New study rocks agw mainstream

[Ari Jokimaki]

It clearly is going to rock the whole debate as the article quite rightly makes the point:

"The results run contrary to a significant body of recent research which expects that the capacity of terrestrial ecosystems and the oceans to absorb CO2 should start to diminish as CO2 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 study is about climate - carbon cycle feedback, which is only one tiny corner of the "whole debate". The text you quoted talks about this; If amount of CO₂ absorbed by biosphere would diminish, as has been largely expected, that would increase the CO₂ content of the atmosphere even more which would cause more warming, therefore creating a positive feedback to the pre-existing warming. Now, if this study would be correct, it would mean at most that amount of future warming would be little bit less than previously expected. Note also that this is not the only nor the first observational study on the issue.

Some papers on the subject here:
http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/200...ycle-feedback/

[IsaacKuo]

"The first possibility I gave was that you merely had an oversimplified view."

No. You accused me of deception. Plain and simple.

No, I said that either you had an oversimplified view or your were being deceptive.

When someone says something which is wrong, there are two possibilities--either he is mistaken or he is lying.

No you have missed the point. That being you accused me of deception based on my interpretation of this study. However you appear to accept models from global warming alarmists at face value without question.

Untrue. I don't take global warming alarmists at face value.

It has a material impact on each and every model which has not taken into account the findings of this study.

You don't understand the limited scope of the implications of the study.

This study has the same (lack) of impact as a study which determines that space-time appears to be flat. Some cosmological models assume space is flat. Other cosmological models assume space has a small positive curvature. If a study confirms that space appears to be flat, the reaction of the cosmological community is, "Okay, that's interesting." It's data that helps refine the models, it's not something that "rocks" mainstream cosmological science.

In contrast, the discovery that expansion of space was accelerating did indeed "rock" mainstream cosmological science. Before that discovery, everyone knew that the expansion of space was decelerating. The only question was whether it was decelerating enough to cause the cosmos to eventually stop expanding and collapse in on itself. So scientists investigated to determine the rate at which space expansion was decelerating. And discovered to everyone's shock that expansion was actually accelerating.

That's the sort of discovery which "rocks" the scientific world.

[ToSeek]

global warming religionists

Let's avoid such incendiary characterizations, please.

[Jens]

The bit about letting the games begin was a joke - sorry you cannot accept it as such.

It's hard to take it as a playful joke when you begin the post by using the deliberately provocative term "religionists".

I'm personally fairly open minded on this whole issue, but I think a person can support efforts against putative global warming even without being religious about it. I can see adopting a sort of precautionary attitude: global warming might not be true, but if it is, it could be very bad not to do something about it. Now I suppose an opponent could answer back that the earth could enter a cooling phase and our efforts against global warming might exacerbate it. I think it's a fruitful debate to have, but starting out by calling the other side "religionists" just sounds like a way to win the argument by default.

[Jetlack]

Let's avoid such incendiary characterizations, please.

I'm answering you first becuase i am gobsmacked that you have a go at me for using the term "religionist" but ignore the fact that IsaacKuo accuses me of deception.

Note i did not complain about what was a) slander and b) an ad hominem. I warned him not to do it again.

Can you explain that double standard please?

[Jetlack]

IsaacKuo,

I've asked you about 3 times now whether you understand the sensitivity of initial conditions in climate models. You wont answer the question and continue to make feeble excuses for accusing me of deception.

I also asked you to specifically name a climate model which already factored in the finding of this study. ie, earth's increasing capacity to absorb carbon more of it is produced.

Again you've ignored that question.

A pattern is emerging.

[Stroller]

I must have a really bad case of the slows today because I cannot figure out what this means.

I spent a short time online looking for further information about this study but could only find one other exactly worded report at a different "news" site. Presumably, both reports are press releases.

I don't find it surprising that the ability of the biosphere to absorb co2 from the atmosphere increases as levels rise. Co2 has been at a historically low level for a long time, and the trees and grasses love the stuff. Trees have been getting measurably fatter. Orchids turn on an extra 500 genes when levels go over 500ppm.

