- 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.
I first ran a story with this title in 2008, with these graphics from SEAWIFS, showing a growing biosphere. Now a new study using a different methodology, Leaf Area Index (LAI), have determined that indeed, the LAI is on the increase. Those global warming proponents, who consider themselves “green” get very upset when it is pointed out that CO2 is “plant food”, yet here we have even more evidence that Gaia’s greenery likes it.
Global Greening Continues: Did We Cause It?
You know the story. Humans are burning fossil fuels and because of their actions, the world is now warming at an unprecedented pace. This warming is stressing ecosystems throughout the world with devastating consequences to vegetation from one end of the earth to the other. If we do not act fast, we will destroy the planet and have a tough time facing our grandchildren. We can all hear it now—why didn’t you do something when there was still time to save the Earth?
Two articles have appeared recently in the scientific literature with results that may make us reconsider this entire affair. The first appears in the Journal of Geographical Sciences dealing with worldwide trends in the vigor of vegetation since the early 1980s—the results may surprise you, but they did not surprise us given all that has been written on this subject and certainly covered at World Climate Report.
Three Chinese scientists (all with the last name of Liu) used satellite data to detect changes occurring in vegetation throughout the world. Rather than use the popular satellite-based Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), Liu et al. (a.k.a., Liu3) decided to use the Leaf Area Index (LAI). The scientists explain “LAI, defined as half the total leaf area per unit ground, is directly linked to vegetation activities and comparable among different ecosystems. It has removed the effects of spectral response, illumination and orbit drift during data acquisition. It should be better, at least theoretically, than NDVI as the indicator of vegetation status.” We will certainly trust their judgment.
As seen in their figure below (Figure1), the red colors absolutely dominate indicating an increase in vegetation status! Liu et al. declare:
“Results show that, over the past 26 years, LAI has generally increased at a rate of 0.0013 per year around the globe. The strongest increasing trend is around 0.0032 per year in the middle and northern high latitudes (north of 30°N). LAI has prominently increased in Europe, Siberia, Indian Peninsula, America and south Canada, South region of Sahara, southwest corner of Australia and Kgalagadi Basin; while noticeably decreased in Southeast Asia, southeastern China, central Africa, central and southern South America and arctic areas in North America.”
Quick geography question: where is the “Kgalagadi Basin”? Correct—in the Kalahari Desert of southern Africa.
Figure 1. Spatial distribution of linear trends in estimated LAI from July 1981–December 2006 (from Liu et al., 2010)
In commenting on the upward trend in LAI in the mid-to-high latitudes of the Northern Hemispheric, the trio states
“The growth of the vegetation in these middle and high latitude areas is mainly limited by temperature. Many studies correlating NDVI with land surface temperature indicate warming might be the most important factor accounting for the LAI increase in this area. Warming, causes longer active growing season length and higher growth magnitude, therefore leads to increase in LAI in this area.”
We accept their findings—we now believe that warming has been beneficial for vegetation throughout much of the Northern Hemisphere. As we look at the map above, we see red throughout many low latitude areas as well. The gloom and doomers of the climate change issue are not going to be happy with such positive results. Although not discussed in the Liu et al. paper, we cannot help but wonder what role elevated carbon dioxide (CO2) concentrations may have played in stimulating plant growth in so many areas of the world? Feel free to examine all of our essays reporting on the biological benefits of elevated CO2, let alone the benefits of warming.
Few people would argue that the planet has warmed to some extent over the past three decades, and many people feel that humans caused at least some part of this warming through their consumption of fossil fuels. Well, hold the fort because our second featured article does not arrive at that conclusion whatsoever. The article was written by two scientists from Taiwan and was published recently in Atmospheric Science Letters. Lo and Hsu begin stating:
“The global mean temperature has been rising more abruptly over the past 30 years, compared with that in the previous 50–100 years. This recent warming has occurred in most areas on Earth, becoming a truly global phenomenon. The sudden acceleration of warming, which is particularly evident in the winter Northern Hemisphere (NH), can be linked with the observation of widespread abrupt changes in the late 1980s. The nature of the late 1980s’ warming and its relationship with the dominant teleconnection patterns such as the Arctic Oscillation (AO) and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) are explored in this study.”
