Thursday, 8 September 2011

The Earth Is happily gobbling more CO2.

Gaia is happily consuming increased carbon dioxide.

Perhaps Tim Flannery is right!

GAIA is alive and well and protecting the Earth from evil CO2.

Sorry, that's tongue in cheek. But it appears that the planet is coping with the increased carbon dioxide.

The Idso's great site CO2 Science (link in title) reports on a new peer reviewed paper:
Gurney, K.R. and Eckels, W.J. 2011. Regional trends in terrestrial carbon exchange and their seasonal signatures. Tellus 63B: 328-339

This paper indicates that, as atmospheric carbon dioxide increases, the carbon sink is intensifying or as co2science explains it:

What it means
As ever more anthropogenic CO2 is emitted into the atmosphere and the air's CO2 concentration rises ever higher, so too does the photosynthetic prowess of earth's terrestrial vegetation grow ever stronger, as the great global greening of the earth gains ever more momentum and sucks ever more CO2 out of the air and incorporates it into living biomass and soil organic matter, thereby muting the rate of global warming that would otherwise prevail in the absence of this important negative feedback phenomenon.
UPDATE: 29/9/11

Ben Cubby has reported in the SMH:
PLANTS have been breathing a lot more quickly than we thought, according to a study that suggests some climate change models may have to be modified to account for faster rates of photosynthesis.
An analysis of 30years of atmospheric records has shown that the total amount of carbon dioxide that passes through plants may have been underestimated by about 25per cent.
The study, published today in the journal Nature, traced oxygen atoms in individual CO2 molecules, and from this the US, Dutch and Australian researchers could determine how often each one had passed through a plant.

It showed "gross primary production" – the amount of carbon inhaled by plants – should be revised upwards from about 120billion tonnes per year to 150 to 175billion tonnes, researchers from the Scripps Institute of Oceanography in the US, said.

Tim's Bizarre rant -


  1. I would have thought this would be blindingly obvious to anyone who is not scientifically illiterate. The carbon cycle is science 101. Nature is opportunistic. An increase in atmospheric CO2 will inevitably lead to an increase in the biomass both on land and in the oceans which in turn will lead to a reduction in atmospheric CO2. The people who study the forests have already reported an increase in area, health and growth rate on several continents. The slight rise in temperature results in an increase in water vapour and increased rainfall. On land this means increased weathering and more nutrients reaching the oceans which gives us more coral growth, more krill, more fish, need I go on?

    1. It is true, science 101, but for the amount of deforestation, sure the remaining plants are absorbing more, and there is an increase in biomass, yet because of what we are doing in terms of killing that biomass...the amount of carbon absorbing plants is decreasing, resulting in a higher concentration of CO2. It is basic climate modelling that shows event the smallest change of CO2 now will have huge influences in the future. As a physics student, we have done these models. Like any theory there are issues, but if you take it back to basics it is rock solid.

    2. "here is an increase in biomass, yet because of what we are doing in terms of killing that biomass..."

      You can't have it both ways. The simple truth is CO2 is plant food.

      You talk of "basic climate modelling.." Forget the models. They have been shown to be hopelessly inadequate. The only true measure is real empirical data and the empirical data tells us that the biomass is growing.

      If you take it back to basics, the AGW hypothesis has been falsified Google AGW a falsified hypothesis.

    3. Geoff, the CO2 is plant food argument is too simplistic and I'm sure we've done this before. Many deniers will claim that 'such and such a glasshouse experiment demonstrated increased biomass...' and they are correct, however, anyone with even a basic level of understanding of experimental design understands that controlled environment studies should not be extrapolated to real world situations. So then we move to FACE studies which do to some degree also demonstrate increased plant growth at elevated CO2 also, however, when other issues such as changes to nitrification rates, increased temperature and altered rainfall patterns are taken into consideration, 5 of the 6 most important food crops actually perform poorly, especially at temperatures above 3 degrees higher than now. They are also more susceptible to insect damage and viral and fungal pathogens. Phytoplasmas especially have a field day as do rusts. Soya crops have been shown to undergo reduced fertility. Of course, the answer to those problems of course is spraying more chemicals and increasing the amount of fertiliser applied and we both know what that does to sensitive ecosystems like coral reefs not to mention the amount of CO2 produced when manufacturing these things. I am curious though Geoff what it will take for you to come around and admit you were wrong. Will it be an ice free arctic? Maybe a massive influx of Bangladeshi refugees? At some point you learn that its safer to piss with the wind than into it. How wet will your leg have to get?