There is no need to panic about co2, it is a beneficial gas needed by all synthesising plants and biota which form the basis of the food chain on our planet.

Levels had become very low due to take up and sequestration by shell bearing sea critters sinking to the bottom and getting turned into limestone. It's a good job a smart ape came along and started liberating more of it, as trees start dying at concentrations of less than about 190ppm co2. Additionally, if there is any warming effect from extra co2, it'll help a bit as the long term temperature trend continues downwards towards the next glacial phase.

The Holocene optimum was warmer around 6000 years ago than the Roman warm period 2000 years ago which was warmer than the Medieval Warm Period about 1000 years ago which was warmer than the current peak in global temp. It's probably downhill from here to the next ice age on the average.

Stay warm and enjoy the interglacial.

[Jetlack]

Jens,

"It's hard to take it as a playful joke when you begin the post by using the deliberately provocative term "religionists"."

"I'm personally fairly open minded on this whole issue, but I think a person can support efforts against putative global warming even without being religious about it. I can see adopting a sort of precautionary attitude: global warming might not be true, but if it is, it could be very bad not to do something about it. Now I suppose an opponent could answer back that the earth could enter a cooling phase and our efforts against global warming might exacerbate it. I think it's a fruitful debate to have, but starting out by calling the other side "religionists" just sounds like a way to win the argument by default."

But its a fact because only a few days ago here in the UK a chap went to court and asked for the same protection of rights for his beliefs in global warming, as that accorded to religious minorities. The judge agreed and granted it.

Yes stupid but true. So if global warming proponents are to be given the same priviledges in their beliefs as religionsist then it is becoming a religion.

Secondly, this study is a big challenge to initial condition assumptions made in the majority of climate models used by various bodies around the world.

All of those models such as Hansons' which factored in the erroneous, now falsified idea that the earth's ability to absorb carbon remains static, are just WRONG.

Until they are rejigged with the new findings they are WRONG. Thats not an opinion, that's totally in keeping with what we do know about open ended non linear systems like the climate.

[tusenfem]

I must have a really bad case of the slows today because I cannot figure out what this means.

I spent a short time online looking for further information about this study but could only find one other exactly worded report at a different "news" site. Presumably, both reports are press releases.

Hi all
Well, the advantage of having subscriptions. According to Science Daily Knorr published in Geophysical Research Letters (GRL for short), to which I subscribe. Indeed, there is the paper by Knorr for which I give the abstract:

Several recent studies have highlighted the possibility that the oceans and terrestrial ecosystems have started loosing part of their ability to sequester a large proportion of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. This is an important claim, because so far only about 40% of those emissions have stayed in the atmosphere, which has prevented additional climate change. This study re-examines the available atmospheric CO2 and emissions data including their uncertainties. It is shown that with those uncertainties, the trend in the airborne fraction since 1850 has been 0.7 ± 1.4% per decade, i.e. close to and not significantly different from zero. The analysis further shows that the statistical model of a constant airborne fraction agrees best with the available data if emissions from land use change are scaled down to 82% or less of their original estimates. Despite the predictions of coupled climate-carbon cycle models, no trend in the airborne fraction can be found.

I will save the paper as pdf, and anyone interested will have to contact me.

[Jetlack]

Ari,

"The study is about climate - carbon cycle feedback, which is only one tiny corner of the "whole debate"."

You also demonstrate a total lack of fundamental understanding about the sensitivity of intial conditions in these climate models. Yes this one key factor such as the carbon absorbtion rate is a vitally important variable which on its own will drastically change the outcome of those models.

So its not about the debate and whether one can argue this or that, its about the maths in the climate models and this study means the maths is obviously wrong, until this new finding has been represented in the mathematical model used to predict catastrophic climate change.

[tusenfem]

The full paper is available here:

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpre...uestration.pdf

I hope that wattshupwiththat knows that that is not allowed by the AGU.

