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
Paul Reiter writes in The Spectator, The inconvenient truth about malaria:
Al Gore must not know that CO2 makes trees grow.
During the medieval warm period, the Shara Desert in many areas were covered with grasses. If it gets warmer, does this mean Al Gore will be happier?
Or is manbearpig just trying to scam everybody. The hysterics are getting funnier by the day, as the countdown to when the meeting of the wealth transfer scoundrels closes.
All this CO2 stuff is so last-year. There’s a new bandwagon rolling. Jump on quick, there are fortunes to be made!
http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/2009/12/forget-global-warming-nitrogen-is-new.htm
If he was once a farmer like he says, learning under his dad’s watchful eye, it must have been in a treeless state. Strong El Nino warmer conditions brings moisture to trees with more snow in winter and more rain in summer, thus more growth, depending of course on where you are at under the jet stream. Cold brings less snow in winter and dryer summers, again depending on where you are at under the jet stream. Return your Nobel prize, you have earned an F in basic climate science.
son of mulder (04:33:47) :
“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.”
Until they are eaten by the Triffids!
And the percentages are in: Agricultural plants will increase yield with 33 % if CO2 increases with 100 %.
The peer-Reviewed journals says so:
http://agron.scijournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/75/5/779
I have just heard Radio 4 News at Ipm announce the resignation of the Danish chair. In the opening headline extract I am pretty sure I heard her say something like ” I am not happy with what has been going on”. This was not mentioned again in the discussion of the event after the headlines. For some reason they chose to ask Bianc Jagger (!) for her opinion and Ed Miliband said it was all to do with protocol.
Many thanks to Indur for another excellent piece.
But, having said that, it does make me pretty angry. It’s one thing to say that we will all be doomed at some time in the future. That’s just doom-mongering and many people can see it for the nonsense that it is.
But it’s another thing to say that climate change is already a disaster that is killing possibly millions of people. That’s a lie, pure and simple. This article provides more compelling evidence that it is a lie.
These idiots couldn’t be more wrong. They say it’s a disaster. I say it (global warming) in fact has been of vast benefit to mankind. Of course, history tells us very clearly that mankind prospers when the world gets warmer, and suffers when the world gets colder. From all the evidence, some of it ably presented by Indur, the 20th century warming – and quite likely the increase in CO2 – fits in perfectly with this pattern. It was a time of unprecedented prosperity. Providing those 15,000 morons at Copenhagen don’t get their way, there’s no reason why this prosperity will continue to grow, once the present economic difficulties have passed.
Overall, it looks like the world, in terms of future prosperity, weather and climate, has never been in better shape. Even hurricanes and cyclones seem to be at long-term lows and possibly still falling. Biomass is increasing. The amount of food per head of population is higher than ever before.
.
Perhaps the biggest threat to all this is the global warming delusion. And the possibility that we may be entering a long period of global cooling.
Chris
Of coourse the EPA must regulate CO2. Just look at the dangers of Hypercapnia.
At 1% concentration of carbon dioxide CO2 (10,000 parts per million or ppm) and under continuous exposure at that level, such as in an auditorium filled with occupants and poor fresh air ventilation, some occupants are likely to feel drowsy.
The concentration of carbon dioxide must be over about 2% (20,000 ppm) before most people are aware of its presence unless the odor of an associated material (auto exhaust or fermenting yeast, for instance) is present at lower concentrations.
Above 2%, carbon dioxide may cause a feeling of heaviness in the chest and/or more frequent and deeper respirations.
If exposure continues at that level for several hours, minimal “acidosis” (an acid condition of the blood) may occur but more frequently is absent.
Breathing rate doubles at 3% CO2 and is four times the normal rate at 5% CO2.
Toxic levels of carbon dioxide: at levels above 5%, concentration CO2 is directly toxic. [At lower levels we may be seeing effects of a reduction in the relative amount of oxygen rather than direct toxicity of CO2.]
So I guess the EPA should monitor the CO2 levels, and when they reach 10000ppm they will have to regulate it. (I am only half-way kidding, indoor concentrations can reach these levels).
