Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Plants Taking up Less Carbon Dioxide than Models Predict

posted by martyb on Saturday December 12 2015, @08:31AM   Printer-friendly
from the need-more-fixed-nitrogen-not-the-broken-kind dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

Plants on land appear to be taking less carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than predicted by climate models, researchers say. In a study, Large divergence of satellite and Earth system model estimates of global terrestrial CO2 fertilization (full article is paywalled) led by William Kolby Smith at the University of Minnesota, satellite observations were examined. Plant growth was found to be less than expected. The authors suggest two phenomena may account for the difference. In what's termed "water stress," hotter temperatures increase the loss of water from plants. Where there's adequate water and carbon dioxide, other nutrients such as phosphorus or fixed nitrogen may limit growth.

press release

Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Plants Taking up Less Carbon Dioxide than Models Predict | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 3 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Dunbal on Saturday December 12 2015, @11:19AM

    by Dunbal (3515) on Saturday December 12 2015, @11:19AM (#275372)

    Wait, you mean climate models can be wrong?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   0  
       Troll=1, Insightful=1, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @02:30PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @02:30PM (#275410)

    > Wait, you mean climate models can be wrong?

    Very sly! Except "climate models" aren't just monolithic. Conclusions about global warming are the preponderance of agreement among thousands of individual experiments and analyses. That they aren't all perfectly exact is a red herring, Real life is analog, and the needle is really deep in the red. Arguing about whether it is 90% in the red or 85% in the red doesn't change the fact that it is still deep in the red.

  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @04:44PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday December 12 2015, @04:44PM (#275440)

    The difference between science and ideology is that science can correct itself over time.

    Ideology, which is what you have, just comes up with more sarcastic justifications of its original position.