[Jetlack]

What also intersting is seeing which of the mainstream media have picked up on this study which is the only one using empirical data.

Nothing on the BBC, Independent, Guardian or any of the loudest promoters of agw alarmism. Funny that.

[Strange]

Jetlack,

The only reason I commented originally was because I was surprised at the way you were crowing about a single (as yet unconfirmed) result when even I know there are huge variations in the existing models. I say "even I" because, as I say, I am pretty ignorant about this subject - partly because I get annoyed by the petty aguments that always seem to break out in these discussions.

So, to help me get a better handle on why you think this is so important...

the carbon absorbtion rate is a vitally important variable which on its own will drastically change the outcome of those models

What percentage decrease in absorption of CO₂ are current models using? Over what timescales?

the sensitivity of intial conditions in these climate models

Surley this isn't an "initial condition", it is (was) a predicted future change in conditions?

p.s. I notice that Knorr would have got a pretty rough ride in the ATM forum here for misspelling "loosing"

[Jetlack]

Henna,

"The only reason I commented originally was because I was surprised at the way you were crowing about a single (as yet unconfirmed) result when even I know there are huge variations in the existing models. I say "even I" because, as I say, I am pretty ignorant about this subject - partly because I get annoyed by the petty aguments that always seem to break out in these discussions."

As yet unconfirmed? His study is peer-reviewed so its already been checked by a panel of peers. He also only uses empirical data, statistics etc, not dodgy climate models based on "assumptions".

I am sure many agw proponents will try to find something wrong with Knorr's findings but we will have to wait and see about that. You'll be wanting to keep your fingers crossed :-)

"What percentage decrease in absorption of CO2 are current models using? Over what timescales?"

They would be different according to whichever model. The point is that the most catastrophic models assume that the earth will reach a tipping point at which a much larger proportion of CO2 is not absorbed and remains in the atmosphere, hence contributing to a run-away global warming.

This study's results falsify that assumption by demonstrating that the proportion of absorbed and non absorbed Co2 has remained relatively stable. The earth appears able to absorb more carbon than was modelled into those climate predictions.

This means the climate modellers need to go back and rejig their maths if they want their models to be taken seriously.

"Surley this isn't an "initial condition", it is (was) a predicted future change in conditions?"

Initial conditions relates to the value of variables in any model of a an open ended non linear system like the climate. How could those models already include this new finding when a) its just been published, b) those very models assume the opposite which is that the earth's ability to absorb carbon is deteriorating?

In fact the article itself states categorically that this finding is contrary to the mainstream view on which these models are based. They couch it by saying it runs contrary to a significant body of global warming research. They mean it challenges those mainstream agw models.

"p.s. I notice that Knorr would have got a pretty rough ride in the ATM forum here for misspelling "loosing""

I looked on the ATM forum. I see no discussion about this paper or comment from Knorr. Maybe you could link to it because i cant see it.

In any case, I'm more interested in the facts of his study as opposed to whether he made a spelling mistake. Since we can all agree this is a vitally important issue regardless of the position one takes on agw; pointing out his poor spelling appears a shoddy way to discredit what is a an important piece of science.

[Strange]

Henna

Oji

As yet unconfirmed?

The first sentence of the abstract is "Several recent studies have [shown the opposite]". It will therefore take further studies to confirm which of these is nearest the truth.

You'll be wanting to keep your fingers crossed :-)

Of course not. It would be good if he is correct. And even better if it has as dramatic effect on forecasts as you believe. Don't assume everyone is as excited or extreme about these thing as you seem to be. I really don't care that much. If this has the effect you hope, it increases the odds of me not being around when the "water wars" start (my money is on the Danube as being one of the critical areas in that).

"What percentage decrease in absorption of CO2 are current models using? Over what timescales?"

They would be different according to whichever model.

In other words, you don't know? And some may even have zero already, as Isaac suggested?

I looked on the ATM forum. I see no discussion about this paper or comment from Knorr ... pointing out his poor spelling appears a shoddy way to discredit what is a an important piece of science.

