Rain Forests destined to become carbon sources
Researchers from Australia’s CSIRO Climate Adaptation Flagship and Sustainable Ecosystems and CSIRO’s Global Carbon Project have found that higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide is killing trees in the rain forest, and the consequences could be devastating.
The data comes from 116 tropical rain forest plots, and mirrors results seen in Canada’s boreal forests. For generations, tropical rain forests have sequestered an estimated one billion tons of carbon every year, and CSIRO researchers were hoping to discover that vitally important rains forests were becoming more productive, and sequestering even more carbon. But the science demonstrates that the exact opposite is occurring. While more carbon dioxide can make a few individual trees grow faster, many more trees are in the forest are dying. And as forests die, they release carbon.
How much? The researchers suggest that for every degree rise in temperature, the tropical rain forests will release 24.5 billion tons of carbon, compared to the 10 billion tons of carbon released in 2007. The one saving grace is that the carbon will released slowly.
“The significant thing about this is that we expect to see a pattern of reduced uptake of carbon in rain forest around the tropics,” says David Hilbert, Principal Research Scientist at CSIRO Tropical Forest Research Centre. Even if warming can be held to two degrees — now considered a best-case scenario — the world’s rain forests will nevertheless lose almost 50 billion tons of carbon to the atmosphere, effectively cutting its mitigation efficiency in half. If warming exceeds four degrees celsius, then the rain forest could shift from a carbon sink to a carbon source, with devastating consequences for the planet.
Editor’s Note #1: The study will be presented at the International Scientific Congress on Climate Change slated for Copenhagen next week; it’s an emergency session to collate recent scientific studies which suggest that climate change is accelerating dramatically. The results of this scientific congress will be presented to negotiators heading to the Copenhagen climate summit in December.
#2: This study also shows that inactivists who argue that rising CO2 levels will actually make the planet more green are promoting a pollyannish view that is simplisitic and simple-minded.
Hat tip: Green Car Congress which covers a surpising number of global warming stories.
Rather than regurgitating another blog’s assertions (GCC), how about actually posting the link to the study so that readers can see quotes and numbers in context? The links you provided do absolutely nothing to support any of the assertions stated in your post.
GCC did a second-level regurgitaion of a media interview about a study that has yet to be released, while yours is a third-level regurgitation of GCCs post. Still, it would have been nice had you at least provided the link to the original media story.
John, here’s a point you might not have considered.
Perhaps I did link to the original story: Green Car Congress. To dismiss that site as just another blog is to do them a disservice, and it shows you haven’t done much reading there. The writer knows his material and often covers climate stories days before they hit the mainstream media. As far as I can tell, Green Car Congress had this story first. That site did not offer “a second-level regurgitaion” (sic) as you state.
Second, it’s difficult to provide a link to an unpublished study, as I’m sure you can appreciate, so I’m not sure why I’m being admonished for that. But you can look for it soon in Nature with the title Rainforest carbon sink declines under global warming. I found that title by following the links I provided!
So I guess your next point will be that Green Car Congress and One Blue Marble misstate the science. I suspect that we’ll know in a week or two, after the study is presented at the conference.
We may know sooner. As a courtesy to you, I will email the scientist who led the research team and asked him to correct and clarify any points that were made in the original GCC article and repeated in my post here. He’s busy, so he may not get in touch, but he might.
You see… I’ve actually been in touch with several scientists, including a Nobel laureate, over several points of climate change science, and always find them very gracious with their time. If I’ve made any errors in this post, I’ll correct them.
Thanks for visiting again. Watch out for yourself over there. (Note to readers: JLK is in Afghanistan)
Richard,
Ah, but you see I did know the study hasn’t been released (not even an abstract). That’s the point. Why hype a report that may or may not say what you think it says?
Both you and GCC assert that the study says that CO2 is killing trees. Three other environmentalist sites, citing the same as yet unreleased report, state that warming may increase tree mortality: Democratic Underground, Business Green.
