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.
Jokes aside, all the above makes it very clear that Warmists fail to understand the effects of co2, water and warmth on the biosphere. Or they do understand but live in denial of observations.
It is sceptics who insist on all the science and current observations. That’s all we need.
Steven M, what have you been drinking?
@Jimbo –
my apologies for the typos – I’m a bad typist, as I’m sure other posters her4e have noticed. I meant to say “psychologists”. Sorry for any confusion
But carbon dioxide currently has a huge effect on climate. Just look at the past 16 years on no warming. It was caused by carbon dioxide. hehe.
I hope that when the great global warming con job is over you will evaluate your gullibility.
Steven Mosher says:
July 8, 2013 at 3:45 pm
“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
====
yeah but always with warm….not cold
280 is limiting……and that’s where we were
@ur momisugly Otter,
Re CSIRO… you have to realise that there are many branches of the CSIRO. The branch related to climate has been taken over fully by the warmist agenda, The boss of that section is a rabid warmist bureaucrat, not a scientist at all, and over time has employed only people who agree with him.
Most other branches have not been infected to anywhere near the same degree.
CSIRO still do some really good stuff.. just not in the climate area.
John, you forgot the /sarc tag; people may think you’re serious. Alternatively, if you’re serious and you can’t stand the pain, feel free to end it by ending yourself. More room for the rest of us.
Mosher has not been drinking, he has been smoking something funny. Just say no.
Jimbo says:
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.
I can assure you when it comes to rainfall, the climate models have ZERO skill !!
Even less skill than they have with regard to temperature !! and that’s saying something.
What they do is generate as wide a range as possible, so once something happens, they can say their models predicted it..
That worked well for temps didn’t it ;-)))
Don’t forget that they are only measuring above surface greening, there will also be an increase in soil biomass
Barry Cullen says: … THE main GHG, and we’re all doomed! It’s worse than I thought! ===>>> ARGHhhh!
Lady Life Grows says: @ur momisugly July 8, 2013 at 11:05 am
I copied your link, http://originalsonicbloom.biz/ into a new google tab and got GoDaddy.com (Domain for sale) but in Bing it brought up the website. This also happened yesterday with Google when I looked for a http://www.i-sis.org.uk/... article. WEIRD.
Oh dear – CO2 is now to blame for loss of desert habitat!! This will never do. Add desert nomads to the list of climate refugees.
This feigned climate outrage brought to you by common sense – the solution of last resort for the full-tilt climate alarmist.
CSIRO used to be one of the most respect scientific bodies in the world. That is until recently when it has been stripped of its neutrality. A national disaster. IT IS PRO MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING!
Did anyone else notice that the area where biomass is losing is in the subpolar regions?
Willis Eschenbach says:
July 8, 2013 at 11:49 am
Global farm production is worth on the order of 3 trillion dollars annually. Assuming that it’s not just the arid lands but all lands that have benefitted from the increased CO2, that’s a net social benefit from CO2 of $300 billion dollars per year….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There has certainly been a net increase in yield up until the 1970’s where the Mauna Loa CO2 graph shows the 1970 @ur momisugly ~ 330 ppm
…..
FOR THE USA
In 1847 – Irrigation was begun in Utah
In 1849 – Mixed chemical fertilizers were sold commercially between 1890 and 1899 the Average annual consumption of commercial fertilizer: 1,845,900 tons. By 1910 to 1919 the average annual consumption of commercial fertilizer had increased to 6,116,700 tons.
Between 1900 and 1920 extensive experimental work was carried out to breed disease-resistant varieties of plants, to improve plant yield and quality. In 1924 the first hybrid corn was sold and in 1926 the “Hi-Bred Corn Company” was founded.
In 1930 2-1/2 acres produced 100 bushels of corn and 5 acres produce 100 bushels of wheat.
By 1940 more than 90 percent of the corn raised in North America was raised from hybrid seed.
In 1945 2 acres produce 100 bushels of corn and between 1940 and 1949 the average annual consumption of commercial fertilizer: 13,590,466 tons. And in 1945 to 1955 there was an increased use of herbicides and pesticides. So you can use 1940 at 2 acres producing 100 bushels of corn as a benchmark for ‘Modern Farming’ using tractors, irrigation, fertilizers and hybrid seed. By 1955 4 acres produced 100 bushels of wheat.
By 1975 1-1/8 acres produced 100 bushels of corn and 3 acres produced 100 bushels of wheat.
By 1987 You had the same yield, 1-1/8 acres produce 100 bushels of corn and 3 acres produced 100 bushels of wheat.
