From NASA/GODDARD SPACE FLIGHT CENTER – (we covered this in a previous release, but this press release brings new information – Anthony)
From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.
An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States.
Green leaves use energy from sunlight through photosynthesis to chemically combine carbon dioxide drawn in from the air with water and nutrients tapped from the ground to produce sugars, which are the main source of food, fiber and fuel for life on Earth. Studies have shown that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide increase photosynthesis, spurring plant growth.
However, carbon dioxide fertilization isn’t the only cause of increased plant growth–nitrogen, land cover change and climate change by way of global temperature, precipitation and sunlight changes all contribute to the greening effect. To determine the extent of carbon dioxide’s contribution, researchers ran the data for carbon dioxide and each of the other variables in isolation through several computer models that mimic the plant growth observed in the satellite data.
Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect, said co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University. “The second most important driver is nitrogen, at 9 percent. So we see what an outsized role CO2 plays in this process.”
About 85 percent of Earth’s ice-free lands is covered by vegetation. The area covered by all the green leaves on Earth is equal to, on average, 32 percent of Earth’s total surface area – oceans, lands and permanent ice sheets combined. The extent of the greening over the past 35 years “has the ability to fundamentally change the cycling of water and carbon in the climate system,” said lead author Zaichun Zhu, a researcher from Peking University, China, who did the first half of this study with Myneni as a visiting scholar at Boston University.
Every year, about half of the 10 billion tons of carbon emitted into the atmosphere from human activities remains temporarily stored, in about equal parts, in the oceans and plants. “While our study did not address the connection between greening and carbon storage in plants, other studies have reported an increasing carbon sink on land since the 1980s, which is entirely consistent with the idea of a greening Earth,” said co-author Shilong Piao of the College of Urban and Environmental Sciences at Peking University.
While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. The gas, which traps heat in Earth’s atmosphere, has been increasing since the industrial age due to the burning of oil, gas, coal and wood for energy and is continuing to reach concentrations not seen in at least 500,000 years. The impacts of climate change include global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers and sea ice as well as more severe weather events.
The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”
“While the detection of greening is based on data, the attribution to various drivers is based on models,” said co-author Josep Canadell of the Oceans and Atmosphere Division in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Canberra, Australia. Canadell added that while the models represent the best possible simulation of Earth system components, they are continually being improved.
###
Read the paper at Nature Climate Change.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate3004.html
I thought one of the reasons we were all supposed to panic was because once we put the CO2 in the atmosphere, it stayed for decades or 100’s of years depending on who was trying to be most alarming. Now they’re admitting that plants can suck it all out almost immediately.
Seth Borenstein and George Monbiot will both find a ways to sell this obvious science as a gloom and doom affair. I have a morbid curiosity about how they will spin it. Plants are bad?
My trailing troll David Appell has a number of times grumbled ” who’s to say a greener world is better ? ” .
Wait’ll plants get the vote. I’m already seeking coccolithophore support; they don’t know it yet, but I’ve already infiltrated their inner policy councils.
========================
Oh I remember that, Bob. Something about the new growth being all weeds or something. Or weeds are growing too, like nature has to be controlled and weeds are “bad” and we’re all going to starve to death in a weed-infested world. Amazing.
NASA has also said that plants cool the planet….
Slightly off the “carbon greening” topic:
Last night at his victory speech, Donald Trump had a comment about CAGW: “Gimme a break!”, Trump said.
Trump won *every* county in all five states that voted last night.
Well, our first “Tornado Alley” weather front of the season was a bust. It fizzled out and was a very mild event as such things go. We will take them like that every time, if we can get them!
Won’t all these extra plants increase the amount of oxygen in the air? I can’t wait for the EPA to label oxygen a pollutant. Do you think the UN will demand a global oxygen tax?
R.H. “Won’t all these extra plants increase the amount of oxygen in the air?”
No
http://scrippso2.ucsd.edu/
“Atmospheric Oxygen Levels are Decreasing.
Oxygen levels are decreasing globally due to fossil-fuel burning. The changes are too small to have an impact on human health, but are of interest to the study of climate change and carbon dioxide.”
At the current rate of fossil fuel consumption we will never meaningfully impact the level of oxygen levels in the atmosphere.
Probably well-known to most readers, but the Idsos have been tracking this issue forever.
