Eco Worriers: “CO2 is a pollutant!” Gaia: “Tell that to the biosphere.” Biosphere: “Yumm, burp!”
The SeaWiFS instrument aboard the Seastar satellite has been collecting ocean data since 1997. By monitoring the color of reflected light via satellite, scientists can determine how successfully plant life is photosynthesizing. A measurement of photosynthesis is essentially a measurement of successful growth, and growth means successful use of ambient carbon. This animation shows an average of 10 years worth of SeaWiFS data. Dark blue represents warmer areas where there tends to be a lack of nutrients, and greens and reds represent cooler nutrient-rich areas which support life. The nutrient-rich areas include coastal regions where cold water rises from the sea floor bringing nutrients along and areas at the mouths of rivers where the rivers have brought nutrients into the ocean from the land.
See an animation of the Earth;s Biosphere: 512×288 (30 fps) MPEG-1 10 MB. More here at NASA SVS
With less heat and less carbon dioxide, the planet could become less hospitable and less green
Lawrence Solomon
Financial Post, Don Mills, Ontario
Saturday, June 07, 2008
Planet Earth is on a roll! GPP is way up. NPP is way up. To the surprise of those who have been bearish on the planet, the data shows global production has been steadily climbing to record levels, ones not seen since these measurements began.
GPP is Gross Primary Production, a measure of the daily output of the global biosphere –the amount of new plant matter on land. NPP is Net Primary Production, an annual tally of the globe’s production. Biomass is booming. The planet is the greenest it’s been in decades, perhaps in centuries.
Until the 1980s, ecologists had no way to systematically track growth in plant matter in every corner of the Earth — the best they could do was analyze small plots of one-tenth of a hectare or less. The notion of continuously tracking global production to discover the true state of the globe’s biota was not even considered.
Then, in the 1980s, ecologists realized that satellites could track production, and enlisted NASA to collect the data. For the first time, ecologists did not need to rely on rough estimates or anecdotal evidence of the health of the ecology: They could objectively measure the land’s output and soon did — on a daily basis and down to the last kilometer.
The results surprised Steven Running of the University of Montana and Ramakrishna Nemani of NASA, scientists involved in analyzing the NASA satellite data. They found that over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%. About 25% of the Earth’s vegetated landmass — almost 110 million square kilometres — enjoyed significant increases and only 7% showed significant declines. When the satellite data zooms in, it finds that each square metre of land, on average, now produces almost 500 grams of greenery per year.
Why the increase? Their 2004 study, and other more recent ones, point to the warming of the planet and the presence of CO2, a gas indispensable to plant life. CO2 is nature’s fertilizer, bathing the biota with its life-giving nutrients. Plants take the carbon from CO2 to bulk themselves up — carbon is the building block of life — and release the oxygen, which along with the plants, then sustain animal life. As summarized in a report last month, released along with a petition signed by 32,000 U. S. scientists who vouched for the benefits of CO2: “Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century.”
From the 2004 abstract: Our results indicate that global changes in climate have eased several critical climatic constraints to plant growth, such that net primary production increased 6% (3.4 petagrams of carbon over 18 years) globally. The largest increase was in tropical ecosystems. Amazon rain forests accounted for 42% of the global increase in net primary production, owing mainly to decreased cloud cover and the resulting increase in solar radiation.
Lush as the planet may now be, it is as nothing compared to earlier times, when levels of CO2 and Earth temperatures were far higher. In the age of the dinosaur, for example, CO2 levels may have been five to 10 times higher than today, spurring a luxuriantly fertile planet whose plant life sated the immense animals of that era. Planet Earth is also much cooler today than during the hothouse era of the dinosaur, and cooler than it was 1,000 years ago during the Medieval Warming Period, when the Vikings colonized a verdant Greenland. Greenland lost its colonies and its farmland during the Little Ice Age that followed, and only recently started to become green again.
This blossoming Earth could now be in jeopardy, for reasons both natural and man-made. According to a growing number of scientists, the period of global warming that we have experienced over the past few centuries as Earth climbed out of the Little Ice Age is about to end. The oceans, which have been releasing their vast store of carbon dioxide as the planet has warmed — CO2 is released from oceans as they warm and dissolves in them when they cool — will start to take the carbon dioxide back. With less heat and less carbon dioxide, the planet could become less hospitable and less green, especially in areas such as Canada’s Boreal forests, which have been major beneficiaries of the increase in GPP and NPP.
