Showing posts sorted by date for query salby. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Saturday, August 22, 2015

New paper confirms the gravito-thermal greenhouse effect on 6 planets including Earth, falsifies CAGW

An important new paper published in Advances in Space Research determines that the Earth surface temperature (as well as the surface temperatures of 5 other rocky planets in our solar system) can be very accurately determined (R² = 0.9999! & tiny standard error σ=0.0078) solely on the basis of two variables:

1) atmospheric pressure at the surface, and

2) solar irradiance at the top of the atmosphere,

and without any consideration of any greenhouse gas concentrations or 'radiative forcing' from greenhouse gases whatsoever.

Thus, the paper adds to the works of at least 40 others (partial list below) who have falsified the Arrhenius radiative theory of catastrophic global warming from increased levels of CO2, and also thereby demonstrated that the Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot/Boltzmann/Feynman atmospheric mass/gravity/pressure greenhouse theory is instead the correct explanation of the 33C greenhouse effect on Earth, and which is independent of "radiative forcing" from greenhouse gases.

Using observed data from the planets Earth, Venus, the Moon, Mars, Titan, and Triton, the authors,

"apply the Dimensional Analysis (DA) methodology to a well-constrained data set of six celestial bodies representing highly diverse physical environments in the solar system, i.e. Venus, Earth, the Moon, Mars, Titan (a moon of Saturn), and Triton (a moon of Neptune). Twelve prospective relationships (models) suggested by DA are investigated via non-linear regression analyses involving dimensionless products comprised of solar irradiance, greenhouse-gas partial pressure/density and total atmospheric pressure/density as forcing variables, and two temperature ratios as dependent (state) variables. One non-linear regression model is found to statistically outperform the rest by a wide margin. Our analysis revealed that GMATs [Global Mean Atmospheric Temperatures] of rocky planets can accurately be predicted over a broad range of atmospheric conditions [0% to over 96% greenhouse gases] and radiative regimes only using two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure [a function of atmospheric mass & gravity]. The new model displays characteristics of an emergent macro-level thermodynamic relationship heretofore unbeknown to science that deserves further investigation and possibly a theoretical interpretation."

Fig. 4.

Dependence of the relative atmospheric thermal enhancement (T_s/T_na) on mean surface air pressure according to Eq. (10a) derived from data representing a broad range of planetary environments in the Solar System. Saturn’s moon Titan has been excluded from the regression analysis leading to Eq. (10a). Error bars of some bodies are not clearly visible due to their small size relative to the scale of the axes. See Table 2 for the actual error estimates.

"The above comparisons indicate that Eq. (10b) rather accurately reproduces the observed variation of mean surface temperatures across a wide range of planetary environments characterized in terms of solar irradiance (from 1.5 W m^-2 to 2,602 W m^-2), total atmospheric pressure (from near vacuum to 9,300 kPa), and greenhouse-gas concentrations (from 0.0% to over 96% per volume). While true that Eq. (10a) is only based on data from 6 planetary bodies, one should keep in mind that these represent all objects in the Solar System meeting our criteria (discussed in Section 2.3) for the quality of available data. The fact that only one of the investigated twelve non-linear regressions yielded a tight relationship suggests that Model 12 might be describing a macro-level thermodynamic property of planetary atmospheres heretofore unbeknown to science . A function of such predictive skill spanning the breadth of the Solar System may not be just a result of chance. Indeed, complex natural systems consisting of myriad interacting agents have been known to exhibit emergent behaviors at higher levels of hierarchical organization that are amenable to accurate modeling using top-down statistical approaches (e.g. Stolk et al. 2003). Equation (10) also displays several other characteristics that lend further support to the above conjecture."

Comparison of the two best-performing regression models according to statistical scores presented inTable 5. Vertical axes use linear scale to better illustrate the difference in skills between the models.
Added: The top model incorporates greenhouse gas partial pressures and has a standard error over 20 times worse than the bottom model which does not consider greenhouse gas concentrations or radiative forcing whatsoever.

Fig. 5.

Absolute differences between predicted average global surface temperatures (Eq. 10b) and observed GMATs (Table 2) for studied celestial bodies. Titan represents an independent data point, since it was excluded from the non-linear regression analysis leading to Eq. (10a).

