Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

A new balance for the global carbon balance
Max Planck Society ^ | July 6th, 2010 | Dr. Markus Reichstein and others

Posted on 07/10/2010 5:06:20 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach

Researchers determine how rates of photosynthesis and ecosystem respiration depend on the climate in order to obtain a better assessment of the consequences of climate change

Climate predictions could become more accurate and more reliable in the future - thanks to new findings on the role of terrestrial ecosystems in the global carbon cycle. International teams of researchers headed by the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena now present comprehensive data analyses in two related studies. The analyses also lead to more precise estimates of how the ecosystems could react to climate change. In most ecosystems, the photosynthesis rate at which plants fix carbon dioxide from the atmosphere changes relatively little as temperature varies. Over 40 percent of the Earth’s vegetated surface reacts very sensitively to changes in the amount of precipitation, however. The respiration of the ecosystems, when flora and fauna release carbon dioxide, also increases to a lesser extent than has recently often been assumed when the temperature rises. Moreover, this temperature dependence is the same all over the world - even in ecosystems as different as the tropical savannah and the Finnish needleleaf forest, for example. (Science Express, July 5, 2010)


(Excerpt) Read more at mpg.de ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Foreign Affairs; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: climatechange; fluxnet; globalcarboncycle; globalwarming; globalwarminghoax

1 posted on 07/10/2010 5:06:21 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: All
For a more readable version ...we go to What's Up With That:

CO2 field experiment likely to cause “do-over” for climate models

****************************EXCERPT*********************************************************

Posted on by Anthony Watts

I have two press releases here, one via EurekAlert, and one from Max Planck. Plus at the end a summary of points via WUWT regular Pierre Gosselin. First, a key point. You can see the CO2 respiration of the biosphere in the Mauna Loa CO2 record below:

CO2 Trend for Mauna Loa - note the dip in 2008 when global temperatures plummeted, and the step again from 2009 into 2010 when an El Nino occurred

Breath of the Earth: Cycling carbon through terrestrial ecosystems

New data on photosynthesis and respiration will improve models, researchers say

This release is available in Italian, German, Spanish, French, Chinese, and Japanese.

This is the Eddy-Flux-Tower in the Hainich National Park, Germany.


Two recent international studies are poised to change the way scientists view the crucial relationship between Earth’s climate and the carbon cycle. These reports explore the global photosynthesis and respiration rates—the planet’s deep “breaths” of carbon dioxide, in and out—and researchers say that the new findings will be used to update and improve upon traditional models that couple together climate and carbon.

The two reports will be published online by the journal Science at the Science Express Web site at 6 p.m., US ET, Monday, 5 July. Science is published by AAAS, the nonprofit science society.

Christian Beer from the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry in Jena, Germany, along with colleagues from 10 other countries around the world, first take a look at Earth’s Gross Primary Production, or GPP, which represents the total amount of carbon dioxide that terrestrial plants breathe in through photosynthesis each year. With a novel combination of observations and modeling, they estimate the total amount of carbon that the world’s plant life inhales annually is 123 billion metric tons.

Then, Miguel Mahecha, also from the Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, and another international team of researchers settle a long-standing debate over the effects of short-term variations in air temperature on ecosystem respiration, or the Earth’s exhalation of carbon dioxide back into the atmosphere. They show that the sensitivity of ecosystem respiration to short-term variations in temperature is similar around the world. The researchers also suggest that factors other than temperature, such as the slow, ongoing transformations of carbon in the soil and water availability, appear to play crucial roles in long-term ecosystem carbon balances.

Together, these findings shed more light on the global cycle of carbon into and out of the atmosphere and how those processes are coupled with Earth’s ever-changing climate. The researchers analyzed vast amounts of climate and carbon data from around the world, and they say their results should help to improve the validity of predictive models and help resolve how climate change might affect the carbon cycle—and our world—in the future.