    4. Cowardly Anonymous -

      you say: "CO2 is plant food argument is too simplistic"
      ....but it is the truth. CO2 is vital-to-life. That also is true.

      You say: "Many deniers will claim..." The term deniers is offensive and has been extensively trashed on this blog. If you use the term "deniers" again the reply will be deleted.

      You say: "glasshouse experiment demonstrated increased biomass.." In fact the world's biomass has increased with the increase in atmospheric CO2. Let's not look at lab experiments, let's only look at empirical data.

      You say "Will it be an ice free arctic?" Well, with the arctic having more ice than the last few years, I don't think so.

      You say: "At some point you learn that its safer to piss with the wind than into it." Try to learn from your own words.

    5. For the Latest Ice data see

      contrast this with a photo of US sub at the ice free North Pole is March 1959

    6. Links

      W3C This is a link to a website on the World Wide Web.

      W3C This is a link to a website on the World Wide Web.

  2. Have you ever heard of ocean acidification?
    Search it.

  3. There is no such thing as ocean acidification - it is a misnomer.

    As Bob Carter puts it: "....zealous environmentalists have arrived at thedissolution of carbon dioxide in the ocean as the new scare to replace the now discredited scare of dangerous human-caused global warming."
    "Nothing could make the propaganda intent of this environmental bogeyman clearer than choice of the phrase 'acidification of the ocean' to describe a theoretical change in ocean chemistry that, at its most alarming, will result in a minor decrease in the alkalinity of the surface ocean - a change, furthermore, that falls well within the daily and long term variations that already occur naturally in the ocean."

  4. Right, so the mass carbon bleaching in the summers of 1998, 2002 and 2006 of reefs that have growing for maybe 8,000 occurred by magic..because a logical explanation from respected and trusted climate scientists like evidence of elevated ocean temperatures wouldn't be right. We should of course be trusting Bob Carter, a 'climate scientist' who "receives no research funding from special interest organisations such as environmental groups, energy companies or government departments", because he clearly seems thought highly of.

  5. That's right my old mousey friend.Bob Carter is not only highly qualified but, as you point out, also "hought highly of..."

  6. May I point out my comment was dripping in seem you blindly ignorant not only in environmental issues but also with English language. If we don't bring in the carbon tax and act more sustainable with our resources then our economy and environment will be destroyed.

  7. If we bring in the carbon tax, old rogerhead, it will make not one iota of difference to the environment but, as you say, (although I quote you out of context) the "economy ... will be destroyed."

    Please try to think of the future for our coming generations.

  8. The carbon tax will create more environmentally friendly jobs, increasing the economy whereas if we let CO2 outputs to increase, temperatures will also and if there is only an increase by 2 degrees, the entire Great Barrier Reef will be destroyed, costing Aus. over $1 billion. That will be a small product of climate change compared to the immense impacts of the polar regions.
    Also, I'm 17, so I'm presuming I know more about the needs of the coming generations than you do. I really would like my future to not be completely ruined by the ignorant and selfish decisions by conservative politicians like Abbott, and the public.

