keeling himself published one of the first papers on this, based on (IIRC) 15 years of changing isotope ratios.
The greening is explained by C3 plants doing better in dryer environments, since they need to keep their stomata less open and so lose less scarce water to evapotranspiration. About 85% of all plant species are C3.
Wrong comment placement. Should be to the one immediately below.
Even in non arid environments, plants seem to be growing better.
They are. CO2 makes most all plants more heat resistant, drought tolerant,and frost resistant. It expands growing zones, and globally is cause to about a 20 percent increase in biomass on the same land and water requirements. (Going from 280 to 416 PPM)
“It only shows how easy it is to surprise “climate scientists”,”
It did not surprise anyone. From the article:
“Theoretical and lab work have suggested this temperature difference should increase the amount of CO₂ absorbed by the ocean – but this had never been successfully observed at sea before.”
It has nothing to do with GCMs.
But it has everything to do with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Concern about postulated adverse affects of increased CO2 is the excuse for spending copious amounts of money to develop the GCMs.
This seems to be further proof of Roy Spencer’s estimate of how much CO2 is being taken out of the atmosphere.
So from “climate scientists” to “all climate scientists” at the stroke of a pen. But where does that leave the climate models? 😉
“It has nothing to do with GCMs.”
Nothing does, except climate propaganda.
You keep telling yourself that. It has to do with projected CO2 levels used in the GCMs.
Yes Nick, correcting the climate models has nothing to do with the climate models. They go right on being consistently wrong, having never read Emerson’s, ” A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.”
But surely it doesn’t matter? Whatever the absorption rate, the Keeling curve has been trending upwards at c two and a bit ppm a year since COP 1 in 1995 and will continue to do so unchecked. The effect on global temperature will be negligible. There’s nothing to be done.
Well it’s obvious then that the COPs are causing the rise in CO2. Stop the COPs stop the rise 🙂
Regarding CO2, human or natural, the more the better for increased flora and fauna.
Highly subsidized CO2 sequestering schemes are super-expensive, ineffective suicide programs.
From:
DEEP OCEAN SEISMIC EVENTS ADD ENERGY TO PERIODIC EL NINOs
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
.
Flora and Fauna Need More CO2, at least 1000 ppm
.
Plants require at least 1000 to 1200 ppm of CO2, as proven in greenhouses
Many plants have become extinct, along with the fauna they supported, due to a lack of CO2. As a result, many areas of the world became arid and deserts. Current CO2 needs to at least double or triple. Earth temperature increased about 1.2 C since 1900, due to many causes, such as fossil CO2, and permafrost methane which converts to CO2.
.
CO2 ppm increased from 1979 to 2023 was 421 – 336 = 85, greening increase about 15%, per NASA.
CO2 ppm increased from 1900 to 2023 was 421 – 296 = 125, greening increase about 22%
.
Increased greening: 1) Produces oxygen by photosynthesis; 2) Increases world fauna; 3) Increases crop yields per acre; 4) Reduces world desert areas
The ozone layer absorbs 200 to 315 nm UV wavelengths, which would genetically damage exposed lifeforms.
.
Energy-related CO2 was 37.55 Gt, or 4.8 ppm in 2023, about 75% of total human CO2.
One CO2 ppm in atmosphere = 7.821 Gt. Total human CO2 was 4.8/0.75 = 6.4 ppm in 2023. See URLs
To atmosphere was CO2 was 421.08 ppm, end 2023 – 418.53, end 2022 = 2.55 ppm; natural increase is assumed zero; to oceans 2.50 ppm (assumed); to flora and other sinks 1.35 ppm
Mauna Loa curve shows a variation of about 9 ppm during a year, due to seasonal variations.
Inside buildings, CO2 is about 1000 ppm, greenhouses about 1200 ppm, submarines up to 5000 ppm
.
Respiration: glucose + O2 → CO2 + H20 (+ energy)
Photosynthesis: 6 CO2 + 12 H2O (+ sunlight+ chlorophyll) → 1 glucose + 6 O2 + 6 H20
Plants respire 24/7. Plants photosynthesize with brighter light
In low light, respiration and photosynthesis are in balance
In bright light, photosynthesis is much greater than respiration
.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-study-2001-2020-global-greening-is-an-indisputable-fact-andhttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/05/anthropogenic-global-warming-and-its-causes/
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/summary-of-world-co2eq-emissions-all-sources-and-energy-related
https://issuu.com/johna.shanahan/docs/co2_pitch_4-3-24_baeuerle_english
.
