{"id":349548,"date":"2024-10-30T17:35:48","date_gmt":"2024-10-30T16:35:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=349548"},"modified":"2024-10-30T17:35:52","modified_gmt":"2024-10-30T16:35:52","slug":"oops-science-was-settled-until-it-wasnt-plants-absorb-31-more-co%e2%82%82-than-we-thought","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=349548","title":{"rendered":"Oops, Science Was \u201cSettled\u201d\u2014Until It Wasn\u2019t: Plants Absorb 31% More CO\u2082 Than We Thought"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"
Aerial top view forest tree, Rainforest ecosystem and healthy environment concept and background, Texture of green tree forest view from above.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From Watts Up With That?<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
https:\/\/scitechdaily.com\/scientists-were-wrong-plants-absorb-31-more-co2-than-previously-thought\/<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/div>\n\n\n

A new study reveals that plants have been absorbing 31% more CO\u2082<\/strong> than previously believed. Yes, 31%<\/strong>\u2014a glaring error that casts serious doubt on climate models, emissions scenarios, and policy prescriptions like Net Zero. For years, we were told that the \u201cscience was settled,\u201d and that urgent action was needed to avoid catastrophic warming. But this discovery suggests that our models have been dramatically underestimating nature\u2019s ability to manage CO\u2082. This revelation not only upends the rationale behind aggressive policies but also raises broader questions about the supposed certainty of climate science.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Myth of \u201cSettled Science\u201d<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

The phrase \u201csettled science\u201d has been the bedrock of climate advocacy for decades. We\u2019ve been told that if we don\u2019t make rapid, costly changes, we\u2019d face imminent disaster. Skeptics were treated as heretics, while the so-called consensus was portrayed as unquestionable. Yet, it turns out we were 31% wrong<\/strong> about something as fundamental as plant CO\u2082 absorption. This isn\u2019t a minor correction; it\u2019s a massive revision that undermines the credibility of models driving policy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Unraveling of Climate Models<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Climate models are the tools used to predict warming and guide policy. They\u2019ve been treated as scientific scripture, driving policies from emissions reductions to renewable energy mandates. But with a key assumption proven wrong, the models\u2019 projections are called into question:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Overblown Emissions Impact:<\/strong>\u00a0Climate models predicted rapid CO\u2082 buildup, assuming limited natural absorption. This inflated the urgency of drastic emissions cuts. Correcting for higher CO\u2082 absorption rates means that CO\u2082 accumulates in the atmosphere slower than models predicted, weakening the case for urgent, economy-wrenching measures.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. Questionable Feedback Loops:<\/strong>\u00a0Many models rely on dramatic feedback loops\u2014such as reduced plant CO\u2082 absorption at higher temperatures\u2014to justify emergency interventions. But this new data shows plants can handle more CO\u2082 than anticipated, making these feedback loops look less inevitable and more speculative.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Policy Implications:<\/strong>\u00a0If the models guiding climate policy have been this far off, then the entire framework behind policies like Net Zero becomes shaky. Policies driven by these models were\u00a0never proven to be beneficial<\/strong>, but were only assumed to be so. The discovery that plants are absorbing significantly more CO\u2082 undermines the supposed need for extreme measures.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Integrated Assessment Models: Revisiting Flawed Assumptions<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

    Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs) blend climate and economic data to suggest policies that balance costs and benefits. They have provided much of the justification for global measures ranging from carbon taxes to renewable subsidies. But with CO\u2082 absorption rates off by 31%, these models face a major credibility problem.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