    1. bravo to the young people with the guts to stand up and speak thier mind on a subject that effects thier future, these inward looking sceptic's are scared of looking outside the shallow boxes they hide in ,the issue of whether or not mans emissions are warming the earth is probably to close to call and to emotional for the average person ,but given 95% of the scientists in this area have reached a consesis that its a 98% probability,I for one tend to agree, but i base my opion on simple logic,which is the fact that fossil fuels release toxic elements into our air,water & soil and that is undisputed fact so therefore the climate scientists are asking us to clean up our act , anyone that suggests that is a bad thing is totally insane.
      Now the conspirency theories are basically fostered by ignorant sceptical dimwits that simply cannot enter into constructive debate for fear of not proving thier opion or they have vested interest in maintaining the status quo.
      If we look at economies of the developed world they are largly controled by multinational energy & fuel companies & also mining& exploration companies plus some sectors of the finance sector,ask yourself ,would fuel companies benifit from the reduction of use of the internal combustion engine,ask why tecnologies for alternative fuels have been suppressed by the fuel & motor vehicle sectors ,also ask yourself why havent renewable tecnologies expanded into the market , the simple answer for that fact is they have not had the funding to develop and the reason for that is the fossil fuel industries are subsidised and the recource is abundant.
      The contravercial nuclear power industryr has also suffered from this lack of research dollars ,a spokesperson recently stated that the first reactors produced over a 25 year life about 1 cubic meter of waste requiring 1000 years to be safe, reactors today over a 25 year life produce about 1 kg of waste requiring 200 years to be safe and if the nuclear power industries had recieved the resaerch funding the waste would be minimal and totally re-usable.
      Now about the carbon tax debate the critics say it will do nothing to reduce emissions and burden the economy, first emissions ,the emitters must be held acountable for all they produce it must be factored into the cost of producing the power ,yes it will be passed on it is no different than any other input cost ,how it will work is so simple our power bills will go up ,that will make us look at our options , one reduce our usage or seek an alternative energy source ,that is why the compensation component is important it gives us opertunity to invest in renewables that in turn generates more investment in renewables and on it rolls, at the same time the fossil fuel sector looses market share ,so it must either invest in cleaning up emissions or as we are seeing happen more and more they are investing in renewables themselves. so the the statement that there will be no reduction in emissions is flawd ,if more renewables replace fossil fuels the less fossil fuels will be used and on and on.
      Now for the economy , the statement the coal industry will disappear is just simply doom gloom claptrap , coal has many uses eg it makes one of the best lubricants and it maintains its carbon , so the coal industy will adapt and servive . the industries created by the demand for more and better renewables will expand and gain momentum providing more and more jobs.see the problem with those that champion doing nothing lack imagination and a deep seated fear of change.
      The carbon tax will be a spike rise in prices but people what in this day and age doesn't rise and if you take time to ponder on this simple fact ,fossil fuels are deminishing so they will only rise in price,what will we be paying for fuel in 10 years , but renewable energy will not rise anywhere at the same rate and as tecnology improves the prices will slow ,why ! because the source is free and inexhaustable and no emissions to harm mankind.

    2. You say: "these inward looking sceptic's are scared of looking outside the shallow boxes they hide in..."

      I am NOT hiding! You are hiding behind an anonymous tag.

      Did you read the peer reviewed papers above? or did you just write your diatribe of fiction?

      You say: "given 95% of the scientists in this area have reached a consesis..." Should that be consensus? and 95%,,,have you seen that document that your 95% comes from? It is quoted very often by alarmists but was a flawed study and the total respondents questioned were just 17%.

      "The carbon tax will be a spike rise in prices" Clap-trap. The tax on carbon (dioxide) [isn't that a convenient lie calling it carbon instead of harmless carbon dioxide?] will continue to penalise people until it is repealed.

      Please put some thoughtful analysis into your comments.

    3. Geoff,

      Looking at the English of Anonymous above, he clearly has a problem. He has difficulties with his spelling and sentence construction. You mention that he should put some "thoughtful analysis into your comments". Analysis yes, but thought may be a difficulty for him

    4. I don't like belittling the younger generation as they are a very bright lot - however, Anonymous being 17 is barely out of nappies - it is obvious that he/she/ has been brainwashed by his school teachers who have been brainwashed by the Al Gore theorists. Sorry Anonymous but I fear you lot are going to destroy the planet by your ridiculous push for whatever it is someone has started. Have you heard of Margaret Mazel Hecht? She was an anthropologist who gave global warming its start somewhere around 1975 as part of a movement to curb population growth. Google her name and I am sure something will come up about her. I have a Special Report here from a Science and Technology magazine in 2007

  9. There is no proven link to say that CO2 causes temperature increase. In fact that hypothesis is busted.

    Proof from overseas that for every "green" job created (at great subsidy) the Spanish experience is a loss of 2.2 "normal" jobs and the UK experience is a loss of 3.7.

    That is bulltish about the Great Barrier reef being destroyed.

    In the book Science and Public Policy, Prof Aynsley Kellow addresses the problem of noble cause corruption. He gives as iconic examples - "stopping global warming" and "saving the GBR" where evidence has been manipulated in dishonest ways.

    As a 17 year old you should be hailing the increase in vital to life carbon dioxide as the increase has caused a great increase in the world's biomass.
    I worry about the future - I am worried that the greedy politicians who want to tax life-giving CO2 to increase their taxation base will kill the goose that lays the golden eggs - kill essential CO2.
    I also worry about the education system that is teaching that vital CO2 is a "pollutant" THAT is a pollution of future leaders' minds.

