• Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
  • Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!

How did scientists miss this?

Collapse
X
  •  
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    How did scientists miss this?

    I can only assume that Scientists are so keen to push their own agendas that they have ignored a fundamental facet of Science. What are these people being paid for exactly?

    Global warming: plants may absorb more carbon dioxide than previously thought - Telegraph

    Global warming may not be damaging the Earth as quickly as feared after scientists found that plants can soak up more carbon dioxide than previously thought.
    According to researchers, climate models have failed to take into account that when carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere, plants thrive, become larger, and are able to absorb more CO2.
    As part of the carbon cycle, plants use light to photosynthesise carbon dioxide, turning it into carbohydrate to grow and releasing oxygen as a waste product.
    Now a team at Wyoming University has found that carbon dioxide stays in leaves longer than previously thought, acting as a fertiliser and accelerating plant growth.
    “The terrestrial biosphere may absorb more CO2 than previously thought,” said lead author Professor Ying Sun, of Wyoming University.
    Related Articles
    Vapour rises from cooling towers as the sun sets on behind Drax Power Station
    China and America in crucial talks on global warming 02 May 2014
    Bluebells blooming three weeks earlier than last year due to warm spring 18 Apr 2014
    The new Dark Age 10 Apr 2014
    The climate talks bring pain, not gain 09 Dec 2012
    The scientists say it explains why levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are not rising as quickly as models predict.
    The team estimates that climate scientists have underestimated the ability of plants to grow and absorb carbon dioxide by as much as 16 per cent.
    The finding may mean that it will be easier to fulfil the target of keeping global warming below two degrees since pre-industrial times. The Earth has currently warmed 0.85°C from 1880.
    It was originally thought that vegetation on Earth currently removes one quarter of all human emissions. But the new study suggests it is far higher.
    Dr Chris Huntingford, Climate Modeller at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology, said: “This new paper suggests plants are slightly better at capturing CO2 than we thought.
    “It will be slightly easier to fulfil the target of keeping global warming below two degrees – but with a big emphasis on ‘slightly’.
    “Overall, the cuts in CO2 emissions over the next few decades will still have to be very large if we want to keep warming below 2 degrees.”
    In August, a final report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) found that the world faces "severe, widespread and irreversible" effects of climate change unless it takes urgent action to limit global warming by cutting back on burning fossil fuels.
    Extreme weather such as floods, heat waves and droughts are expected to become more common while climate change may even worsen the risk of violent conflicts, the report warned
    The UN has set a target of limiting global warming to 2C (3.6F) above pre-industrial levels. But the experts said it appears increasingly likely that target will be missed, leading to more severe impacts
    Although the new paper gives new hope that the target could be met. But some climate experts urged caution.
    Dr Simon Lewis, Reader in Global Change Science at University College London, said: “This study shows, correctly in my view, that photosynthesis is highly responsive to carbon dioxide, but this is far from the only factor amongst many that will impact the forests of the 21st century and how much carbon they store.
    “The level and speed of greenhouse gas emissions cuts needed to avoid dangerous levels of climate change are not altered by this new study.”
    Prof Peter Cox, Professor of Climate System Dynamics at the University of Exeter, said: “Avoiding two degrees of global warming is a huge challenge for humanity even if this effect is taken into account.”
    Let us not forget EU open doors immigration benefits IT contractors more than anyone

    #2
    ...

    They didn't miss it. There are as many conflicting theories on GW as there are on opt out clauses. As long as they get their funding they could not care a hoot.

    Comment


      #3
      Scientists 'missed' nothing. The carbon fertilization effect is well-known and incorporated into the models. What this study does is put a better number of the impact. From the abstract...

      This increase represents a 16% correction, which is large enough to explain the persistent overestimation of growth rates of historical atmospheric CO2 by Earth system models. Without this correction, the CFE for global GPP is underestimated by 0.05 PgC/y/ppm. This finding implies that the contemporary terrestrial biosphere is more CO2 limited than previously thought.
      In other words, the impact of every 1ppm increase in CO2 concentration was overestimated by 0.05 petagrams of C in the models. As the total annual flux is 60 PgC/year, and CO2 is rising by 2-3ppm/year the impact is negligible. But you won't find that out by reading the Telegraph. I am shocked.

