From CSIRO and “increased CO2 has benefits” department:
![High_Resolution[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/07/high_resolution1.png?quality=75)
In findings based on satellite observations, CSIRO, in collaboration with the Australian National University (ANU), found that this CO2 fertilisation correlated with an 11 per cent increase in foliage cover from 1982-2010 across parts of the arid areas studied in Australia, North America, the Middle East and Africa, according to CSIRO research scientist, Dr Randall Donohue.
“In Australia, our native vegetation is superbly adapted to surviving in arid environments and it consequently uses water very efficiently,” Dr Donohue said. “Australian vegetation seems quite sensitive to CO2 fertilisation.
The fertilisation effect occurs where elevated CO2 enables a leaf during photosynthesis, the process by which green plants convert sunlight into sugar, to extract more carbon from the air or lose less water to the air, or both.
This, along with the vast extents of arid landscapes, means Australia featured prominently in our results.”
“While a CO2 effect on foliage response has long been speculated, until now it has been difficult to demonstrate,” according to Dr Donohue.
“Our work was able to tease-out the CO2 fertilisation effect by using mathematical modelling together with satellite data adjusted to take out the observed effects of other influences such as precipitation, air temperature, the amount of light, and land-use changes.”
The fertilisation effect occurs where elevated CO2 enables a leaf during photosynthesis, the process by which green plants convert sunlight into sugar, to extract more carbon from the air or lose less water to the air, or both.
If elevated CO2 causes the water use of individual leaves to drop, plants in arid environments will respond by increasing their total numbers of leaves. These changes in leaf cover can be detected by satellite, particularly in deserts and savannas where the cover is less complete than in wet locations, according to Dr Donohue.
“On the face of it, elevated CO2 boosting the foliage in dry country is good news and could assist forestry and agriculture in such areas; however there will be secondary effects that are likely to influence water availability, the carbon cycle, fire regimes and biodiversity, for example,” Dr Donohue said.
“Ongoing research is required if we are to fully comprehend the potential extent and severity of such secondary effects.”
This study was published in the US Geophysical Research Letters journal and was funded by CSIRO’s Sustainable Agriculture Flagship, Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, the Australian Research Council and Land & Water Australia.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
-No offence meant to those of a Chrisitan faith or any other faith.
DirkH–I apologize. I’m not Australian; I’m from the US. I should have said:
How diabolical so many countries fighting CO2 are having so much benefit.
(Only in a post-normal society would some hypothetical catastrophy garner more attention and influence than actual measurements on the ground.)
Report on the greening of the Sahel from the GWPF
http://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/mueller-sahel.pdf
Another nail in the coffin of agw. Do you hear the cracking in the Berlin wall of climatology, greenies? Whole sections are beginning to list and lean. I can’t wait for the enviable collapse.
Willis Eschenbach says:
July 8, 2013 at 11:49 am
—–
According to the warmista, CO2 is all harm and no benefit.
Even mentioning the possibility of benefit is enough to prove that you are a flat earther.
Proof please. CO² is a required gas but how have they proven that it is the sole contributor?
MarkW says:
July 8, 2013 at 11:42 am
Et tu MarkW. There is no proof that current co² levels are contributing noticeably to the warming of our planet. If you have it then please publish it immediately.
Stephen Richards says:
July 8, 2013 at 1:25 pm
“Proof please. CO² is a required gas but how have they proven that it is the sole contributor?”
It was well known that this would happen. It’s even a prediction by the IPCC. Maybe the only one they got right. But then it was a no-brainer.
This is old, old news. I wonder why it is getting play now? Do I detect a need for more research money? Is the wind blowing the other way?
So awhile back, we were treated to the Ted Talk about desertification of our planet, and what steps should be taken to stop it. It was said to be the biggest problem facing our generation, if I recall correctly.
Now…it’s BEING corrected, but we have to STOP correcting it?
Someone needs to send these folks a playbook so they can all get on the same page.
Jim
Does this mean that coal miners will have to start getting compensation for their contribution from the UN, or somebody?
Ashby says:
July 8, 2013 at 9:32 am
Interesting. I would think such an effect would also be somewhat cumulative e.g. those greened deserts may be capable of absorbing more CO2 over the near future as the plant density increases, thereby increasing natural carbon sinks.
I’m familiar with the green area covering much of Western Australia. It is sparse scrub that becomes more dense as you go south and west with increasing rainfall. Over most of this area both plant size and plant density could easily increase by several times. So, I’d say it’s highly likely that it’s an increasing carbon sink.
Quick question to Australian readers: is not CSIRO more or less an alarmist bunch? I have to wonder if they see the irony in this.
I would suggest a detailed study of atmospheric OXYGEN concentrations (with adequate replicates please) to parts per million now that evidence of increased global primary productivity has been demonstrated. I would not be surprised by an increase proportional to CO2 at all.