Added: The surface temperatures of 5 planets are determined within hundredths of degrees C using the Eqn 10a as a sole function of surface pressure and solar insolation.

Fig. 7.

a) Dry adiabatic response of the air/surface temperature ratio to pressure changes in the free atmosphere according to Poisson’s formula (Eq. 12). The reference pressure is arbitrarily assumed to be p_o=100

_{}

kPa;b) The SB radiation law expressed as a response of a blackbody temperature ratio to variation in photon pressure (see text for details). Note the similarity in shape between these two curves and the one portrayed in Fig. 4 depicting Eq. (10a).

The authors have used a new empirical non-linear regression method of determining the gravito-thermal greenhouse effect on 6 planets, and "might be describing a macro-level thermodynamic property of planetary atmospheres heretofore unbeknown to science," but are apparently unaware of and do not cite any of the over 36 scientific works/papers (partial list below) which have described the theoretical basis of the same 33C Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot gravito-thermal effect of atmospheric pressure, some of which also utilize the Poisson relation as illustrated in Fig 7. from the paper above.

Only one possible explanation of the 33C 'greenhouse' effect temperature gradient on Earth can be possible, otherwise the greenhouse effect would be twice as large (i.e. 66C):

1) The 33C Arrhenius radiative greenhouse theory from greenhouse gases (which confuses the cause with the effect and fails to explain the planetary temperatures of Venus, Earth, Mars, Titan, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, etc.)

2) The 33C Maxwell/Clausius/Carnot gravito-thermal effect, proven by this new paper and the works/papers of at least 36 others (and very accurately predicts the surface and atmospheric temperatures of all rocky planets with an atmosphere in our solar system):

The HS greenhouse equation
The Maxwell/Clausius et al gravito-thermal 'greenhouse effect'
Richard Feynman
Boltzmann
Chilingar et al
1976 US Standard Atmosphere
International Standard Atmosphere & here
Hans Jelbring
Connolly & Connolly
Nikolov & Zeller
Mario Berberan-Santos et al
Claes Johnson and here
Velasco et al
Huffman
Giovanni Vladilo et al

Heinz Thieme

Stephen Wilde

Alberto Miatello

Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner

Verity Jones
William C. Gilbert & here
The Barometric Formulae
Richard C. Tolman
Lorenz & McKay
Peter Morecombe
Ozawa et al
Murry Salby
Goran Ahlgren
Joe Postma
Charles Anderson
Wing and Cronin
Kimoto
Kalmanovitch/quantum physics

Pangburn

Pauli exclusion principle/quantum physics

Planck's quantum theory of blackbody radiation

Miskolczi
Kristian
Siddons
Poisson
Carnot
Helmholtz

Emergent Model for Predicting the Average Surface Temperature of Rocky Planets with Diverse Atmospheres

Den Volokin ^,,
Lark ReLlez

doi:10.1016/j.asr.2015.08.006 t

Highlights

•: Dimensional Analysis is used to model the average temperature of planetary bodies.
•: The new model is derived via regression analysis of measured data from 6 bodies.
•: Planetary bodies used by the model are Venus, Earth, Moon, Mars, Titan and Triton.
•: Two forcing variables are found to accurately predict mean planetary temperatures.
•: The predictor variables include solar irradiance and surface atmospheric pressure.