References:
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blfarm1.htm
http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/blfarm5.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Hi-Bred
sergeiMK says:
July 8, 2013 at 10:00 am
So an small increase in a trace gas can affect the vegitation – but the same increase can absolutely not have affect the climate!!.
Very strange, truly a magical gas.
++++++
And dbstealey says:
July 8, 2013 at 10:07 am
sergeiMK,
Yes, that is true. You can see that at current concentrations, CO2 has no measurable effect on global temperature.
But it does have a measurable effect on plant life.
+++++++++++
dbstealey fixed it for you. You set up a strawman, and said “not have a affect on climate…”
The effect you are alluding to is increasing temperature. And as dbstealey points out, there is no evidence of an increasing effect on temperature. Of course climate is affected by CO2 –and it’s not been shown to be catastrophic in terms of temperature increase. It’s inarguable that more CO2 is conducive to more vegetation. Science bears that out, else why would greenhouses require CO2 to be pumped in to get more produce?
The successful argument requires NOT putting words in the mouths of skeptics if you want to be taken seriously. If you’re just trying to cause an argument, you’ll have to do better than that.
Mario
Jimbo says:
July 8, 2013 at 12:17 pm
Does anyone have an idea what the effect on water vapour would be?….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The plants reach out and grab it out of the air…. /sarc sort of (It is what cacti do)
plants lose ~ 90% of the water they suck out of the earth as water vapor link This is why Leucaena leucocephala (bean tree) is sometimes used to reclaim arid areas. Being in the bean family it is a nitrogen fixer. (It is also considered a weed and very invasive ie darn hard to kill)
Bill Illis says:
July 8, 2013 at 2:37 pm
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.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
They eat tofu and don’t know soya beans are legumes that have symbiotic nitrogen-fixing bacteria in their root nodules? For SHAME….
My white clover has just about taken over my farm this year, I think it is trying to climb in the window… Quick turn the goats lose…. ARGHHhhhh…..
Jimbo says:
July 8, 2013 at 4:08 pm
Mosher has not been drinking, he has been smoking something funny. Just say no.
=======
roger that…….
denniswingo says:
July 8, 2013 at 5:32 pm
Did anyone else notice that the area where biomass is losing is in the subpolar regions?
====
yes…should be increasing if springs are coming sooner
snark/
Make water available everywhere in and on dry land we can get greenery even if CO2 is not increased like thousands of years ago. Soil will hold water stopping sea level rise and increase evaporation for regular rain cycle (the most effective cooling system of Nature) and lowering temperature rise. Moisture contents on soil surface of the earth control our vegetation, rain cycle and global temperature thus climate as a whole. For solution to climate change and power crisis please click on my name.
Ah, so this is what you’re reduced to Steve? Lumping two opposites together as an equivalent comparison?
On the subject of air heat capacity there is CO2, and then there is water vapor which dwarfs it by volume. There is an ant and an elephant in the room.
On the subject of photosynthesis there is CO2, and, well nothing else. To make an equivalence here you need to specify another ingredient of photosynthesis that plants can use that is the elephant to the CO2 ant. Plants are filters designed by mother nature to suck up only the CO2, but warming of the atmosphere is not limited to only available CO2, thank God for that. Consequently, metering the CO2 against plant growth results in a controlled experiment, where raising and lowering its levels provide true correlation. This is unlike the atmosphere, something the AGW hoaxsters capitalize on by slinging together graphs of trace CO2 volume versus temperature.
Your comparison might be better if you were talking about CO2 being either too scarce in an actual plant greenhouse ( so that plants cannot get enough to survive ) versus too voluminous ( so that saturation occurs and adding further CO2 no longer provides measurable increased growth ).
Steve, which side, too scarce or too voluminous, is the atmosphere nearest? Be honest! The fact that your buddies all over the world exemplified by kooks like McKibben want it back to 350 ppm or less, uncomfortably close to limiting and preventing plant growth is very troubling.
P.S. I know you are just having a go at “skeptics”. So does everyone else I suspect. But there is a wise old adage that states for humor to actually be funny, there needs to be some truth in it. You weren’t funny.
indrdev200 says: @ur momisugly July 8, 2013 at 6:27 pm
Make water available everywhere in and on dry land we can get greenery even if CO2 is not increased….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Mankind has been doing that for thousands of years. It is called irrigation and goes back to 6000 B.C. and the capture of the flood waters of the Nile at least.
Query to CSIRO regarding the figure.
If the survey is based on satellite imagery, imagery should be available for the “grey bits”.
Even if an area is sand or snow, vegetation has either increased, decreased or not changed.
Where is “0%” on the scale?