Guest post by Indur M. Goklany
In this Reuters story (15 December 2009) they report: “Describing a ‘runaway melt’ of the Earth’s ice, rising tree mortality and prospects of severe water scarcities, Gore told a UN audience: ‘In the face of effects like these, clear evidence that only reckless fools would ignore, I feel a sense of frustration’ at the lack of agreement so far.”
Now to most people, “rising tree mortality” raises the specter of a world with less greenery. But how does real world data compare with the virtual modeled world? Is the world getting less greener? Is there any hint of the virtual world in the real world data?
Satellite data for the real world (not the one Mr. Gore lives in) can help give us an idea.
Global
Globally net primary productivity (NPP) has increased. As the IPCC’s WG II report (p. 106) says:
Satellite-derived estimates of global net primary production from satellite data of vegetation indexes indicate a 6% increase from 1982 to 1999, with large increases in tropical ecosystems (Nemani et al., 2003) [Figure 1]. The study by Zhou et al. (2003), also using satellite data, confirm that the Northern Hemisphere vegetation activity has increased in magnitude by 12% in Eurasia and by 8% in NorthAmerica from 1981 to 1999
Figure 1: Climate driven changes in global net primary productivity, 1982-1999. Source: Myneni (2006), p. 5. This is the same figure as in IPCC AR4WGII, p. 106, but with a different color scheme.
Amazonia
In a synthesis of long term ecological monitoring data across old growth Amazonia, Phillips et al (2008) find that from approximately 1988 to 2000 not only that the biomass of these tropical forests increased but that they have become more dynamic, that is, they have more stems, faster recruitment, faster mortality, faster growth and more lianas. These increases have occurred across regions and environmental gradients and through time for the lowland Neotropics and Amazonia. They note that the simplest explanation for this suite of results is that improved resource availability has increased net primary productivity, in turn increasing growth rates, which can all be explained by a long-term increase in a limiting resource. They suggest that this no-longer-limiting resource might be CO2, although other factors (e.g., insolation or diffuse radiation) may also play a role.
Gloor et al. (2009), based on analysis of data from 135 forest plots in old growth Amazonia from 1971 to 2006 show that the observed increase in aboveground biomass is not due to an artifact of limited spatial and temporal monitoring. They conclude that biomass has increased over the past 30 years (p. 2427).
These findings are consistent with satellite data that indicate that the net primary productivity of the Amazon increased substantially from 1982–99, a period that experienced considerable global warming (see Figure 1).
Sahel
Satellite Imagery shows that parts of the Sahara and Sahel are greening up consistent with the trend recorded in Figure 1 (Owen 2009). The United Nations’ Africa Report (Figure 2) notes:
“Greening of the Sahel as observed from satellite images is now well established, confirming that trends in rainfall are the main but not the only driver of change in vegetation cover. For the period 1982-2003, the overall trend in monthly maximum Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) is positive over a large portion of the Sahel region, reaching up to 50 per cent increase in parts of Mali, Mauritania and Chad, and confirming previous findings at a regional scale.” (United Nations 2008: 41). Figure 2: Source: United Nations (2008),
Australia
Similarly, an Australia-wide analysis of satellite data for 1981–2006 indicates that vegetation cover has increased average of 8% (Donohue et al. 2009).
Figure 3: Australia, 1981-2006. Change in vegetation cover, as described by the fraction of Photosynthetically Active Radiation absorbed by vegetation (fPAR). Source: Donohue et al. (2009)
Canada
With respect to the northern latitudes, 22% of the vegetated area in Canada was found to have a positive vegetation trend from 1985–2006. Of these, 40% were in northern ecozones (Pouliot et al. 2009; see Figure 4).
Figure 4: Long term changes in vegetation for Canada, 1985-2006. Source: Pouliot, D A; Latifovic, R; Olthof (2009).
References
Donohue, Randall J.; Tim R. McVIcar; and Michael Roderick. (2009). Climate-related trends in Australian vegetation cover as inferred from satellite observations, 1981–2006. Global Change Biology doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2008.01746.x.
Gloor, M.: O. L. Phillips, J. J. Lloyd, et al. (2009). Does the disturbance hypothesis explain the biomass increase in basin-wide Amazon forest plot data? Global Change Biology 15: 2418–2430.
Phillips, Oliver L; Simon L Lewis, Timothy R Baker, Kuo-Jung Chao and Niro Higuchi (2008). The changing Amazon forest. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series B 2008 363, 1819-1827.
