Another Al Gore Reality Check: “Rising tree mortality”?

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.”

Former US Vice President Al Gore speaks at a presentation on melting ice and snow at the UN Climate Change Conference 2009 in Copenhagen December 14, 2009. Credit: REUTERS/Bob Strong

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

The climate data they don't want you to find — free, to your inbox.
Join readers who get 5–8 new articles daily — no algorithms, no shadow bans.
0 0 votes
Article Rating
165 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Pascvaks
December 16, 2009 7:01 am

Gore is a “diversion”. While everyone is wasting their time talking about this idiot the real damage is being done elsewhere. The AGW hoax is pushed by a gaggle of “Madoff’s” –very low key movers and shakers that no one is even aware of. Watch your back and your wallet.

December 16, 2009 7:04 am
North of 43 south of 44
December 16, 2009 7:09 am

Vincent (05:25:09) :
” …. 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.”
________________________________________________________________________
Well I guess he was correct on that one, if you are completely busted to the point you can’t recover there are no cycles ….. 😉 .

kadaka
December 16, 2009 7:13 am

Here in Central Pennsylvania I have observed increased tree mortality. Here at the expanding forest edge, new trees are growing so fast they are shading and killing older ones. Plus there is a massive growth of vines, usually of the poisonous sort, encircling and strangling even large old trees. I even had to cut them and yank them off the house several times, they are growing very large very fast.
It is turning into a jungle out there!

VG
December 16, 2009 7:15 am

Because it is all BS, the Copenhagen meeting cannot succeed in any area. Just look at what is happening LOL
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/mark-lynas-at-this-rate-copenhagen-will-be-a-disaster-1841689.html
Another thing… its actually quite cold over the whole of Europe and prominent AGW’s have been left outside waiting for hours to get in….
http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp4.html
They must be wondering… LOL

Leon Brozyna
December 16, 2009 7:15 am

I’ve said it before, that this is the inconvenient fact liable to give an AGW True Believer a hissy fit ~ a coal-fired electric power plant turns out to be green!
Increasing levels of CO2 give plant matter an edge in hostile environments. Barren areas start to see plant growth, And in areas where plant matter grew well, they now thrive ~ think wheat fields or corn fields.
With their anti-man and anti-life outlook, the AGW True Believer won’t see the opportunities this presents, but rather speak of increased growth of weeds and decreased nutrients found in agricultural plants. And in the next breath, people with this same mindset of knowing what’s best for mankind, speak of an obesity epidemic.
Side note ~
Categories : “Al Gore is an idiot”
This offends idiots everywhere.

J Mann
December 16, 2009 7:17 am

I am not an Al Gore fan, but I think he was talking about some stories that got reported in 08 and 09 that old growth forests are dieing at an increasing rate due to longer summers. The argument is that new growth doesn’t store as much carbon as old growth, and that even if the cover is increasing, longevity is decreasing. (I have no idea whether it’s right.
IMHO, Gore may be (and probably is) wrong on this one, but there’s enough science that I wouldn’t call him a liar or an idiot based on this claim.
http://www.seattlepi.com/national/397342_forests24.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/mar/11/rainforests-climate-change
http://media.www.guilfordian.com/media/storage/paper281/news/2009/02/06/World/Tree-Mortality.Rates.Skyrocket.In.The.Western.U.s-3616886.shtml

JohnS
December 16, 2009 7:17 am

Hello all,
I’ve been following WUWT for a long time (and learning a lot outside my field of expertise), but this is the first thread I can weigh in on with first hand information. Gore is not completely out to lunch on this one, as there have been several large-scale mortality events that have caught the attention of the forestry community (residents of Alberta, Colorado, and Arizona, in particular, know what I mean, because they have front-row seats). We’re talking about a literal decimation (about 10-15% mortality at population scales) of some species.
Because of the AGW mindset that is often the topic here, these events have naturally been attributed to warming. Although increased temperatures (coupled with drought) are clearly factors in these events, I would characterize the situation as unclear in terms of weather vs climate.
As has often been said here, only time will tell. If it’s climate, then there are testable predictions about where species’ ranges might contract because the climate is no longer favorable to growth and reproduction. If it’s weather, we would expect to see recovery of these systems over time.
I’ve hoped that one day I’d have a chance to initate my own post on this topic, because I thought it would be of interest to many of you. However, you managed to fluch me out a bit earlier than I’d planned.
If you’re interested in reading more about what we’ve documented so far, you can download a couple of examples here:
http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/25004
http://www.treesearch.fs.fed.us/pubs/33349
As with all things in science, there’s a lot more to the story, and new data roll in on an annual basis. I just thought I’d throw out a teaser because it’s relevant and timely.
Anthony, drop me a note if you’re interested in carrying a more in-depth look at this topic some day.
JohnS

December 16, 2009 7:18 am

One famous tree that reportedly was done in, not by AGW but by AGW activisim, was the tree that marked the Maldives shoreline for decades, but then was overturned in 2003, in order to conceal the fact that sea levels were not noticeably rising.
Here is the tree:
The story is at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/03/19/despite-popular-opinion-and-calls-to-action-the-maldives-is-not-being-overrun-by-sea-level-rise/.

December 16, 2009 7:19 am
JohnS
December 16, 2009 7:19 am

oops..fluch = flush
dang, I guess I’ve been initiated!