We knew we would like this—nothing better than scientists explaining warming with teleconnections related things that operate largely without any association to the buildup of greenhouse gases. The authors conducted sophisticated research with climate models and greenhouse gas scenarios developed by the United Nations’ IPCC group. They found that warming in the extra-tropical Northern Hemisphere was highly related to the two teleconnections, and it led them to conclude (hold your breath) that their results “do not support the scenario that the emerging influence of the AO-like pattern in the late 1980s can be attributed to the anthropogenic greenhouse effect.” Indeed, they conclude that what we are seeing “can be attributed to natural variability.”
OK. The earth warmed over the past 30 years. We agree (although that has largely slowed down or even stopped in the past 10 years). Atmospheric CO2 has increased. We agree. The rise in CO2 caused the warming—not according to Lo and Hsu. The warming caused vegetation in the Northern Hemisphere to thrive—Liu et al. think so.
You get the message—warming and elevated CO2 are not combining to destroy the planet’s vegetation. Quite to the contrary, they may be a blessing!
References
Lo, T.-T. and H.-H. Hsu. 2010. Change in the dominant decadal patterns and the late 1980s abrupt warming in the extratropical Northern Hemisphere. Atmospheric Science Letters, 11, 210–215.
Liu, S., R. Liu, and Y. Liu. 2010. Spatial and temporal variation of global LAI during 1981–2006. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 20, 323-332.
Peter Stroud says:
March 24, 2011 at 3:26 am
Mr Roger Harrabin, have you read this post? If so will you please join the BBC Today programme and tell the listeners about it. Give it the same attention you give to every paper that describes the doom and gloom caused by anthropogenic global warming.
Mr Stroud, I STRONGLY advise you NOT to hold your breath!! In the very unlikely event that Harrabin would attempt to do such a thing (after all, this paper is totally contrary to his belief system), the BBC would not broadcast such a “farrago of lies.” They know it’s that, Harrabin has told them!
Harrabin won’t, his pension, and all at the BBC, depends entirely on green tech doing well, through their massive investment via the IIGCC.
“A Billion Acts of Green ©” http://www.earthday.org/earth-day-2011 is what they’re now pushing for Earth Day, April 22, continuing the demonization of “carbon”.
Excerpt: “A Billion Acts of Green® inspires and rewards both simple individual acts and larger organizational initiatives that further the goal of measurably reducing carbon emissions and supporting sustainability. The goal is to register one billion actions in advance of the Earth Summit in Rio in 2012. A Billion Acts of Green® website quantifies acts of green through an easy-to-use online registration tool. A Billion Acts of Green® demonstrates the kind of environmental impact that can be made when millions of people, corporations and organizations make commitments, both small and large, to better their environment.”
One effort, “The Canopy Project” http://www.earthday.org/campaign/canopy-project truly is green, in the traditional, and correct sense. The Greenidiots, though, think of them, first and foremost in terms of how much “carbon” they absorb.
I used to like Earth Day. Now, it’s become just one more in the Alarmists’ propaganda arsenal, with a ready-made army of useful idiots to do their bidding.
Smokey says:
March 24, 2011 at 3:22 am
This is more evidence that CO2 is both harmless and beneficial. And there is still no evidence that CO2 causes any global problems. No evidence whatever.
====================================================
Smokey, you know what’s really odd?
For the most part, these are the people that believe in Gaia, and the whole earth living organism thing…
..yet it never occurs to them that maybe it’s supposed to work this way
Increased CO2 and longer growing seasons… who’d of ever guessed that would make green plants more productive? /sarc
Interesting to witness the greening of Africa while they still have trouble feeding themselves.
What strange times.
duh.
As well as the direct effects of CO2 on plant growth, perhaps there are secondary effects as going on as well. The distribution of increased leaf looks similar to the distrubution of water stress in some parts of the world. (see http://www.maplecroft.com/about/news/water-stress.html).