Oceans Absorb CO2
Sea water has 3.5% salt, NaCl, by weight.
CO2 molecules continuously move from the air into sea water, per Henry’s Law
CO2 and NaCl form many compounds that contain C, O, H, Cl, Ca
They sustain flora (plankton, kelp, coral) and fauna in the oceans.
.
At the surface, seawater pH 8.1, and CO2 421 ppm, the % presence of [CO2], [HCO3−], and [CO3 2−] ions is 0.5, 89, and 10.5; “Free” CO2 is only 0.5%; CO2 out-migration is minimal, given the conditions.
The oceans are a major sink of CO2 (human + natural)
https://tos.org/oceanography/assets/docs/14-4_feely.pdf
You should send a copy of your comment via email to the Environmental Defence Fund and Greenpeace for starters. They need to be educated.
I posted it on X
A possible contributor to temperature increase is the increased greenhouse effect (GHE) from increased water vapor (WV) of which the human contribution is about 90 % from increasing irrigation. The increasing WV has been accurately measured by NASA/RSS since Jan 1988. The Total Precipitable Water (TPW) anomaly reported by NASA/RSS is for cloudless skies over ocean between 60N and 60S. Here, with the base value of 28.73 added, will be used as an approximation for global average TPW. TPW is the depth of the puddle in millimeters (mm) if all of the WV condensed on a flat surface.
In Sect 6 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com it was shown that the human contribution to rainfall is a negligible 0.09%. Instead, the influence results from the increase in WV.
The black trend in the accompanying graph shows the equivalent depth of TPW to be about 28.25 mm (kg/m^2 and mm depth are numerically the same) in Jan 1988 and 29.75 mm in Dec 2023. Average global rainfall is about a meter or 1000 mm. Therefore, if there was no warming, in Jan 1988 the atmosphere must be ‘refilled’ about 1000/28.25 = 35.4 times so the time required for each ‘filling’, the average residence time, is 1/35.4 = 0.02825 year or 0.02825*365.25 = 10.318 days. Similarly for Dec 2023, the residence time would be 29.75/1000*365.25 = 10.866 days for a difference of 10.866 – 10.318 = 0.548 day in 36 years. Each year the average residence time is about 0.548/36 = 0.0152 day = 21.9 minutes longer than the previous year.
The red trend shows the equivalent depth of TPW resulting from average global warming according to temperatures reported by UAH. The method for this calculation is documented at Sect 7 of the analysis at https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com . The equivalent residence time to account for the equivalent depth change due to the UAH reported average global warming is about (28.25 + 0.0182 * 36)/1000 * 365.25 = 10.558 days. The remaining residence time increase each year is then (10.866 – 10.558)/36 = 0.008555 days = 12.3 minutes. Thus, to account for the WV increase above that from average global temperature increase, the residence time increases only about 12 minutes each year compared to the previous year. This is also addressed at Sect 12 of https://watervaporandwarming.blogspot.com
Most of the WV is added in areas of low precipitation so the increasing residence time probably results to account for the increased average time for the WV to move from the place it evaporated to the place it condenses.
The increasing WV explains the increase in the rate of temperature increase since about 1970 and can account for about 2/3 of the average global temperature increase since before 1900 with no significant contribution from increasing CO2 (burning fossil fuels). This is documented in Sect 17-19 of the analysis at http://globalclimatedrivers2.blogspot.com
story tip
Have not gone thru your detailed calculations, but think your estimated irrigation contribution to WVF cannot be correct from first principles.
Water vapor nonsense from Pangburn.
Water vapor from irrigation lasts a mere average of 9 days in the troposphere until it leaves the troposphere as rain or snow.
The measurements of global average annual absolute humidity are inaccurate. There is a rising trend from 1980 to 2000 and a steady trend from 2000 to 2020. No conclusion about the water vapor positive feedback is possible with those contradictory data.
You obviously did not grasp the analysis. Global average absolute humidity is accurately measured by NASA/RSS as TPW anomalies. They claim an RMS accuracy of about 3 %. There is a lot of fluctuation but the trend has been near 1.4 % per decade for 36 years. All feedbacks and forcings are automatically included in the measurements.