Doubling the jeopardy for Earth is man. Unlike the many scientists who welcome CO2 for its benefits, many other scientists and most governments believe carbon dioxide to be a dangerous pollutant that must be removed from the atmosphere at all costs. Governments around the world are now enacting massive programs in an effort to remove as much as 80% of the carbon dioxide emissions from the atmosphere.
If these governments are right, they will have done us all a service. If they are wrong, the service could be all ill, with food production dropping world wide, and the countless ecological niches on which living creatures depend stressed. The second order effects could be dire, too. To bolster food production, humans will likely turn to energy intensive manufactured fertilizers, depleting our store of non-renewable resources. Techniques to remove carbon from the atmosphere also sound alarms. Carbon sequestration, a darling of many who would mitigate climate change, could become a top inducer of earthquakes, according to Christian Klose, a geohazards researcher at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. Because the carbon sequestration schemes tend to be located near cities, he notes, carbon-sequestration-caused earthquakes could exact an unusually high toll.
Amazingly, although the risks of action are arguably at least as real as the risks of inaction, Canada and other countries are rushing into Earth-altering carbon schemes with nary a doubt. Environmentalists, who ordinarily would demand a full-fledged environmental assessment before a highway or a power plant can be built, are silent on the need to question proponents or examine alternatives.
Earth is on a roll. Governments are too. We will know soon enough if we’re rolled off a cliff.
Sponsored IT training links:
Testking offers100% pass guarantee for 70-401 exam. Download 74-404 practice questions that will prepare you for 70-177 exam within days.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I think the mothercome warning applies here: too much of a good thing is a bad-thing. The Earth and breathing-life produce its own carbon emissions, the plants suck up the carbon to produce oxygen – it is a pleasant cycle. Still, too much carbon (and the Line-of-too-much can only be crossed by humans) can’t be absorbed in a timely manner. Sure, the abundance of CO2 may inspire plantgrowth, but greenery is probably sucking up only a fraction of it.
More plant growth is not necessarily a good thing. For example, we are also seeing severe decreases in biodiversity. Plants that require cooler climates to grow are being displaced to higher and higher elevations, until there’s nowhere left for them to go. A lot of plant growth is also occurring in the fresh water systems that we drink from as water levels go down and water temperatures go up–in this case, it’s a sign that our freshwater is in trouble, too.
And what about this global food crisis?
And severe droughts?
Plants can only process so much CO2 before the scale gets tipped too far.
I am saddened that my “elders” are so stubbornly clinging to their archaic lifestyles, at the harm of my generation and generations to come.
Anna V said: “I watch the weather in western Europe where they are having floods and wish there were a way to spread the bounty as equitably as CO2 is spread.”
Anna V,
I think you have hit on a great idea for Gore and his Warmers:
Affirmative action for the weather! To make sure that the weather is the same every where at the same time. That would be more fair. I’m sure the government can make this happen 😉
Denis,
I’ll give it a shot.
Regarding the first issue you raise, that of ice cores and CO2. I think that the issue is not the effects of the extraction (which would be a nice Hisenbergish effect) but that the CO2 tends to diffuse under the pressure generated by the ice formation process (which takes some 50-70 years I think). The result is that the CO2 that remains in the ‘bubbles’ is relatively uniform at about 260 ppm but does not reflect the CO2 content of the atmosphere at the time the ice formed. I believe there is work reflecting this as long ago as the 1960’s, but it seems to have been ignored/discounted by current scientists. I don’t know if that is because it has since been disproved or that modern scientists simply aren’t aware or if there is some nefarious reason to ignore it. If true, it renders measurement of CO2 vis Ice Cores completely worthless so we would have no clue. I do know that CO2 levels have been measured since the mid 1870’s and that these measurements do not correspond to the ice core measurements.
I don’t think anyone denies that the earth has warmed since 1979, however, based on satellite measurements you can show that the earth has not warmed since 1998. You have to remember that high correlation does not imply causality (look up the fun work relating the number of pirates to warming as an example) , so even though there is a positive correlation with CO2/warming (not a real high one though) since 1900, there is actually a slight negative correlation between CO2/Temp since 2002.
I don’t deny that some warming is caused via anthropogenic factors (CO2, methane, land use, urban heat island). What I do deny is that CO2 is the overriding cause of the current (recent past?) warming. It causes some warming, but not enough to merit the attention it currently receives and it certainly does not merit the draconian policies proposed to control it.