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/plantgrowth.php
A quick check shows that they don’t even have plankton in the A-Z subject search index. I guess plankton does not matter.
This ad just keeps looking more stupid
That ad is almost (but not quite) as stupid as “carbon free sugar”.
Okay, as long as we’re dealing in very basic questions like CO2 as plant food and other news flashes, a few other simple questions come to mind. 1) Is the impact on land plants linear with CO2 concentration?, 2) Is it linear with ocean plants?, 3) Does regional greening impact regional climate?
As I recall there are different types of plants that benefit more than others from CO2. I know plankton really loves the stuff. I tried to Google it to learn more but I keep running into articles on how to use CO2 to increase your indoor Weed yield.
Anthony a thought that falls in line here. How about Pictures from different bloggers on haw green the planet is getting.
Thank you for all you do.
Lets try “how” green.
Dag nabbit then thar country fangers.
This reminds me of an interview that was given to a commercial pot grower (in Colorado it’s legal to some degree) Behind the grower was a large tank marked CO2, ah yes keep that pot growing!
The current owners of the farmland formerly owned by my ancestors in Ontario now grow peppers in greenhouses with Co2 supplied by the truckload. I saw the fascinating operation several years ago.
In agriculture, plant nutrients are often classified into micro or macro-nutrients based on the relative concentration within the plant and corresponding scale of crop uptake. Micronutrient uptake is measured in oz/acre, macronutrient uptakes are a magnitude higher, pounds to hundreds of pounds per acre. I personally have been promoting the additional term “meganutrient” for nutrients such as CO2 that have crop uptake another magnitude higher – tons/acre.
Anyone seen the “Dog that isn’t barking…much”? The high res OCO2 global CO2 mapping platform launched by NASA in July of 2014? The NASA website now says it is only a 2 year project which means the mission to
“.. understand human and natural sources of carbon dioxide emissions and the natural sinks that control its buildup, at regional scales, everywhere on Earth”..is virtually over. http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/mission/quickfacts/#
Instead of a flood of images demonstrating the well known high correlation of SUVs with CO2, there are only a few, hard to find images with the polar regions strangely masked out and references to the important help this direct global mapping will be for generating better models of the “well mixed gas”. Odd.
Not enough funding to check grammar either ..
“High Definition short video by OCO scientists, describing the mission in plane language.”
http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCO-2/additional/links
( https://www.google.com/search?q=plain+language&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=plane+language )
LOL. 🙂
But plenty of funding for “Ultra High Resolution computer models” https://youtu.be/x1SgmFa0r04 which appear to to bear no relation at all to the hard to find “reality” supposed to be generated by OCO2.
Is the data still cooking or what?
Yeah, I just hate it when it warm outside and everything is green.
The Earth is doing just fine and the worriers hate it. They want catastrophe and doom and gloom. They hate our greening planet. Come to think of it, they seem to hate our planet. No, I got that wrong – they hate us on the planet. They hate us so much on the planet, they will destroy the planet to get rid of us, blaming us on the way for the damage they had to do to the planet. Go figure.
“While rising carbon dioxide concentrations in the air can be beneficial for plants, it is also the chief culprit of climate change. ”
Just cannot give it up, why the big lie persists.
It is high time for developing nations to pay a tribute to the main producers of CO2 for the greening of the Earth. Everyone is better off with a warmer and greener planet.
You didn’t need to tell me this. When I was a boy living in Potomac MD, I wondered the forests unhindered by low branches and understory. Now, this is nearly impossible with holly trees and other shade-loving broad-leaf understory trees making a walk in the woods a chore and even feel claustrophobic. The beach tree leaves (herbicidal) are barely able to prevent the growth of little plants under them. Branches are surviving the shade further down trunks. The eastern deciduous forests are becoming a jungle. Most people are too young to remember or were never really that close to the forest. I have mixed feelings about the change.
It is not just CO2 that is bad for the environment. All greenhouse gases are bad and should be completely eradicated. Most greenhouse gases have one element in common Oxygen. To get rid of all forms of greenhouse gases we must get rid of all Oxygen atoms on this planet. Oxygen must be removed from all oxide and hydrocarbon molecules on this planet. All Oxygen atoms must be placed in reactors and changed to something else. Our Earth would be a so much better place without the big O.