Guest Essay by Kip Hansen
This is Part 4 of a four part series. If you are not familiar with The Fight Against Global Greening – Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3 you can either read them in their entirety and then read this, or read the introduction of Part 1 up to the line “Let’s look at #1” and then read this. — kh
Carl Zimmer of the NY Times has said “‘Global Greening’ Sounds Good. In the Long Run, It’s Terrible.”. In collaboration with Dr. J. E. Campbell of the Sierra Nevada Research Institute, he has stated that position, offering us these:
Bad Things About Global Greening: (quoted from Zimmer’s article)
1. “More Photosynthesis Doesn’t Mean More Food“
2. “Extra Carbon Dioxide Can Make Plants Less Nutritious”
3. “More Plants Won’t Prevent Climate Change”
4. “Global Greening Won’t Last Forever”
In Part 1, we looked at the question of the relationship between increased photosynthesis and food production (Zimmer’s #1). In Part 2, we discussed the claim that “extra carbon dioxide can make plants less nutritious”. And in Part 3 we discussed the fact that Global Greening, by itself, would not stop climate change.
In this final and shorter segment, I discuss the implications of the obviously true fact that Global Greening won’t last forever.
Let’s Look at #4: “Global Greening Won’t Last Forever”
Here’s what Zimmer and Campbell say:
Global Greening Won’t Last Forever
There’s still a lot that Dr. Campbell and his colleagues don’t understand about global greening. Most importantly, they don’t know how long it will last.
As temperatures rise and rainfall patterns change, plants may stop soaking up extra carbon dioxide.
“Plants are quietly scrubbing the air of one China’s worth of carbon. What frightens me is knowing this can’t go on forever,” said Dr. Campbell. “If respiration catches up with photosynthesis, this huge carbon reservoir could spill back into our air.”
“There’s a wild card out there.”
— Carl Zimmer, “NY Times article “Global Greening….it’s Terrible“
I’ll try to do a better job of stating Zimmer’s (and Campbell’s) position than they do.
Zimmer admits that the subject of Global Greening is young and still full of unknowns…the usual list includes known unknowns, unknown unknowns, etc. It is refreshing to see an admission of anything less than Omnipotence and Settled Science.
“Most importantly, they don’t know how long it will last,” Zimmer says.
Well, neither do I (nor do you or anyone else). There is pertinent science on the topic though — greenhouse men have been growing flowers and other horticultural crops under enhanced CO2 for many years and there doesn’t seem to be an upper limit of CO2 concentrations that the atmosphere will be reaching, at least in this or the next century.
So, although various plants have their individual CO2 saturation points (the point at which increasing CO2 does not increase photosynthesis – colored orange), the general figure given for maximum benefit by many experts is 1000 ppm. [The graph above is only illustrative.] The important bit is that plants generally keep increasing photosynthesis with additional CO2 — up to about 1000 ppm.
The 21st Century average annual increase in atmospheric CO2 is around 2.5 ppm per year, so that gives us, if everyone keeps emitting CO2 at the same rate, and no one even tries to meet Paris emission reduction targets, 240 more years of possible Global Greening effect from CO2 enhancement. Of course, some plants will top out at 800 ppm, some at 900 ppm, some plants will find they don’t get enough water and some won’t find sufficient nutrients.
Now Zimmer and Campbell are afraid that at some point the horror-story RCP 8.5 scenario will actually come to pass, the planet’s average surface temperature will rise so high and droughts become so extensive (well, wherever it is not flooding) that plants will not only stop absorbing China’s portion of emissions, but will die and all that carbon will be released back into the atmosphere — all at once — as CO2 through the breakdown of the plant debris. This is what Campbell means when he says “If respiration catches up with photosynthesis, this huge carbon reservoir could spill back into our air.”
It is certainly true that if all the plants died — or even if just a great percentage of the plants died — decomposition, through natural processes, would begin to breakdown the plant material on the ground and in the ground into simpler compounds and CO2 would be emitted — the principle of biological respiration in the carbon cycle. Here is The Carbon Cycle.
Zimmer’s catastrophic fears will not be realized because of the grey boxes in the Carbon Cycle diagram — these are Carbon Stores. They are unlike Campbell’s “reservoir of carbon” analogy — they are not a big dammed lake full of carbon dioxide that is posed to “spill” back into our air. We see “Respiration” right above the black-and-white cow in the diagram. More correctly, the flow of CO2 to the atmosphere from Decay and part of the exchange with the oceans can also be considered Respiration in the biological carbon cycle. The Carbon Stores have been created as carbon dioxide has been transformed through photosynthesis and the actions of plant and animal life into vegetation (leaves, stems, tree trunks, woody brush), it has become soil and the organic matter in the soil, some is locked up in the surface waters of the oceans and much has sunk to the deep ocean not to be seen for centuries or millennia, sediments on the ocean floor are carbonaceous and will eventually become sedimentary rock through the process of rock formation, some has become and will become deposits of oil and coal and gas and some is locked up in the bodies of all the planet’s animal life, including 8 billion human beings.