Before we set about attempting to terraform the planet and control the weather/climate I think we need to know a very great deal more about how it all works, lest we live up to the old saying regarding the road to hell being paved with good intentions.
Pamela: This year will be a very short growing season, resulting in crop loss compared to previous seasons.
Next two days in Wallowa County, snow levels from 4000-5000 ft., accumulation 6-8″ – temps. and net sun exposure so far not looking too good for growing elevations of ~ 3000 ft., eh? But the snowfields should do well.
“And what about this global food crisis?”
Now that truly is an example of something that is man-made. I think it relates more to how well farmers are getting paid for producing corn for ethanol as oppossed other food prodcuts. Basic laws of supply and demand.
Droughts? They have always been with us.
Food crisis, that’s a management problem, not a climate problem. Though it could become a climate problem if it gets too cold.
Show me the evidence that current droughts are more severe than those in the past.
Greenhouses typically pump in extra CO2 to stimulate plant growth, we’re talking 1800ppm here. So our measly 350+ is nothing. Plants are essentially barely surviving right now.
[…] atmosphere gets eaten by plants, which love it. Hat tip for the article goes to Anthony Watts at Watts Up With That, whose summation of the matter goes like this: Eco Worriers: “CO2 is a pollutant!” Gaia: “Tell […]
Well, if it does get cold, Americans can finally put their blubber to good use. And just when I finally decided to get rid of mine.
mercuryevermore:
If the globe cools, will we see decreases in biodiversity as well, as plants that require more warmth get pushed to lower and lower elevations, until there is nowhere else to go? Of course. And the impact would be a lot more severe.
Climate changes. Always has, always will. This Earth, sibling of your scorching eponym, has seen ice ages again and again, as well as warmth that makes 1998 look positively frigid. Yet life has flourished and diversified.
CO2 levels have been 5-10 times higher in the geologic past, and life did just fine. They dropped precipitously, and life did just fine. They rose again, and fell again (and are now very low, relative to their levels in the very distant past). And everywhere you look there is life.
The impact of antropogenic CO2 emissions (more than three gigatons annually of which are the result of something called “respiration”) is a practical issue, not an existential one. The major questions on the practical issues table are:
1) What impact will they have?
and once we know the answer to that…
2) What should we do?
We’re still very much trying to answer question #1 – and yes, I know that some believe “the science is settled”. I still have strong doubts, and given what I believe would be the ineffectual and/or extremely negative consequences of proposed answers to #2, I’d like some more time to evaluate #1, if you please.
As for droughts and food crises, has there ever been an era when things like that did not happen? We are fortunate to live in a world where economic growth and technology have advanced to the point where we can meaningfully talk about doing something to alleviate these problems – but I would suggest that crash reductions in CO2 emissions are not the first place to put our efforts.
You make reference to your youth, and I applaud your passion and energy. Looking back, I was like that once, too. But with age comes wisdom (or at least inertia) born of experience. You’ll see what I mean in twenty or thirty years, after AGW and two or three other global crises have come and gone.
I don’t think any of us really has a clue what any of this really means. Mostly I think we have too much incomplete information to draw any real conclusions.
Dennis Hopkins:
I thought there was legitimate thinking that CO2 had not significantly increased.
I don’t think anyone is questioning the recent rise in directly measured CO2 levels, only the scientific validity of ice core measurements in determining CO2 levels prior to the availability of more direct atmospheric measurements.
This article seemed to suggest warming and increased CO2.
There really isn’t any inconsistency in suggesting real warming along with an increased C02, while denying that C02 is a significant cause of any warming occurring. But from your first post it seems that you are instead presuming that increased CO2 levels are – or should be – currently causing significant atmospheric warming, for which the ipcc, enc., hypothesizes a necessary water vapor positive feedback beyond what water vapor has already done as is, and something which apparently no one has been able to explain on the basis of physics/climatic physics.
Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit has raised this question incisively, and has looked for the explanation himself and requested it from anyone available, asking, to wit, “where does the ipcc or anyone get the idea that doubling C02 will increase atmospheric temps ~ 3[+/-1.5] C.?” Where is the answer?
