Surprise: Earths' Biosphere is Booming, Satellite Data Suggests CO2 the Cause

Eco Worriers: “CO2 is a pollutant!” Gaia: “Tell that to the biosphere.” Biosphere: “Yumm, burp!”

This animation depicts the 10-year average from 1997 to 2007 of SeaWiFS ocean chlorophyll concentration and land Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) data on a rotating globe. 

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


In praise of CO2

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.


0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

199 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
old construction worker
June 11, 2008 2:32 am

Bruce Cobb- every well said.
Steve Strip
I’m 145 lb, I demand the govenment give some of your blubber. I may need it to keep warm in the coming years.
BTW lehnman Bother, whom is lobbying hard for CO2 cap & trade scam, is losing a lot of money. Sounds like another Enron story. Could Al Gore’s company be next?

sandy winder
June 11, 2008 3:40 am

So when the sea level rises 7 metres from the melting of the Greenland ice sheet , how much of this extra vegetation will be under water? And how many people worldwide would be threatened by this rise?
Don’t forget that last year was the second warmest on record in the Northern Hemisphere, the warmest being in 2005.
And if the sceptics disbelieve all the data pointing to AGW saying that the science can’t be trusted, how come they accept without doubt anything that points the other way? And how come you believe these satellite readings, without question, on vegetation?

retired engineer
June 11, 2008 7:41 am

Anna: WWII happened after a world wide economic depression. The economy was very slow before the war. Then everything shifted into high gear. We had rationing, because the war effort needed it (well, some of it).
The U.S. also had the warmest decade on record in the 30’s. Not sure how that would tip the CO2 scale, but industrial activity didn’t add much.
Not that this proves much. Smoke from all the oil fires after the first gulf war were supposed to trigger a mini ‘nuclear winter’. That didn’t happen, either.

Steve Stip
June 11, 2008 7:46 am

“His whole approach is far more effective, anyway, than using tedious, schoolboy insults.” Paulus
I agree. The Onion video is hilarious though and shows in a backhanded way how not to treat paranoids, for instance.
Al Gore is nearly irresistible, though, as a subject for ridicule.

anna v
June 11, 2008 9:12 am

sandy winder (03:40:16) :
Where are you getting the numbers from? Science fiction documentaries?
The IPCC report, found in full in http://www.ipcc.ch, gives only something like 40 to 60 cms in 100 years. That is about how much the sea level changes with normal seasonal rhythms in my area ( Greece) and nobody builds so low as to be affected by such rises.
The numbers you quote are for 1000 years hence, if the models are correct, which is another story. They have been falsified on several fronts.
So instead of questioning our credulity check on yours, and please give a scientific link for these 7 meters.

June 11, 2008 9:13 am

Sandy,
Government intervention is far more likely to cause massive loss of life than changes in the climate. Whether it gets hotter or colder is not really the crucial issue. It is whether some will impose their ideas on others via the government which at rock bottom is FORCE.
a good rule of thumb: Good ideas do not have to be forced on others and bad ones should not be.
If nothing else, the current scientific debate should tell us that the climate and its effects on mankind are very complicated and subtle. This is NO time for heavy handed dictation from human governments.

June 11, 2008 9:43 am

Some wish to rule, all power theirs, us their tools.
If they get that wish, it comes with this:
All the blame and all the shame.
So, be careful what you wish.

June 11, 2008 12:20 pm

[…] So much for all of the global warming fanatics. Feeling a little chilly today? Doesn’t it seem like the weather is actually cooler than past years? I’ll freely admit that I’m a global warming denier/skeptic but, unlike the UN committee and Al Gore, the science is on my side. Latest piece of evidence comes via Anthony Watts … a “dead” sun. Doesn’t sound good, does it? And, by the way, CO2 is good for the earth. […]

June 11, 2008 12:26 pm

[…] it through their heads that what this particular waste product of civilization is plant food.  This particular piece is on the natural result of that.  Not that we don’t need to reduce our footprint through reasonable approaches, but the […]

June 11, 2008 5:55 pm

[…] which on first inspection I would suspect has a similar agenda to Mr Solomon’s, has some nice animations on ocean productivity using SeaWiFs data. Again, no real surprise: here’s a relevant Nature paper (Behrenfeld et […]