Abstract

The Global Mean Annual near-surface Temperature (GMAT) of a planetary body is an expression of the available kinetic energy in the climate system and a critical parameter determining planet’s habitability. Previous studies have relied on theory-based mechanistic models to estimate GMATs of distant bodies such as extrasolar planets. This ‘bottom-up’ approach oftentimes relies on case-specific parameterizations of key physical processes (such as vertical convection and cloud formation) requiring detailed measurements in order to successfully simulate surface thermal conditions across diverse atmospheric and radiative environments. Here, we present a different ‘top-down’ statistical approach towards the development of a universal GMAT model that does not require planet-specific empirical adjustments. Our method is based on Dimensional Analysis (DA) of observed data from the Solar System. DA provides an objective technique for constructing relevant state and forcing variables while ensuring dimensional homogeneity of the final model. Although widely utilized in some areas of physical science to derive models from empirical data, DA is a rarely employed analytic tool in astronomy and planetary science. We apply the DA methodology to a well-constrained data set of six celestial bodies representing highly diverse physical environments in the solar system, i.e. Venus, Earth, the Moon, Mars, Titan (a moon of Saturn), and Triton (a moon of Neptune). Twelve prospective relationships (models) suggested by DA are investigated via non-linear regression analyses involving dimensionless products comprised of solar irradiance, greenhouse-gas partial pressure/density and total atmospheric pressure/density as forcing variables, and two temperature ratios as dependent (state) variables. One non-linear regression model is found to statistically outperform the rest by a wide margin. Our analysis revealed that GMATs of rocky planets can accurately be predicted over a broad range of atmospheric conditions and radiative regimes only using two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure. The new model displays characteristics of an emergent macro-level thermodynamic relationship heretofore unbeknown to science that deserves further investigation and possibly a theoretical interpretation.

Tuesday, March 24, 2015

Atmospheric physicist Dr. Murry Salby: Man-made CO2 could only cause warming of 'a few tenths of a degree, if at all'

A recent seminar presentation by atmospheric physicist & professor Murry Salby in Germany strikes another huge blow to climate alarm, demonstrating:

The man-made share of CO2 in the atmosphere is only a maximum of 30% (0-30%). The remainder is related to temperature changes, natural outgassing from the oceans, and to humidity.

The residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is only 4-7 years, not hundreds of years as falsely claimed by the IPCC Bern model.

Man-made CO2 emissions increased a whopping 350% faster since 2002, yet the rate of CO2 increase in the atmosphere remained steady at ~2.1 ppm/yr, a "strong indication that anthropogenic emissions can not have a significant or even dominant share."

His conclusion: "Because of the saturation effect in the energy absorption of CO2 molecules with increasing concentration and short residence time, the further increase in temperature could be therefore only at most a few tenths of a degree, if at all. However, the known fossil reserves would be exhausted by then."

Google translation from German + light editing:

New study on CO2 concentration: Anthropogenic share somewhere between 0 and a maximum of 30%

Seminar presentation by Professor Murry Salby on 13.3.15 in Essen

By Michael Limburg, EIKE

Professor Murry Salby, author of two textbooks on physics of the atmosphere, is one of the most renowned atmospheric physicists in the world. His research work began many years ago at the University of Colorado, then Macquarie University in Sydney brought him much scientific and public recognition- up until he made the mistake of publicly calling the climate doctrine into question. From then on he was bullied by many agencies, with baseless accusations marring the funding of his research and was finally "forced to retire" after 56 years of his academic career.

Professor Murry Salby on 13.3.15 in Essen

Fig. 1: History of change of the total global CO2 concentration per year (green) and only on the surface properties (temperature + humidity dominant parts) induced change in CO2 concentration (blue). Correlation coefficient of 0.93. In contrast to the natural CO2 emissions depend on the "surface properties", do not have the anthropogenic emissions. Graphic M.Salby

What was the crime of Murry Salby? Well, Salby had methodically by strict and well supported theoretically by such observations and therefore very well argued that almost 80% of the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are driven by temperature (outgassing) [1]. Not vice versa. The remaining 20% are driven in the main by the moisture. They both work together on the biosphere and the other sources and sinks of the CO2 cycle. Another important aspect of these results is that the residence additionally injected CO2 is about 4-7 years. Although the IPCC expects some 100 or more years, motivated by, because of the long-term effects, including the call for an immediate stop of all anthropogenic CO2 emissions, but the calculations of Salby (and other such as Humlum et al) agree and not the assertion of the IPCC (Fig 2) That the Global Carbon Budget Project comes to completely different results, shows that the research also on this important aspect to the driver of temperature is far from "settled".