This analysis should take into account that the wind is a major force that sweeps enormous amounts of surface water from the oceans into the air. The wind is always blowing most of the day all over the world and 71% of the earth’s surface is covered with water.
Climate models do not into account the effects of the wind.
Things that don’t change can’t contribute to climate change. Ocean surface area and average wind have not significantly changed. Any wind change is automatically accounted for any way.
Regarding the next to last numbered point, I don’t think ocean CO2 sinks will ever saturate. The reason is biological. For example Atlantic coccolithophores in the photic layer have increased in abundance by about 20% over the past 5 decades. (The metric is from direct ocean abundance sampling.) They are a main calcium carbonate forming photosynthetic micro-organism (think the white chalk cliffs of Dover). When they die, their calcium carbonate exoskeletons sink to the ocean floor and, depending on bottom depth, form permanent sink limestone. And as long as terrestrial rocks weather—which they will since atmospheric CO2 makes rain weakly acidic (pH 5.6)—the oceans will never lack for calcium chloride.
Ya, it is. More than a third of new sinks. Now, lets go back and incorporate that into CIMP models, rerun the prior assumptions (parameterization) and see what happens.
“Carried out in the Atlantic, the findings suggest this ocean absorbs about 7% more CO₂ each year than previously thought. It might sound small, but when applied across all oceans”
I am not a scientist but is it valid to take results from the Atlantic then extrapolate these to the other oceans.
I suspect the skin temp and movement of the Pacific/Indian/etc oceans are very different to the Atlantic with very different effects. I have never heard of the Atlantic ENSO, for instance.
“I have never heard of the Atlantic ENSO, for instance.”
I recall reading recently that there is actually something similar, but much smaller, in the Atlantic.
I think Willis did an article or two for WUWT on the effects ENSO has on the Atlantic Ocean.
John, anyone who applies the classical Scientific Method is a scientist.
Seeing that the whole carbon cycle has increased by some 10-15% over the past 50 or so years..
… it is not at all surprising that sinks (and sources) would change by about that amount.
“ Perhaps these new findings will cool some of those models (assuming climate science has any integrity left) and we’ll hear less about a projected climate doomsday being just around the corner.”
No, they won’t. They have really no effect on GCMs.
There are three levels of knowledge here. There is the amount of CO2 in the air. It is accurately measures, we have a good history, and it is the variable that GCMs actually work with.
Then ther is the way it responds to our emissions, also accurately known (tax). This leads to a fairly stable airborne fraction, just the ratio of those known quantities. That is important for scenarios, which couple with GCM projections. Of course the main uncertainty there is what we will burn.
Then there are the various fluxes that add up to determine the airborne fraction. These are hard to pin down, but we know what they have to add up to. So when we figure 31% more photosynthesis, that just means there must be 31% more respiration. We can’t measure respiration, but we can measure the difference, which is biomass that accumulates.
This 7% is another part of those balancing fluxes. We didn’t get the AF by adding up fluxes. Something else will be 7% less.
My brain is now hurting. Please stop.
All GCM are fatally flawed. There is too little CO2 in the air to cause any warming. See my comment below which I just posted.
“There are three levels of knowledge here”
And you are still at level zero.
The whole carbon cycle is expanding due to the solar warming.
Your comment on “balancing fluxes” is based on ignorance.
The rate of CO2 increase follows the atmospheric temperature, which shows that the oceans are controlling the CO2 increase.
Mid 2024 More Proof Temp Changes Drive CO2 Changes | Science Matters
And another graph showing the same thing shown on the link… CO2 follows temperature.
Sorta, kinda, depending on lags. Actually, it wasn’t 31% more photosynthesis as such, just photosynthesis using 31% more CO2. That may well be a distinction without a difference, though.
The actual increase in respiration will depend on the secondary and tertiary products of the photosynthesis, which has variable lags. Not all biomass is created equal. See Rud’s earlier comment about calcium carbonate for an example.
Yeah, we know the atmospheric concentration quite well, so can back-calculate the airborne fraction reasonably well. That leads on to:
Not really. We know the atmospheric concentration of CO2 quite well, but to some extent have to back-calculate the emissions. We know the production and combustion of coal, oil and gas reasonably well, but natural emissions are a bit fuzzy. We also know that higher CO2 concentrations allows for more photosynthesis, so the airborne fraction actually reduces with greater concentration. We also know that the rate of diffusion into water is positively correlated with partial pressure (concentration) and negatively correlated with temperature.