“An understanding of the factors that control the GPP of various terrestrial ecosystems is important because we humans make use of many ecosystem services, such as wood, fiber, and food,” said Beer. “Additionally, such an understanding is important in the context of climate change as a consequence of carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels because vegetation greatly modulates the land-atmosphere exchanges of greenhouse gases, water, and carbon dioxide…”

In their report, Beer and his colleagues pooled large amounts of data from FLUXNET, an international initiative established more than 10 years ago to monitor exchanges of carbon dioxide between Earth’s ecosystems and the atmosphere, with remote sensing and climate data from around the world to calculate the spatial distribution of mean annual GPP between 1998 and 2006.

This is a view of the tropical forest in Ghana from the top of a flux tower.

The researchers highlight the fact that uptake of carbon dioxide is most pronounced in the planet’s tropical forests, which are responsible for a full 34 percent of the inhalation of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Savannas then account for 26 percent of the global uptake, although the researchers note that savannas also occupy about twice as much surface area as tropical forests.

Precipitation also plays a significant role in determining the gross global carbon dioxide uptake, the researchers found. They suggest that rainfall has a significant influence on the amount of carbon that plants utilize for photosynthesis on more than 40 percent of vegetated lands, a discovery that stresses the importance of water availability for food security. According to the study, climate models often show great variation, and some of them overestimate the influence of rainfall on global carbon dioxide uptake.

“We reached a milestone with this paper by using plenty of data from FLUXNET in addition to remote sensing and climate reanalysis,” Beer said. “With our estimation of global GPP, we can do two things—compare our results with [Earth system] process models and further analyze the correlation between GPP and climate.”

In the second study, Mahecha and his team of researchers also relied on the global collaboration within the FLUXNET network during their investigation of ecosystems’ sensitivity to air temperature. Compiling and analyzing data from 60 different FLUXNET sites, these researchers found that the respiratory sensitivity to temperature of the world’s ecosystems, commonly referred to as Q10, is actually quite set in stone—and that the Q10 value is independent of the average local temperature and of the specific ecosystem conditions.

For years, experts have debated the effect that air temperature has on global respiration, or the collective metabolic processes of organisms that return carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from Earth’s surface. Most empirical studies suggest that such ecosystem respiration around the world is highly sensitive to increasing temperatures, while the majority of predictive models suggest otherwise. Scientists say that global air temperatures may rise due to the presence of heat-trapping carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels. But, this new result suggests that the temperature sensitivity of the natural exhalation of carbon dioxide from ecosystems has been overestimated and should be reevaluated.

This latest study, in settling the controversy, suggests that previous field studies failed to disentangle processes acting on different time-scales. Mahecha and his team considered the processes of the 60 different ecosystems on the exact same time-scale in order to nail the global mean Q10 down to a value of 1.4. Their new, standard value for various ecosystems’ sensitivity to air temperature suggests a less pronounced short-term climate-carbon feedback compared to previous estimates.

“Our key finding is that the short-term temperature sensitivity of ecosystem respiration to air temperature is converging to a single, global value,” Mahecha said. “Contrary to previous studies, we show that the sensitivity of ecosystem respiration to temperature variations seems to be independent from external factors and constant across ecosystems. In other words, we found a general relationship between variation in temperature and ecosystem respiration… Our findings reconcile the apparent contradictions of modeling and field studies.”

In the future, these two separate studies should allow for more precise predictions of how Earth’s warming climate will affect the exchange of carbon between our ecosystems and the atmosphere—and vice versa. They provide scientists with important tools for better understanding the world’s ecosystems and how the human race continues to influence and alter them.

###

The report by Beer et al. was funded by CarboEuropeIP, FAO-GTOS-TCO, iLEAPS, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, National Science Foundation, University of Tuscia, Université Laval, Environment Canada, and the U.S. Department of Energy.

The report by Mahecha et al. was funded by CarboEuropeIP, FAO-GTOS-TCO, iLEAPS, Max Planck Institute for Biogeochemistry, National Science Foundation, University of Tuscia, the U.S. Department of Energy, and grants from the European Research Council, the European Commission project CARBO-Extreme, and the Max Planck Society.