Fig. 2: the IPCC for the carbon cycle in Gt C / year. Substituting the values specified correctly correlated results in a residence time of 4.1 years, not hundreds of years. (Fig. 3) Figure V IPCC report

Fig. 3: the IPCC Berne model with residence times of hundreds of years (red) vs. Observations (green) and math. Function of the gradient. (Blue). Graphic Salby

After these still very new and important results, Salby turned to in his presentation on how high because of anthropogenically induced share of CO2 is the atmosphere and how it could be determined if necessary. This part of the presentation was very extensive and very theoretical, but always starting from the actual observations. The first of these relates to the fact that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions increased by a whopping 350% faster since 2002 than in previous years. Scoffers would say that this is probably an unintended side effect of the Kyoto Protocol, and a bad omen for the upcoming climate conference in Paris. Yes, and that is the point, the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration was total over the same period, constant at the previous rate of 2.1 ppm / year. To Salby this is a strong indication that anthropogenic emissions can not have a significant or even dominant share.

Fig. 4: Comparison rise in fossil CO2 emissions generated (above) with the total concentration of CO2 below.

Now these two developments he investigated using the known isotopic mixing ratios, and other parameters, and came to the determination that one can only determine the basis of the available data and methods, which currently could be due to the total concentration of the upper limit of CO2 produced by humans. And this limit it to certain complex calculations on the basis by which he led the audience but step by step, with maximum 30%.

His conclusion: Because of the saturation effect in the energy absorption of CO2 molecules with increasing concentration and short residence time, the further increase in temperature could be therefore only at most a few tenths of a degree, if at all. However, the known fossil reserves would be exhausted by then.

Remains to complete and this was his final note that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions almost 1: (Fig. 5) 1 correlate with the development of the world's population.

Fig. 5:. Development of the world's population and CO2 emissions from fossil fuels graphics Salby

Unspoken the consequence that no general availability of cheap alternatives to fossil fuels, as you currently may only be provided by nuclear energy, which demanded, reduction of fossil CO2 emissions must lead to a drastic reduction in living standards. And this would have led especially in the poorer countries to a massive increase in the death rate. One or the other listeners felt it perhaps the words of the very famous conservationist and diver Jacques Yves Cousteau recalls, in 1991, was allowed to issue an official UN Brochure . We must "In order to stabilize the planet eliminate 350,000 people per day It's terrible that to say, but just terrible not to say it, " Jacques Cousteau, the UNESCO Courier, November 1991st

[1] For the purists among our readers: Salby determines the correlation coefficient = the net emissions increase of CO2 concentration for the temperature, with almost 0.8 and together with the moisture to 0.93.

Wednesday, September 17, 2014

Debunking the essentially truthy climate claims of 'And then there's physics'

Our warmist friend "Anders," proprietor of the "And then there's 'physics'" blog [formerly "Wotts up with that" blog] is taking a semi-permanent hiatus* allegedly because "he is depressed by the futility of it all, trying to have a discussion with people, who are blathering from bad faith or ignorance."

*interesting choice of words since he doesn't believe there is a global warming 'hiatus' and over 50 publications acknowledge the 18-26 year 'hiatus' in global warming

In his excuses for his personal 'real hiatus' post, he proclaims,

"So, I think there are certain things that we can regard – given the evidence we have today – as essentially true."

and then proceeds to list the certain things he thinks are essentially true. I've quoted each of these followed by just a few of the Hockey Schtick posts which debunk each one of Anders' essentially truthy claims:

"The rise in atmospheric CO2 since the mid-1800s is virtually all a consequence of anthropogenic emissions. If you want to know why, you can read this."

Temperature leads CO2 on all timescales: short, intermediate, and long. The cause does not follow the effect [mathematical proof]. Mathematical & observational proof that CO2 has no significant effect on climate.

New blockbuster paper finds man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming

Swedish scientist replicates Dr. Murry Salby's work, finding man-made CO2 does not drive climate change

Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby explains why man-made CO2 does not drive climate change

Evidence warmth produces more CO2, rather than vice versa

Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby explains why man-made CO2 does not control climate

Single graph demonstrates man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming

Climate textbook explains why man-made CO2 does not control atmospheric CO2

There have been numerous millenial [sic] temperature reconstructions using a variety of different proxies and a variety of different techniques. They almost all produce a hockey stick-like shape and indicate that temperatures today are probably higher than they’ve been for more than a thousand years and the rate at which it has risen is faster than for more than a thousand years. You can read more here."