Calm down mate. It was intended as a "joke" - as indicated by the conditional "would" and the smiley - but apparently not as funny as my serious comments. The point was that people pick on ATM proponents for their poor spelling ("loose" is a favourite) but, obviously, serious scientists are quite capable of making the same sort of mistakes.

And obviously it doesn't matter (well, it does to me because it is my job to care about such things).

[Ari Jokimaki]

He also only uses empirical data, statistics etc, not dodgy climate models based on "assumptions".

Here are couple of assumptions from Knorr (2009):

"For 2007, a 3.3% increase in fossil-fuel emissions is assumed [Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2009], while land use emissions after 2005 are kept constant for lack of newer data."

So, he in addition to empirical data, he also has to assume things.

[tusenfem]

There is also a 2007 paper in GRL (GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 34, L09703, doi:10.1029/2006GL029019, 2007) by W. Knorr, N. Gobron, M. Scholze, T. Kaminski, R. Schnur, and B. Pinty on Impact of terrestrial biosphere carbon exchanges on the anomalous CO2 increase in 2002–2003 with the following abstract:

Understanding the carbon dynamics of the terrestrial biosphere during climate fluctuations is a prerequisite for any reliable modeling of the climate-carbon cycle feedback. We drive a terrestrial vegetation model with observed climate data to show that most of the fluctuations in atmospheric CO2 are consistent with the modeled shift in the balance between carbon uptake by terrestrial plants and carbon loss through soil and plant respiration. Simulated anomalies of the Fraction of Absorbed Photosynthetically Active Radiation (FAPAR) during the last two El Niño events also agree well with satellite observations. Our model results suggest that changes in net primary productivity (NPP) are mainly responsible for the observed anomalies in the atmospheric CO2 growth rate. Changes in heterotrophic respiration (Rh) mostly happen in the same direction, but with smaller amplitude. We attribute the unusual acceleration of the atmospheric CO2 growth rate during 2002–2003 to a coincidence of moderate El Niño conditions in the tropics with a strong NPP decrease at northern mid latitudes, only partially compensated by decreased Rh.

where at the end of the discussion they claim:

In general, we find that the remarkable feature of the 2002–2003 anomaly seems to be that climate fluctuations, not only related to El Nin˜o and occurring across all latitudes, acted together to create an unusually strong outgasing of CO2 of the terrestrial biosphere. Further research will be required to investigate if this fluctuation carries features of projected future climate change and the CO2 growth rate anomaly has been a first indicator of a developing positive feedback between climate warming and the global carbon cycle.

Just another bit of input about CO2 and climate.

[Kwalish Kid]

I'm answering you first becuase i am gobsmacked that you have a go at me for using the term "religionist" but ignore the fact that IsaacKuo accuses me of deception.

He didn't say that you were being deceptive, he said that you were mistaken or you were being deceptive.

I suspect that you are simply mistaken and that you are consciously or unconsciously adopting the bullying tactics that global warming deniers usually take in lieu of argument.

Note i did not complain about what was a) slander and b) an ad hominem. I warned him not to do it again.

Can you explain that double standard please?

Attacks on the character or circumstances of someone providing a point is not a fallacy when that character or circumstance is relevant to the point. In this case, what is relevant is how much impact one could reasonably expect this one study to have. It would not be reasonable to suspect that this study would have significant impact on global warming projections.

[Daffy]

This one is going to cause much unease amongst the global warming religionists...

That's going to inspire intelligent debate.

[Stroller]

I hope that wattshupwiththat knows that that is not allowed by the AGU.

I've edited out the link. Suggest you do the same.

[lomiller1]

In climate models atmospheric CO2 is generally a parameter developed as part of a scenario so this paper has no barring whatsoever on model results. IOW the amount of CO2 it takes to achieve a given atmospheric CO2 level is basically irrelevant to the model.

Where it may come into play is projecting what atmospheric CO2 concentrations will result from a given emissions scenario. This is an area where climate science has always been quite conservative, and to my knowledge the IPCC has always used the current trend with a warning that it may not continue.