======================================================

Here’s the Press Release from the Max Planck Institute:

************************************************************

This thread started with the article.....

2 posted on 07/10/2010 5:10:18 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Climate predictions could become more accurate and more reliable in the future - thanks to new findings on the role of terrestrial ecosystems in the global carbon cycle.

BWAHAHAHA, notice how sure of their research they are with key words like could and might!

Educated way over their stupidty level.

3 posted on 07/10/2010 5:11:23 PM PDT by PROCON (Independence Day + 6, Let's see how long it lasts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steelyourfaith; Tolerance Sucks Rocks; SunkenCiv; NormsRevenge; Fred Nerks; Marine_Uncle; ...

Now this seems to be a study worth doing.


4 posted on 07/10/2010 5:11:44 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PROCON
Not so quick...this could be a study that does damage to the Global Warmists....

About :

Web Site for the FLUXNET Synthesis Data set.

Those mountains need more trees.

************************************************

We hope that this will be the first step into a new “global flux perspective” where the different eddy covariance networks will try more and more to harmonize and share data with the aim to increase the quality of the research and the collaboration. In future this dataset will be regularly updated with data from new sites.

5 posted on 07/10/2010 5:21:40 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
They provide scientists with important tools for better understanding the world’s ecosystems and how the human race continues to influence and alter them.

Sorry, this statement alone shows me their agenda.

Whenever I see the word "ecosystems", my skin crawls.

But, then again, I'm no scientist.

I leave it up to you smart FReepers to keep me informed!

6 posted on 07/10/2010 5:27:12 PM PDT by PROCON (Independence Day + 6, Let's see how long it lasts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: PROCON
From the comments at WUWT:

****************************************************************EXCERPT*************************************

DirkH says:

July 6, 2010 at 10:22 am

This research beautifully destroys one foundation of the catastrophist’s fantasies: That an increase in temperature will reduce the photosynthetic capabilities of vegetation severely, leading to a much higher accumulation of CO2.

Now they have two possibilities: Admit that catastrophic warming isn’t likely, or find a different candidate mechanism for the catastrophic scenario.

(I’m using the term catastrophist to distinguish believers in catastrophic warming from moderate warmers. Which brings us to the interesting question of where western governments – Merkel et.al. stand on this issue. Even though Merkel might go the way of the Brown sometime soon now.)


7 posted on 07/10/2010 5:32:17 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PROCON
Oh it may very well be that the Researchers are more in the Global Warming camp...and of course they are dependent on the current Grant Funding machinery....hence the language.
8 posted on 07/10/2010 5:34:30 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PROCON

Oh... and I make no claims about being Smart about this stuff.


9 posted on 07/10/2010 5:35:39 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: PROCON
Oh...and I believe this does damage to the EPA claim that CO2 is a pollutant....wouldn't you think...

Unless we don't need plants....

10 posted on 07/10/2010 5:40:44 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
That an increase in temperature will reduce the photosynthetic capabilities of vegetation severely, leading to a much higher accumulation of CO2.

This hypothesis has been challenged and de-bunked by many here on FR and other leading non-AGW believing scientists.

I'm calling out the Viking kitties..:=)

11 posted on 07/10/2010 5:42:08 PM PDT by PROCON (Independence Day + 6, Let's see how long it lasts!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Dr. Marcus Reichstein thank you for the objective research, and Ernest_at_the_Beach thank you for the post. Now we are starting to examine objectively, (not in the US of course).

Let me remind readers that Carbon Dioxide was four or five times more concentrated in our atmosphere (1400 ppm) than today during the Silurian or later when highly developed vertebrates prowled the Earth, and terrestrial photosynthesis was rampant. Damn few SUV's around then (and of course NO "climate" scientists or George Soros').

Johnny Suntrade

12 posted on 07/10/2010 5:42:31 PM PDT by jnsun (The Left: the need to manipulate others because of nothing productive to offer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

I thought the debate was over....


