How did scientists miss this?

[pjclarke]

If you don't like the Telegraph you can read it here (The Daily Mail) instead:

Or you could poke yourself in the eye. Or you could read the paper. Or just the abstract. Or the reaction. It doesn't say anything like what the Mail or the Telegraph says it does.

Who would have thought it?

[darmstadt]

So are you saying the report in the Telegraph is wrong?

Are you saying it's right only its a but difficult to tell from your original comment?

I can only assume that Scientists are so keen to push their own agendas that they have ignored a fundamental facet of Science. What are these people being paid for exactly?

All you're saying is that one bunch of scientists are repudiating another bunch, so who is right and who is wrong?

[Zero Liability]

Even the US' biggest welfare queen is preaching the message now.

[CheeseSlice]

Sorry Torygraph and Wail bashers this story is now up on BBC (sorry I only have mobile link from my phone)

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-29601644

So you're just going to have to accept that the trees are right and you are wrong

[pjclarke]

Sorry Torygraph and Wail bashers this story is now up on BBC (sorry I only have mobile link from my phone)

Climate change: Models 'underplay plant CO2 absorption' - BBC News

So you're just going to have to accept that the trees are right and you are wrong

The difference being that the BBC coverage has the basics correct ...

Scientists say that between 1901 and 2010, living things absorbed 16% more of the gas than previously thought.

The authors say it explains why models consistently overestimated the growth rate of carbon in the atmosphere.

But experts believe the new calculation is unlikely to make a difference to global warming predictions.

While Mail readers are left with the idea that

Plants are slowing the effects of climate change far more than expected,

One thing the paper does do is refute the notion that climate scientists strive to hide results that don't fit the doom-and-gloom, send more money narrative. But a 16% overestimate of the carbon fertilisation effect is a flea bite in the overall carbon cycle. For example, the uncertainties in the effects on the cycle of increased temperatures on soils and wildfires are of a similar magnitude....

[BlasterBates]

You are saying plants are absorbing 16% more CO2 than previously thought and it's not significant...

....

http://phys.org/news/2013-06-carbon-...ts-absorb.html

intact forests and those re-growing after disturbance (like harvesting or windthrow) sequestered around 4 billion tonnes of carbon per year over the measurement period—equivalent to almost 60% of emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production combined.

...

[EternalOptimist]

if the biosphere absorbed 16% less than previously estimated -
'We're doomed, it's worse than we thought. 10 days to save the earth. woe is me'


if the biosphere absorbs 16 % more -
'Oh that. thas insignificant'


liars , crooks and charletans, the lot of them

[pjclarke]

The most recent number for annual carbon emissions from FF combustion is around 9 billion tonnes (33 billion tonnes CO2 x 12/44), so 4 billion tonnes sequestered is more like 44%. Fossil combustion is around 87% of the total emissions, so a 16% overestimate of sequestration means we need to reduce emissions by just over 6% (44% x 87% x 16%) less than the amount based on the previous estimate. Not exactly reassuring. As I wrote, there are uncertainties in how other areas of the biosphere will react to a warmer world larger than that.

Plus, its a bit of a selective quotation, the PhysOrg article continues ...

This news is not as good as it seems. During the time measured, tropical deforestation resulted in the release of almost 3 billion tonnes per year. Thus, globally, the net forest carbon sink amounted to just 1.1 billion tonnes per year or one-seventh of average emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement production over the period measured.