Reply to: How did scientists miss this?

[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.

[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

[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.

...

[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....

[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

[Zero Liability]

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

[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?

[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?

[BlasterBates]

The Telegraph sacked all their competent science journalists a while back. This might explain why the article refers to "a team of scientists at Wyoming University" and "lead author Professor Ying Sun, of Wyoming University" when the actual paper (Impact of mesophyll diffusion on estimated global land CO2 fertilization) lists people from the University of Texas at Austin (including Ying Sun), the University of Missouri, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory: but nothing about Wyoming. (A search on the University of Wyoming website for Prof. Ying Sun also draws a blank.)

One can only assume the Telegraph journalists are so keen to push their own agenda that they have missed some rather obvious facts that were there, written down, right in front of them. What are these people being paid for exactly?

If you don't like the Telegraph you can read it here instead:

Climate change is being slowed by plants far more than expected, researchers reveal | Daily Mail Online

[DodgyAgent]

As you might not have noticed in your blinkered rightie way, I was responding to the first quote above which admittedly has not much to do with Booker but as others have pointed out he is part of that rightie group who make things up so can be considered as fair game in regards to this thread, maybe we should introduce more righties who pull fairy dust out of the ether and present it as factual.. .

This is CUK general you do realise?

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

[darmstadt]

How interesting that something appears that the left don't like that they respond by rubbishing the deliverer of the story.

My point about scientists was made using evidence from the Telegraph. Quite what it had to do with Christopher Brooker I dont know

As you might not have noticed in your blinkered rightie way, I was responding to the first quote above which admittedly has not much to do with Booker but as others have pointed out he is part of that rightie group who make things up so can be considered as fair game in regards to this thread, maybe we should introduce more righties who pull fairy dust out of the ether and present it as factual.. .

This is CUK general you do realise?

[DodgyAgent]

Lets have a look at what you said above as you didn't actually post about 'the effects of CO2 on the growth of plant life' but a comment about it which you then asked a question about scientists and nothing about 'the effects of CO2 on the growth of plant life.' I presume that this is the effect of having an IBS sufferer's bowels where the grey matter should be...

My point about scientists was made using evidence from the Telegraph. Quite what it had to do with Christopher Brooker I dont know

[darmstadt]

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?

Global warming: plants may absorb more carbon dioxide than previously thought - Telegraph

Bunch or crap cut out to save the planet...

What has this got to do with my posting about the effects of CO2 on the growth of plant life? Perhaps if we starved you of it we wouldn't have to put up with your irrelevant drivel

Lets have a look at what you said above as you didn't actually post about 'the effects of CO2 on the growth of plant life' but a comment about it which you then asked a question about scientists and nothing about 'the effects of CO2 on the growth of plant life.' I presume that this is the effect of having an IBS sufferer's bowels where the grey matter should be...

[DodgyAgent]

e.

Calling those you disagree with names does nothing to enhance the credibility of your position.

On the contrary. Considering what my position is I think that slinging insults and abuse WILL enhance my credibility

[EternalOptimist]

sorry about the long pause by the way