Plants Absorb 31% More CO₂ Than Thought – Watts With It?

Recent research shows that plants have absorbed it 31% more CO₂ from before believing. yes, 31%-glaring errors that cast serious doubt on climate models, emissions scenarios, and policy prescriptions like Net Zero. For years, we’ve been told that “the science is settled,” and that urgent action is needed to avoid catastrophic warming. But this finding suggests that our models have underestimated nature’s ability to regulate CO₂. This revelation not only adds to the rationale behind aggressive policies but also raises more questions about the certainty of climate science.

The “Settled Science” Myth

The phrase “settled science” has been a cornerstone of climate advocacy for decades. We have been told that unless we make quick and costly changes, we are facing disaster. Skeptics are treated as heretics, while the so-called consensus is described as irrefutable. However, it turns out that we are the same 31% are wrong about something as basic as plant CO₂ absorption. This is not a minor correction; it is a massive revision that undermines the credibility of the policy driving model.

Unraveling of Climate Models

Climate models are tools used to predict warming and guide policy. They have been considered scientific writings, driving policies from emission reductions to renewable energy mandates. But with key assumptions proven wrong, the model’s projections are called into question:

1. Impact of Overblown Emissions: Climate models predict a rapid accumulation of CO₂, assuming limited natural absorption. This adds to the urgency of drastic reductions in emissions. Correcting higher levels of CO₂ absorption means that CO₂ accumulates in the atmosphere more slowly than models predict, undermining the case for urgent and economic measures.
2. Question Feedback Loops: Many models rely on dramatic feedback loops—such as reduced plant CO₂ uptake at higher temperatures—to justify emergency interventions. But these new data show plants can handle more CO₂ than anticipated, making this feedback loop seem inevitable and more speculative.
3. Policy Implications: If the model that guides climate policy is too far gone, then the entire framework behind policies like Net Zero is shaky. Policy driven by this model is the same never proved usefulbut only treated as such. The discovery that plants absorb more CO₂ undermines the need for extreme measures.

Integrated Assessment Model: Revisiting Disability Assumptions

The Integrated Assessment Model (IAM) blends climate and economic data to make policy recommendations that balance costs and benefits. They have provided many justifications for global measures ranging from carbon taxes to renewable subsidies. But with CO₂ absorption rates down by 31%, the model faces major credibility issues.

1. Cost-Benefit Analysis of Base Loss: IAMs assume a certain level of CO₂ absorption to weigh the costs of cutting emissions against the benefits. If the natural absorption is higher, then the benefits of aggressive cuts are lower than the model described. In short, many of these “benefits” are the same assumed rather than indicated.
2. Marginal Abatement Cost Possible Mistake: If plants are more effective carbon sinks, the cost of reducing each additional ton of CO₂ may be overstated in current models. This means that the high cost of direct intervention may not be justified by reducing the warming that should be done.
3. Tech-Centric solutions are harder to justify: Expensive technological carbon capture schemes, often seen as a cornerstone of Net Zero strategies, are becoming less important due to nature’s greater CO₂ absorption capacity. Relying on natural processes may be more costly, while prioritizing expensive technological solutions may be a waste of resources.

Net Zero Push: Unproven and Considered Beneficial

Net Zero policies are often presented as useful, without the need to prove their worth. The assumption is that rapidly reducing emissions will stabilize the climate and prevent catastrophic warming. But the truth is less convincing:

1. Urgency Based on Unproven Models: The rush to Net Zero has been justified by models that assume lower natural CO₂ absorption. With plants taking in more CO₂, the urgency is diminishing, raising the question of whether this policy can be justified, beyond the assumption of benefits.
2. Economic Costs Without Clear Benefits: The transition to Net Zero is expected to cost trillions, requiring infrastructure changes and improvements to the energy system. These changes are sold as necessary to prevent adverse outcomes, but with natural systems absorbing more CO₂, the perceived benefits become murkier. The costs are real, while the benefits remain speculative.
3. The Flawed Logic of Being Considered Good: Proponents argue that if Net Zero doesn’t deliver the promised benefits, it’s better to “play it safe.” But this logic ignores the real economic and social costs of these policies—costs that harm the most vulnerable. If the model is wrong about the basics like CO₂ absorption, then proceeding with these extreme measures without re-evaluation is irresponsible.