A fool and money are soon parted. Therefore Gore talks foolishness to a listening crowd of fools. I get it now. It’s his schtick. The routine of a snake oil salesman. He still gets an F in basic climate science but I give him 4 marks for adroitly matching his show with his audience.
Satellites are turning out to be the bane of warmists. The ice isn’t melting, the temperature is steady, and the trees are just fine. But wait! It could be the satellites are detecting “rotten green!!!”
At this point . . . if Al G(wh)ore said he was lying, I wouldn’t believe him. (It’s worse than I thought.)
Ah, the biosphere loves some CO2and warmists seems to want to control it all.
Still take Science Mag (hard to stop at least one of “them” — see last post). In the Dec 4 issue Dennis Normile reported on “The Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR)”. In its meeting in DC on Dec 7 and 8 the organization “will likely vote to convert CGIAR from a voluntary association into a legal entity with power over a trust fund so it can enforce systemwide priorities.”…”Although a CIGAR science council set priorities, centers could ignore them.” (In other words, use of the research and project funds was “voluntary”.) “Instead of 15 centers negotiating with 65 donors, it will boil down to much higher-level but reduced interactions between one big consortium and one pooled source of funds.” (I did not look up the results of this meeting; maybe someone more knowledgeable can report.)
In my quick research, CGIAR was created in 1971 with the UN, World Bank, and other international and UN departments as “cosponsors” for a sustainable food supply for poor people (“agriculture, forestry, fisheries, policy, and environment”). In this reorganization, the funding sponsors will now control how the money is spent.
Obama is part of all of this. IMHO these moves to authoritarian control are part of the AGW-GlobalWarming-ClimateChange scam and part of why our formerly scientific publications and our formerly environmental organizations have been taken over such that terms “scientific” and “environmental” or “conservation” no longer apply.
One might even imagine with all the research funded by this organization into the “biosphere” that they might have known that CO2 is the most important magnifier of growth. Maybe they want to corner the market while making big bucks and starving the rest of us!?! One of my conclusions is that the U.S. and other self-respecting countries should get the @ur momisugly#$% out of the UN as quickly as possible. Let it die a quarelsome death as its remaining members grasp and claw at each other over dwindling funds and totalitarian control — something like Copenhagen.
“evidence that only reckless fools would ignore,”
His attacks are evolving and getting dirtier
An increase in CO2 conc. does not automatically mean that plants will thrive. There are other limiting factors such as temp. (low-high) ground water availability (none – to much, which then oxygen is the limiting factor) increased precipitation (stoma usually close during precipitation, no co2 “intake”) several other factors exist. Just to give you an idea.
Basic knowledge in plant physiology will tell you that.
But I still do not like Al Gore.
yonason (04:05:29) :
I wonder, how does one count the rings on a “climatologist?”
First, check both hands, then the ears.
Adjust that sum by .75 to arrive at a homogenized number that will give you a rough estimate without getting slapped for actually proceeding below the neckline…
With all that extra plant food in the air, perhaps he is concerned about tree obesity….
>Gore is about my age, he could blather on for another two complete solar cycles. I find that alarming.
I can think of nothing more humorous than Gore living a long and healthy life dealing with the public laughing at him for being the ultimate chicken little. If he doesn’t become the most famous unnecessary-fear meme of all time, I would be very very surprised.
The Goracle Syndrome will be difined in the future as the ablility to create a HUGE CARBON FOOTPRINT while having you foot in your mouth and your head up your arse.
It sounds impossible but it is being done in Nopenhagen. My back hurts just thinking about it.
No one really cares what’s going on at Copenhagen. Winter started early in the Northern Hemisphere and is lasting long in the Southern Hemisphere.
Whatever is being said in Copenhagen is ‘blah, blah, blah’
You really think world government’s gonna solve this mess? http://www.newsy.com/videos/copenhagen_compromise_a_struggle
In a competition for the worlds biggest A**hole Gore would come last…….because he is such an A**hole.
OT Poar bear goes looking for Phil Jones 😀
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/12/15/polar-bear-phil-jones/
We need Al-Gore to tell us about water scarcity. Ever heard of California?
Jimmy Haigh, more like Prince Charles is ON something when he talks to his plants. 100 years ago and more, the royals were regular drug abusers.
“…The Brown effect…” with emphasis on the colour