
Biology has been underestimated. Anything that relies on photosynthesis just takes whatever CO2 molecules it can get for its needs, regardless of current climate theories.
– – –
New research published in Science Advances paints an uncharacteristically upbeat picture for the planet, says Phys.org.
This is because more realistic ecological modeling suggests the world’s plants may be able to take up more atmospheric CO2 from human activities than previously predicted.
Despite this headline finding, the environmental scientists behind the research are quick to underline that this should in no way be taken to mean the world’s governments can take their foot off the brake in their obligations to reduce carbon emissions as fast as possible. [Talkshop comment – smell the fear of losing funding].
Simply planting more trees and protecting existing vegetation is not a golden-bullet solution but the research does underline the multiple benefits to conserving such vegetation.
“Plants take up a substantial amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) every year, thereby slowing down the detrimental effects of climate change, but the extent to which they will continue this CO2 uptake into the future has been uncertain,” explains Dr. Jürgen Knauer, who headed the research team led by the Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment at Western Sydney University.
“What we found is that a well-established climate model that is used to feed into global climate predictions made by the likes of the IPCC predicts stronger and sustained carbon uptake until the end of the 21st century when it accounts for the impact of some critical physiological processes that govern how plants conduct photosynthesis.
“We accounted for aspects like how efficiently carbon dioxide can move through the interior of the leaf, how plants adjust to changes in temperatures, and how plants most economically distribute nutrients in their canopy. These are three really important mechanisms that affect a plant’s ability to ‘fix’ carbon, yet they are commonly ignored in most global models” said Dr. Knauer.
Photosynthesis is the scientific term for the process in which plants convert—or “fix”—CO2 into the sugars they use for growth and metabolism. This carbon fixing serves as a natural climate change mitigator by reducing the amount of carbon in the atmosphere; it is this increased uptake of CO2 by vegetation that is the primary driver of an increasing land carbon sink reported over the last few decades.
. . .
Silvia Caldararu, Assistant Professor in Trinity’s School of Natural Sciences, was involved in the study. Contextualizing the findings and their relevance, she said, “Because the majority of terrestrial biosphere models used to assess the global carbon sink are located at the lower end of this complexity range, accounting only partially for these mechanisms or ignoring them altogether, it is likely that we are currently underestimating climate change effects on vegetation as well as its resilience to changes in climate.
“We often think about climate models as being all about physics, but biology plays a huge role and it is something that we really need to account for.”
Full article here.






Might help if the great forests of our planet are left to thrive and without this latest research we already knew their ability to absorb huge amounts of CO2. Russia is busy sending timber from the largest forest in the world the Taiga in Siberia to China. South American rain forest is being felled at an alarming rate to grow palm and produce cattle. Indonesiam forests are disappearing fast too, we have seen the loss of habitat of the orangutan. Vietnam has swapped Jungle for coffee plantations to become the biggest coffee producer in the world.
So-called carbon capture is nature’s job. Humans trying to steal their lunch is futile.
” ….“We often think about climate models as being all about physics, but biology plays a huge role and it is something that we really need to account for.” ….” Just ask an Educated Real Farmer ( says Gramps ) but the current herd revolves around Social Media and behave more like a flock of Sheep, guided by many Wolves dressed as Collies.
In his( Gramps) opinion, EVERYBODY should have studied SOME Agri subjects + Basic Engineering ( Physics for starters), but there is no accounting for lack of Common Sense: Huh, is that what comes off the Nanny state, Bairns weaned on “artificial foods” by some substandard education regime?
Is there anything climate models get right? In recent months we’ve had numerous papers showing how they get fundamental aspects wrong and always wrong to the downside. So when are we going to see them rerun with far less doom-laden outputs?
And if we have underestimated CO2 uptake by plants, then of course we can slow down our decarbonisation. The speed is based on models that are wrong.