Back to:
Again, the numbers are a bit fuzzy. All that’s really been done is to firm up the estimates for CO2 removal from the atmosphere by plants and direct diffusion into sea water. The 7% less comes from the unknowns (both known unknowns and unknown unknowns).
“We also know that higher CO2 concentrations allows for more photosynthesis”
Again, the rate of removal of CO2 from the air is locked (with a bit of lead/lag) to the return via oxidation (respiration, combustion etc).
The thing about delays is that our emissions are huge – cumulatively more than the total mass of the biosphere. Any mismatch between photosynthesis and respiration will make a large change in mass of vegetation.
“All that’s really been done is to firm up the estimates”
Yes
“is that our emissions are huge”
WRONG again.. our emissions are only about 4% of the total CO2 flux… barely discernible.
“will make a large change in mass of vegetation.”
Which has happened.. try again !!
Not entirely. It depends on the time frame, but on a centennial scale, that’s pretty close.
You still get a small amount locked up on a millennial scale through long-lived trees, and a general increase in biomass.
As Rud pointed out, there is also some locked up on a millennial scale through shell production, primarily in the oceans.
What we’re seeing is the increase in CO2 production outstripping the increase in photosynthesis, diffusion into water and carbonate formation.
If the rate of CO2 release stabilised, the processes which are locking it up will reach equilibrium with the concentration at the time, and then overshoot, reducing the concentration.
It’s a classic dynamic equilibrium arrangement with the feedstock increasing.
What is the lag involved? I don’t know, but I’ve seen papers which put this at between 20 and 50 years.
“classic dynamic equilibrium”
This is the right concept. It is determined by equality of reaction rates (kinetics). Until about 1950 (radio tracers) chemists had a very good functional knowledge of equilibrium chemistry, even if they had very little knowledge of what those rates were.
“chemists had a very good functional knowledge of equilibrium chemistry,”
Pity no-one in the climate-science-cult has any functional knowledge…
….. of anything.
Not really. The dynamic equilibrium largely involves the food chain.
That’s all fairly standard ecosystem dynamics, and applies to aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems.
Nick never really appreciates that life can’t be approximated by standard chemical equilibrium.
I can only repeat Freeman Dyson’s criticism of the climate models – they are not holistic at all. They pick out a few things as control knobs and ignore everything else. They then tune the parameters to keep the models from blowing up and to match their training data. There are *far* more unknown unknowns when it comes to climate than there are knowns and known unknowns.
“They pick out a few things as control knobs”
They don’t.
True, they just use one… CO2. !
And totally ignore the big real ones like solar and cloud.
“They don’t.”
Of course they do. The climate models are *NOT* holistic at all. They do *not* consider nearly everything that affects climate on the Earth. If they did they would be accurate at predicting the future – and they are *not* accurate.
It is standard dynamic equilibrium. You have a quantity (CO2), and there are processes which increase it, and ones that decrease it, running simultaneously. You may not know how fast they operate, but you know they must balance, else you’ll see a buildup or shrinking of product. And some will say that with CO2 we are seeing some of that, but these atmospheric fluxes are very large, enough on their own to double or totally deplete within a few years. So the first approx is balance, then you can start budgetting for the difference.
You are essentially saying that climate scientists KNOW NOTHING.
What is know is that human CO2 flux is a very small fraction of the total flux, and that the total flux is constantly changing due to warming and other things.
All they are doing is making wild-arse agenda-based GUESSES.
Yes, we know that already.
dynamic balance means time is a factor. You can’t know the future so you can’t know how the dynamic balance will work itself out in the future. Climate science is just now, after 30 years or more, beginning to tumble to that fact. Agricultural science has known it for a long time.
Cumulative anthropogenic emissions are a bit misleading without the emission rate and removal rate and their rates of growth, and also the base natural emission rate and its variability.
“Cumulative anthropogenic emissions are a bit misleading”
Especially as human released CO2 doesn’t accumulate. !
Nature has rather weak preferences as to which isotope is absorbed, so if there is a higher CO2 atmospheric concentration, some will come from combustion initiated by humans.
“So when we figure 31% more photosynthesis, that just means there must be 31% more respiration.”
And therein lies the another Nick LIE. !!
Enhanced CO2 means that transpiration is reduced relative to photosynthesis.
That’s transpiration. Nick was talking about respiration.