The side effects of increased oxygen concentrations are larger animals, more ecosystem fires, more energetic corrosion to name a few. THE HORROR !! Anthropogenic Global Oxygenation (AGO) must be stopped….oh wait …..never mind.
BTW, I would deny that CO2 increase from 300 to 400 ppm has any significant effect on climate and I dare you to provide data PROVING it with statistically significance. Feel free to join the horde flogging tiny changes in the face of huge statistical noise and large & unknown error. I wish you luck.
This is where the pro-AGW people come back with “nitrogen will then be a limiting factor so the increased CO2 will have no effect”. Seen it 100 times now.
Joel Hammer says:
July 8, 2013 at 2:03 pm
“This is old, old news. I wonder why it is getting play now? Do I detect a need for more research money? Is the wind blowing the other way?”
It’s new data. And it’s an ongoing process. This greening has only just begun. Hey, the plants have a lot of CO2 to get out of the air. We only need to take care that some idiot doesn’t spend trillions on CO2 scrubbers. Would be a pity to waste the money and the CO2.
oh no…the tipping point
CO2 makes more plants….more plants increase humidity/water vapor…..water vapor makes temps rise…the feedback
we’re all doomed
I’m going to Dairy Queen….
Otter says:
July 8, 2013 at 2:32 pm
Quick question to Australian readers: is not CSIRO more or less an alarmist bunch? I have to wonder if they see the irony in this.
Sadly the CSIRO had fallen in with people of bad character.
Fortunately some of them still honour the the scientific method.
And I imagine those will be the ones 10 years from now standing over the dead corpses of a lot of climastrology theories.
BBould says (July 8, 2013 at 9:38 am): “Do we get the same CO2 readings from all over the globe?”
CO2 measured at the South Pole is within a few ppm of Mauna Loa. This set of satellite maps shows seasonal and year-to-year variations in the atmospheric CO2 column; note the compressedcolor scale chosen to emphasize small differences.
Stephen Richards says (July 8, 2013 at 1:25 pm): “Proof please. CO² is a required gas but how have they proven that it is the sole contributor?”
1) The increase appears to be global, so regional causes, such as increased rainfall, are unlikely.
2) CO2 has a known fertilizing effect on many plants. This is an old paper, but it reports experimentally observed increased yields in soybean and rice with increasing atmospheric CO2. It also references other papers reporting increased growth of many–but not all–tested plant species.
CO2 fertilization is tricky, because not all plants can take advantage of elevated CO2, and not all food crops increase their yield, or increase yield as much they increase total biomass. It would seem there is great potential for breeding/bioengineering new varieties of food crops that put more of their increased biomass into their seeds. Of course for non-food crops any increase in biomass is good news, whether or not the seed yield goes up.
What!!! Here is a climate model that predicts decreased vegetation for the Sahel. Then there follows another climate model predicting more rain for the Sahel.
but then we have….
and finally we have another climate model that says that the Sahel will get more or less rain.
All the above are entirely consistent with the most evil anthropogenic catastrophic global warming speculative hypothesis from Alice in Wonderland. Sheesh!
Maybe CSIRO and ANU have actually done something useful?
The hi-res image for my part of the world (NQ Dry Tropics) fits my observations. Up to 10% increase in “greening” of the coastal belt, mostly open woodland/savanna. Bits of it still get burnt, but recovery is more rapid. (Locally, average precipitation 2004-2012 only slightly above long-term average.) Some “neutral” areas up the slope of the (Great Dividing) Range, a few spots of -20% along the ridges. That may well coincide with “locked up” State forest areas. Access unavailable or prevented, no management, so the fuel load builds up, then burns off.
Oh no, the Sahel is dooooomed I tells ya. Carbon dioxide is a vegetation killer – we must act now.
Meanwhile over in the UK greenhouse growers have been observed pumping in 1,000ppm into their greenhouses. Psychologists have been called in to examine this strange behaviour by people who really should know better.
@Lady Life Grows –
Verywell and clearly and accurately said
@Willis –
Of course der Fuehrer hasn’t factored the “social cost” of his climate change idiocy, which could run to a good many trillion $ per year. And of course he will stubbornly deny that there are any benefits to increased CO2 in the atmosphere, habitual liar that he is.
“But it does have a measurable effect on plant life.”
its only a trace gas. therefore, by Sen IMhoff logic, it can have no effect. Also, the climate is too complex and chaotic for us to say anything for certain. We have seen times in the past with just as much green plants, therefore C02 cannot be the cause.
hehe
@Jimbo –
Have there been any fires or meltdowns in those greenhouses? Or even any measurable heating? /sarc
I hope your post about p[sychologies is untre – if it is, we are really living in a Alice and Wonderland-Big Brother world.