The Earth's biosphere is booming, data suggests that CO2 is the cause, part 2

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.

From World Climate Report:

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.

5 1 vote
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

89 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Mike
March 24, 2011 8:20 pm

Tim Clark says: March 24, 2011 at 5:54 pm “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.”
So many implicit assumptions. The increase in atmospheric water vapor is an empirical fact and is the main positive feedback. The decrease in ice cover has measurably decreased Earth’s albedo. Another positive feedback. You know these facts but pretend you don’t. Why?
Droughts have increased. Crop failures caused by drought, floods and heat waves are real data. As I pointed out above net land plant growth and phytoplankton are down. Data links past extinction events with CO2 rise and ocean acidification. The experts think this data is pretty significant. There is of course no such thing as absolute proof in the empirical sciences, but they do give us a rational basis to estimate risks. Why ignore the science? What would be the great harm in taxing GHG emissions while lowering other taxes? Tax carbon mot income! Let’s reduce our risk.

John F. Hultquist
March 24, 2011 9:24 pm

Robb876 says:
March 24, 2011 at 5:49 pm Yeah yeah …

Please explain these charts:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/
By my count the zero line has been crossed 14 times since 1979. If you use Dr. S’s graphic calculator, found here
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps
and click ch05 v2 and then 2010, 2011, and Average . . .
. . . the result says – let me look at that again – Colder!
So, WUWT?

Brian H
March 25, 2011 1:36 am

Chris Riley says:
March 24, 2011 at 7:02 am
I have always been perplexed by the fact that the potential benefits of both warming and a high atmospheric concentration of CO2. The proper calculation for the Pigovian fee on carbon emissions is; C (total societal cost of emissions)-B (total societal benefit of emissions) = optimal fee for emitting. This is a simple subtraction problem, first grade math. Billions of dollars have been spent on extrapolations of short term trends to measure C. Large quantities of advance math have been used, and new statistical techniques have been invented for measuring C. Yet in the final analysis, these mathematically literate scientists fail at the first grade math problem by concluding that C-B=C

The problem is, you see, that when B>C, it yields a negative fee. Which means CO2 emissions should be subsidized. I’ve been tweaking the Warmists for some time by calling for free coal-plant-generated electricity for all. That’s the true logical conclusion!

Magnus
March 25, 2011 4:09 am

WTF, mr. Watts? Why are you taking this study as saying something positive? I thought you got the “bizarro-memo” in January stating the new way of relating to real world findings: cold is the new warm and green is no longer good. It’s all about badgreen and warmcold in 2011. Oh, and we’re now all for the new cleancoal when it comes to energy… and Kilemanjaro is snowmelting. Don’t believe your eyes and the observations. Always let the experts perform their “tricks” first!

Mike
March 25, 2011 6:10 am

John F. Hultquist says: March 24, 2011 at 9:24 pm
Please explain these charts: http://www.drroyspencer.com/
John,
The first two graphs are over a very short time frame which is why no trend is obvious. The third from 1979 to 2011 does show a warming trend. Yes there are strong natural variations as well. But the trend is clear. The world we live in is warming. There is really no dispute about that even with WUWT. The depute is over why Earth is warming and what the impacts will be. There are some positive changes: at first there was some greening. Maybe we will be able to swim in the Arctic (sarcasm). But the negative effects will over whelm the positive. See here or here for example.
What would be so bad about reducing income and other taxes and taxing GHG emissions instead? Why have disincentives to work and invest when instead we could give incentives to conserve energy?
If you don’t trust liberals see http://www.rep.org . AGW is real, serious and solvable – and it is not a liberal/socialist plot.

Ralph
March 25, 2011 7:31 am

.
Indeed. Just reading an aviation crash analysis, which was getting worried by the huge increase in goose numbers. Apparently they have quadrupled in the last 40 years. Standby for more landings on the Hudson.
.

Theo Goodwin
March 25, 2011 8:04 am

Robb876 says:
March 24, 2011 at 3:13 pm
“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….”
Well, we have been steady or cooling for fifteen years now. That is climate, right? So, we need to wait decades before we conclude that climate is warming, right?

Francisco
March 25, 2011 10:35 am

Since the relation between CO2 concentrations and plant growth is much better understood and infinitely easier to test empircally than the relation (if any) between CO2 and global temperatures, it would be very helpful if a serious study were undertaken to try to figure out how much plant stunting, plant loss, reduction in agricultural productivity and general loss of life in all forms would occur worldwide if we managed to reduce CO2 concentrations by say 100 ppm, to pre-industrial levels. Couple that CO2 reduction with a possible drop of some 0.7 C in temperatures (assuming for the sake of argument that all temperature increase during the 20th century was caused by CO2), and the resulting picture in terms of global destruction of life might be rather huge. It would be interesting to see how those who call themselves “greens” might justify the vast un-greening caused by such a process — a process they keep claiming is the only road to our salvation.
I suspect they are not in any hurry for such a helpful study to be funded and undertaken. It’s much more fun to tinker with climate models and attribute all extreme weather events to CO2.