Not true on 3 levels:

1) All of the dozen or so millennial temperature reconstructions that allegedly find a "hockey stick" shape have been debunked by Steve McIntyre et al, including PAGES, Kaufmann, Gergis, Briffa, Steig, Marcott, et al, in many cases for using the same upside-down data and biased screening as Michael Mann did with his original hockey stick, in addition to other statistical trickery.

2) "They almost all produce a hockey stick shape" is blatantly false. There are well over 1000 published non-hockey sticks in the peer-reviewed literature worldwide vs. only a couple dozen [debunked] hockey sticks.

3) "They almost all"..."indicate that temperatures today are probably higher than they’ve been for more than a thousand years and the rate at which it has risen is faster than for more than a thousand years" is false since the Medieval Warm Period project tallies temperature reconstructions over the past millennium from over 1000 scientists and finds less than 10% indicate the current warm period as warmer than the Medieval Warm Period 1000 years ago.

4) The rate of warming is not at all unusual or unprecedented during the 20th century, during the Holocene, and during prior, warmer interglacials.

The instrumental temperature record has been replicated/reproduced by numerous different groups. All the different records show that we’ve warmed by more than 0.8 degrees since 1880. Homogenization is a crucial part of generating these temperature records and is not an indicator of data tampering, or because scientists want to show that it’s warming faster than it actually is (e.g., here).

According to the HADCRUT3 dataset [from which the GISS and BEST data originates], the globe has warmed/recovered only 0.7C since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850, not "more than 0.8 degrees." Homogenization is important, but unfortunately has been misapplied/misused to often result in an artificial warming trend not found in the raw data.

Further, just because the globe recovered 0.7C since the Little Ice Age does not imply all or most of this recovery is due to man, the false attribution fallacy.

Our understanding of climate change is not primarily based on global climate models (GCMs). They provide some evidence for how our climate may change if we continue to increase anthropogenic forcings. Also, claiming that climate models have failed because they didn’t specifically predict the so-called “pause” is like suggesting that you can’t be sure the river will flow downhill because you can’t predict the winner at pooh sticks(H/T Richard Betts).

Not true because:

1) Computer model output is not "evidence" of anything. Observations are evidence, never models. It's the scientific method, look it up.

2) Climate models are not based upon physics, they consist almost entirely of parameterizations/fudge factors, which is one of many reasons why they do not properly simulate the most fundamental aspects of climate including convection, clouds, gravity waves, atmospheric circulation, ocean oscillations, indirect solar amplification mechanisms, etc. This is why recent papers have called for scrapping the current crop of failed numerical models and replacing them with a whole new approach of stochastic modeling.

3) "claiming that climate models have failed because they didn’t specifically predict the so-called “pause” is like suggesting that you can’t be sure the river will flow downhill because you can’t predict the winner at pooh sticks" is a non-sequitur and ridiculous claim. Comparing water flowing downhill from gravity is in no way the same as pointing out the climate models have been falsified as overheated at 98%+ confidence levels. If a model said that water flows uphill, then that model would be falsified as well based upon observations.

We may not know, precisely, the equilibrium climate sensitivity and the transient climate response, but we do have evidence that provides a range for each of these quantities. Claiming that it will probably be on the low side of these ranges, is simply wrong. The probability distribution tells us the likelihood of each portion of these ranges, and deciding that a particular interval is more likely than this probability distribution suggests, is simply ignoring some (or most) of the evidence.

Not true and "we may not know, precisely" is the understatement of the year. The range of climate sensitivities suggested by various scientists is huge, ranging from < 0.5C to well over 6C. The climate sensitivities based upon observations [i.e. the scientific method], not falsified climate models, show very low climate sensitivities and show that IPCC model-based estimates are exaggerated by ~7 times. Further, several papers have demonstrated that climate models cannot be relied upon to determine climate sensitivity to CO2, despite what Anders truly believes.

There are probably more, but the point I’m getting at is that it really isn’t possible to have a good faith discussion with anyone who dispute the points above.

Anders thinks all of the above rebuttals are "not in good faith," just like when @hockeyschtick1 pointed out to him on twitter that his claim of sea level rise in the past was off by a factor of only 60 times and he claimed correcting his error was in "bad faith."