Climate Sensitivity: Rethinking the Crisis Narrative

Climate sensitivity measures how much the Earth’s temperature will rise with a doubling of CO₂. This is a key figure in climate models, usually estimated between 1.5°C and 4.5°C, with policy driving models often assuming a midpoint of 3°C. also overestimating climate sensitivity.

1. Slower accumulation of CO₂ reduces sensitivity: If natural absorption were higher, atmospheric CO₂ concentrations would increase more slowly, which could lead to lower climate sensitivity than currently assumed. In other words, less CO₂ means less direct warming, contradicting dire predictions that justify extreme policies.
2. Overestimated Warming Scenario: Above estimates of climate sensitivity have led to much urgency in climate action, but this new data suggests that the Earth may not be warming as fast as claimed. If the worst-case scenario is less likely, then an aggressive timeline for reducing emissions seems increasingly unfair.
3. Time to Adapt, Not Panic: If climate sensitivity is indeed lower, it means we have more time to adapt to any changes, which may be natural, rather than rushing to unproven drastic mitigation measures. Adaptation becomes a more reasonable and potentially effective strategy, given new information about natural absorption rates.

The Bigger Picture: Unsettled Science, and No Policy

A discovery that plants absorb 31% more CO₂ than we thought to reveal just how far from the mark climate models-and policies based on them-can be. It’s not just about revising some numbers; it’s about rethinking the whole narrative of “established science.”

• Assumptions, Not Evidence: Policies like Net Zero are based on assumptions of benefits, not evidence. They are sold as urgently needed to prevent disaster, but this catastrophic result is based on a model that got the core assumption wrong by nearly a third.
• More surprises await: If this key factor in the carbon cycle is miscalculated, how many other natural systems could also be miscalculated? The real danger may not be climate change itself, but the overconfidence of those who claim to know it fully.
• The Right Policy is Risky: Extreme measures based on flawed models can do more harm than good. If the costs of a policy like Net Zero outweigh the uncertain benefits, then moving forward would be reckless and potentially damaging.

Conclusion: Stop Assuming, Start Reassessing

A plant-absorbing revelation 31% more CO₂ than previously thought was a major blow to the models driving global climate policy. This challenges the core assumptions behind policies like Net Zero, which have never been proven to be useful but just that considered become. If climate sensitivity is lower, warming is slower, and natural CO₂ absorption is higher, then the rush to extreme measures seems untenable.

It is time for policymakers to recognize that the science is not “settled” and that uncertainty remains a central feature of climate science. Rather than doubling down on unproven policies, it is time to pause, reevaluate, and adapt to the evolving evidence. Continuing to rush to Net Zero without re-evaluating the fundamentals is unwise; it is a gamble with society’s resources and welfare.

Abstract

Terrestrial photosynthesis, or gross primary production (GPP), is the largest carbon flux in the biosphere, but its global magnitude and spatiotemporal dynamics remain uncertain.¹. The global average annual GPP is considered to be historically around 120 PgC years^-1 (ref.^2,3,4,5,6), which is about 30-50 PgC years^-1 lower than the GPP inferred from oxygen-18 (¹⁸O) isotope⁷ and weak respiration⁸. This disparity is a source of uncertainty in predicting climate–carbon cycle feedbacks^9,10. Here we deduce GPP from carbonyl sulfide, an innovative tracer for CO₂ diffusion from the ambient air into the leaf chloroplasts through the stomatal and mesophyll layers. We demonstrate that clearly characterizing mesophyll diffusion is essential to accurately quantify the spatiotemporal dynamics of carbonyl sulfide uptake by plants. From estimates of carbonyl sulfide uptake by plants, we infer a global contemporary GPP of 157 (±8.5) PgC years. ^-1which is consistent with the estimates of¹⁸O (150–175 BC years^-1and soil respiration (PgC yr^-1), but with a better confidence level. Our global GPP is higher than estimates driven by satellite optical observations (120–140 PgC yr^-1) that was used for benchmarking Earth system models. These differences are common in tropical rainforests and are evidenced by soil size¹¹suggesting a more productive tropical region than satellite-based GPP products indicate. Because GPP is a major determinant of terrestrial carbon sinks and can shape climate trajectories^9,10our findings provide a physiological basis upon which understanding and prediction of carbon-climate feedbacks can advance.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-08050-3

related