News 
 National Rural News 
 Agribusiness and General 
 General 
 Carbon absorption capacity of ecosystems under-estimated 

Carbon absorption capacity of ecosystems under-estimated

14 Nov, 2009 03:00 AM
ECOSYSTEMS on the land and in the oceans have a much greater capacity to absorb carbon dioxide than had previously been recognised.

Information from new data runs contrary to a significant body of recent research that expects the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 emissions increase, letting greenhouse gas levels skyrocket.

The data, however, shows the balance between the airborne and the absorbed fraction of carbon dioxide has stayed approximately constant since 1850.

That's despite emissions of carbon dioxide having risen from about 2 billion tons a year in 1850 to 35 billion tons a year now, according to the University of Bristol in the UK.

Dr Wolfgang Knorr at the University of Bristol has found that the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has only been 0.7pc per decade (standard deviation of 1.4pc), which is essentially zero.

The strength of the new study, published online on Nov 9 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, the university says.

This work is extremely important for climate change policy, because emission targets to be negotiated at the UN Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen early next month have been based on projections that have a carbon free sink already factored in.

Some researchers have cautioned against this approach, pointing at evidence that suggests the sink has already started to decrease.

* The paper's citation is: W. Knorr. 2009. Is the airborne fraction of anthropogenic CO2 emissions increasing? Geophysical Research Letters. 36: L21710, doi:10.1029/2009GL040613.

Print
Increase Text Size
Decrease Text Size

comments


Date: Newest first | Oldest first
Joseph A Olson Infowars April 13, 2009 Carbon dioxide, a benign, life giving molecule has been miscast by a world wide political movement to be an environmental hazard in what will soon be discovered to be the hoax of the century. This molecule, CO2 is vital to all life on earth. It is exhaled by all living things and even comes from nocturnal emissions by plants. It forms the bubbles in your soda, wine and beer. Standard air has 370 parts per million (PPM) of carbon dioxide of which 93% comes from “natural sources” which are all beyond human control. These sources include decomposition of organic matter, exhaling by living things and volcanic vents, which is by far the greatest atmospheric source. The climate change hoax is based on faulty science from two things. First, hoaxers assume that ice layers give information on temperature like tree rings do with rainfall. Ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica, from thousands of years of deposits, are measured for CO2 content of the air at the time the snow layer was deposited and thickness of the ice layers. The thickness of these snow fall layers is then assumed to be an indication of global temperature. http://www.infowars.com
Posted by M Btok, 14/11/2009 10:04:45 AM
Was global warming a key issue in the last election, because if it was then I completely missed it. All this fuss over global warming and of course the only solution if it truly exists is to burden us with another tax. What worries me is that these political parties go to an election with mandates from the electorate to make changes, but have a hidden agenda of their own to do whatever they like once in Government. The Sherrif of Nottingham is truly alive and kicking.
Posted by trex, 15/11/2009 9:37:25 PM
Oh ! Bugger ! Is that why agriculture will be excluded from Penny & Peter's scheme - they'd have to pay me for the carbon I sequester.
Posted by AJ, 16/11/2009 8:11:23 AM
Rudd and Wong will go to Copenhagen in full knowledge that they will get not one red cent in credit for all the CO2 absorbed by our territorial oceans. So for all the money we must spend on a navy to maintain sovereignty over these waters, Rudd and Wong do not expect any return on this outlay. The Europeans, who are all "oceanically challenged", have set the system up so the carbon absorbed by our oceans is handed out to the rest of the world, them in particular. Include oceanic absorption in our national carbon accounts and we are among the lowest net emitters in the OECD. Who gave Rudd and Wong a mandate to surrender the largest source of cash, ever, from our own oceans? And if the small Pacific states got credits for absorption from their own waters, they could afford to ship fill from half way round the world to raise their entire countries by a couple of metres and more. So don't think for a single moment that the IPCC has anyone but their own interests at heart.
Posted by Ian Mott, 16/11/2009 10:53:56 AM
Let's see If I can still read: The more carbon we emit the more carbon the environment absorbs. If that's correct, after we deforested the world, according to Green philosophy, the carbon balance is still the same! Ergo, a con job on the way... more taxes higher prices total austerity and... all vegetarians!! B.S. oops sorry, Ag is excluded......
Posted by Peter, 16/11/2009 11:00:44 AM
M Btok... if CO2 is so benign, how about you spend a little quality time with some in a sealed container? Same thing applies to H20 or O2. Air may be benign, tornadoes aren't. It all depends on context. Trex… you must have missed it, then. Labor made a big deal of its green credentials at the election – one of the main reasons they won. Peter, you obviously can't read… or are so opinionated you can't be bothered. And they even gave you a citation at the bottom… The bliss of ignorance. Dr Knorr specifically states that his research does not refute current climate change consensus. Rather he is stating that the earth's ability to absorb carbon CO2 is greater than previously thought. He believes that provides more time to react to climate change.
Posted by GT, 16/11/2009 4:44:50 PM

post a comment


Screen name  *
Email address  *
Remember me?
Comment  *
 
We invite and encourage our readers to post comments. Comments are moderated and will appear as soon as our editor has approved them. When posting comments you agree to be bound by our Terms and Conditions.
Related Coverage
ARTICLES
MULTIMEDIA
11 November, 2009
10 November, 2009
POLL
Q: Has the emissions trading debate changed your voting intentions?

More likely to vote Labor
(10.5%)

More likely to vote Coalition
(47.2%)

Less likely to vote Labor
(12%)

Less likely to vote Coalition
(3.2%)

No change
(21.8%)

Other
(5.4%)

Total Votes: 685
Poll Date: 08 November, 2009

Most popular articles

Advertisement



North Queensland Register







Weather brought to you by:

Weatherzone

Classifieds

Front Page

Current Issue
Privacy Policy | Conditions of Use | Advertising Terms | Copyright © 2012. Fairfax Media.
 SEND...
 SAVE...
 SHARE...