March 25, 2011 11:43 am

Like I said before: I don’t think CO2 has any warming effect at all. You can find that out for yourself in the place where you live, provided you follow the same procedure that I did here:
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/assessment-of-global-warming-and-global-warming-caused-by-greenhouse-forcings-in-pretoria-south-africa
the conclusion of the report here is: there is no warming caused by the increase in GHG’s of the past 4 decades.
I double checked these results with those of stations in Spain, N-Ireland and in the dry months in La Paz, Bolivia. I found always the same results: minima have declined or remained unchanged whereas maxima climbed and means have essentially remained unchanged.
I also believe more carbon dioxide is better, to get more greenery and better crops.
http://www.letterdash.com/HenryP/more-carbon-dioxide-is-ok-ok

Ralph
March 25, 2011 11:49 am

Hey Mike,
“AGW is real, serious and solvable – and it is not a liberal/socialist plot.”
The “well it is getter greener now, but just you wait” argument is more and more obvious that you are not being logical, but part of a belief system.
Jesus didn’t return this year, but just you wait…

Bruce Cobb
March 25, 2011 2:55 pm

Robb876 says:
March 24, 2011 at 5:49 pm
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?
“30 years of consecutively hotter decades”? Sure, I guess if you want to cherry-pick your time period, and conflate years with decades we have warmed some. The warming is not manmade, though. Try this:
http://www.intellicast.com/Community/Content.aspx?ref=rss&a=167

eadler
March 26, 2011 5:43 pm

First of all, no one doubts that all other things being equal, and increase in CO2 will result in an increase in plant growth. The concern with CO2 is because of rapid temperature increases, rising sea levels, the occurrence of extreme weather events such as flooding and droughts and acidification of oceans. Since the increase over the last century or so has been about 0.75C versus the 3C or more expected, and the effects are not necessarily linear in temperature, the increase in plant growth observed so far, by itself, does not indicate what the future will bring.
Looking at the abstract of the LAI paper, we see that the increase is 0.0013/year or a total increase of 0.034 over the past 26 years. The LAI is the fractional increase in ground area covered by leaves. This small change in the fractional area is supposedly detected by satellite spectrometry. Because of the paywall, I don’t have access to the full paper. Does anyone know if the data on the stability of the satellite detection efficiency over the last 26 years was given in the paper?
Also, global brightening over that time period, could be responsible for the change in these measurements in addition to or instead of the CO2 increase. Did the authors consider that?

March 26, 2011 6:17 pm

eadler says:
“The concern with CO2 is because of rapid temperature increases, rising sea levels, the occurrence of extreme weather events such as flooding and droughts and acidification of oceans.”
There is no evidence that CO2 has caused rapid temperature increases. The planet’s temperature has risen a very mild 0.7°C, as the earth continues to emerge from the LIA. That small rise has taken ≈160 years.
Numerous such rises and declines have taken place over the past 10 millennia, many with much sharper trends. The temperature has often risen and fallen by several degrees Celsius, in a much shorter time span, and with no correllation to preceding CO2 levels; in fact, CO2 levels follow temperature changes. There is no evidence – none – showing that the current rise in temperature and CO2 is anything more than a coincidence.
Next, the rise in sea levels since the last stadial has been slowing, thus falsifying any claims that CO2 causes sea levels to accelerate. The same is true of extreme weather events, which are becoming less common. CO2 has nothing to do with extreme weather, which is after all, weather.
Finally, the ocean acidification canard was dembunked here by Willis Eschenbach and David Middleton. The oceans’ immense buffering capacity easily handles the tiny atmospheric trace gas CO2 without altering its pH.
In short, every claim eadler made is wrong, with the one exception of increased agricultural productivity. There is simply no verifiable evidence showing that carbon dioxide has caused any problems at all, and it is misrepresentation to claim otherwise.

eadler
March 26, 2011 7:53 pm

Smokey says:
March 26, 2011 at 6:17 pm
eadler says:
“The concern with CO2 is because of rapid temperature increases, rising sea levels, the occurrence of extreme weather events such as flooding and droughts and acidification of oceans.”
There is no evidence that CO2 has caused rapid temperature increases. The planet’s temperature has risen a very mild 0.7°C, as the earth continues to emerge from the LIA. That small rise has taken ≈160 years.

I clearly stated in the later part of my post, that this is a concern for the future not the present. The rate of rise has accelerated over the past 40 years.

Numerous such rises and declines have taken place over the past 10 millennia, many with much sharper trends. The temperature has often risen and fallen by several degrees Celsius, in a much shorter time span, and with no correllation to preceding CO2 levels; in fact, CO2 levels follow temperature changes. There is no evidence – none – showing that the current rise in temperature and CO2 is anything more than a coincidence.

The claim that there is no evidence is clearly false. Instead of debating the evidence that exists, you prefer to deny there is any. In fact, scientists have published analysis of the ice age cycles, showing that CO2 is an important feedback mechanism.
Next, the rise in sea levels since the last stadial has been slowing, thus falsifying any claims that CO2 causes sea levels to accelerate. The same is true of extreme weather events, which are becoming less common. CO2 has nothing to do with extreme weather, which is after all, weather.
Finally, the ocean acidification canard was dembunked here by Willis Eschenbach and David Middleton. The oceans’ immense buffering capacity easily handles the tiny atmospheric trace gas CO2 without altering its pH.
In short, every claim eadler made is wrong, with the one exception of increased agricultural productivity. There is simply no verifiable evidence showing that carbon dioxide has caused any problems at all, and it is misrepresentation to claim otherwise.

Despite the claims of Eschenbach, ocean acidification by CO2 has been a process understood for many years, and has been measured very conclusively.
http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/lsuatoni/why_scientists_agree_ocean_aci.html
It is also false that droughts and floods have decreased in recent years as you claim.