===============
Further reading
One recent WUWT post that also sheds some light on this issue:
Cosmic Rays and tree growth patterns linked
These next two are particularly relevant, because they show that trees have recently begun to respond positively to increased CO2 in the atmosphere:
EPA about to declare CO2 dangerous – ssshhh! – Don’t tell the trees
Surprise: Earths’ Biosphere is Booming, Satellite Data Suggests CO2 the Cause




OT I guess, but, today, I got an e-mail reply (I asked “the liberals” to expose Climategate) from Tony Abbott (The Australian MP who claims climate change (The AGW version) is “crap”. Usual blah blah blah, opposition are rubbish, blah blah blah. Care to donate some money? Not unless you expose Climategate Tony…you need to earn your donations from me (Apart from your rather fat taxpayer funded salary and benefits etc). Haven’t replied yet, but will do along these lines. He needs my vote, as a first time voter in Australia.
It’s snowing in Central London !
The top figure represents “CO2-Driven Increases in Global NPP” rather than “Climate Driven Increases in Global NPP”. As a biofunctional chemist in the field of photosynthesis research I am quite sure about that.
Watt sort of spoilsport checks the facts as claimed by Al Globe?
I know – it’s all that CO2!
Al Gore isn’t an idiot. He says idiotic things because idiots believe him and he stands to make a lot of money out of “climate change”, which is effectively a tax on the weather.
Why does Gore get away with telling whoppers time after time? I understand he has made a fortune off this “CO2 will kill us all” scam.
Daniish Minister Connie Hedegaard resigns as president of Copenhagen climate talks — U.N says
I presume even he isn’t so clueless as to be claiming that this “tree mortality” is happening now. The words “prospects of” suggests that the prophet Gore is doing what only a prophet can do – prophesising.
Wow – interesting data.
It certainly puts in perspective the ‘disappearing Amazon’ meme.
I wonder how much of the ‘missing’ CO2 can be accounted for here in new biomass?
CO2 = Plant Food not Pollutant
Are you listening EPA?
You mean the earth may become like ‘Planet of the grapes’?
Or to be specific when including the MWP.
‘Return to the planet of the grapes’
Talking about Gore and reality: http://npweb.npolar.no/english/articles/Melting_Snow_and_Ice_Report
This report commissioned by Nobel Peace Prize laureate Al Gore and Norway’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Jonas Gahr Støre
Believe it or not: Everything is worse than we could imagine
That being the case it seems to follow that net global ecosystem respiration must have increased. Which may be reasonable since R shows greater temperature dependance than P.
Either he is really really dumb or his speechwriters are even dumber. But at least the claim is consistent with the “gore effect” which is similar to the Flannery effect.
The Gore effect – he travels it is cold.
The Flannery effert – Flannery’s predictions are always negative 100% correct.
When will this chicanery end?
Gee, fertilize plants and they flourish.
What a shock…
Rising tree mortality. Earth’s interior is millions of degrees.
Al Gore’s knowledge of science is worse than we thought!
Here’s an example of Gore-driven increasing tree mortality:
http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2009/12/16/fears-quarter-of-wales-largest-woodland-will-be-felled-for-wind-farm-91466-25399887/
Up to 30% of the largest forest in Wales may have to be cleared to plant a giant inefficient
subsidywind farm…Stupidity and greed have no boundaries…
Therefore the Law of Gore Inversion says that when Al Gore says something is happening or is going to happen, expect the opposite.
Personally I think the puffy eyes means thats actually Bagdad Bob wearing a Goresuit.
Categories : “Al Gore is an idiot”
not sure this is a right description.
He’s making money (out of preaching/manipulating) instead of working for it.
How is the saying? “you could earn the second million in a honest way…”
My understanding he has way more than 2 million, and not yet taking the foot of the pedal.
Al Gore is a greedy bastard is a more appropriate description IMHO.
Another excellent post by Indur Golkany, again destroying Gore’s BS hype with hard facts.
A poster on another thread here made the point that one of the problems we were facing in 1900 was what to do with all the horse manure on the city streets.
Who knows what problems we will face in 2100? It seems extremely unlikely that it will be any of the tax raising and carbon trading fuelled catastrophe scams that Gore & his acolytes now predict.
But today’s big problem isn’t manure from horses but from bulls. And boy, it’s everywhere!
Weird,
I though that what the hockey stick shows is an increment in the growth of trees during the 20th century.
What’s up with fig 3? Can someone explain the key?
APPEAL TO AUTHORITY TO THE MAX
All that may be well and good, but they have found that 97% of “climate scientists” BELIEVE.
I wonder, how does one count the rings on a “climatologist?”
Nice analysis crushing Al Gore’s fear mongering.
What I wonder about is how does Al Gore come up with this stuff? What is his “thought process” (if it can be called that) that has him make these extreme statements? It would be nice for a change if Al Gore actually sited references for his claims.
Those making scientific claims are the ones who must provide full disclosure for proper analysis and review by others should they wish those others to accept their hypothesis. Regardless, Nature, as in Mother, is the final judge in all matters and questions of what is real in objective reality.
Perhaps it’s just me, but I’m trying to reconcile ‘runaway ice melt’ with ‘severe water scarcities’. What does that melting ice turn into? This week will go down in history as epitomising the purest bs humankind can produce.