13 posted on 07/10/2010 5:43:25 PM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Let us see what conclusions they draw after say twenty years into the study if as projected we go into a solid global cooling phase.


14 posted on 07/10/2010 5:48:37 PM PDT by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Well, I’m not going to form an opinion until I hear the Sex Poodle bark, er...speak.


15 posted on 07/10/2010 5:51:07 PM PDT by JPG (Mr. Gore, or is it Mr. Stone or Mr. Woody? Whatever, you're under arrest.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Hardly....the Warmists just realized they have a problem....and are regrouping...from JoNova:

The Great Leap Forward. Professors et al realize they need to talk about evidence instead of insults.

***********************************EXCERPT*******************************

The Great Leap Forward. Professors et al realize they need to talk about evidence instead of insults.

Plenty of copies

Scientific Guide To Skeptics Handbook

"Scientific Guide" To The Skeptics Handbook

I’m elated. Last night outside the Watts Up lecture at UWA here in Perth there were people handing out a so-called “Scientific Guide” to the Skeptics Handbook. Let’s put this in perspective, I wrote the Handbook two years ago, and it’s taken this long for those-who-want-to-scare-us to put together a specific printed response. I’m an unbacked, solo pro bono writer, and they needed no less than 5 professors, 2 associate professors, and 21 months, and THIS is the best they can do?

I’m also chuffed. The infamous Professorial fellow Stephan Lewandowsky spoke the night before in the same room as we spoke in (about the dangers of consensus) but maybe he’s finally read my multiple responses to the stone age reasoning he was using and the light bulb has gone off. Maybe he’s realized that the masses of engineers, geologists, lawyers, medical experts and people with just plain common sense out there are never going to be fooled by his old witchdoctor routine about the Gods of Science at the IPCC. I was informed by people who saw the presentation that for the first time he spoke without resorting to obvious errors of reasoning.

Handing out the Guide

Likewise the Scientific Guide makes a lot of whitewashy mistakes; still won’t show the graphs I show; confoundingly obscures the “fingerprint” that was presented by Santer and the CCSP, and makes baseless assertions, uses graphs with dodgy scales, assumes that positive feedback occurs and throws in a venetian blind strawman. Nonetheless, finally Professors are rising above Argument from authority and ad hominem attacks. The word “Denier” has disappeared.

Lewandowsky, Carmen Lawrence, et al, your apology for calling us names is accepted. We’re delighted that you are finally willing to try to discuss the evidence.

Ladies and Gentlemen, this is excellent news. For those of us without the backing of any major institution or company taking on the wall of money, as long as we have free speech it shows we can use satire as a scyth backed up with impeccable reasoning and empirical evidence and force our public officials to lift standards and stop bludgeoning us with blatantly obvious mistakes.

I’m happy at the way the Skeptics Handbook still holds up. Most of the critical response to it is to repeat the evidence that supports a direct effect of carbon, which (as I have said many times) can only give us about 1 small degree of warming, not 3 or 4 disastrous degrees. So the critics have stopped breaking laws of reason, but they haven’t quite got numerate yet.

I will do a full detailed response to it, of course, along with the other (un)SkepticalScience.com postings. But given that there are at least ten of them, and one of me, regrettably, I can’t do it all today.

PS: At the door last night I spoke to the people handing out the written reply to the Skeptics Handbook (a reply which doesn’t appear to have a named author, yet has the UWA logo on it). As usual, the conversation dissolved quickly into endless spiral of non-sequiteurs that don’t add up.