    1. the planet produces its own natural level of co2 ,so any extra is simply an added burden on natural process ,scientists that spend thier lives studying this say the planet naturally produces approximatly 2 trillion tonnes of co2 and currently it is estimated that our current biomass can process approx 4 trilion tonnes, mankind currently produces approx 7 trilion tonnes of co2 , dont have to be a climate scientist to work that one out and we are still reducing biomass every day .
      The arogance of man continues to think that they can improve on the natural system , there is not one instance where we have and many where we have gone seriously wrong.

  10. It increases the world's TERRESTRIAL biomass, so we'll just ignore the complete destruction of marine life?
    If you've actually researched this topic thoroughly, you would realise that there is an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere, and a carbon tax would decrease to a normal level, NOT LOWER THE CO2 TO UNSTABLE LEVELS.
    The education system doesn't teach us as youth about climate change, we take an active interest in the subject to prevent the older generations and conservatives from ruining the environment beyond repair. If we don't put a tax on carbon and enforce further measures, we are the ones who will be left to attempt to fix the catastrophic destruction. Please change your views as I and future generations need the safety of a healthy environment.

  11. Gee says: "If you've actually researched this topic thoroughly, you would realise that there is an excess of CO2 in the atmosphere.."

    Well, who says that there is an excess of vital-to-life CO2 in the atmosphere?

    In the past there has been 7000ppmv whereas now we have an almost gasping-for-breathe 391.7 ppmv.

    Let us all hope and pray that life-giving CO2 can increase to levels necessary to increase biomass and give an idyllic future to our grandchildren.

    Gee says: "catastrophic destruction..." Mate, that will happen if we reduce essential CO2 and so reduce the biomass that feeds our planet.

    I am sorry if your educators have fed you bovine excretia instead of the truth about life-sustaining carbon dioxide.

  12. Gee
    I have three Children and two Grandchildren. I worry about their future too! I worry that idiots like Bob Brown, Julia Gillard, Tim Flannery, Al Gore et al will destroy their future. I worry that we will have a Carbon Di-Oxide Emissions Tax thrust upon us, despite the fact that the majority of our population of voting age have told our government that we don't want it! As for the 'Precautionary Principle', well I am a Member of the Honourable Corps of Sappers and Miners, if you and your father want some help in digging a Anti-Meteorite Shelter in your backyard, don't hesitate to ask me for help!
    Go and read 'The Untrained Environmentalist' by John Fenton, it will show you what you can do when you combine your 'environmental' activities with you 'capitalist' ones.
    I am sure we can rely on your help on the barricades when we protest in favour of CO2 reducing Nuclear Power Stations? ;-)


  14. Above cartoon says "What if it's a hoax and we create a better world for nothing?"

    Good thought but however if we reuduce CO2 we would create a smaller biomass, less plants, less food and it has already cost trillions see -

  15. Is this not the same as all creatures as the food supply increases so does consumption. Look at the us in the US. We are all a bunch of fatty's. LOL

  16. Coral didn't "die" because of warmer water (why do you think it grows best around the equator?) ; it dies because the water level drops too low.

  17. Ignorance and arrogance, surely no-one would suggest a Gen Y could be guilty of that? However, as the above anon stated you 17 year old warmers need to get you facts right and STOP LISTENING TO MORONIC WARMIST ALARMISM.
    CAGW does NOT bleach reefs, sudden massive changes in temp(5 degrees + in days ) associated with periods of shallow still water (ie little wave action to mix in cold water over the reefs) and low storm / tide activity bleach reefs, been happening for thousands of years.
    Corals like warmer waters, hence why they are found in tropical waters to the equator.
    Natural variations of PH in the oceans (noise) are greater than the potential for CO2 to neutralize even if CAGW were true. Our oceans have coped with 7000ppm co2 concentrations and higher, we are currently at 390ppm and MIGHT big MIGHT get to 680ppm, but heres a thought, almost everything dies at 150ppm Co2, I know which direction I would rather be heading. CAGW has been thoroughly debunked, the oceans is at real risk from real pollution and bad managment practises NOT co2

  18. All this stuff about the earth coping with 7000 ppm is true. But these concentrations were at a time WHERE NO ANIMALS could live on land, and there were only micro-orgasms in the oceans, 500 million years ago. The earth could not support any complex organisms. The levels had to drop to below 1000 ppm to support complex life, and life very different to what we have now.

