Nature still sucking up considerable carbon dioxide

Giant Sequoia trees in the Giant Forest, Sequoia National Park / Wikipedia/Davigoli

(LiveScience) While humans are emitting large amounts of greenhouse gases, particularly carbon dioxide, into the atmosphere, the planet sucks some of it back up.

A new study indicates that natural, carbon-removing processes, have not yet reached capacity, in spite of humans' increasing emissions over recent decades.

The oceans can absorb carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, as can trees and other vegetation.

"Globally, these carbon dioxide 'sinks' have roughly kept pace with emissions from human activities, continuing to draw about half of the emitted [carbon dioxide] back out of the atmosphere," said study researcher and climate scientist Pieter Tans, with the U.S. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration's Earth System Research Laboratory, in a statement. "However, we do not expect this to continue indefinitely."

The researcher team, led by Ashley Ballantyne of the University of Colorado, analyzed 50 years of global carbon dioxide measurements.

Humans emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere primarily through burning fossil fuels and through other activities. Plants take up carbon dioxide as they grow and store it in their tissues, and the oceans can also absorb it from the atmosphere. This latter process has its own drawback: Carbon dioxide drawn into the oceans causes them to acidify. Ocean acidification is seen as a serious threat to the health of ocean ecosystems.

Earlier work has suggested that these natural gas-sucking processes might be falling behind, leading to a faster-than-expected rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide. The new results suggest this hasn't happened yet, rather they show these carbon-dioxide sinks continue to pull about half of people's carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere.

"Since we don't know why or where this process is happening, we cannot count on it," Tans said in a statement. "We need to identify what's going on here, so that we can improve our projections of future (carbon dioxide) levels and how climate change will progress in the future."

The research is detailed in Thursday's (Aug. 2) issue of the journal Nature.

Follow Wynne Parry on Twitter @Wynne_Parry or LiveScience @livescience. We're also on Facebook & Google+.

• Top 10 Surprising Results of Global Warming
• Top 10 Craziest Environmental Ideas
• Earth in the Balance: 7 Crucial Tipping Points

Copyright 2012 LiveScience, a TechMediaNetwork company. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

[hypnotoad72]

http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/mspot/arp/highco2.php

http://rainforests.mongabay.com/09-carbon_emissions.htm

https://www.ambrosevideo.com/resources/documents/289.jpg

Feel free to infer what you want. Too much CO2 in the atmosphere, contrary to the belief, is not healthy.

[krisd999-2009]

Could it be that the same natural processes that made all the oil and gas, are now kicking into overdrive to recycle all the CO2 into more oil and gas that is being generated at huge pressures on the bottom of the oceans from agae and forced into cracks of the Earth's crust. Could oil and gas be the ultimate renewables that nature provides us for free?

[emalcom]

Is it me, or does it seem strange that these scientists, or the "reporter" can't use the word photosynthesis. You know that process by which plants turn Co2 into food in order to grow. YA that process that removes Co2 from the atmosphere that we all learn about in middle school biology!
It's gotta be hard trying to gather up the thread when it all begins to unwind.

[DTTS]

Capt, did you know there are more trees now than there were over 70 years ago?

http://www.appalachianwood.org/forestry.htm

[hypnotoad72]

Immaterial, if CO2 levels rise at an exponentially faster rate...

Are the added trees that purportedly exist today larger or smaller?

Are they the same kinds of trees?

Wouldn't photosynthesis decrease as trees age? As most life forms age, things tend to slow down...

Still, why think of nuances when your glib generalizations are more refreshing, simpler, and fun?

http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=89;t=000321;p=0

Looks like they thought of some of the same things, but lots of others...

[Yes_ABWH_Fan]

By switching from drilling, to MAKING carbon-neutral lab & demo-proven Oil-from-Algae, this carbon sink should become enough to reverse everything done by the Industrial Age, given time.
ALL "Green Initiative" resources, including alternate car mfg, should be re-directed into this best solution.

[hypnotoad72]

Agreed.

Now convince the big oil lobbyists to allow progress... like how they haven't all this time because their profits are more important, and oil - even in conventional forms - isn't going away...

[Shmuli2]

All green plants use CO2. The more CO2 there is, the faster plants grow, both existing and NEW plants. Additionally, they use water better, providing for further growth and increased new growth. Consequently, the more net production of foliage. Net production of foliage IS carbon sequestering! Carbon sequestration will continue at an accelerating rate as the amount of CO2 increases!

Regarding the note above, I think captdon1 means the large urban head island effect of going from rural to suburban and urban areas. Growth of urban and suburban areas increases recorded temperatures at existing stations. This only means that local heat islands affect the local areas where the temperatures are recorded and have little effect on the larger environment.

For more information on the environmental benefits of CO2, go here:
www.co2science.org
For more information on the issue of poor siting of temperature stations, go here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/29/press-release-2/

[hypnotoad72]

http://www.accessexcellence.org/AE/mspot/arp/highco2.php

Happy breathing...

http://rainforests.mongabay.com/09-carbon_emissions.htm

https://www.ambrosevideo.com/resources/documents/289.jpg

Feel free to infer what you want. Too much CO2 in the atmosphere, contrary to the belief, is not healthy.