Good news in the world of global climate change research?

Question

From the site below:

"A team of researchers led by a first-year UC Davis faculty member has resolved a longstanding paradox in the plant world, which should lead to far more accurate predictions of global climate change."

http://www.verticalnews.com/articles/754608.html

Your thoughts?

Answer 1

That really was just a couple 100 words of nothingness

Answer 2

I don't know what you are talking about but remember this: Do not believe the weather forecast!

Answer 3

So you're saying that all of the predictions up to now were just bogus guesses?  Now will the "far more accurate predictions" show that "global warming" isn't that big of a problem, or that the climate is actually cooling?

Answer 4

I think it's a sign of the times that no matter what academics are researching, they have to append the words 'and it's effect on global climate change' to the end of their research proposals to increase the chances of getting funded and to get some exposure.

Certainly made us take a look at an otherwise very esoteric field of research from an inexperienced group lead by a first year assistant professor.  

For their sake, their findings better support AGW if they want to remain 'credible'.

Answer 5

Looks like it may lead to more accurate predictions of nitrogen fixation, but I didn't catch in the article any specific link to predictions of climate change.

The research seems more likely to help farmers more efficiently tune the ratio of phosphorus to nitrogen in their fertilizers as temperature changes.

Answer 6

Sounds like a load of garbage to me...

Answer 7

Another example of bad science.

Looking for the evidence they want instead of studying the observations they have.

This is why several fields of our modern science are failing. Of course, they will eventually find a way to justify what they want - that is human nature.

Answer 8

The issue of terrestrial biogenic uptake of anthropogenic CO2 is *huge* in determining the long-term atmospheric burden of CO2, which of course impacts radiative transfer and climate.  Currently, it is estimated the oceans take up about half of the CO2 produced anthropogenically, but the terrestrial uptake is very poorly quantified.  Understanding the entire nutrient cycle of plants is key in predicting how they will respond to elevated CO2 levels, and whether land-based productivity will increase to mitigate rising CO2 levels.  The article addresses these issues, although I'm not a plant biologist so I don't know how great an impact nitrogen-fixing trees have globally.  The fact they are found in tropical rain forests suggests it might be large.  

Interesting news blurb, but they could have brought out these issues a little better so as to not confuse people.

Answer 9

I think further research will determine (if done honestly, and I'd be wary of that) that CO2 impacts on trees and other flora are far less than previously imagined. I also am convinced that CO2 is not the destructive element that many want us to believe.  The article may have merit, but I don't think they will find anything to support the weak thesis of climate change more than what we're already aware of.

Answer 10

My first thought was "woot for UC Davis!".

Other than that, I don't have much to add - gcnp summarized the significance well as usual.