Less transpiration is required for the same amount of photosynthesis as the partial pressure of CO2 increases. Overall transpiration probably increases as plants begin to grow in areas formerly limited by available soil moisture.
Increased photosynthesis may also lead to a proportional reduction of respiration in the plant for the same output of seed (the end game for plants), but the overall plant production will increase absent other limiting factors.
Well, yes. But the oxygen that plants provide us does indeed exist, and in massively larger quantities than the miniscule amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, because plants produce more oxygen than they consume.
So if there is 31% more photosynthesis, and 31% more respiration, there is still 31% more CO2 being used and not immediately returned to the atmosphere. I can’t see how that’s complicated.
This argument seems to be just weaving more tangled webs.
You have missed several factors in your analysis. Cloud reduction can cause a warmer ocean which will then release more CO2. Is it releasing more than is being absorbed? Probably. That makes your balance flow off by some factor.
You say:
Yet that ignores the fact that flora doesn’t emit as much CO2 during respiration as it takes in. Respiration creates new growth in cells, that is, biomass. The stored CO2 is not released for a long time. Otherwise, burning trees for energy wouldn’t be considered carbon neutral. Much of the biomass turns into new soil from the retention called thatch. Guess what that is? Carbon storage!
There is so much climate science neither knows nor accounts for. Something about not knowing what you don’t know.
“So when we figure 31% more photosynthesis, that just means there must be 31% more respiration.”
Doesn’t increased levels of CO2 cause plants to reduce the size of the stomata on their leaves, which reduces plant respiration, which is why plants can thrive better in drier conditions with elevated C02 levels?
No, that’s transpiration.
Harold The Organic Chemist Says:
ATTN: Everyone
RE: Carbon Dioxide Does Not Cause Warming of Air.
Shown in the graphic (See below) are plots of temperatures in Death Valley from 1922 to 2001. In 1922 the concentration of CO2 in dry air was 303 ppmv (i.e., 0.595 g/cu. m.) and by 2001, it had increased to 371 ppmv ( i.e., 0.729 g/cu. m.), but there was no corresponding increase in the temperatures of the dry desert air. The reason is quite simple: there is too little CO2 in the air.
On the basis of the empirical temperature data, I have concluded that the claim since 1988 by the IPPC and the unscrupulous collaborating scientists that CO2 causes global warming is a fabrication and a deliberate lie. The purpose of this lie is to provide the
UN the justification for the distribution of donner funds, via the UNFCCC and the UN COP, from the rich countries to poor countries to help them cope with global warming and climate change. The amount of donner funds is now many billions of dollars.
Hopefully, the greatest fraud in recent human history by the UN and the IPPC can not
go on forever. Later this month COP29 will take place in Baku. How many billions of dollars will the poor countries come begging for?
NB: The graphic was obtained from the late John Daly’s web site:
“Still Waiting for Greenhouse” available at: http://www.John-Daly.com. Click on the
“Station Temperature Data” tab at the end site.
Finally, I would like to obtain temperature data for Death Valley from 2002 to 2023, but I don’t how to do this. If the new plot of temperature remain flat, we can be assured that CO2 does cause global warming.
Typo error: … CO2 cause global warming. Should be: …CO2 does not cause global warming.
I note that global warming is commonly reported as regional, not global. “It’s hot and dry here, but strangely cold and wet there …” I find this fact odd for an atmosphere that is mixed in a planetary basis at least yearly with the seasons.
I live in Alberta, Canada. Since 1979. This summer was hot and dry. The trees, for my first experience, pushed out sap to coat their leaves to reduce transpiration. Still, many, many died. So I asked, where did this hot and dry air come from? Local CO2? No. California.
Oh, so Californian local CO2? No. The offshore, Pacific Ocean. So where did the Pacific Ocean heat come from? Local CO2 … or less cloud cover?
I dunno. What I do know is that locally Albertans are told this summer was caused by global warming, not hot air from the Pacific. Which is also odd reasoning when we get very cold winter temperatures. We know that comes from the Arctic. Though why sometimes the Arctic is extremely cold and other times, not, is never explained.
In the same vein, Lansner & Pedersen 2018 showed that only the regions with an oceanic climate have warmed from 1900 to 2010. The continental regions did not warm but their temperatures fluctuated.