Douglas DC
December 16, 2009 7:21 am

Here in Oregon we have the”Kolongowski” effect-our fearless leader is Arnold Swarzenegger’s Mini-me.Arnold has a bad idea, then fearless leader has to repeat
that same bad idea for Oregon.I’m glad I’m in the part of the state that shares more
with Idaho-including the climate and scenery….

OceanTwo
December 16, 2009 7:21 am

(Nice work, E.M.Smith, on the tree/CO2 consumption…).
To Gore’s prediction of ‘water scarcities’, this is a truism. It will always be true, it always has been, and is true today. Of note, he is very foggy (period?) on the exact type of water scarcity.
We never have an (over-)abundance of water – although it seems to have rained far too much in my neck of the woods. Potable water is ‘created’ to match consumption. But there are many areas of the world where financial and political instability leaves the populace lacking in this essential component of life. When a minor weather change occurs, it puts an excessive strain often putting the people into a crisis situation.
When such a change happens in far-off lands, we always look for someone/thing to blame, especially from the comfort of our designer arm chairs. Since economic solutions have failed to save the starving children, political sanctions simply drives dictators to apply even greater hardships on the populace, looking to a ‘greater’ solution – the weather is the culprit. We can’t change the weather, but for some reason, we can change the climate.
With few exceptions, our environment in first-world countries is cleaner and thriving better than it has for decades. In part, this is because of environmental regulations, but the primary reason for a cleaner environment is prosperity: as we become more prosperous, we *want* to live in a nicer environment. But it has to be prosperity for the common man. Prosperity come from achievement and not through charity (aka. welfare) – and a prime reason there are still ‘starving kids in Africa’. That’s not to say charity is not needed, but charity is simply a tool to allow the recipients to achieve their own gains.
To that end, water is the prime mover for prosperity. This is closely followed by food (and shelter), then energy. Once the commoner has cheap energy, they are on the first rung to prosperity. As they become more prosperous, the energy will naturally become cleaner and cleaner. Clean energy is expensive – so cannot be a prime consideration from the start as this is quite obviously a barrier to prosperity. Costly energy guarantees poverty, which, in turn, is a significant contributor to a scarred environment.

Jesper Berg
December 16, 2009 7:31 am

Rising tree mortality, huh? What about the vegetable/fruit/berry mortality?
Oh-oh, somebody call Greenpeace and the (egg)plant protection authorities! The ‘farming method’ described in the article linked below could very well be a deliberate attempt to poison innocent purple creatures:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/expatnews/6808988/Dutch-aubergine-grower-pipes-carbon-dioxide-into-greenhouses.html

AdderW
December 16, 2009 7:38 am

For those nations that need water – build desalination plants – there is a lot of sea water out there.

John Egan
December 16, 2009 7:40 am

Surely –
You are aware of the massive die-off in the forests of western North America due to pine bark beetle infestation?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/18/science/18trees.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=robbins%20beetles&st=cse
I feel rather confident that Gore is making reference to this – and, thus, is not stretching any truth. One can have massive forest die-off in temperate and sub-Arctic regions due to increased temperatures – esp. the lack of extreme cold – and still have an overall increase in global vegetation.
Methinks you protesteth too much.

photon without a Higgs
December 16, 2009 7:41 am

look out for people who have a neurosis as bad as Al Gore

TA
December 16, 2009 7:43 am

This is the kind of article I like to see. Full of good (if inconvenient) information.

Pat Moffitt
December 16, 2009 7:43 am

The most frustrating thing about forest and water storage meme is that forests (because of high transpiration rates) reduces groundwater recharge by about 20% compared to grasslands. An inconvenient truth. So do you want forests for forest sake or do you want maximum groundwater recharge? Depends. But you can’t have them both.

Doug
December 16, 2009 7:50 am

In Western Canada pine beetles and drought have killed an enormous number of trees. The lack of cold snaps is blamed for the beetle population —the really cold arctic air kills them off. Obviously drought (just like floods) proves global warming.
The beetle infestation can be traced to fire suppression. Instead of letting the incubation centers burn, we’ve been keeping old sick forests alive to breed insects.

pwl
December 16, 2009 7:52 am

Inspired by Butch (04:31:49) I whipped up this “The End is Nearer: Buy Blood & Gore Carbon Credits” graphic and an article commenting on the Blood & Gore company. Yes, Gore’s business partner in his Carbon Trading investment company, GIM, is actually named Blood! Enjoy the Blood & Gore of AGW!
http://pathstoknowledge.net/2009/12/16/blood-and-gore-maximize-green-profits-at-all-costs-including-goring-science-integrity-and-extracting-blood-and-taxes-from-the-developed-and-developing-world

TerryBixler
December 16, 2009 7:52 am

Headline “Gore wants to kill more trees to further AGW cause” “Greenpeace endorses killing trees as up is down” breathlessly it must be done now.

AdderW
December 16, 2009 8:01 am

Eating all this meat and green stuff for years, does that mean that I have been sequestering lethal amounts of carbon all this time? What is the median lethal dose, LD50 of carbon?

Richard deSousa
December 16, 2009 8:06 am

Some one ought to splice Gore’s face on to Baghdad Bob’s picture. The man’s lied so much it’s embarrassing.