Warmingmay contribute to increased tree mortality — a finding based upon computer modelling, not empirical evidence. (Dr. Hilbert’s primary expertise is in modelling.)
Additionally, Energy Saving Trust reported the same thing a day later.
Hopefully the peer-review process at Nature will be better for this report than it was for Eric Steig’s (Nature: Antarctica Warming, 22 Jan 2009) study where in less than a week people outside the peer-review process found the faulty data used to draw the conclusions in the report. The British Antarctic Survey (keepers of the bad data) corrected the data in the first week of February, but the damage was done and Nature’s peer-review process was revealed for the sham that it has become.
As for gracious AGW scientists: they are gracious until asked to provide the detailed methodology, data and code used to produce their results. Then they become distinctly ungracious, defensive and unscientific. (Mann, Steig, Schmidt, Hansen, and Bradley to name just a few.)
John… you’re still missing a key point. The study is unpublished, but it’s hardly an unknown entity. The Green Car Congress story included specific, verifiable details and a quote from the lead author.
In other words, somebody read the abstract, and somebody spoke to the lead scientist.
Generally, I don’t trust the media to cover science correctly, with just a few exceptions. I do trust Green Car Congress. As part of my job, I read their articles every day, and they love delving into stories about science, math and engineering. They do a really good job.
Of course, I’m sure you think that with my left-leaning democratic socialist ways that I don’t understand science. On your denier site you’ve frequently taken me to task for not including links, or making assertions with no facts to support them. That’s such a silly mistake for you to make!
I live, eat and breathe this stuff. It’s what I do for a living. I read hundreds of global warming and clean technology articles and studies every single week. I’ve read a couple of dozen books on climate change, and frequent a half-dozen of the best climate blogs every day. I can back up EVERYTHING I write with scripture and verse. I don’t do so because other sources — like Real Climate and Climate Progress — already do a fantastic job. I’m not trying to run Real Climate lite.
But I can think with both sides of my brain, and I understand how science — and the scientific method — works. I have a degree in journalism, but I also have a degree in science. I’ve taken university-level courses in math, physics, statistics, chemistry, organic chemistry, microbiology, and biology, and graduate level courses in biochemistry and immunology.
So I will stand toe to toe with you when you attempt to lecture me about science. Because here’s the thing… You’re not a skeptic because a skeptic has an open mind. You’re an ideologue. When you describe Mann, Hansen, et al as ungracious, dishonest, and discredited on your web site, you’ve once again crossed over the line into ad hominem, and you haven’t a shred of evidence to support the claim. Because I know. For example, I can list nine or 10 studies that support Mann’s research. He’s not discredited; he’s been vindicated over and over again.
The simple truth is Hansen and Mann are great scientists who are working tirelessly for the betterment of humanity but you deride them because you assume they don’t share your political beliefs. (And you’d be wrong about that, too).
They’re working to save your children; they are working to save my nieces and nephews. They have the respect of the entire scientific community, and they can publish their work in respected journals. (And yes, Nature is one of the best).
You suggest that you want to read the science yourself, and draw your own conclusions. Fair enough. But I am constantly amazed at how often you get it wrong, and how you don’t understand the basic tenets of the scientific method.
You constantly make the wrong inferences because you see everything through a conservative prism. For example, you wrongly suggest that Dr. Hilbert’s study is based on computer modeling, not empirical research. Did it escape your notice that he was leading a team of researchers from one of the world’s most respected scientific institutes and that they mined data from 116 rain forest plots? Hilbert’s colleagues and co-authors aren’t ALL modelers. They have empirical data. Thirty-five years worth, mate.
So you’re dead wrong. I’m right.
How do I know? Dr. Hilbert did get in touch. We’ve exchanged emails. He included the abstract of the paper he and his colleagues will present in Copenhagen next week. I’ve read it.
The Green Car Congress story is accurate, although he has a quibble here and there. But the essential facts are correct.
The One Blue Marble article is accurate. In fact, Dave Hilbert included this comment:
Cool ideas! I have been hunting for something similar to this for some time these days. Many thanks!
During these last 7 days the menstruation takes place