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.
Thanks Anthony, you found a gold nugget among the rubble in CSIRO.
The Earth is going green in spite of the Greens!
Thanks to those that pointed out that there are still scientists working for mankind rather than Australian Political gain in parts of the CSIRO, I do wonder how this paper will be received on the Conversation, the but, but, butters will be out in force.
AndyG55 says:
July 8, 2013 at 4:00 pm
Is spot on about the recruitment building of a confirmation bias, by the left leaning in the leadership of some sections of the CSIRO.
Many scientists hope that they are rid of this element that has had influence beyond their expertise with a new political change at the next elections, and there are signs that the new Labor lite leader KRudd is rapidly adopting the coalition policies on adaptation.
indrdev200 says:
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 like thousands of years ago…
+++
I checked out the site your name links to. The article “Harnessing Unlimited Hydropower: SOLUTION TO POWER CRISIS:” describes a perpetual motion machine or sorts. It’s nonsense.
For the column of water to turn the turbines, the water must decelerate – reducing the force of gravity on the remaining water. Therefore the “G-force” is reduced equal to the force used up to move the turbine.
> pat says:
>July 8, 2013 at 9:26 am
>In fact all zones have had a measurable increase in biomass.
The researchers reported “many.”
> Which will often be followed by an increase in atmospheric moisture.
Not in this case. The reason that increased CO2 allows plant growth in the desert, is that it allows the plant to be more conservative of water. So transpiration is also reduced.
>These are good things.
Good for productivity. Bad for biodiversity.
Cool down people …its just a computer model…
How can you claim it is due to increase in CO2, if not made water available? If soil and the sun are also not available?
________________________________
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”
Please explain how increasing levels of CO2 can significantly cause warming when the level of CO2 has risen considerably over the last 17 years while global temperatures stayed the same.
If a natural force counteracts the alleged warming influence of CO2 completely, what is this force; and why would we have to worry about the alleged warming influence of CO2 if natural forces can overwhelm it completely and if the models used to predict the warming have demonstrably failed to forecast the actual temperature development.
You must at a certain point stare your own intellectual ruin in the face. It doesn’t get easier by waiting.
Not just the deserts, but the whole planet is ‘greening’. Biomass is making a comeback from a near miss with fatal CO2 famine.
This is wonderful news for mankind. But it’s terrible news for the greenies. Now there’s an irony for you…
It’s also interesting to look at areas which have become less green, e.g. central Australia, and the northern boundaries. Does anyone have an explanation for this?
Chris
Man muß das Wahre immer wiederholen, weil auch der Irrtum um uns her immer wieder gepredigt wird und zwar nicht von einzelnen, sondern von der Masse, in Zeitungen und Enzyklopädien, auf Schulen und Universitäten. Überall ist der Irrtum obenauf, und es ist ihm wohl und behaglich im Gefühl der Majorität, die auf seiner Seite ist.
(Goethe zu Eckermann)
One always has to repeat the truth, because also the error around us is preached again and again, not of individuals but of the mass, in newspapers and encyclopedias, in schools and universities. Throughout the error is on top, and it is well with him and feel comfortable in the majority, which is on his side.
(Goethe to Eckermann)
rabbit says:
July 8, 2013 at 9:53 am
Vegetation cools the atmosphere both directly through transpiration and through increased cloud cover. And as Ashby pointed out, vegetation is also a CO2 sink.
So the question is how much does this counteract CO2 greenhouse warming. A little? A lot?
Very important point. On land, vegetation has a significant cooling effect, by opposing aridity, transpiring water and maintaining moist humic soils. The spread of plants and trees in the Devonian-Carboniferous cooled the climate to some extent and de-aridified much land surface, by humifying weathered silicates (left over from the Cryogenian glaciations) changing sand and dust into soil.
This effect will be particularly important in marginal arid regions where the difference between some plants and no plants will make the biggest difference to the hydrological cycle. And arid regions are precisely where the CO2 greening is in evidence. Thus I think you have identified a significant negative feedback. CO2 MIGHT exert a warming effect by radiative physics (not proven, only modeled). However this responsive cooling due to increased vegetation especially in arid regions, is probably on a safer scientific basis.
Hari Seldon says:
July 9, 2013 at 12:51 am
Cool down people …its just a computer model…
CO2 warms computer models. But not the climate – or people.
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.
CO2 is breathed in by plants through stomata to reduce CO2 to make biomass, the basis of 99% of life on earth. This is biology.
The speculative hypothesis of CO2 causing atmospheric backradiation cooling through some arcane IR photon pin-ball is physics (theoretical physics).
They are different things. We know that CO2 levels are close to a lower limit which would restrict plant growth. Increased plant growth, decreased stomatal density and resultant decreased water loss allowing better drought tolerance, are all well known and experimentally proven effects on plants of increased CO2.
By contrast the pin-ball theoretical physics of CO2 and IR back-and-forth radiation is speculative and unresolved.
Some free English advice – clearly not your first language:
1. Vegetation, not vegetation
2. Affect is a verb, effect is a noun. So you can say either “have AN EFFECT ON the climate” or “AFFECT the climate”, but not have affect the climate.
That’s just affectation 🙂
Never, ever, suggest suicide, even in jest.
I noticed that too. It’s not necessarily the case that biomass is being lost though. Perhaps the key is this, from Dr Donohue:
If the adjustments are not accurate, it’ll cause the CO2-attributed change in green foliage to be incorrect. Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have risen across the planet, so we should see the positive benefits across the planet, albeit at varied levels. If Donohue’s team’s model shows REDUCED green foliage in the tundra due to rising CO2, it suggests that one or more of the adjustments for other influences have either overstated a positive impact or understated a negative impact, leaving CO2-attributed benefits of less than zero.
Logging and urbanisation is pretty obvious from satellites, so this negative impact shouldn’t be understated, though other land use changes may not be so clear. Precipitation is easy to measure and record, although if data is sparse in some areas and therefore smeared across a wider area it could cause inaccuracies. The amount of light, presumably from cloud cover, may be worth looking into to establish whether there are any errors.
However, the obvious candidate is the air temperature adjustment. The tundra would certainly be able to support greater levels of vegetation with moderately-to-significantly higher temperatures, so we’re looking at a positive impact. Therefore, to get a negative residual effect from higher CO2, the increase in sub-polar temperatures must have been overstated. Please allow me to repeat that:
THE INCREASE IN SUB-POLAR TEMPERATURES MUST HAVE BEEN OVERSTATED.
It would be interesting to see how Donohue’s team have incorporated air temperatures into their model, as well as the source of their temperature data. Either they’ve incorrectly adjusted for temperature-related vegetation growth or their data source exaggerates warming. I’d be tempted to focus most efforts on the second of these options.
Right. I beg to differ.
Perhaps those who are promoting this idea should “come down to earth” and look at what is actually happening. That pretty, green colored map is nonsense. I offer as an alternative the U.S. drought monitor here: http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/ And I also offer the photograph link below.
Somebody needs to tell the sand dunes in the picture only 15 miles from my urban doorstep that they are supposed to be greening up due to all that increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Sorry, but plants do not live by CO2 alone; they also need moisture. I live in the southwest right on the edge of areas that are marked as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought.
The picture in this photo was taken only a few days ago near my home: http://www.flickr.com/photos/98624996@N05/with/9245614979/ Let me know if you see any green in that picture. Those old dunes in the photo are just about ready to start moving again.
@jbird
The map shows what purports to be the residual change in vegetation due to CO2 increase, not the aggregate vegetation change from all factors.
@phlogiston;
Your correction of vegitation was confusing because you misspelled the misspelling. 😉
jbird;
For a given amount of water, plants do better (greener) with higher CO2, which permits smaller stomata, less evaporative throughput and hence losses. It’s basic physics.
@Brian H
“For a given amount of water…..” etc., etc.
Tell me something I don’t already know. The headline and the world map are misleading. The deserts aren’t suddenly greening up because of increased CO2, which is the impression given.
In fact, as parts of the world ultimately turn colder and more permanent ice forms at the poles and higher elevations, we can expect the deserts to grow. This process may have already started.
phlogiston Hari Seldon was the name of the modeler of the future in Isaac Asimov’s Foundation and Empire series. While the sociohistorical projections were uncanny, they did not continue to conform to reality.
1975 ‘Endangered Atmosphere’ Conference: Where the Global Warming Hoax Was Born http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2007/sci_techs/3423init_warming_hoax.html
In related matters http://www.waronscience.com/links.php
Pentagon Propaganda Gets a Pass http://www.prwatch.org/node/8472 Many of the pundits are lobbyists, executives or consultants for military contractors.
And then there is Moving the Overton Window – the game of changing what seems reasonable. Logic alone in such a milieu is somewhat like relying on a knife in a gunfight. That is what the game of pretending to forecast the future is really about.
““Ongoing research is required if we are to fully comprehend the potential extent and severity of such secondary effects.””
Interpretation: We know you yahoos see this as a good thing, but believe me, there’s gonna’ be Hell to pay!!
Allan Savory: How to green the world’s deserts and reverse climate change:
Desertification solutions….
I was on a pipeline job in Cobar , NSW in 86. The only green vegetation west of there, towards Broken Hill was along the roadside where the overnight condensation ran off the road . Had to watch out for animals feeding there at night. Lots of roadkill.
jbird says:
July 9, 2013 at 6:33 am
Right. I beg to differ.
Perhaps those who are promoting this idea should “come down to earth” and look at what is actually happening. That pretty, green colored map is nonsense. I offer as an alternative the U.S. drought monitor here: http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/ And I also offer the photograph link below.
Somebody needs to tell the sand dunes in the picture only 15 miles from my urban doorstep that they are supposed to be greening up due to all that increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Sorry, but plants do not live by CO2 alone; they also need moisture. I live in the southwest right on the edge of areas that are marked as “extreme” to “exceptional” drought.
++++++++++++
Let me fix these previously ridiculous statements for you:
(Those who are promoting this idea should understand what is actually happening.) That pretty, green colored map is (NOT) nonsense. (The U.S. drought monitor here: http://droughtmonitor.unl.edu/ is due to colder and hence relatively drier air from the cooler West Coast.) As relatively dry cool air gets much drier as it warms. Few clouds from the dry air means more solar irradiance gets through.
(Nobody needs to tell the sand dunes in the picture only 15 miles from my urban doorstep that they would be greening due to all that increased CO2 in the atmosphere if the drought were not as extreme as it was.) …plants do not live by CO2 alone; they also need moisture.
(And thank for understanding that extreme drought has an effect on plant growth even though it benefits from the extra CO2. No one is saying that plants can survive with drought conditions better than moist conditions. That would be absurd. In fact, increased CO2 tends to mitigate the effects of drought, which seems to be a good thing.
“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.”
How about an actual citation — you know, pub date, a URL reference and all that?