Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CO2 models, again

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • CO2 models, again

    Time to rejigger the models, again....

    The ability of forests, plants and soil to suck carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air has been under-estimated, according to a study on Wednesday that challenges a benchmark for calculating the greenhouse-gas problem.


    Global warming: New study challenges carbon benchmark

    The ability of forests, plants and soil to suck carbon dioxide (CO2) from the air has been under-estimated, according to a study on Wednesday that challenges a benchmark for calculating the greenhouse-gas problem.

    Like the sea, the land is a carbon "sink", or sponge, helping to absorb heat-trapping CO2 disgorged by the burning of fossil fuels.

    A conventional estimate is that soil and vegetation take in roughly 120 billion tonnes, or gigatonnes, of carbon each year through the natural process of photosynthesis.

    The new study, published in the science journal Nature, says the uptake could be 25-45 percent higher, to 150-175 gigatonnes per year.

    But relatively little of this extra carbon is likely to be stored permanently in the plant, say the researchers. Instead, it is likely to re-enter the atmosphere through plant respiration.

    This will be a disappointment for those looking for some good news in the fight against climate change.

    The more carbon is sequestered in the land, the less carbon enters the atmosphere, where it helps to trap heat from the Sun.

    Lead researcher Lisa Welp, of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in the University of California at San Diego, said figuring out the annual carbon uptake from the terrestrial biosphere had been one of the biggest problems in the emissions equation.

    Scientists, though, were confident about current estimates for carbon sequestration in land and this was unlikely to change much in the light of the new findings, she said.

    "More CO2 is passing through plants (than thought), not that it actually stays there very long," she said in email exchange with AFP.

    "The extra CO2 taken up as photosynthesis is most likely returned right back to the atmosphere via respiration."

    The research looked at isotopes, or variations, in the oxygen component of CO2, using a databank of atmospheric sampling going back three decades.

    These isotopes are a chemical tag, indicating the kind of water the molecule has come into contact with.

    The researchers looked at isotopes whose concentrations are linked to rainfall.
    They were struck by a clear association between these isotopes and El Nino, the weather cycle which occurs in pendulum swings every few years or so.

    The implication from this is that CO2 is swiftly cycled through land ecosystems, the researchers suggest. From that assumption comes the far higher estimate of annual carbon uptake.
    Dr. Mordrid
    ----------------------------
    An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

    I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

  • #2
    Originally posted by Dr Mordrid View Post
    Time to rejigger the models, again....
    Did you read anything past the fourth sentence?
    Chuck
    秋音的爸爸

    Comment


    • #3
      Since you didn't quote it -

      But relatively little of this extra carbon is likely to be stored permanently in the plant, say the researchers. Instead, it is likely to re-enter the atmosphere through plant respiration.
      To which many have responded; even if only a fraction of a percent is sequestered, given the large biomass involved that's still a helluva lot of carbon.
      Dr. Mordrid
      ----------------------------
      An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

      I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

      Comment


      • #4
        If you go back to 1990, Sundquist et al. pointed all this out. In terms of carbon (not CO2), they determined that land biota (mostly vegetation) absorbed 102 Gt/y but emitted 50 Gt/y, with a reserve of 550 Gt held mostly in trees. Of the 52 Gt/y difference, 50 Gt/y went into soil and detritus, which stocks 1500 Gt.

        However, this is largely academic, because what counts is the carbon in the atmosphere which Sundquist et al. estimated at 750 Gt, increasing by 3 Gt/y and this increase is measured at observatories throughout the world. No amount of arguing whether an oak leaf is better than a handful of pine needles with a modified photosynthesis is going to alter that fact.

        Current estimates of CO2 emissions from burning fossil fuels are 7.2 GtC/y with an uncertainty of ±0.3 GtC/y, or 26.4 GtCO2/y ± 1.1 GtCO2/y. In comparison, the land-use changes are fairly small (1.6 GtC/y ± 1.1 GtC/y or 5.9 GtCO2/y ± 4.0 GtCO2/y) but, as you can see from the figures, with a greater uncertainty. The overall measured increase of CO2 averages at 1.9 ppm/y, currently at a level of about 391 ppm global average (pre-industrial level ~280 ppm). These are facts that you cannot argue with. Minor variations in the mechanisms of photosynthesis and night-time emissions of CO2 from vegetation are irrelevant because they are academic and devoid of pragmatism.

        Does it matter if a given tree absorbs 1 kg CO2 during the day and emits 100 g CO2 at night or from fallen leaves, compared to another tree which absorbs 1.1 kg and emits 200 g? The net result of 900 g is the same.
        Brian (the devil incarnate)

        Comment


        • #5
          If on the other hand the numbers are 1kg - 100g moving to 1.1kg - 110g, then reforestration looks better than before (aside from increased emittance of methane etc etc).
          Join MURCs Distributed Computing effort for Rosetta@Home and help fight Alzheimers, Cancer, Mad Cow disease and rising oil prices.
          [...]the pervading principle and abiding test of good breeding is the requirement of a substantial and patent waste of time. - Veblen

          Comment

          Working...
          X