I wouldn’t suggest that water stress causes plant growth, so perhaps the causality is that the areas of increase on both maps are have a common underlying cause of increased irrigation.
Francisco says:
March 24, 2011 at 6:36 am
I liked your post & the historical obsevations commented on. However you mention 1816 as the year with out a summer, but there was that letter from Sir Joseph Banks, President of the Royal Society written to the Lords of the Admiralty in 1817 concerning a lack of ice in the Arctic Circle suggesting a new source of warmth had occurred! I suggest that the Earth’s climate may be a tad more variable from year to years, decade to decade, century to century, etc, that some would have us believe! In fact, I am yet to have that old chetnut answered, what IS the Earth’s natural climate variability? To quote Doug L. Hoffman, “enjoy the interglacial”!
Jeremy says:
March 24, 2011 at 8:21 am
“Interesting to witness the greening of Africa while they still have trouble feeding themselves.
What strange times.”
Not strange. Just too many feudal scum-bag politicians in Africa who would rather grow cash-crops for export at the behest of the IMF/World Bank, rather than using land and labour for growing food.
First of all… What respectable scientist ever said GW was going to “destroy” the planet? The planet dosent give a sh!@ur momisugly. It’s our civilization that might suffer .. Come on guys… Read something besides denier BS… And who said plants wouldn’t benefit from co2? How does that change anything????
Robb876 says:
March 24, 2011 at 11:45 am
It’s our civilization that might suffer ..
If we have more food from increased growth, and warmer winter nights as the data shows, is that more suffering?
Nick Bentley says:
March 24, 2011 at 6:49 am
I’m not qualified to comment on the validity of the idea, except to say that I’ve spoken with biosphere experts who hold pretty strongly to this view.
I’m one that doesn’t.
It is well known that plants need CO2 and H2O. Climate change is driving H2O out from soils. While for a time the CO2 increase and longer growing seasons drove an increase in land plant growth, that trend has now been reversed.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/plant-decline.html
“Earth has done an ecological about-face: Global plant productivity that once flourished under warming temperatures and a lengthened growing season is now on the decline, struck by the stress of drought.
NASA-funded researchers Maosheng Zhao and Steven Running, of the University of Montana in Missoula, discovered the global shift during an analysis of NASA satellite data. Compared with a six-percent increase spanning two earlier decades, the recent ten-year decline is slight — just one percent. The shift, however, could impact food security, biofuels, and the global carbon cycle.
“We see this as a bit of a surprise, and potentially significant on a policy level because previous interpretations suggested that global warming might actually help plant growth around the world,” Running said.”
And ocean phytoplankton has long been on the decline.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v466/n7306/abs/nature09268.html
“Global phytoplankton decline over the past century
In the oceans, ubiquitous microscopic phototrophs (phytoplankton) account for approximately half the production of organic matter on Earth. Analyses of satellite-derived phytoplankton concentration (available since 1979) have suggested decadal-scale fluctuations linked to climate forcing, but the length of this record is insufficient to resolve longer-term trends. Here we combine available ocean transparency measurements and in situ chlorophyll observations to estimate the time dependence of phytoplankton biomass at local, regional and global scales since 1899. We observe declines in eight out of ten ocean regions, and estimate a global rate of decline of ~1% of the global median per year. Our analyses further reveal interannual to decadal phytoplankton fluctuations superimposed on long-term trends. These fluctuations are strongly correlated with basin-scale climate indices, whereas long-term declining trends are related to increasing sea surface temperatures. We conclude that global phytoplankton concentration has declined over the past century; this decline will need to be considered in future studies of marine ecosystems, geochemical cycling, ocean circulation and fisheries.”
Tim Clark says:
March 24, 2011 at 12:22 pm
Robb876 says:
March 24, 2011 at 11:45 am
It’s our civilization that might suffer ..
“If we have more food from increased growth, and warmer winter nights as the data shows, is that more suffering?”