I joked that it was good to see Sherwood get a mention, I think his idea to use windshear instead of thermometers is entertaining and creative… the man in the middle scoffed, “havent you seen the three papers that came out last year?” I ask “which papers”. He says, you know, the three… I repeat: Which papers? Can you name them? He’s says “Yes”. Then reaches for his blackberry to sms for help. Ha, I laugh, so you haven’t even read them? He admonishes me for being rude. “What kind a response is that!?” The woman next to him seems utterly dumbfounded by me: “You just don’t get science do you? You don’t get it?” I’m thinking it’s not even worth asking her what she thinks science is… (give me the evidence). Then the pair are asking how many papers I can name. I laugh that counting papers is not how it works. They complain that it should be me naming papers and backing up my claims, and I point out that they’re the ones who want our money, they need some evidence. The man is incredulous, “but but! HALF* the solutions to the problem won’t cost anything, they’re free”. I say: Great, fantastic, so why don’t you go do them then? Cheap energy. The market will love it. So why the big scare? Who needs carbon trading…?

Ugh! He groans: they’re free if you include the costs of the damage.

Oh right, I’m thinking. That would be the damage due to “carbon”, and the catastrophic positive feedbacks that the IPCC can’t really name any convincing evidence for?

* Apparently it was “Half” the solutions, not all, so I corrected that post note. see Justin in comments… . It’s all based on assumptions in any case.


16 posted on 07/10/2010 5:53:38 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

Should have added:

********************************************************

395 Responses to “The Great Leap Forward. Professors et al realize they need to talk about evidence instead of insults.” 1. 1


17 posted on 07/10/2010 5:55:02 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Pure B.S. They are scaming up a crooked game where ‘’carbon credits’’ will be bought and sold. Of course any company that buys them will naturally pass the cost thru to guess who. We were better off trying to figure out what Y2K would do.


18 posted on 07/10/2010 6:00:47 PM PDT by Waco (From Seward to Sarah)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Marine_Uncle
From WUWT:

*********************************************EXCERPT*****************************************

pgosselin says:

July 6, 2010 at 10:23 am

John W.
I’d say the MPI is in general warmist as a whole, but are ready to change their minds as the science comes in. It is, after all, a worldclass organisation.
Our sceptic views are also not rock solid. I think it’ll take another 10 or 20 years before we get a good idea as to how much of an impact our emissions really do have on the climate (I suspect it won’t be that much, though).

19 posted on 07/10/2010 6:01:50 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Waco
I am not sure this is going to work out that way....no matter what their original intent was...

From the WUWT comments....

*********************************EXCERPT*****************************

cagw_skeptic99 says:

July 6, 2010 at 10:26 am

Maybe a clearer way to state my question is this: Why so much focus on the land based CO2 cycle? Can there really be a material difference in the amount of land based CO2 contained in the flora of the earth from say, one decade to the next? More CO2 means more vigorous growth and an increase in the total plant matter, but then won’t the earth again reach equilibrium with respect to land based CO2 sequestered in plant material?

It seems to me that those curious about how atmospheric CO2 concentrations will change should be focused on the oceanic carbon cycle. Maybe this is harder to measure or doesn’t contribute in the politically correct direction?


20 posted on 07/10/2010 6:05:41 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
The occasional honest one. And the science will change. We already see it taking place. Better ice sheet extent sat monetoring controlled by Dr. Spencer just to name one game changer.
I'll be hitting the rack soon, after a little time at viewing the twelve ROV camera views. On a six day work stretch before I get one off. Have a good one E.
21 posted on 07/10/2010 6:15:01 PM PDT by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Marine_Uncle

Bless you with that work schedule.


22 posted on 07/10/2010 6:25:21 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Any work done which does not consider the photosynthesis occurring in the oceans should be suspect. Most of the world’s O2 is generated by plants in the oceans. As I recall, the O2 in the atmosphere is replaced about every 7000 years due to the phytoplankton.


23 posted on 07/10/2010 6:45:20 PM PDT by Citizen Tom Paine (Trust but verify.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; Desdemona; grey_whiskers; proud_yank; Horusra; Thunder90; ...
Thanx E_a_t_B !

 


Beam me to Planet Gore !

24 posted on 07/10/2010 6:46:41 PM PDT by steelyourfaith ("Release the Second Chakra !!!!!!!" ... Al Gore, 10/24/06)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach; 11B40; A Balrog of Morgoth; A message; ACelt; Aeronaut; AFPhys; AlexW; ...
DOOMAGE!

