National Geographic Article Review: Is There Really Missing Carbon?

Title: The Case of the Missing Carbon
Source: National Geographic. February, 2004.
Author: Tim Appenzeller

Summary:

Author Appenzeller is claiming that Carbon is somehow "missing" in the global equation. He finds researchers around the US that are gathering data that shows that, for the most part, bad things are going to happen to our planet because carbon sinks are either too efficient or not efficient enough. The article suggests coral reefs disappearing, permafrost melting, ect.

Facts for Support of Main Idea:

1. Ecologist Steve Pacala feels reefs may disappear.
2. Pieter Tans of NOAA says there must be a very large sink of carbon in the northern hemisphere because some CO2 is "missing".
3. Steven Wofsy of Harvard says the typical forest will only be 40 to 60 years old in the eastern US. (but he gives no support for his claim)
4. Jorge Sarmiento of Princeton says the world's oceans will process as much as 10% less carbon dioxide in the future because water will be saturated with it.

Response/Critique:

I am outraged by the bias in this article. Some claims by the author are not founded on any evidence and are merely speculation. In one instance, the author states that "with no new help from nature in sight…" How does he know there is no new help in sight? No one can predict Mother Nature and this was proven in the late 1990's with the krill numbers rebounding from their low numbers in the early 1990's off the Oregon coast; the scientists had no idea why, but speculated it was water temperature. Moreover, the article does not state how carbon production and absorption is figured. I feel the mathematical models are likely skewed in some research grant's favor. I feel the article is biased, as well. The article suggests that more CO2 consumption could result in lusher forests and that these would-be forests are somehow bad for our planet. However, the author fails to mention the decay that would result in more CO2 to offset the increased CO2 absorption. Further, he fails to mention habitat and oxygen benefits of larger forests! Incidentally, this article is a prime example of why I quit subscribing to National Geographic Magazine.

I feel the audience for this article (and most other articles appearing in National Geographic) are for people who are, for the most part, uninformed in the intricacies of science and are interested in preservation and/or unrealistic conservational efforts. Speculation abounds and the author's credibility is not stated. This leads me to believe that the author is likely just a journalist. The article suggests what I feel are scary ideas such as sending iron-laden ships to seed the ocean's photo synthesizers and pumping CO2 into the ocean and land at great depths. The article describes "pools" of CO2 sitting at the bottom of the sea and that over 6M tons of CO2 has been pumped into one-half mile deep voids resulting from oil extraction. What if this CO2 escapes all at once? I hypothesize that the biosphere may well not process this huge burp of CO2. To close, I feel that since our biosphere produces much, much more CO2 than humanity does and many forests are now in a so-called "balance state" with CO2, that the biosphere can and will balance itself just fine in the future. If there is carbon "missing", it is meant to be that way.