There is good physical evidence this trend cannot continue so what are we to believe a statistical study showing that CO2 uptake has been relatively constant or empirical; studies showing that major CO2 sinks are reaching their limit?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1022120224.htm

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...urcetype=HWCIT

[lomiller1]

IsaacKuo,

Climate like the weather is an open ended non linear system, meaning even slight changes in the assumed initial conditions can make a very large difference to end result - in our case climate predictions.

You seem to be confusing climate models with weather models. Initial conditions play a big role when trying to model the exact state of a chaotic system, but this isn’t what climate models do.

Rather then the exact state climate models attempt to reproduce the behavior of the systems attractor. Unless you cross a tipping point the behavior of the attractor is quite consistent, and since long term averages follow the attractor (hence the name) it can be used to model long term trends.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractor

[captain swoop]

Jetlack first.

Will you please use the proper quote tags, your replies are hard to read.

second.
Havwe you read the paper yourself or are you basing all your claims on an artical on a website about the paper?

[Jetlack]

Here are couple of assumptions from Knorr (2009):

"For 2007, a 3.3% increase in fossil-fuel emissions is assumed [Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency, 2009], while land use emissions after 2005 are kept constant for lack of newer data."

So, he in addition to empirical data, he also has to assume things.

Oh gee, he makes an assumption about fossil-fuel emissions. Big deal. If thats really the best you can do in an attempt to rebutt his whole study then you really are grasping straws.

[Jetlack]

You seem to be confusing climate models with weather models. Initial conditions play a big role when trying to model the exact state of a chaotic system, but this isn’t what climate models do.

Rather then the exact state climate models attempt to reproduce the behavior of the systems attractor. Unless you cross a tipping point the behavior of the attractor is quite consistent, and since long term averages follow the attractor (hence the name) it can be used to model long term trends.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attractor

climate models and weather models are based on the same basic physics regarding open ended non linear systems.

Are you suggesting that erroneous assumptions pertaining to initial conditons would not deteriorate the accuracy of a climate model prediction?

[Jetlack]

Jetlack first.

Will you please use the proper quote tags, your replies are hard to read.

second.
Havwe you read the paper yourself or are you basing all your claims on an artical on a website about the paper?

Captain,

I use the quotes sometimes, and other times i just make bold others comments to which i am replying. That will have to do unless you have some other reason to ban me. :-)

Yes I've read the paper, thanks for asking.

[Jetlack]

He didn't say that you were being deceptive, he said that you were mistaken or you were being deceptive.

I suspect that you are simply mistaken and that you are consciously or unconsciously adopting the bullying tactics that global warming deniers usually take in lieu of argument.

Attacks on the character or circumstances of someone providing a point is not a fallacy when that character or circumstance is relevant to the point. In this case, what is relevant is how much impact one could reasonably expect this one study to have. It would not be reasonable to suspect that this study would have significant impact on global warming projections.

I am neither mistaken nor being deceptive, and offering those two choices is typical straw-man argumentation.

Well we'll know pretty soon whether this study will have a siginificant impact of previous models and those going forward. You are entitled to your opinion.

[Jetlack]

That's going to inspire intelligent debate.

Daffy,

There is no intelligent debate over agw. I thought you knew - its all settled.

[Jetlack]

Before i forget i just want to put a marker down here.

Numerous people, including moderators have seen fit to create a precedent here that its okay to say to someone who you dont agree with "you are either deceptive or dont understand", or howabout "you are either being thick, or you are a liar".

You see where this will take us? So let this thread be a record that the above is perfectly acceptable method for making ad hominem attacks on others in debates.

[tusenfem]

Jetlack can you please lose the attitude.

If you have something significant to say, then do so, or are you only here to "rock the boat" without any useful input but tangent remarks? You started this thread off already in the wrong way by a very "Streisandian" discuss-amongst-yourselfs OP.

And the reason why the "quote" button should be used is that one can follow backwards from which message said quote comes from.