‘Attaboy’ Phoenix, As I’ve ben saying recently, too, that it’s a GENERATIONAL thing: the young taught less but know more ( Thunderpants effect / syndrome ). How often now do we hear about “in my lifetime”, ‘in the past xx ( only a few) years, this decade, or even this CENTURY’ Jings WHY are we listening so much to these bairns? But when you get the ‘elder statesmen’ Haha, in government pouting forth, you have to ask, what is the Agenda and who is steering it. Remove the fuel and soon that vehicle will stop.
Looks like another day of little windpower ? Gridwatch not connecting @ Mid-day ….Overload – where’s the power gone.. cold lunch… Cold Turkey soon then, eh?
WE NEED MORE CO2!!!!!! Atmospheric CO2 is too low to form tree trunks, for the billions of tons of CELLULOSE, a GLUCOSE polymer, that make up YOUR UNDERPANTS, pants and shirts…
Click to access co2.pdf
Actually, there is a hidden admission as to the actual cause of increased CO2 in the atmosphere…
“However, simply planting trees will not solve all our problems. We absolutely need to cut down emissions from all sectors. Trees alone cannot offer humanity a get out of jail free card.”
If planting more trees would in effect take up CO2 at greater rates at higher ppm, it follows that cutting down the vast amount of trees as Europe and the US did from the 1700s until the early 1900s decreased the CO2 uptake rate and therefore contributed to increased CO2 ppm. In other words, the land use changes of converting forest to agriculture, not the industrial revolution itself set the stage for increases in CO2 levels.
It should be noted in the US, the east coast forests were totally denuded by the late 1800s. When coal took over, the forests began to recover.
Warmists spot a problem with flat out alarmism…
Global warming might not happen quite as fast as we thought – here’s why
Plants will absorb more carbon dioxide than predicted, meaning models could be overestimating the speed which the planet will heat up
By Sarah Knapton,
SCIENCE EDITOR
17 November 2023 • 7:00pm
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/11/17/plants-absorb-carbon-dioxide-photosynthesis-trinity-college/
– – –
‘we thought’? No, *you* thought. Plants, trees etc. are nowhere near the limit of their capacity to absorb CO2. If more becomes available, why wouldn’t they take it and grow stronger/faster/bigger if other local conditions are suitable?
Caledonian Forest explained: Exploring Scotland’s forestry heritage after news of 15.7 million trees cut for wind farms
Thomas Mackay
21 August 2023
Cultivating new trees is more demanding on time and care in watering, fertilising and controlling pests until the tree is self-sufficient.
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/exploring-scotland-forestry-heritage-news-103658513.html
– – –
How many years before wind power cancels out the effect of such carnage to nature’s carbon cycle? And it’s an ongoing thing with many more sites earmarked for wind turbines and transmission lines.
“we need more CO2”
OK maybe we don’t: However, the primary producers(plants) do.
Even at 400 ppm, the plants are woefully undernourished. Ask any greenhouse-man and they will tell you that plants are healthier above 600 ppm CO2, and most prefer CO2 above 800 ppm, with some preferring up to 1200 ppm. However, above 1200 ppm, the CO2 concentration has a negative effect on the greenhouse workers.
OK then, so what’s the big deal about CO2? Did anybody suggest we would be suffocated ? Just a load of nonsense about all this severe Crisis level, warming, and all that goes with it.
“New research suggests … ” whatever happened to the old original research whereby we knew all that a long time ago ? Conveniently forgotten. There are only so many notes in an octave, so is there a limit to the number of tunes / melodies: and folk have to find a way to justify their existence. …….
Hmm, I’m thinking of the deforestation of the tax haven in the Flow Country. Let alone the Diesel burnt in felling & processing the small /young trees. I just cannot get my head around the madness of the whole chapter.
From: INDOOR AIR QUALITY-LESSONS FROM
SUBMARINE ENVIRONMENTAL SYSTEMS
Recent submarine designs limit COz concentrations to 1/2% (5000 ppm). Older submarine designs limited COz concentrations to 1% (10,000 ppm). In actual operation, a level of about .7% is maintained on the older submarines. These limits are substantially greater than we should expect in buildings.
Click to access airbase_4027.pdf