Staff Contributors
Guest Contributors

Carbon sinks threatened by increasing ozone

More great news from the climate

Posted by Joseph Romm (Guest Contributor) at 7:46 AM on 27 Jul 2007

china-ozone.jpgNature has published another landmark study showing how the complex interplay of human-generated pollution with natural systems worsens climate change. Their news article (subs. req'd) explains:

Rising levels of ozone pollution over the coming century will erode the ability of plants to absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, a new climate-modelling study predicts.

Ozone is already known to be a minor greenhouse gas, but the new calculations highlight another, indirect way in which it is likely to influence global warming by 2100. High levels can poison plants and reduce their ability to photosynthesize, says Stephen Sitch of the UK Met Office's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research in Exeter.

Note this is actually a new amplifying feedback, since the hotter it gets the more ozone pollution is generated.

Below the fold is the rest of this article -- and for you hardcore science types, I'll end with the abstract of the original journal article.

Whereas ozone high in the stratosphere shields Earth from solar ultraviolet rays, high levels of ozone closer in are toxic to plants and animals. Ozone is generated when oxides of nitrogen — chiefly from vehicle exhausts and fossil-fuel power stations — react with other chemicals in the air.

Many of the world's most polluted areas routinely endure ozone concentrations higher than 40 parts per billion, enough to damage plant life. By the end of the century, virtually all the world's populated areas are predicted to be above this threshold.

Plant growth is a vital carbon sink, estimated to suck up around a quarter of the CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. "This study combines knowledge about ecosystem function with atmospheric chemistry, and that's never been done before," says Sitch. "No one has considered the detrimental effect of ozone on plants."

The issue is complicated by the intricate interplay between rising CO2 levels, which boost plant growth, and increasing ozone, which stunts it. Some ecosystem models had predicted that the rise in CO2 expected over the coming century might be offset by the expected boost in the growth of forests and swamps. But factoring in ozone means that it looks less likely that this carbon sink will grow fast enough to keep pace with the increasing emissions.

Eva Pell, who studies the effects of ozone on plants at Pennsylvania State University in University Park and who was not involved in the study, finds the results credible. "There is no doubt that ozone reduces CO2 fixation," she says. "It makes sense that the adverse effects of ozone would be dampened by elevated CO2, and the ability of plants to serve as carbon stores in an elevated CO2 environment would be reduced by elevated ozone."

In 1901, according to the researchers' calculations, plant growth was responsible for storing 113 billion tonnes of carbon worldwide. By 2100, this figure is predicted to be 171 billion tonnes — without ozone it would be more than 200 billion tonnes, they say. Their results are published online this week [see below].

Different plant species vary in their sensitivity to ozone, and these figures reflect predictions based on a fairly high average level of toxicity, says team member Bill Collins of the Met Office. But even in the researchers' low-sensitivity calculations, there's likely to be a dent of around 15 billion tonnes in overall carbon sequestration as a result of the effects of ozone.

"The bottom line is that ozone is a greenhouse gas, so it's known to contribute to the greenhouse effect. Our study says you should double that predicted contribution," says Collins.

Unlike most greenhouse gases, ozone is a short-lived, regional pollutant that can be tackled at an individual level using catalytic converters, for example, to reduce precursors to ozone, Sitch suggests.

Here's the abstract of the article, "Indirect radiative forcing of climate change through ozone effects on the land-carbon sink" (sub. req.) by Sitch et al.:

The evolution of the Earth's climate over the twenty-first century depends on the rate at which anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions are removed from the atmosphere by the ocean and land carbon cycles. Coupled climate–carbon cycle models suggest that global warming will act to limit the land-carbon sink, but these first generation models neglected the impacts of changing atmospheric chemistry. Emissions associated with fossil fuel and biomass burning have acted to approximately double the global mean tropospheric ozone concentration, and further increases are expected over the twenty-first century. Tropospheric ozone is known to damage plants, reducing plant primary productivity and crop yields, yet increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are thought to stimulate plant primary productivity. Increased carbon dioxide and ozone levels can both lead to stomatal closure, which reduces the uptake of either gas, and in turn limits the damaging effect of ozone and the carbon dioxide fertilization of photosynthesis. Here we estimate the impact of projected changes in ozone levels on the land-carbon sink, using a global land carbon cycle model modified to include the effect of ozone deposition on photosynthesis and to account for interactions between ozone and carbon dioxide through stomatal closure. For a range of sensitivity parameters based on manipulative field experiments, we find a significant suppression of the global land-carbon sink as increases in ozone concentrations affect plant productivity. In consequence, more carbon dioxide accumulates in the atmosphere. We suggest that the resulting indirect radiative forcing by ozone effects on plants could contribute more to global warming than the direct radiative forcing due to tropospheric ozone increases.

This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

People tend to avoid

depressing news like this. Posts on the accelerating destruction of biodiversity get glossed over for similar reasons.  

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
James Hansen on scientists' cautiousness...