This article was presented by 1000Frolly on his YT chanel here :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQBBsraek-c
and published here (paywall) :
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0958305X18756670
____________________________________________________________________________
Me too: Earlier today I posted on WUWT Here
Pointing out that CO2 is removed by rain drops falling
through the atmosphere was a plus and will be added
to an ever growing file of “Climate Change” Factoids,
Quotes & Smart Remarks
Not that I shouldn’t have known that, but it was nice
to be reminded of the fact.
To close your circle by repeating a comment from above. Atmospheric CO2 means that rain (absent other ‘pollution’) has pH 5.6. Which means terrestrial rocks will weather, and thus the oceans will never lack calcium chloride to deplete the biological calcium carbonate ocean sink.
Please explain why I’m stupid:
1. Climatologists say their models about pCO2 and global temperatures match what the historical CO2 rand global temperature changes have done since 1850. So they are excellent at predicting future temperature rises based on our fossil fuel consumption.
2. Scientists have underestimated plant and oceanic CO2 sequestration by 38%.
3. Despite this gross error, the computer models are good-to-go.
Doesn’t this latest new understanding mean either:
1. there’s the plant/oceanic 38% sequestration not correctly attributee a d to some other method, or
2. the amount of “aCO2” in the models is actually LESS than posited, by an amount equal to the 38% more sequestration discovered?
We also now know clouds have decreased and solar inputs have a greater increase in global temperatures than modeled. HOWEVER, the models are still said to be valid.
All this says to me that the models are simply “curve matching” exercises.
Perhaps temperatures and CO2 are simply caused by declining global pirate activities (excluding Houthis actions, of course). I’m sure the data could be homogenized and smoothed to show the causative influences of decreased piracy.
Yea, Jack Sparrow!
Scroll up and read my comment re Death Valley temperatures.
Climate models are fatally flowed because CO2 does not cause warming of air.
” … we’ll hear less about a projected climate doomsday being just around the corner.”
Not a chance. Science is not the solution. As other concerns intrude the CO2 specter will fade just as did the witchcraft prosecutions in Europe and British America.
More worthless speculation about how much CO2 nature absorbs.
Nature absorbs enough CO2 every year, on average, to equal roughly half the CO2 emitted by humans.
Te specific percentages for oceans, plants and soil are not known
Therefore, any claim that an UNKNOWN percentage has changed by x percent is junk science.
Ocean CO2 absorption before “study”
UNKNOWN
Ocean CO2 absorption after “study”
UNKNOWN
Change in ocean CO2 absorption
UNKNOWN
Another incompetent junk science “study” promoted at WUWT.
Human CO2 flux is only 4% of the total. Nearly all of that is absorbed.
…
Change in temperature due to atmospheric CO2
UNKNOWN, but RG still “believes”
Another incompetent post from RG.
BeNasty, the Climate Buffoon and Assistant Village Idiot of the WUWT website, posts yet another junk science burst of verbal flatulence demonstrating his perpetual climate science ignorance.
Nature absorbs slightly more CO2 than it emits in the long run of the annual carbon cycle
Humans emit CO2, but do not absorb any CO2
When atmospheric CO2 increases year over year, the increase is entirely from manmade co2 emissions.
Changes in CO2 year over year:
(1) Human CO2 emissions
(2) Natural CO2 emissions
(3) Natural CO2 absorption. slightly greater than (1) on average on the long run
You ignore (3) most likely because you are not very bright, which you consistently demonstrate with your science denying comments, that really should be located in a new WUWT Dumb Thread of the Week.
YAWN. Please take your Tourette’s meds before posting !!
Atmospheric CO2 Math
Ins: 4% human, 96% natural
Outs: 0% human, 98% natural.
Atmospheric storage difference: +2%
(so that: Ins = Outs + Atmospheric storage difference)
Balance = Atmospheric storage difference: 2%, of which,
Humans: 2% X 4% = 0.08%
Nature: 2% X 96 % = 1.92%
Ratio Natural:Human =1.92% : 0.08% = 24 : 1
Human flux is about 4% of total CO2 flux.. and therefore that remains the approximate amount of human CO2 in the atmosphere.
Pretending that natural CO2 doesn’t increase as the planet warms from solar energy is the ultimate in DUMB. !
Sorry if you are scientific and mathematical numpty…
Now, where is that empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2???