      A useful study. Money well spent.
      My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by DodgyAgent View Post
        I can only assume that Scientists are so keen to push their own agendas that they have ignored a fundamental facet of Science. What are these people being paid for exactly?
        The Telegraph sacked all their competent science journalists a while back. This might explain why the article refers to "a team of scientists at Wyoming University" and "lead author Professor Ying Sun, of Wyoming University" when the actual paper (Impact of mesophyll diffusion on estimated global land CO2 fertilization) lists people from the University of Texas at Austin (including Ying Sun), the University of Missouri, and Oak Ridge National Laboratory: but nothing about Wyoming. (A search on the University of Wyoming website for Prof. Ying Sun also draws a blank.)

        One can only assume the Telegraph journalists are so keen to push their own agenda that they have missed some rather obvious facts that were there, written down, right in front of them. What are these people being paid for exactly?

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by NickFitz View Post
          What are these people being paid for exactly?
          Believe it or not, a lot of them aren't paid. They are young interns, working gratis in the forlorn hope of a career in journalism.

          If you ask me, they'd probably be better off starting a decent blog and trying to make a name for themselves that way.
          Work in the public sector? Read the IR35 FAQ here

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by OwlHoot View Post
            Believe it or not, a lot of them aren't paid. They are young interns, working gratis in the forlorn hope of a career in journalism.

            If you ask me, they'd probably be better off starting a decent blog and trying to make a name for themselves that way.
            "Sarah Knapton, Science Correspondent": she gets a byline and has a title; that implies she's not an intern, as their work is normally either uncredited ("by Daily Telegraph journalist" or the like), or credited to a permie colleague who "helped".

            A quick search reveals that she's had 1131 articles published under her byline since 2007: Sarah Knapton - journalisted.com

            I like the bit in the sidebar on that page:

            Sarah Knapton has written...
            • More about 'ebola' than anything else
            • A lot about 'ebola' in the last month


            Comment


              #7
              It's a cut'n paste job. Thats what passes for science in the media these days. The only skill she has employed is deciding what bits not to paste, and whether to have the croissant or the iced bun
              (\__/)
              (>'.'<)
              ("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to Work

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by EternalOptimist View Post
                It's a cut'n paste job. Thats what passes for science in the media these days. The only skill she has employed is deciding what bits not to paste, and whether to have the croissant or the iced bun
                Glad you agree. The rot set in when the Independent asked Charles Onions, a business correspondent with no prior (or subsequent) experience of writing on science, to write a piece on global warming. The resulting farrago mixed partially-regurgitated telephone quotes and his own words into a nonsense confection that bore no resemblance to what the science was actually saying at the time.

                Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past - Environment - The Independent
                My subconscious is annoying. It's got a mind of its own.

                Comment


                  #9
                  But it's not good news for you pj is it ?

                  She may be cuttn and pastn, but it's not exactly 'on message' for you is it.
                  The tide is turning, even in the poodle press. It's not the usual barrage of doom and gloom that you are used to
                  (\__/)
                  (>'.'<)
                  ("")("") Born to Drink. Forced to Work

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by EternalOptimist View Post
                    It's a cut'n paste job. Thats what passes for science in the media these days. The only skill she has employed is deciding what bits not to paste, and whether to have the croissant or the iced bun
                    A look at her published articles shows that she started on the Guardian, moving to the Telegraph (Daily and Sunday) in August 2008. The vast majority of her articles have been general interest churnalism:


                    Her gifts in the field of science journalism were, it seems, finally noticed in December last year, when the first article describing her as "Science Correspondent" appears:


                    since when she has been credited with a number of in-depth articles covering the cutting edge of scientific knowledge:


                    though without any shadow of a doubt, her finest hour came on Thursday 9 January 2014, when she published two stories which complement each other perfectly:


                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X