Is Earth's Capacity To Absorb CO2 Much Greater Than Expected?

[jdocs]

New data show that the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850, despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now.

---

This suggests that terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb CO[sub]2[/sub] than had been previously expected.

The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO[sub]2[/sub] should start to diminish as CO[sub]2[/sub] emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket. Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol found that in fact the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, which is essentially zero.

The strength of the new study, published online in Geophysical Research Letters, is that it rests solely on measurements and statistical data, including historical records extracted from Antarctic ice, and does not rely on computations with complex climate models.

This work is extremely important for climate change policy, because emission targets to be negotiated at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen early in December have been based on projections that have a carbon free sink of already factored in. Some researchers have cautioned against this approach, pointing at evidence that suggests the sink has already started to decrease.

So is this good news for climate negotiations in Copenhagen? "Not necessarily," says Knorr. "Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data, so rather than relying on Nature to provide a free service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the proportion being absorbed has not changed."

Another result of the study is that emissions from deforestation might have been overestimated by between 18 and 75 per cent. This would agree with results published in early November in Nature Geoscience by a team led by Guido van der Werf from VU University Amsterdam. They re-visited deforestation data and concluded that emissions have been overestimated by at least a factor of two.



http://www.sciencedaily.c...2009/11/091110141842.htm

 

[kinglouisxiv]

Like all studies of this kind, there are uncertainties in the data, so rather than relying on Nature to provide a free service, soaking up our waste carbon, we need to ascertain why the proportion being absorbed has not changed


An excellent point. While I do agree there is much to learn about the capacity of the Earth's forests and oceans to act as carbon sinks, with oceanicacidification, rampant deforestation and melting permafrost the planet's carbon sinks are being pushed to their limits or destroyed.

Good article, though. The global greenhouse effect is indeed a complex process, with many factors influencing GHG emissions and sequestration. While it is goodnews that the planet's natural absorption of CO2 is still actively regulated, it would be foolish to rely solely on natural carbon sinks to mitigate theimpact of massive CO2 loading in the atmosphere from human industrial activities.

 

[jdocs]

Exactly what I try to stress to people who keep trying to downplay whats going on. I don't claim to be an expert but I'm almost sure what we are doingis not HELPING the earth even if it has not (yet) become detrimental.

 

[Deleted member 38182]

soooo what does that mean...

 

[justscoreda100]

It means that no one really is able to predict what changes are in store for our planet. Its going to take a lot more research on this subject andunfortunately it takes a lot of time to research the effect of greenhouse gases on our global ecosystem.

We should do as much as possible to clean up our environment and reduce waste, but shouldn't move to drastic measures that would hurt our economy.

 

[dirtylicious]

Originally Posted by JustScoreda100

It means that no one really is able to predict what changes are in store for our planet. Its going to take a lot more research on this subject and unfortunately it takes a lot of time to research the effect of greenhouse gases on our global ecosystem.

We should do as much as possible to clean up our environment and reduce waste, but shouldn't move to drastic measures that would hurt our economy.

yet those on the radical right think that even spending $1 more in the name of being green is too much...

agreed it's a fine line...but there are those who are completely off their bonkers to think that we can just bank on the glut 0f natural resources