Plants will absorb 20 percent more carbon dioxide than predicted by the end of the century, a new study has found, suggesting climate models are overestimating how fast the planet will warm.
Trinity College Dublin said its research painted an “uncharacteristically upbeat picture for the planet” after finding models had failed to take into account all the elements of photosynthesis. [emphasis, links added]
During photosynthesis, green plants use light energy from the sun to convert carbon dioxide, water, and minerals into the sugars they need for growth.
Scientists thought climate change could weaken the process, but the new research suggests plants can adjust to the temperatures, efficiently absorbing carbon dioxide, producing extra nutrients, and continuing to thrive.
They found that on a global scale, the amount of carbon converted during photosynthesis could be up to 68 percent greater by the end of the century compared to the start of the century, and 20 percent more than some current models suggest.
Silvia Caldararu, assistant professor at Trinity’s School of Natural Sciences, said: “What our study shows is that ecosystems could take up more CO2 out of the atmosphere than previously thought, which would mean lower CO2 concentrations, so a less steep [temperature rise]. …
In recent years, observations have shown that the carbon dioxide uptake by plants is increasing, which is likely driven in part by increased vegetation growth caused by carbon rises.
An increase in the ability of plants to absorb carbon dioxide not only removes it from the atmosphere, but more growth brings down land temperature and mitigates the effects of climate change globally indirectly.
Although climate modelers have attempted to include estimates for this carbon sink, the researchers found that most models were not complex enough to understand the true resilience of plants to climate change.
Researchers found that under the extreme RCP 8.5 warming scenario, a pathway where greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow unmitigated, plants would take a fifth more carbon dioxide from the air than currently expected.
The RCP 8.5 scenario predicts a temperature increase of about 4.3°C by 2100, relative to preindustrial temperatures.
However, the authors cautioned that land ecosystems only absorb about a quarter of human emissions, so the extra benefit would take that up to around 30 percent.
They said it showed the importance of protecting forests and green areas and implementing planting schemes.
Read full post at Telegraph
Pants need CO2 banning or regulating it would be totally irresponsible and stupid
Who would have guessed that higher CO2 concentrations would be beneficial to plant growth? And who were the so-called scientists who said higher CO2 concentrations would be bad for plants? Guess they have never visited hothouses which increase CO2 levels significantly to both improve the growth of the plants but would also see less water consumption from the plants.
On another point, as the CO2 levels have increased even NASA had to state that there has been a greening of the earth. A recent report by a geologist who is an expert on the Sahara desert has stated that the desert is shrinking as areas are again greening.
The article starts with a major error. This is the assumption that carbon dioxide controls the temperature of earth. At 420 ppm we are beyond the saturation point of CO2’s impact. Massive emissions by China or increased absorption by plants will have negligible impact.
The facts clearly show that increased levels of carbon dioxide results in more plant growth. This is why many green house operators go to the expense of significantly increasing the concentration. I read of one experiment done on individual trees. Everything was carefully kept the same except for the CO2 concentration. There was a dramatic different in growth showing larger trees that had more carbon dioxide. World wide when there is more growth, more carbon dioxide is removed from the atmosphere.
It’s nice to know more about how plants work. However, as CO2 cannot and does not warm the climate—nor can any other gas in the atmosphere—it is ignorance to connect CO2 to climate to plant function, or climate change. Junk science is propaganda and that is what this is. The oceans have a much greater effect on CO2 in the atmosphere, with ocean warming and cooling occurring all over the world unevenly and outgassing and ingassing accordingly.