...I'm not sure if this is the place to link this, but a James Hansen article is republished in New Scientist, replete with a hypothetical photo of south Florida under water if global warming continues at the current rate.  I bring this up, though, because Hansen wrote about the timidity of scientists in asserting, as Hansen does, that sea level rise could be a big problem:

Last year I testified in a case brought by car manufacturers to challenge California's new laws on vehicle emissions. Under questioning from the lawyer, I conceded that I was not a glaciologist. The lawyer then asked me to identify glaciologists who agreed publicly with my assertion that sea level is likely to rise more than a metre this century if greenhouse gas emissions continue to grow: "Name one!"

I could not, at that moment. I was dismayed, because in conversations and email exchanges with relevant scientists I sensed a deep concern about the stability of ice sheets in the face of "business as usual" global warming scenarios, which assume that emissions of greenhouse gases will continue to increase. Why might scientists be reticent to express concerns about something so important?

I suspect it is because of what I call the "John Mercer effect". In 1978, when global warming was beginning to get attention from government agencies, Mercer suggested that global warming could lead to disastrous disintegration of the West Antarctic ice sheet. Although it was not obvious who was right on the science, I noticed that researchers who suggested that his paper was alarmist were regarded as more authoritative.

It seems to me that scientists downplaying the dangers of climate change fare better when it comes to getting funding. Drawing attention to the dangers of global warming may or may not have helped increase funding for the relevant scientific areas, but it surely did not help individuals like Mercer who stuck their heads out.

I can vouch for that from my own experience. After I published a paper in 1981 that described the likely effects of fossil fuel use, the US Department of Energy reversed a decision to fund my group's research, specifically criticising aspects of that paper.

I believe there is pressure on scientists to be conservative. Caveats are essential to science. They are born in scepticism, and scepticism is at the heart of the scientific method and discovery. However, in a case such as ice sheet instability and sea level rise, excessive caution also holds dangers. "Scientific reticence" can hinder communication with the public about the dangers of global warming. We may rue reticence if it means no action is taken until it is too late to prevent future disasters.

Joseph Romm wrote about the difficultires scientists face in being vocal about global warming in his book, "Hell or High Water".  I keep wondering why Hansen seems to be the only major scientist that is being so vocal.

Some people have less fear of

authority figures than others--he has more balls than his peers.

In the end, it all comes down to biodiversity. Poison Darts--Protecting the biodiversity of our world
But this is a serious problem...

...I think, that there is not a large group of scientists that are loudly and clearly in the front lines, leading the charge, as it were.  There may even come a time when it will be more important for some of them to spend some of their time in the public sphere rather than do the scientific research on global warming.

Back to the original article

with a reiteration that manufacturing or importing electric cars and a moratorium on any form of energy derived from coal are necessary NOW -
"Ozone is generated when oxides of nitrogen -- chiefly from vehicle exhausts and fossil-fuel power stations -- react with other chemicals in the air."
These two actions are not just needed immediately, but are available right now as options; no waiting for technology or debates over feasibility as with nuclear or hydrogen.

BTW - for a bit of bright news, check out the WorldWatch website for its Vital Signs update on the contributions of wind energy to world electricity supplies. Find it at:
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5258. (S'cuse the low-tech, I'm link-challenged.)


WOW!

Had no idea that linking would be automatic! Learn something new every day.

So the effect on agriculture...

...from ozone could also be substantial, it's not just a global warming problem, if all cities will be above safe thresholds by 2100.  Another reason to ramp down fossil fuels use, I would also add a greatly expanded mass transit system.

On the bright side....

The high ozone levels are likely to eliminate and reverse population growth in the affected areas this has been so effective in some urban areas of the FSU that a severe population decline is predicted.

Of course that's due to infertility, cancer, lung disease, heart disease, respiratory infections (TB) and alcoholism. But still it's a feedback loop that eliminates the problem. Humans.

Voluntary Human Extinction-Live long, die out.

Put the Carbon Back

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.
sign in
Search Gristmill
Subscribe
  • subscribe via RSSStay updated with the Gristmill RSS feed.
  • Add to My Yahoo!
  • Subscribe with Bloglines
  • Subscribe in NewsGator Online
  • Subscribe in Netvibes
  • Subscribe in Google
Using Gristmill
  • What is Gristmill?
  • Posting rules
The comments of Gristmill users reflect the opinions of those individuals only, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoints of Grist, its staff, its board members, their psychotherapists, or their aestheticians. Got it?

Gristmill is powered by Scoop.

ADVERTISING POLICY


About Grist | Support Grist | Job Board | Archives | Grist by Email | RSS | Podcast
Gristmill Blog | In the News | Ask Umbra | Muckraker | Victual Reality | 'Tis the Season | The Grist List | The Bottom Line



Grist: Environmental News and Commentary
a beacon in the smog (tm) ©2008. Grist Magazine, Inc. All rights reserved. Gloom and doom with a sense of humor®.
Webmaster | Sitemap | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Trademarks