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




Kent Brockman: ..it seems like after EPA announcing CO2 a public danger in 2009, the well known RTM, or “rising tree mortality”-prophecy of Al Gore is finally become a reality. We’re live at the edge of Sprigfield where Lisa Simpson, a long time green-then-exposed-redpeace-then-revoluted-into-just-peace activist has organized an event to save the Sprinfield’s oldest tree.
Lisa: COME ON PEOPLE, BLOOOOWW! ALL TOGETHER NOW.. BLOOOWWW! LET THAT TREE KNOW WE’RE HERE FOR HIM… NOW BLOOOOOOOW.. FILL THE AIR WITH YOUR CARBONDIOXIDE! BLOOOOWWWW!!
The tree: ..must…. breath….. musss…sst… bre..atthhhhhh
bip bip beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee….
Kent Brockman: ..and there goes another one!
Tree mortality increasing in the Yamal peninsula
specially if Phil wants to count all those tree rings 😉
I have always wondered why the alarmist “scientists” can only find catastrophy in any change. Only yesterday I posted on a site that CO2 wasn’t a pollutant and that increased CO2 helped plants to grow faster. I know that’s obvious to posters on here but I suppose it speaks well for the campaign to brainwash the great mass of people.
Another benefit should be that as the earth warms the poles will gain most of the heat and the ferocity of tropical storms should lessen. I suppose I should read Judy Curry’s papers to enlighten myself.
BTW for the Brits on this site, Mr.McBlunder and his glove puppet sidekick Miliband Minor recently referred to sceptics as “flat earthers” there is a petition on the No. 10 website calling for him, McBlunder that is, to retract this calumny. Get on their and let him know what your think. For you others out their in the ex-colonies and elsewhere, they did this in the same week as a poll came out showing that 46% of Brits had doubts about global warming being wholly down to human activities. Shows you how smart they are, it’s like having Bud Abbot and Lou Costello running you’re country.
“I know that’s obvious to posters on here but I suppose it speaks well for the campaign to brainwash the great mass of people.”
Should have read:
I know that’s obvious to posters on here but I suppose it speaks well for the campaign to brainwash the great mass of people about AGW that it has to be explained.”
Maybe someone should let the EPA in the US in on the secret.
Wales may be in trouble but , at 2000+ pages, I’m sure there is something in Obamacare covering American tree mortality. It’s for the saplings!
Mr. Gore belongs on a street corner with a sandwich board reading, “The End is Near”.
If my grass grows more quickly then more anthropic CO2 will be produced cutting it. This could lead to a runaway where the few surviving humanity could be permenantly mowing the lawn.
Anti-carbon = anti-life
This is a vital area of contention. If increasing CO2 can be proven to be a positive good, then the battle will be over. Then, perhaps, we can move on to the true cause of enviro-hysteria, pseudo-capitalism.
Here in my part of Oz, many farmlets and even larger holdings are full of new growth because the dairy and cattle industries are more selective about where they operate. The day of the soldier-settler is over. Such things as food-lots, GM, artificial fertiliser, expensive high performance seed etc mean that an expanding population is not necessarily requiring more land, except as real estate.
The real problem is selective vision. People of the green persuasion don’t want to see the massive areas of regrowth all across the country. There’s nothing there to feed their indignation. Some ABC footage of a tree being cut in far off Tasmania will suddenly restore their vision.
If all communities were to go truly “local and organic”, humans would be like locusts on the face of the earth. Then you’d see some land clearing! Of course, the green answer to that is less animal protein, and fewer people. How to degrade human nutrition and reduce human numbers are details for much later. The first step is to attack useful science like GM, and promote factitious science like AGW.
What the Green Mensheviks hesitate to do can be left to the Green Bolsheviks who come after them.
Gore is a very wiley politician – Enron economics reinvented and washed green.
I can’t speak for the rest of the planet, but on my few dozen acres, it’s a full time job to keep the new tree growth from taking over. If I don’t mow down the shoots several times a year, I wouldn’t be able to get out the door of my house in a couple of years!
Gore needs to check himself in to the nearest mental health facility. I hear there’s a good one not too far from Belle Meade.
yonason (04:05:29) :
………I wonder, how does one count the rings on a “climatologist?”
————————————————-
Ah, you need their bank statements for that;-)
I heard the most absurd comment yesterday from the leader of the UK’s Green Party – she said we needed to move towards a carbon free world.
Seriously, how can anyone come out with something so stupid?
To all but diehard climate koolaid-crazed followers, Big Al has to be an embarrassment every time he speaks. I’m guessing most there wish he had kept his word and stayed home. But, he’s there to peddle his new book, “Our Choice” and stump for “the Cause”, from which he has become a multi-$millionaire, and from which he stands to gain $millions more.
Meanwhile, things at Hokumkookenhagen continue to fall apart, and at an increasingly rapid rate, with protests threatening to shut down talks, some 15,000 delegates, journalists and civil society representatives, including those from Fiends of the Earth being refused access to the talks, some left out in the cold for 7 hours with no access to bathroom facilities, food or water, and the resignation of COP15 president Connie Hedegaard.