Bill McClenney
June 11, 2008 7:45 pm

I for one am absolutely ecstatic that the global climate change debate is finally over. The predictive debate, that is. Let the factual debate begin. Worrying about whose future fantasy is correct is like two fleas arguing over who owns the dog they are riding on. Worried about a 2 (IPCC) or 20 (the Gorical) foot rise in sea level due to GHGs? OK, how will you tell it from the 80-100 feet we still have to go in order to reach the typical sea level highstands we have achieved since the Mid-Pleistocene Transition (8 ice ages ago, or 800,000 years back). We have known for over half a century that the abrupt ice age terminations cause about 400 feet change in sea level, 300 feet below present to about 100 above, in the only thing that resembles a clock in all of geology. We have the ice core data from Vostok and Dome Concordia that tell us that temperatures go up, and on average 1.3k years later CO2 levels go up. Temperatures go down and on average 1k years later CO2 levels go down. Like us, CO2 was a spectator at these dramatic events, not an agent provocateur. In fact, if you take a moment to think about it, if it takes an industrial revolution to get a 2 or 20 foot rise in sea level, then what might the source be for all those 400 footers? It won’t be volcanoes, because we do not know of any that erupt on a 100k year clock while simultaneously producing no ash during their eruptions (that would be in the cores too, but oddly it isn’t present at the transitions). Over the past 2-3 million years hominid braincase size has gone from 500cc to about 2,500cc today. You might find it interesting to look into how and when the incremental jumps that did this took place. I look at it this way. A mind capable of deftly manipulating a single variable (CO2) may not be as evolved as a mind capable of simultaneously considering the effects of astronomical numbers of variables (solar cycles, precession, obliquity and eccentricity etc.). In other words, we may finally have the litmus test for evolution right here.

Evan Jones
Editor
June 11, 2008 10:50 pm

anna v:
It may be better than even you think.
According to Lord Monckton (as a result of some of his inconvenient and most unwelcome peer review), the IPCC in it latest AR4 supplement, has drastically reduced its sea level rise predictions. They did their sums wrong!
The Monck (an official IPCC reviewer) commented, with considerable irony, “I have finally earned my Nobel Prize.”

Evan Jones
Editor
June 11, 2008 11:06 pm

P.S., Re WWII and CO2.
There was so much more heavy industry during WWII than in the years preceding it. Vehicles (AFVs, trucks etc.), planes, ships. If there were shortages, it was not because less coal was mined, it was because it was being consumed by the Rustung.
And there were plenty of ships. Continuous convoys. The whole of the British, US, and Japanese merchant fleets were going all-out, with losses being replaced (via smoky shipyards).
50 million died, but I doubt that would have had much impact on CO2, especially as the bulk of those deaths came in the last two years.
I can’t believe less coal and oil was being consumed in WII than during the Great Depression. And all those cities . . . we incinerated urban Japan.

anna v
June 12, 2008 5:09 am

Well, Evan, one would have to study this, no? I can handwave and you can handwave, but real hard numbers are needed to see whether convoys really replaced commercial liners, or whether the war effort consumed as much or more as peacetime.
In addition one would have to study the weather at the time.Maybe it was very cold and some of the CO2 was picked up by the oceans. Actually why does one need proxys for CO2 in WW2. They were measuring CO2 directly in the 1800s already. All this CO2 business is very suspect. Particularly as nobody is making the effort to give us world maps of CO2. I have only found one of July 2003 which is very interesting, but could not find any other months or years.

papertiger
June 12, 2008 6:16 am

I wonder if this is related. Marijuana potency increased in 2007, study says
Marijuana potency increased last year to the highest level in more than 30 years, posing greater health risks to people who may view the drug as harmless, according to a report released Thursday by the White House.
The latest analysis from the University of Mississippi’s Potency Monitoring Project tracked the average amount of THC, the psychoactive ingredient in marijuana, in samples seized by law enforcement agencies from 1975 through 2007. It found that the average amount of THC reached 9.6 percent in 2007, compared with 8.75 percent the previous year.
The 9.6 percent level represents more than a doubling of marijuana potency since 1983, when it averaged just under 4 percent.
Could someone plot that over the Mauna Loa co2 graph? It sounds alot like what was reported about poison oak potency. Both are based on the oil of the plant.
I realize that the media only mentioned co2 enhancement of poison oak for the propaganda value, they wanted to cast plant augmentation in the most negative light they could think up.
Funny that no where do they link it to the pot enhancement.
It has to have the same effect though.

steve johnston
June 12, 2008 4:14 pm

I lived in Florida and have bad memories of life there. So, bring on the CO2, I’m going to enjoy seeing it go under.

June 15, 2008 7:46 am

[…] that is arguable, since plants-and animals-generally prosper under warmer conditions. In fact, they appear to be doing fine in the Modern Warming Period.) but many of us are certainly suffering right now from our attempts […]

July 14, 2008 2:42 pm

[…] Surprise: Earths’ Biosphere is Booming, Satellite Data Suggests CO2 the Cause […]

Steven Hill
July 29, 2008 6:01 pm

We cannot create CO2, correct? So am I correct in saying that man made CO2 increases are just an increase in released trapped CO2? If true, we can slow this down quickly. There is just so much CO2 in the world and it moves from place to place. Correct me if I am wrong here.

August 7, 2008 6:08 am

[…] Soil Carbon and Nitrogen Dynamics — Prior et al. 37 (3): 753 — Journal of Environmental Quality Surprise: Earths’ Biosphere is Booming, Satellite Data Suggests CO2 the Cause « Watts Up With … […]

amalay
September 18, 2008 11:42 am

can u answer my question,,
i couldnt understand the words “Techniques to remove carbon from the atmosphere also sound alarms” what does it mean!!
please!! answer 4 me l,
i really want to know

December 20, 2008 4:25 am

hey, here is a wordpress-plugin. with it you can reduce the co2 in the atmosphere:
http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/my-co2-campaign/

1 6 7 8
Verified by MonsterInsights