Happy "hiatus" Anders

Wednesday, February 5, 2014

New paper finds the Amazon can be a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere

A paper published today in Nature finds that during dry years, the lush tropical Amazon Basin acts as a net annual source of CO2 to the atmosphere, rather than as a large annual sink for CO2 as was previously widely assumed.

The paper adds to many other publications over the past 3 years demonstrating prior assumptions about the global carbon cycle are highly erroneous. Consequently, assumptions of the role of man-made CO2 [only 4% of natural emissions] with respect the to the rise of atmospheric CO2 levels are also highly uncertain.

Furthermore, recent papers suggest, contrary to claims of global warming alarmists that the Amazon will dry up, that the Amazon has become wetter over the past 100 years. The paper notes an "intensification of the hydrological cycle" in the Amazon, indicating an increase in precipitation

In addition, a recent paper published in the journal Earth Interactions counters alarmist claims that 'climate change' will cause the Amazon to dry up and shrink by 85%, finding instead, "Our results suggest that the core of the Amazon rainforest should remain largely stable as rainfall in the core of the basin is projected to increase."

Amazonian drought conditions add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere

February 5, 2014

International study combines aircraft and ground data to measure the “breath” of the Amazon forest

As climates change, the lush tropical ecosystems of the Amazon Basin may release more of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than they absorb, according to a new study published Feb. 6 in Nature.
An international team of scientists found that the amount of yearly rainfall was the driving factor behind the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) taken up and released from Amazonia in 2010 and 2011. During a wet year, the Amazon forests were roughly carbon-neutral: Forests “inhaled” more carbon dioxide than they “exhaled,” but biomass burning, which releases carbon dioxide, compensated for the difference. In contrast, during a very dry year forest growth stalled and biomass burning increased, resulting in the region “exhaling” substantial amounts of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere.

A densely forested region of Brazil's Amazon Basin, with a river snaking through. As climates change, the lush tropical ecosystems of Amazonia may release more of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide into the atmosphere than they absorb, according to a new study in Nature.

“Amazonia is changing: We are observing more very wet years and more very dry years,” said John Miller, one of three lead authors on the new paper, and a scientist with NOAA’s Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado Boulder. “If these trends continue, the region may become a net source of carbon to the atmosphere, moving carbon embedded in ecosystems into the atmosphere as greenhouse gas, thus accelerating global warming.”

Until now, scientists have struggled to measure the carbon balance of Amazonia, which stores enormous amounts of carbon in its thick forests and masses of leaves. Scientists have been eager to understand how climate change could influence the regional balance of processes that send carbon dioxide into the atmosphere (fires, decomposition, respiration) and pull it out of the air (photosynthesis). Global observations cannot sense the “breath” of tropical continental regions, and ground studies cannot sample the vast Amazon Basin.

The international scientists – led by Miller, Emanuel Gloor from the University of Leeds, and Luciana Gatti from the Instituto de Pesquisas Energeticas e Nucleares – used aircraft to collect air samples between the surface and 14,500 feet (4.4 kilometers) above four sites across Amazonia, every other week for two years. They then analyzed this air with high-precision carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide sensors. Carbon monoxide is a product of biomass burning.

The concentrations of the gases—and the changes in those concentrations as air masses traveled over the Amazon Basin from the Atlantic to the Andes—provided the basis for the first carbon budget estimate of the entire Amazon Basin.

The study also relied on ground observations of carbon dynamics in forests, coordinated by researchers at the University of Oxford.

Both years of the study had similarly high temperatures, but very different precipitation and biomass burning patterns: 2010 was extremely dry, 2011 wet. The team discovered that in dry 2010, fires released roughly two-thirds more carbon into the atmosphere than during the wet 2011 (0.5 vs. 0.3 petagrams, or 500 million metric tons vs. 300 million), since drought conditions in the Amazon tend to increase fire severity, and fires release carbon stored in trees into the atmosphere.

A CESNA 206 plan in a hangar in Alta Floresta, Brazil. The pilot Fabricio B. Barbosa, the mechanic Marcio Toledo from JATO Aero Taxi, scientist Luciana Gatti and postdoctoral scientist Alexandre Martineswki, both with IPEN (left - right) stand by a small aircraft used in twice monthly science flights over the Amazon Basin since 2010. The scientists collect data on the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and other gases, to better understand how Amazonia contributes to the global carbon cycle. Moisture levels in the region turned out to be the key critical: In a dry year, the Amazon Basin released carbon into the atmosphere; in a wet year, the region was neutral.