    Why is it that me, and others here who are for global warming are young? Because we have a life ahead of us. We do not want money. We want a life. And sure, stuff like the carbon tax will cost. But that cost is insignificant for a healthy life. We are young. We care for the future. We are not cynical. We are not greedy. We believe that a healthy future is more important than money. We do not care about saving ourselves money. We are not afraid of a tax. We are not insecure about ourselves when confronted by a tax. We care.

    And all this about educational propaganda or brainwashing, well, if you have actually read scientific journals from actual scientific organisations, there is little doubt about the issue. The evidence is there. So go to a university, look at online journals, go to Google scholar and read about climate change. I have, and I am only a teenager. If you are too scared to then that is your problem, but don't ruin our futures because of this cowardice to face the truth.

    1. I would hate you to have not future because there was insufficient life-giving carb on dioxide to support your young life.

      If you want to read some truths about the climate change hoax go to

      The evidence is there - If you are too scared to then that is your problem.

    2. In fact you are quite wrong, minimally toxic levels of CO2 are in the region of 4% (40000 PPM) and in no way as low as 7000 PPM (0.7 %) you really should do the math. 7000 PPM Occured right about the time of the Cambrian Explosion - the start of multicell animal life on the planet. Seems 7K PPM is quite good for animals

      You suggest that you are happy to pay the tax for a better life, however the tax you pay will make no measurable difference to the climate - none - zip all it will do is give you a nice green warm fuzzy feeling, all this for trillians of dollars of YOUR money being wasted on useless gestures.

      Meanwhile people starve around the world, because you want to burn food for fuel. You do realise of course that at about our tax level ($23 a tonne) it becomes cheaper to burn flour than coal. We already burn sugar and corn (foods) IE ethanol, and consume vegetables to make oil for biodiesel?

      This hyperventilating about a non-problem is truly scandalous when you look at the good this money could do if spent on the right thing - CAGW is a waste and this waste ( and burning food for fuel) is totally immoral in a world where people starve every day.

  19. I am amazed at the continuous claims that the Great Barrier Reef will be destroyed if the temperature of the oceans increases by two degrees.

    How is this claim come by?

    At the end of the last ice age, about 12,000 years ago, temperatures were about 8 degrees colder than today, and sea level was about 120 metres lower than today.

    Yet the reefs of the world thrived, including the GBR.

    As the temperature rose 8 degrees, the reefs thrived, including the GBR.

    As the sea level rose 120 metres, the reefs thrived, including the GBR.

    So why will the GBR not continue to thrive if temperature increases over the next 100 years? Or if sea level rises over the next 100 years?

  20. If the plants take up more CO2, why is the CO2-content of the atmosphere still increasing?

  21. Flannery states in his rant that "10% of me isn't even me". I wonder what 10% he is referring to - I think it must be his brain; but do you reckon his brain would be 10% of the total Tim? Must have moved the decimal point a few places to the right.

  22. What the &^%^& is Tim Flannery talking about ?

    Super-organism according to Wikipedia (yes I know) is ....
    "an organism consisting of many organisms. This is usually meant to be a social unit of eusocial animals, where division of labour is highly specialised"

    Ah so that explains it then they are "EUsocial" and there are divisions in "Labour" - -- - obvious Flannery is some kind of Euro-shill for the Socialist Commissariat in Brussels.

  23. Coral reefs can and have been drowned-as well as pounded to pieces as rising water exposed them to wave attack.10% are already dead and 60% degraded-most(the vast majority) live in water between 26-27 deg C a few live below and even fewer above that.There are some deep water corals also.
    Coral Reefs are dying off around the world due to pollution,warming of the waters,ocean acidification and local changes to habitat-eg dredging or blasting.Current reefs have grown or recolonized much older coral skeletons or colonising favourable even (sloping) habitat as sea level rose after the last glacial melt period.For much of the time corals were able to keep up with the rate of rise.However it has been found off the coast of Hawaii that coral reefs drowned by "Meltwater Pulses"at much higher rates at 10-20 metres per thousand years between 20,000 and 10,000 years ago.There are thousands of stranded dead reefs around the world from these events.There is also a massive fossil reef in deep water off the coast of Queensland at least 900km long.The worlds biggest fossil!
    Maybe some of this can help Anonomous April 19-it aint so simple as he would surmise!!!


All serious comments published after moderation.
Comments should be polite, and respect all views.
No bad language. Spam never makes it!