via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/32K95iE

May 30, 2025 at 08:05AM

As ever, researchers imply that nature’s carbon cycle is going to struggle to handle slight temperature variations, but past evidence (or lack of opposing evidence) suggests most climate feedbacks are negative.
– – –
New research reveals the amount of carbon dioxide released by trees into the atmosphere under a warming climate could be considerably less than currently predicted, says Phys.org.

Published in Science, the new findings are from an international research team that includes Chief Scientist at Western Sydney University’s Hawkesbury Institute of the Environment, Distinguished Professor Ian Wright.

The research shows the amount of CO2 respiring from tree trunks is not expected to increase as sharply as currently thought under a warming climate.

The findings give scientists important insights for predicting the amount and movement of CO2 in our ecosystems as a result of warming temperatures, and strengthen scientists’ understanding of plant thermal acclimation—the way that plants respond to changes in temperature.

Professor Wright and the international research team studied trees from around the world to measure the rate of carbon dioxide they produce from their stems, known as respiration, and to test the new theory for how respiration rates respond to environmental changes.

Plants and trees respire to make energy to grow, and release carbon dioxide as a by-product. The respiration from their woody stems is a major contributor to the Earth’s annual carbon “flux”—or the rate at which CO2 is added or removed from the atmosphere.

Scientists have long expected that a warming climate will inevitably lead to plants increasing the amount of carbon dioxide they release into the atmosphere—in turn, leading to even more warming. [Talkshop comment – assumption alert].

“This is likely true, but this latest research reveals that carbon fluxes under warmer future climates will not increase as much as currently thought,” said Professor Wright.
. . .
Professor Sandy Harrison from the University of Reading, one of the world’s leading vegetation modelers, said the global discovery has significant implications for how scientists predict global carbon fluxes under future climates.

“These findings give scientists a new approach for assessing the degree to which ecosystems around the globe can slow the rate of warming,” said Professor Harrison.

Full article here.

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/IAZltUV

May 30, 2025 at 06:36AM

You do not publish any information that you know full well to be wrong, whether or not you add some small print saying “Storm frequencies and intensities are less certain further back in time”. To do so is grossly dishonest – some might say fraudulent. After all, the BBC knew that most readers would either not notice the small print or ignore it.

via Watts Up With That?

https://ift.tt/BnG1cJH

May 30, 2025 at 04:01AM

50.86016 -3.24014 Met Office CIMO Assessed Class 4 Archived temperature records from 1/11/1979

The Dunkeswell aviation site was originally opened as RAF Dunkeswell in 1943 but was mostly operated originally by the US Air Force. It would originally have had its own meteorological equipment but none of its data from those early years have been retained. Archived temperature records start from 1/11/1979 and there onwards a degree of confusion arises.

The current site is not the original location in 1979 despite it being alongside a building described as the “Old Control Tower” – logic would normally assume this would be the first site – back in its pre-archive dates it may well have been. The vestige of the 1979 original recordings site is shown deep into the “Remarks” section of the archives (that few would normally delve into) at grid reference 313800E, 107900N as below.

The above ran as a 24 hour manually reporting site up to 20/5/1991 whereupon it was relocated and simultaneously automated. This move is not shown by renaming nor renumbering despite being a substantial 1.1 kilometres. as detailed below.

A point of major concern is that the digitalised records for all the years back to 1979 only show the coordinates of the current operational site. I feel this is misrepresentation, a modern day student behind a computer screen will neither check any manual records for a location check (as I did) nor would they have any reason to doubt the records. This is not an almost excusable error of omission, for whatever reason, on transcribing the original manuscript the coordinates were changed from those shown on the originals thus a conscious act. This rather calls into question what other “facts” may have been altered on transcription without physically checking line by line.

The above two sites have climatological differences, the 1979 iteration was likely subject to the modern encroachment of new site development which prompted the long distance relocation to the other side of the airfield. This long distance is quite common on airfield sites for example Marham. The two sites readings simply cannot be considered as one continuous record and should be treated as two separate sites, however, this is not indicated so most “studying” the records would have no idea.

Is the new site a good one given the expense of the relocation? It is reasonably rural but does sit in an ever changing agricultural location alongside a tarmac roadway. The real issue is the use of the area for storage. In reviewing Coton-in-the-Elms, commenter “muddyv” raised the following point “Note the large round silage bales stacked on the north of the site not only provide shelter, they also generate heat. The hay grass in the bales ferments and generate considerable heat in the process.”

In the headline image (and throughout lots of google historic images) there are large stores of black Silage Bales to the south west of the Screen. Opting to quantify any effect, I noted these 1.2 metre (4 feet) circular bales are stacked 3 high producing a 3.6 metre (12 feet) high windbreak to the direction from which is the prevailing wind in the UK. This wall of 230 square metres area will unquestionably have an effect of reducing wind speeds in being just 25 metres from the screen. Notably though, following up on “muddyv’s” remark I found some quite remarkable figures relating to “Silage Heating“

I was immediately reminded of Tim Channon’s remarks in his review of Redesdale Camp , particularly “Caution is needed over data from this site without knowledge of near site changes.” In the case of Dunkeswell we have an area that is both a substantial windbreak and a major heat source potentially up to 50 to 60° C at origin. A reduced velocity breeze from the windbreak effect could well pick up fermentation warmth , pass over black tarmac and keep night time minima significantly warmer than otherwise would be natural. A similar effect to that of artificial warming from a heat source at Bingley, Amersham, Cambridge NIAB, Cassley and others.

I asked Dave Woolcock (who supplied analysis for Lerwick) if he could run comparative tests on the old and newer site’s readings in order to quantify and differences between them. Unfortunately (and unusually for an airfield) the data was so partial with hundreds of missing readings that no useful comparisons could be drawn. No only are the sites poor their reading records are equally so.

In summary Dunkeswell is a current unsuitable site for accurate readings that is Met Office rated as Class 4 but I feel the potential transient effects downgrade it to Class 5. Its very poor historic record is a bonding of two different data sets from two distinctly different sets of instrumentation and cannot neither be considered continuous nor reliable. A site to ignore.

via Tallbloke’s Talkshop

https://ift.tt/LN930q5

May 30, 2025 at 03:48AM