Overall, during the dry 2010, the team found that two processes made the Amazon Basin a net source of carbon for the atmosphere. The billowing smoke from fires “exhaled” large quantities of carbon, and drought-stressed Amazonian vegetation “inhaled” relatively small amounts of carbon due to depressed photosynthesis as shown by ground plot data.

In 2011, by contrast, fewer fires and relatively stronger plant growth meant less carbon dioxide was sent into the atmosphere and more was absorbed by growing plants. However, the region did not take up and store more carbon than it sent into the atmosphere. Rather, the Amazon was carbon-neutral, neither adding nor removing carbon from the atmosphere.

“We know that the Amazon undergoes a warming trend similar to the rest of the globe. There is also an increase in both droughts and severe floods,” said Emanuel Gloor, co-lead author on the new paper and a professor at the University of Leeds. “It is unclear how the Amazon forests will change in the future. For the first time we have observed the Basin-wide carbon balance during a very dry and a wet year, which gives us an indication of what changes to expect.

Gatti said the team wanted to continue the aircraft-based measurements over the Amazon Basin. “We need to understand how sensitive these ecosystems are to climate change and the potential for feedbacks that could further affect our climate,” she said. “A longer-term effort will be needed to fully understand the future carbon balance of the region.”

Drought sensitivity of Amazonian carbon balance revealed by atmospheric measurements

Nature

506,

76–80

(06 February 2014)

doi:10.1038/nature12957

Received: 24 May 2013
Accepted: 12 December 2013
Published online: 05 February 2014

Feedbacks between land carbon pools and climate provide one of the largest sources of uncertainty in our predictions of global climate^1, 2. Estimates of the sensitivity of the terrestrial carbon budget to climate anomalies in the tropics and the identification of the mechanisms responsible for feedback effects remain uncertain^3, 4. The Amazon basin stores a vast amount of carbon⁵, and has experienced increasingly higher temperatures and more frequent floods and droughts over the past two decades⁶. Here we report seasonal and annual carbon balances across the Amazon basin, based on carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide measurements for the anomalously dry and wet years 2010 and 2011, respectively. We find that the Amazon basin lost 0.48 ± 0.18 petagrams of carbon per year (Pg C yr⁻¹) during the dry year but was carbon neutral (0.06 ± 0.1 Pg C yr⁻¹) during the wet year. Taking into account carbon losses from fire by using carbon monoxide measurements, we derived the basin net biome exchange (that is, the carbon flux between the non-burned forest and the atmosphere) revealing that during the dry year, vegetation was carbon neutral. During the wet year, vegetation was a net carbon sink of 0.25 ± 0.14 Pg C yr⁻¹, which is roughly consistent with the mean long-term intact-forest biomass sink of 0.39 ± 0.10 Pg C yr⁻¹ previously estimated from forest censuses⁷. Observations from Amazonian forest plots suggest the suppression of photosynthesis during drought as the primary cause for the 2010 sink neutralization. Overall, our results suggest that moisture has an important role in determining the Amazonian carbon balance. If the recent trend of increasing precipitation extremes persists⁶, the Amazon may become an increasing carbon source as a result of both emissions from fires and the suppression of net biome exchange by drought.

New paper finds another large erroneous assumption about the global carbon cycle

New paper finds another huge erroneous assumption about the global carbon cycle

New paper finds Arctic tundra is a net source of CO2 to the atmosphere

New paper suggests the Amazon has become wetter over past 100 years

New paper finds Amazon resilient to climate change due to CO2 fertilization

New paper says Amazon trees will tolerate IPCC projected temperature in 2100

Alarmist claim Amazon will dry up bites the dust: New paper says core of Amazon rainforest will remain stable & rainfall increase

New paper finds 'much lower risk' to Amazon from climate change

Climate scientist Dr. Murry Salby explains why man-made CO2 does not drive climate change

Ocean zone exports 6 Pg CO2/yr, about the same as all man-made sources of CO2