      \n
    1. Cost-Benefit Analysis Loses Its Basis:<\/strong>\u00a0IAMs assume a certain rate of CO\u2082 absorption to weigh the costs of emissions cuts against the benefits. If the natural absorption is higher, then the benefits of aggressive cuts are lower than the models projected. In short, many of these \u201cbenefits\u201d were\u00a0assumed rather than demonstrated<\/strong>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    2. Marginal Abatement Costs Are Likely Wrong:<\/strong>\u00a0If plants are more effective carbon sinks, the cost of reducing each additional ton of CO\u2082 may be overstated in current models. This means that the high costs of immediate interventions may not be justified by the reduced warming they are supposed to achieve.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
    3. Tech-Centric Solutions Become Harder to Justify:<\/strong>\u00a0Expensive technological carbon capture schemes, often seen as a cornerstone of Net Zero strategies, become less urgent in light of nature\u2019s greater CO\u2082 absorption capacity. Relying on natural processes might be more cost-effective, while prioritizing costly tech solutions could be a waste of resources.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

      The Net Zero Push: Unproven and Assumed to Be Beneficial<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

      Net Zero policies are often presented as inherently beneficial, with no need to prove their value. The assumption is that reducing emissions rapidly will stabilize the climate and prevent catastrophic warming. But the reality is far less certain:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

        \n
      1. Urgency Based on Unproven Models:<\/strong>\u00a0The rush to Net Zero has been justified by models that assumed much lower natural CO\u2082 absorption. With plants taking in more CO\u2082, the urgency diminishes, raising questions about whether this policy was ever justified, beyond mere assumptions of benefit.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
      2. Economic Costs Without Clear Benefits:<\/strong>\u00a0The transition to Net Zero is projected to cost trillions, requiring massive infrastructure changes and energy system overhauls. These changes were sold as necessary to prevent dire outcomes, but with natural systems absorbing more CO\u2082, the supposed benefits become even murkier.\u00a0The costs are real, while the benefits remain speculative.<\/strong><\/li>\n\n\n\n
      3. A Flawed Logic of Assumed Good:<\/strong>\u00a0Proponents argue that even if Net Zero doesn\u2019t deliver promised benefits, it\u2019s better to \u201cplay it safe.\u201d But this logic ignores the very real economic and social costs of these policies\u2014costs that can harm the most vulnerable. If models were wrong about something as basic as CO\u2082 absorption, then continuing these extreme measures without re-evaluation is irresponsible at best.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

        Climate Sensitivity: Rethinking the Crisis Narrative<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

        Climate sensitivity measures how much the Earth\u2019s temperature will rise with a doubling of CO\u2082. It\u2019s a core figure in climate models, typically estimated to be between 1.5\u00b0C and 4.5\u00b0C, with policy-driving models often assuming a midpoint of 3\u00b0C. If plant CO\u2082 absorption rates were so underestimated, it suggests that the models might also be overestimating climate sensitivity.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

          \n
        1. Slower CO\u2082 Accumulation Reduces Sensitivity:<\/strong>\u00a0If natural absorption is higher, the atmospheric CO\u2082 concentration increases more slowly, which may imply a lower climate sensitivity than currently assumed. In other words, less CO\u2082 means less immediate warming, contradicting the dire predictions that have justified extreme policies.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        2. Overestimated Warming Scenarios:<\/strong>\u00a0The upper estimates of climate sensitivity have driven much of the urgency around climate action, but this new data suggests that the Earth may not warm as rapidly as claimed. If the worst-case scenarios are less likely, then the aggressive timelines for emissions reductions look increasingly unjustified.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
        3. Time to Adapt, Not Panic:<\/strong>\u00a0If climate sensitivity is indeed lower, it means we have more time to adapt to any changes, that may in fact be natural, rather than rush into drastic mitigation measures that haven\u2019t been proven to work. Adaptation becomes a more reasonable and potentially effective strategy, given the new information on natural absorption rates.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

          The Bigger Picture: Science Isn\u2019t Settled, and Neither Is Policy<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

          The discovery that plants absorb 31% more CO\u2082<\/strong> than we thought reveals just how far off the mark climate models\u2014and the policies based on them\u2014can be. It\u2019s not just a matter of revising a few numbers; it\u2019s about rethinking the entire narrative of \u201csettled science.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n