[I, for one, don’t see how the ipcc’s mechanism – whatever it is – could do much when facing an overall climatic dynamic which has already limited water vapor’s inherently positive and self-reinforcing, dominant effect on increasing atmospheric, even acting alone. So I await the explanation as to why I am off base when C02 doubling enters into it.]
Regardless, the “signature” for the ipcc C02 warming hypothesis – a more rapidly warming Troposphere at some level [9-12km?] compared to the surface – has not materialized in the Tropical Troposphere, not even the + sign of the prediction.
I can see how “deniers” can argue that Earth is not warming.
Instead, I think the main argument by “deniers” so far is that the ipcc, enc., has not scientifically proven that the Earth is warming; iow, it’s about whether the ipcc is operating scientifically. I’ve seen enough to answer “no”, without reservations.
As to whether warming is good: for starters, warming is certainly better than cooling. And once again, the ipcc has not investigated very much or emphasized the benefits of warming, consistent with its overall unscientific approach to “climate change”, nor the detriments of cooling.
[…] Earths’ Biosphere is Booming, CO2 the Cause One of today’s Top Posts from around WordPress.com: Surprise: Earths’ Biosphere is Booming, Satellite Data Suggests CO2 the Cause […]
Adios MA.
We’ll send you a fruit basket.
Jerry: You are correct sir! Give that man a cookie.
Bruce Cobb: “This type of conversation is, in fact essential. The AGW lie has to be exposed. Science has been subverted by an ideology, and humanity does need science desperately.”
Which ideology do you mean? I can think of at least two: extreme alarmists and extreme denialists. There is certainly value in questioning scientific findings. However, there isn’t much value in assuming that because any particular scientific finding can be questioned, the opposite point of view is true. For example, it’s one thing to question the evidence suggesting that the earth is warming on average, it’s another to conclude that because the evidence doesn’t approach the level of absolute proof the earth must therefore be cooling. That might be an extreme example, in fact I hope it’s taken as such. But to my mind it does reasonably approximate the thinking of some here.
Allow me to cite another more subtle, though more on-topic example: if higher atmospheric CO2 levels increase photosynthesis, that must be a good thing. After all, it’s a good thing in greenhouses, right? The trouble is, greenhouses are highly controlled environments. The world at large is not. There could be myriad cascading effects that could affect whole ecosystems quite apart from whatever CO2 (or other GHGs) have on climate.
I italicized could be because I don’t know for sure. It seems like a reasonable assumption, but it might be wrong. Further, I have no idea about the specific nature of the potential effects. Increased levels of CO2 apparently does have effects on ocean pH, and that apparently does have effects on shellfish and coral, which apparently have effects on various kinds of fauna which rely on them. And so on, and so on. Whether that’s good or bad in the long run, I don’t know. I don’t even know if it’s accurate to any appreciable degree. But I think it goes without saying that if you muck with the system too much too quickly you increase the risk of unknown consequences which might not be so swell.
On the other hand, some of the consequences of burning more fossil fuels are very well-known, and many of them are not good. In fact, I would argue that the only compelling argument in favor of burning fossil fuels is that, at present, they’re cheaper than any other alternative. Given their known deleterious effects, once that changes, and to the extent that it changes, I suspect very few will want to burn them. And when we get to that point, those that have positioned themselves to take advantage are going to reap the profits. And the profits could very well be immense. In the mean time it also goes without saying that those with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo (on both sides) will do all they can to maintain the status quo — which, among other things, means they will try to keep the playing field as far from level as possible to keep other potential players from playing on it. And that, I think, is something to keep in mind. There is more than one way to be subverted by ideology.
Which ideology do you mean? I can think of at least two: extreme alarmists and extreme denialists.
No, no Rico. You have got it all wrong. The alarmists are the extremists, and “denialist” is simply an AGW extremist’s name for what are essentially climate realists.
And, once again, you insist on conflating the issues of the burning of fossil fuels with that of C02. They are NOT one and the same. Are you really that thick-headed, or are you, once again, being disingenuous? Do you really equate C02 with pollution?
[new admin edit] Watch the name calling [/new admin edit]
“No, no Rico. You have got it all wrong. The alarmists are the extremists, and “denialist” is simply an AGW extremist’s name for what are essentially climate realists.”
Umm … it does seem you are kind of proving his point. By stating the other side is totally wrong and not taking a dispassionate middle ground you are putting yourself on one side meaning you have agenda and bias.
