Newsweek - National News, World News, Health, Technology, Entertainment and more... | Newsweek.com
Full Post
Posted Thursday, September 18, 2008 3:50 PM

Trees Will Save Us From Global Warming? Scratch That

Sharon Begley

For the couple of decades the Greening Earth Society, a creation of the coal industry, has been happily insisting that the more carbon dioxide we pump into the atmosphere the lusher and more verdant the world will be. As far as climate change goes, their attitude is Alfred E. Neuman’s: what, me worry?

So it is always amusing when even the most straightforward assertions break down. In the climate-change field, one such assertion is that, since plants breathe in carbon dioxide, surely in a world with higher concentrations of CO2 plants will flourish and suck up lots of the stuff. We call that a negative feedback. Unfortunately, a study in this week's Nature finds that, after exceptional warming, an ecosystem anchored by a tallgrass prairie actually takes up less carbon dioxide than it did before the warming.

For their study, scientists led by John Arnone of the Desert Research Institute and David Schimel of the National Center for Atmospheric Research turned up the heat in large controlled-environment chambers housing a tallgrass prairie. It was 4 degrees C. (7 degrees F.) warmer than normal. The researchers collected data over four years (the simulated heat wave occurred in year two), and measured what happened to CO2 uptake. Result: warming decreased the ecosystem’s carbon uptake in both the hot year and the following year.

Advertisement

The problem—and plants that absorb less carbon definitely present a problem, since it is carbon uptake that serves as the basis for biomass, otherwise known as food, fuel and fiber—was that the heat triggered a drought in the year it occurred. That suppressed what’s called primary productivity, or how much plants grow as a result of carbon uptake. In all, carbon sequestration fell threefold over the study period of four years. It took two years for carbon uptake to return to what it was pre-heat wave. As the scientists put it, “more frequent anomalously warm years, a possible consequence of increasing anthropogenic carbon dioxide levels, may lead to a sustained decrease in carbon dioxide uptake by terrestrial ecosystems.”

Now, a rise of 4 degrees C. is more than global warming is expected to bring in this century as measured by global median temperatures. But local spikes of that magnitude are in the cards, and already happening. As the world warms, the scientists warn, "an increase in frequency and intensity of anomalously warm years may decrease the ability of terrestrial ecosystems to absorb CO2 and store carbon.”

There is no small irony in the finding that warmer conditions cut carbon storage. One of the last great hopes for avoiding dangerous global warming is for plants to suck up more and more of the CO2 the industrial world produces. Oh well.

You must be a registered user to comment.  Click here to register.  Already a user?  Click here to login.

Member Comments

Posted By: tadchem (September 22, 2008 at 9:15 AM)

I found the following on www.junkscience.com:

"... Begley really is dire at this, isn't she? Sharon, drought inhibited prairie grass in this failed experiment -- it was their uncontrolled variable and yes, drought is actually not good for plants (even puts the poor dears off their food -- CO2). For those not aware the comparison Begley should have made is between CO2-boosted plants and 'natural-state' controls in the same years to see what effect increased CO2 has rather than merely looking at boosted plants in consecutive years. This is where she would have seen that the Greening Earth Society is quite correct, increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is indeed good for plants (NASA even put out a release a few years ago about how the world is, in fact, greening in response to elevated carbon dioxide and their GSFC did similarly back in 2001). More importantly, Begley would have discovered that increasing atmospheric CO2 makes plants more water efficient and drought resistant (or she could have gone to say, co2science.org and got hundreds, probably thousands of references on plant growth enhancement and drought resistance with increased carbon dioxide).

"The one point Begley accidentally got right is that trees will not 'save us' from global warming -- but only because we are not in any danger from same."


Posted By: nejking (September 19, 2008 at 3:06 PM)

Wait. Didn't you write an article not that many months ago that said New York would be overrun by poison ivy because of the excess CO2? Oh, I get it now. Depending on which study fits into your predetermined biases, that's the direction you go in. Shame on you, Ms. Begley. This isn't about picking sides, but actually investigating what 'new' study is being rammed down our throats. Did the study use the double-blind method? Did they have one area dedicated as a control group? What types of plants? Do these plants, like most others, have a built-in system of feast or famine depending on the climate, which determines their rate of growth, reproduction, etc....? Do more plentiful plants on our planet react differently? What about plankton, the king of gobbling CO2? This left more questions unanswered then answered! Usually you do your homework, but when it comes to climate, it's obvious you've made up your mind. Will you blame the scientists when AGW turns out to be as phony as Mann's hockey stick graph? Or will you take responsibility for lousy reporting or will so much time have passed that no one remembers your complicity in the scam? Oh well.


Posted By: dobermanmacleod (September 19, 2008 at 2:05 AM)

"Leemans and Eickhout (2004) found that adaptive capacity decreases rapidly with an increasing rate of climate change.

Their study finds that five percent of all ecosystems cannot adapt more quickly than 0.1 C per decade over time. Forests will be among the ecosystems to experience problems first because their ability to migrate to stay within the climate zone they are adapted to is limited. If the rate is 0.3 C per decade, 15 percent of ecosystems will not be able to adapt.

If the rate should exceed 0.4 C per decade, all ecosystems will be quickly destroyed, opportunistic species will dominate, and the breakdown of biological material will lead to even greater emissions of CO2. This will in turn increase the rate of warming" --Leemans and Eickhout (2004), "Another reason for concern: regional and global impacts on ecosystems for different levels of climate change," Global Environmental Change 14, 219–228

"Few seem to realise that the present IPCC models predict almost unanimously that by 2040 the average summer in Europe will be as hot as the summer of 2003 when over 30,000 died from heat. By then we may cool ourselves with air conditioning and learn to live in a climate no worse than that of Baghdad now. But without extensive irrigation the plants will die and both farming and natural ecosystems will be replaced by scrub and desert. What will there be to eat? The same dire changes will affect the rest of the world and I can envisage Americans migrating into Canada and the Chinese into Siberia but there may be little food for any of them." --Dr James Lovelock's lecture to the Royal Society, 29 Oct. '07