It’s worse than we thought!
Global warming means more more water will evaporate. If more water evaporates, there’s be more rainfall. An increase in rain fall + temperature + CO2 is like a plant paradise. If it’s a plant paradise, it’s also a paradise for everything feeding on plant, which is every living thing.
A change means the need to adapt, but ecosystems are resilient, way more than what people think if they believe that a 2 degree Celsius increase will cause the apocalypse.
For me, global warming is pretty simple. It’s all about Jesus and babies. Imagine you live in a forest filled with tigers, lions and sometimes ligers, and that someone in your vicinity is so strong and fearless that he can beat them. Living with that person would increase your chances to survive. So, you definitely want that and you try all sort of things to be his friend. Now, that strong guy doesn’t need you to fight the wild animals obviously, but people survive not just by staying alive, but by reproducing themselves. What survives isn’t the person, but his genes. For that he can get your help if you have his babies.
That’s what happens with global warming. People see global warming as a potential danger. Their mind use that to create a delusion where the world would end, and where there alert the population be become the savior of the world. As for the lion guy, you want to be the savior’s friend to increase your chances to live, and offer to have the savior’s babies as a return. The’s why people have these grandiose delusion these days. And it works, considering people still talk about jesus 2 thousand years after he supposedly saved humanity……… So yes, it’s all about jesus and babies.
Nature giveth: Increased C02 and warmth lead to faster growth. Duh.
Al Gore taketh away: Declares the planet is frying, drying and drowning. Al needs the money to fix the problem.
Glenn Beck has the solution: Donate to a good cause…send Al a Cheeseburger to calm him down.
Interesting :No Rubles to The Climate Cons
http://mat-rodina.blogspot.com/
don’t you think he’s looking tired?
I did a bit of a ‘thought experiment’ here:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/06/02/of-trees-volcanos-and-pond-scum/
Where I looked up some articles on CO2 growth curves and tons pre acre of net productivity for a few fast tree species, then did a bit of math. The conclusion I reached was that we MUST end up CO2 limited on a global basis. The plants are literally starving for the stuff. Any time it rises, they will bolt, growing a lot faster, then crashing the CO2 level back to limiting levels.
So let me think about this for just a minute… If I grow a fast forest for 50 years, it will completely deplete 100 times the volume of air that sits above it. So 1% of the planet surface being these fast species would completely scrub all present CO2 from the air in one lifetime… 75 years in the PPM by volume case.
And pond scum could do it in 5 years. 7 and a bit years if CO2 is ppm volume. (Which I think it is, per wiki).
There is also the interesting evolutionary observation that C4 metabolism is a fairly recent ‘invention’ in plants that lets them more efficiently use lower CO2 levels… You only need that if the ‘old way’ is no longer working well enough.
So I would assert 2 things from this:
1) We desperately need more CO2 in the air (and if the volcanoes slow down we are up a creek without a wooden paddle or lunch…)
2) IFF for some silly reason, we wanted to scrub the CO2 out of the air, a modest acreage of algae and sewage will fix it in very short order…
He really needs to go all cheney on climate change, sell the giant house, sell the giant houseboat, get off the jet and embrace the technology of teleconferencing. Till then he’s just a carbondioxide producing windbag.
Please greet the latest arrival at Copenhagen….the Saviour of the planet …………..Mister Robert Mugabe.
Sorry if this news if off topic but I felt an irresistible need to share.
@geronimo (04:26:25)
The petition is at:-
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Flatearth-insult/
Can’t image it will do any good. But if it annoys the silly Bar Steward (Gordon Bruin) then that’s worth a few seconds of your time.
Gore is about my age, he could blather on for another two complete solar cycles. I find that alarming.
So maybe Prince Charles is really on to something when he talks to his plants…
For you Butch (04:31:49), it’s close anyhow, “The End is Nearer”.
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y55/silverbeam/A%20CSM%20Blog/AlGoreEnd.gif
[:)]
“BTW for the Brits on this site, Mr.McBlunder and his glove puppet sidekick Miliband Minor recently referred to sceptics as “flat earthers”
Recent research has uncovered a “Brown” effect to rival the Gore effect. Observations have shown that whatever issue Brown vigorously supports, public support soon vanishes, and whateve he pronounces to be a truth, the exact opposit happens.
First there was leadership of New Labour itself, with public confidence plummeting within a few months. This was followed by the worst recession in living memory from which he will forever be remembered for his proclamation as chancellor that he had “abolished boom and bust economics.” Once the recession became undeniable, he then proclaimed that Britain was “uniquely well placed to weather the storm,” but soon afterwards, Britain’s dire economic straits were shown by the IMF and World Bank to be “worse than expected”. Britain still has not exited from recession. He later caused an outrage when he mispelled a fallen soldiers name in a letter of condolence.
I am eagerly awaiting the Brown effect to become evident once more.