A secret agenda of all Warmista and all members of our international ruling elite is depopulation. They do not want more food. They want controlled depopulation. In other words, they approve of China’s policy of limiting births to one per couple. Never in the history of mankind has a government undertaken anything more morally depraved than limiting the number of births per couple in a captive society that has always depended on the first born male to serve as his father’s reward in old age and as social security for his parents. But all totalitarians are alike at heart.
Anthony, early on in backgrounding LAI you say about the authors:
“We will certainly trust their judgment”
This highlights the core issue as I see it with the CAGW scare. Science is generally an esoteric pursuit beyond critical understanding for lay people which also includes the majority of decision makers/politicians/lawmakers and so on. So science needs to be trustworthy. It has become fairly clear that the “Team” have abused and manipulated that trust. One can see the bind that policy makers are in when they “trust” all of those scientists and their professional bodies, they can hardly do anything else in their position. It’s going to take a lot to shatter that trust.
REPLY: Note who the author is, not me
Sorry Anthony, missed that! But the point remains.
ColinD says:
March 24, 2011 at 2:28 pm
“So science needs to be trustworthy. It has become fairly clear that the “Team” have abused and manipulated that trust. One can see the bind that policy makers are in when they “trust” all of those scientists and their professional bodies, they can hardly do anything else in their position. It’s going to take a lot to shatter that trust.”
Very well said. With regard to your last sentence, didn’t we just elect 60+ Republicans to the House, a couple of Republicans to the Senate, and one Democratic Senator from West Virginia who do not trust the scientists?
Tim Clark says:
March 24, 2011 at 12:22 pm
If we have more food from increased growth, and warmer winter nights as the data shows, is that more suffering?
………
Come on Tim… Are you really trying to say you think those are the only possible consequences or that they trump all others? One thing skeptics seem to miss is that you can’t disprove GW threats based on what is occurring now.. You understand that, right? Climate takes decades and decades to show discernible change… Which is why the threats won’t really be significant until we are probably both gone….
The original owners of planet earth were plants, they converted our CO2 atmosphere to one rich in O2, that allowed animals to evolve.
They were so efficient in sequesting over time that they have been suffering a lack of their basic food source.
It is therefore encumbent upon us to release this very necessary food for the plants, in the same way they once helped us.
2000PPM would see the world blossom, this earth hour do your best in re-carbonating our atmosphere.
Puzzled as to why Figure 1 above (from Liu et al., 2010) seems to have a data hole over North Africa. This EUMETSAT picture titled Southern side of the Atlas Mountains in Algeria turns green shows vegetation changes in the Maghreb (image dated 25 February 2009).
Robb876 says:
March 24, 2011 at 11:45 am
It’s our civilization that might suffer ..
Yes, from Natural Global Cooling, particularly if we cool more than an expected Dalton type period to the LIA conditions possible by mid-century. History, and common sense show that cooling is by far the more dangerous condition. The Warmist Chicken Littles are warning of exactly the wrong thing, blaming something entirely innocent (C02), and the consequences for that could be tragic indeed.
Bruce Cobb says:
Yes, from Natural Global Cooling…..
…..
Yeah yeah…. Global cooling, that’s a good one. I’ll believe it when I see it, but so far I don’t consider 30 years of consecutively hotter decades to be a sign of global cooling… Why do you?
No, I’m stating that there is no actual data that indicates catastrophic consequences of modeled increases of temperatures in response to higher levels of CO2 without unverified positive feedbacks.
Rob876 says:
“One thing skeptics seem to miss is that you can’t disprove GW threats based on what is occurring now….Which is why the threats won’t really be significant until we are probably both gone….”
………………..
To quote Yoda, “Backwards, you have it.” You’ve turned the “null hypothesis” on its head, like many in your camp. In a rational, scientific world it is incumbent upon the GW alarmists to prove their case rather than others to disprove it. They haven’t proven their case because they’ve come up with no real world data or observations (after spending billions of dollars) to support their claims of impending doom.
If I followed your reasoning, I could state that the world will be over-run with Little Green Men. Give me money to study this grave threat further, or we’ll all be dead….in fifty years. I’m right because you can’t prove me wrong.