Global Warming PING!

You have been pinged because of your interest in environmentalism, alarmist wackos, mainstream media doomsday hype, and other issues pertaining to global warming.

Freep-mail me to get on or off: Add me / Remove me

Please ping me to all note-worthy threads on global warming.

Global Warming on Free Republic

Latest from Global Warming News

Latest from Real Climate

Latest from Climate Depot

Latest from Greenie Watch

Latest from Junk Science

Latest from Terra Daily

25 posted on 07/10/2010 6:47:02 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks (70 mph shouldn't be a speed limit; it shoud be a mandate!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

You know, these climat change global warming buts do not like to examine geological history.During the cretaceous period, it has been proven that the soluable CO2 was radically higher in the oceans’ sea water, beause its measurable from the chalky deposits from shallow oceans that covered 1/3 of the earth. The fossil records show
that the earth was teaming with life, and that plants grew
richly , very thuck vegetation from pole to pole.

In fact life would thrive vociferacely if we had more CO2, the planet would warm but live would go on to thrive more
so than now.The paleontologists know waht the temperature gradients were of the atmosphere and the oceans.

The Cretaceous is thiought to have ended with extinction of many animals, not from global warming, but from an asteroid impact with the earth , the asteroid was about 6.2 miles wide, which caused several years of cooling due to blockage of the sun by dust clouds causd by the impact.

WHATS THE BIG DEAL? Its all about pseudo science, political correctness, and grant money. Another Ponzi scheme among many that governments have.All of this research is a laugh. The geological record of the earth tells us all that this CO2 boondoggle is a myth of vast proportions.

****************************

After the end of the Berriasian, however, temperatures increased again, and these conditions were almost constant until the end of the period.[10] This trend was due to intense volcanic activity which produced large quantities of carbon dioxide. The development of a number of mantle plumes across the widening mid-ocean ridges further pushed sea levels up, so that large areas of the continental crust were covered with shallow seas. The Tethys Sea connecting the tropical oceans east to west also helped in warming the global climate. Warm-adapted plant fossils are known from localities as far north as Alaska and Greenland, while dinosaur fossils have been found within 15 degrees of the Cretaceous south pole.[11]

A very gentle temperature gradient from the equator to the poles meant weaker global winds, contributing to less upwelling and more stagnant oceans than today. This is evidenced by widespread black shale deposition and frequent anoxic events.[12] Sediment cores show that tropical sea surface temperatures may have briefly been as warm as 42 °C (107 °F), 17 °C (31 °F) warmer than at present, and that they averaged around 37 °C (99 °F). Meanwhile deep ocean temperatures were as much as 15 to 20 °C (27 to 36 °F) higher than today’s.[13][14]

*************************************

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cretaceous


26 posted on 07/10/2010 7:39:07 PM PDT by Candor7 (Obama .......yes.......is fascist... ...He meets every diagnostic of history)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: jnsun
Pulled this out of the verbiage at WUWT:

************************************EXCERPT***********************************

“We can now settle obvious contradictions between experimental and theoretical studies,” says Miguel Mahecha, who played a crucial role in coordinating and evaluating the new measurements on ecosystem respiration.

His colleague Markus Reichstein adds: “Particularly alarmist scenarios for the feedback between global warming and ecosystem respiration thus prove to be unrealistic.”

27 posted on 07/10/2010 9:33:54 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Candor7

Thanks for adding that.


28 posted on 07/10/2010 9:36:26 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach ( Support Geert Wilders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Oh please. Everyone knows the only real CO2 studies are based on computer models. There’s no place for actual observed results in “real” science.


29 posted on 07/10/2010 10:11:18 PM PDT by denydenydeny ("Why should I feed pirates?"--Russian officer off Somalia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
"Bless you with that work schedule."
Thanks E. I need it.
30 posted on 07/11/2010 7:30:12 PM PDT by Marine_Uncle (Honor must be earned....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson