Inconvenient Study: CO2 fertilization greening the earth

In addition to increasing atmospheric CO2 causing plants to grow faster and increase yield (Commercial greenhouses inject CO2 into their greenhouse to increase yield and reduce growing time. The optimum level of CO2 for most plants is around 1000 ppm to 1200 ppm. A doubling of atmospheric CO2 increases cereal crop yields by roughly 30%.), increase CO2 also enables plants to use water more efficiently.
The reduction in plant evapo transrespiration due to increased atmospheric CO2 has three benefits. 1) Plants can survive in regions where there is less water (see greening up the desert) and 2) plants require less irrigation water, and 3) less water loss at the plant leaf leaves more water at the plant roots which significantly increases the amount of nitrogen producing bacteria at the plant roots.
Plants loss roughly 40% of the water they absorb due low levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. When atmospheric CO2 increases plants produce less stomata on their leaves to optimize CO2 absorption vs water loss.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/w7gy1cyyr5yey994/

Carbon dioxide effects on stomatal responses to the environment and water use by crops under field conditions
Reductions in leaf stomatal conductance with rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration ([CO2]) could reduce water use by vegetation and potentially alter climate. Crop plants have among the largest reductions in stomatal conductance at elevated [CO2]. The relative reduction in stomatal conductance caused by a given increase in [CO2] is often not constant within a day nor between days, but may vary considerably with light, temperature and humidity. Species also differ in response, with a doubling of [CO2] reducing mean midday conductances by 50% in others. Elevated [CO2] increases leaf area index throughout the growing season in some species. Simulations, and measurements in free air carbon dioxide enrichment systems both indicate that the relatively large reductions in stomatal conductance in crops would translate into reductions of <10% in evapotranspiration, partly because of increases in temperature and decreases in humidity in the air around crop leaves.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/05/030509084556.htm

Greenhouse Gas Might Green Up The Desert; Weizmann Institute Study Suggests That Rising Carbon Dioxide Levels Might Cause Forests To Spread Into Dry Environments
The Weizmann team found, to its surprise, that the Yatir forest is a substantial “sink” (CO2-absorbing site): its absorbing efficiency is similar to that of many of its counterparts in more fertile lands. These results were unexpected since forests in dry regions are considered to develop very slowly, if at all, and thus are not expected to soak up much carbon dioxide (the more rapidly the forest develops the more carbon dioxide it needs, since carbon dioxide drives the production of sugars). However, the Yatir forest is growing at a relatively quick pace, and is even expanding further into the desert.
Plants need carbon dioxide for photosynthesis, which leads to the production of sugars. But to obtain it, they must open pores in their leaves and consequently lose large quantities of water to evaporation. The plant must decide which it needs more: water or carbon dioxide. Yakir suggests that the 30 percent increase of atmospheric carbon dioxide since the start of the industrial revolution eases the plant’s dilemma. Under such conditions, the plant doesn’t have to fully open the pores for carbon dioxide to seep in – a relatively small opening is sufficient. Consequently, less water escapes the plant’s pores. This efficient water preservation technique keeps moisture in the ground, allowing forests to grow in areas that previously were too dry.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html

The green shoots of recovery are showing up on satellite images of regions including the Sahel, a semi-desert zone bordering the Sahara to the south that stretches some 2,400 miles (3,860 kilometers).
Images taken between 1982 and 2002 revealed extensive regreening throughout the Sahel, according to a new study in the journal Biogeosciences.
The study suggests huge increases in vegetation in areas including central Chad and western Sudan.
In the eastern Sahara area of southwestern Egypt and northern Sudan, new trees—such as acacias—are flourishing, according to Stefan Kröpelin, a climate scientist at the University of Cologne’s Africa Research Unit in Germany.
“Shrubs are coming up and growing into big shrubs. This is completely different from having a bit more tiny grass,” said Kröpelin, who has studied the region for two decades
In 2008 Kröpelin—not involved in the new satellite research—visited Western Sahara, a disputed territory controlled by Morocco.
“The nomads there told me there was never as much rainfall as in the past few years,” Kröpelin said. “They have never seen so much grazing land.”
“Before, there was not a single scorpion, not a single blade of grass,” he said.
“Now you have people grazing their camels in areas which may not have been used for hundreds or even thousands of years. You see birds, ostriches, gazelles coming back, even sorts of amphibians coming back,” he said.
“The trend has continued for more than 20 years. It is indisputable.”

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090218135031.htm

Published today in Nature, the 40 year study of African tropical forests–one third of the world’s total tropical forest–shows that for at least the last few decades each hectare of intact African forest has trapped an extra 0.6 tonnes of carbon per year.
The reason why the trees are getting bigger and mopping up carbon is unclear. A leading suspect is the extra CO2 in the atmosphere itself, which may be acting like a fertiliser.
African forests have the highest mammal diversity of any ecosystem, with over 400 species, alongside over 10,000 species of plants and over 1,000 species of birds. According to the FAO deforestation rates are approximately 6 million hectares per year (almost 1% of total forest area per year), although other studies show the rate to be half that (approximately 0.5% of total forest area per year).

“The fallacy of the contrarian argument is two-fold. First, the many negative aspects of climate change, namely global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice, more severe tropical storms, etc. are not acknowledged. Second, studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising CO2 concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time,” says co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais”
Let’s see what the evidence says about Dr. Ciais’ arguments against the benefits of CO2 fertilization:
1) CO2 has perhaps contributed about 0.2C out of the total 0.81C of warming recovery since the end of the Little Ice Age in 1850, which is NOT a problem.
Dr. Ciais’s assertion is wrong.
2) Sea Level Rise has been STUCK at 6″ per CENTURY since 1800, regardless of CO2 levels.
Dr. Ciais’s assertion is wrong.
3) Arctic sea ice is likely cyclical following AMO 30-yr warm/cool cycles, and Antarctic land and sea ice are increasing.
Dr. Ciais’s assertion is wrong.
4) IPCC’s 2013 AR5 report admits NO increasing trends in frequency nor severity for 50~100 years (depending on weather phenomenon) of: hurricanes, cyclones, typhoons, tropical storms, sub-tropical storms, thunderstorms, tornadoes, hail, droughts and floods…
Dr. Ciais’s assertion is completely wrong.
5) Yes, the CO2 fertilization effect is an elegant logarithmic function with ZERO plant growth at or below 150ppm and peaks out at around 2,000ppm. 400ppm is still in the steep upward curve of the logarithmic function, which is why leaf growth has increased 25~50% just since 1980 from CO2 fertilization…
Dr. Ciais’s assertion is stupid and wrong.
Dr. Cilais’ arguments against the HUGE benefits of CO2 fertilization are ludicrous and entirely unsupported by the science, math, logic and empirical evidence!

so….more diabetes?