Just because you do not believe there can be anyone “extreme: on your side of the fence does not mean there are not some that can claim that label and so you become a part of what the other side sees as people they cannot debate with because you like them will not really listen or change.
Just for clarification … i do not know the truth and i dont think anyone really does so being wed to any ideology or current set of data seems short sighted to me.
Sorry, Howard, I’m not buying what you’re selling. The AGWers are the ones stating that the debate is over, and that we have to stop adding C02 pollution to our atmosphere now. The MSM continually espouse the AGW ideology, so that is all people hear. And, the politicians, many of them, are along for the ride. We are already seeing the consequences of that, and, in the midst of an economic dowturn, they want to raise the already-high cost of energy further still through their carbon trading scams, etc. And you don’t see that as a problem?
I know I’m late to the party, but my comment pertains to the troll MA who just had to throw in insults directed to anyone who holds traditional religious beliefs. I see this over and over from the True Believers (a very accurate term and description of AGWers).
No one on this site used traditional religion in any way as support for their opinions or perspective. But the AGWers, who really are clinging to their beliefs on a religious basis without any empirical scientific facts in support, always throw this out as an insult. In reality, I think it is due to the fact that they will suffer no other Gods that can compete with the the one they cling to. The fact they have no clue whatsoever that they are doing this indicates this must be some form of psychosis.
The other point is that MA, while incessantly challenging the validity of a survey disputing the alleged scientific consensus of AGW, ironically continued to ignore demands that he produce any petition whatsoever indicating scientific support of his position. The True Believers never feel they have to support their own position since they are sure that it is apparently self-evident.
MA, Yo, MA! Ya still hangin’?
Know of any scientific proof of human-driven global warming?
Big Al seems to gloss over that awkward “C’mon, prove-it” thing.
(Computer models which start with the programmer assuming that people-did-it don’t count.)
Anthony, dump him/her when ‘it’ shows again. No more logical response. It is not capable of rational discourse.
I don’t think anyone is questioning the recent rise in directly measured CO2 levels, only the scientific validity of ice core measurements in determining CO2 levels prior to the availability of more direct atmospheric measurements.
Count me among those who question the proxy measurements. And I don’t know how good or bad the cores are. But they show a distinct flattening (or even reduction) of CO2 during WWII, and that’s gotta be out to lunch. The world’s major powers shot up to full war production (UK in 1940, USSR in 1941, US & Japan in 1942, Germany 1943) and entire cities were incinerated (100 were bombed), air-raids of hundreds of planes each were being buffeted by comtrails from previous raids.
So it seems to me that that period at least is somehow CO2-discounted. One therefore wonders about the rest of the proxy record. Maybe Antarctica is not the best place to sample for worldwide emissions? (Not that there is much choice if one is using ice cores.)
Sam,
Paranoid schizophrenia is different from psychosis but the Onion does offer helpful advice on how that group should be treated at :
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/in_the_know_is_the_government
Perhaps they have something on how to treat psychosis?
Could we in the future please desist from using terms like “Are you really that thick-headed”, and all other insults, no matter how justified you think they may be?
I find I have little patience with blogs where such language is the norm.
One of the strong points about Anthony’s blog – and what helps to make it so “more-ish” – is his politeness and reasonableness. (Hang on, seem to be straying into Monty Python land here: ” … 2 of his strong points are politeness, reasonableness, and a respect for other people’s opinions …”).
His whole approach is far more effective, anyway, than using tedious, schoolboy insults.
Evan Jones (19:13:13) :
“Count me among those who question the proxy measurements. And I don’t know how good or bad the cores are. But they show a distinct flattening (or even reduction) of CO2 during WWII, and that’s gotta be out to lunch. The world’s major powers shot up to full war production (UK in 1940, USSR in 1941, US & Japan in 1942, Germany 1943) and entire cities were incinerated (100 were bombed), air-raids of hundreds of planes each were being buffeted by comtrails from previous raids.”
Now for the ice ages, maybe the absolute magnitudes of CO2 are off, s till a variations is seen that lags the temperature rise by hundreds of years. I would not discount that off hand.
Now in WW2 you are just counting spikes by bombings and town burnings, and are discounting the enormous continuous hardship of people freezing without coal and starving without food. It would need a detailed world measurement of the extent of slowing of the world economy during the war years to make any sense of the reduction of CO2: less ships plowing the oceans, less cars/trucks etc. Also millions died and stopped exhaling CO2 and stopped needing fuel.