I do not think anyone is claiming that the increase is only the man made molecules. The simple claim is that absorbtion would remain the about the same if humans stopped their part of the emissions, and there would be no increase, but a slight decrease. I have long held there is far to much we do not know, and this WUWT article is evidence of that. I really to not follow Mr Greens need to insult it.
There is evidence of solar warming, and there is unexplained observations of very large energy flux in the oceans, starting to indicate that there is much we have to learn about the eath’s climate/ However the small affect of a weak GHG in the atmosphere, and that total atmosphere contains only 1/1000th of the energy within the oceans, is highly unlikely to be the control knob the alarmists think it is to our complex and chaotic weather.
I am hoping both Mr Green and you can tone down the verbal insults, and move towards more respectful discussion.
Reasoned debate would be one small step in making a better world, and Mr Green is not saying the GW is catastrophic, or calling for societal change to combat it.
” in a new WUWT Dumb Thread of the Week.”
Which would comprise mostly comments from luser, fungal, the simpleton, Nick and a large proportion from YOU !!
PS.. noted that you yet again FAILED UTTERLY to produce a single bit of scientific evidence.
Just your continued slop-stick egotistical empty bluster.
Richardm you state, “When atmospheric CO2 increases year over year, the increase is entirely from manmade co2 emissions.”
This has been debated for a long time, and is one I generally stay out of.
However, recent anomalus and unexplained, and definitely not CO2 caused, ocean acclerated heating, and then cooling, combined with corresponding observed CO2 atmospheric increase and decrease, (observed taking into account the annual CO2 flux) along with studies showing the reduced emissions from the COVID lock down had zero affect on the CO2 increase, may be showing your assertion to be incorrect.
The investigators should determine the amount of CO2 as CaCO3 sequestered by land snails. There are lots of snails out there.
At the MLO in Hawaii, the concentration of CO2 is 422 ppmv. One cubic meter of air contains of a mere 0.829 g of CO2 at STP. That is not much CO2. Are there more CO2 sinks out there that we don’t know about? How about barnacles on rocks at the sea shore?
A difficult measurement of the ocean’s upper most, surface tension dominated layer, confirmed another increment in the ocean CO2 uptake rate. Just days before, the recent atmospheric CH4 increase was confirmed, via stable isotope analysis, to have a biological, not a combustion origin. Measurements over 30 years, and soon 40 years, found the expected increase in photosynthetic organic carbon production has occurred. The ARGO mission has confirmed the oxygen levels in the ocean are at the high levels expected from the increased photosynthetic activity, not depleted levels arising from putative global ocean warming. Measurements of the actual land area versus ocean area, using Landsat, etc. has confirmed that Bangladesh, Pacific and Indian Ocean coral islands are gaining land faster than the ocean is rising to drown them.
There is a trend here, no doubt. None of these measurements produced ‘unexpected’ results.
Models had previously defined physical mechanisms for the observed results. However, most models were configured to support a certain narrative. Contrary models to the preferred narrative were dismissed or simply neglected.
Science progresses by the interaction between models and measurements. Models are NOT experiments. Measurements are experiments. It would be wise and correct for models to play their proper role in the interpretation of data, leading to new measurements.
Models are not properly used as a foundation of policy. Remember Yogi Berra’s comment about the difference between theory and practice: ” In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice, they are not.”
We haven’t heard much from OCO2 lately. Would these findings show up in those orbiting sensors?
What this really teaches us is, that contrary to what the Climate Alarmists claim, the climate science is *not* settled.
Of course science, any science, is never settled completely, but try telling that to a Climate Alarmist.
The recognition of higher CO2 absorbtion by plants is good news.
Better yet, the observed increase in greening recently reported would indicate an accelerating trend in the absorbtion rate. The current rate will need to be revised upwards accordingly with time.
Some of the first work done on this was by my father when he lived on his boat, moored usually at Falmouth marina in Penryn.
The location is probably not a coincidence.
BTW, the most significant factor for both temperature and absorption seemed to be ripples. Every ripple makes a tube of air that is surrounded on three sides by water. The frequency / amplitude of the ripples has a large impact on gas transfer.
Presumably, this effect occurs in rivers, lakes, ponds and puddles too.
Fasinating, and another sight into the complex chaotic system we call climate. Link?
Lower solar => a warmer AMO => reduced CO2 uptake in the North Atlantic. It’s another negative feedback.
https://digital.csic.es/bitstream/10261/67041/3/Atlantic_Ocean_CO2_uptake.pdf