Dr. Campbell must be very confused if he truly thinks that the “end of Global Greening” would result in any sort of threatening sudden spill of carbon back into the atmosphere.
As I discussed in Part — it is the bio-sequestration of carbon and once sequestered, the carbon will not return to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide for varying lengths of time — on a time scale ranging from days to millennia.
But Zimmer and Campbell fear another aspect of Global Greening: What if man keeps emitting 40-50-60 billion tons of CO2 every year and things are being kept in check somewhat by the fact that Nature will have been soaking up 10-12-15 billion tons of that CO2 annually, and then suddenly Nature is CO2-saturated and photosynthesis levels off while CO2 emissions keep rising and rising? Well, I guess that is within the realm of possibility — but like many alarmists visions of the future, it relies on the assumption that things will only stay the same or get worse — and neglects the more likely possibility that Mankind will mitigate the ill effects and reinforce and take advantage of the good effects of our changing world and climate.
I don’t think that it is overly optimistic to think that in the next 150 years we will see energy breakthroughs that obviate our worries of Global Warming by eliminating the need to produce electricity energy by burning hydrocarbons — oil, gas, coal, wood.
In the last 150 years, we have gone from the burning of peat, wood and charcoal; through the massive coal age; and the petroleum age. The nuclear age got off to a good start, only to be stalled by the fears of the anti-nuke activists. One hopes that with the newest designs for nuclear power plants and the hopes of fusion, the nuclear age will really get going again.
What we needn’t worry about are the groundless fears expressed by Dr. Campbell and parroted by Zimmer in the NY Times — the fact that Global Greening will not last forever is a simple biological fact and has no foreseeable downsides for mankind.
Global Greening is not terrible — GLOBAL GREENING is WONDERFUL.
# # # # #
Author’s Comment Policy:
To those who have managed to read all four of the essays in the series, congratulations, you exceed my expectations….I barely managed enough patience to write them. In retrospect, I could have combined Parts 3 and 4. I did think it was important to put the senseless fear mongering of Zimmer and Campbell to rest — countering them with basic science.
What I worry about is that the average NY Times reader is so deficient in basic science education that they will have read Zimmer’s “Global Greening…Its Terrible” and not seen through the illogic and pseudo-science. Hope that some of them may read here springs eternal.
As always, appreciate you having put in the time to read here.
Address your comments to “Kip…” if you are speaking to me personally, and I’ll try to field your question or concern.
# # # # #
Quick Links:
The Fight Against Global Greening – Part 1
The Fight Against Global Greening – Part 2
The Fight Against Global Greening – Part 3
NY Times article “Global Greening….it’s Terrible
# # # # #
“What frightens me is knowing this can’t go on forever,” said Dr. Campbell.
Really? It “frightens” you? Scared of your own straw man, are you?
What’s really scary are the depths that science has sunk to with the whole manmade globalwarming/climate change idiocy. What’s even more frightening is the way the CAGW ideology threatens humanity.
Bruce Cobb,
Could not agree more. There is no place for human belief in hard science. An author using “frightens” shows the hand of the fiction writer. Geoff.
Seriously.
What can anyone say about a grown man who is “frightened” by things he has conjured up in his imagination?
For all the imagined and expected cornucopian greenness this delightful gas (and the embarrassing amount of energy we as a fortunate by-product)…
“suddenly Nature is CO2-saturated and photosynthesis levels off while CO2 emissions keep rising and rising? Well, I guess that is within the realm of possibility…”
You guess that is within the realm of possibility? You concede this possibility like losing a wisdom tooth. And despite it being the awful truth, you would rather lose another tooth than admit to yourself that that will have meant be the end of your so-called “greening”.
In your limited opinion you think that is alarmist, I don’t.
” — but like many alarmists visions of the future, it relies on the assumption that things will only stay the same or get worse — and neglects the more likely possibility that Mankind will mitigate the ill effects and reinforce and take advantage of the good effects of our changing world and climate.”
Despite the fact that you concede there is that possibility and despite the fact “the horror-story RCP 8.5 scenario will actually come to pass, the planet’s average surface temperature will rise so high and droughts become so extensive” possibly even if conditions just “stay the same”, you blithley insist it will be a bed of roses forever because you “don’t think that it is overly optimistic to think that in the next 150 years we will see energy breakthroughs that obviate our worries of Global Warming”. And you say it is alarmist to think otherwise?
Uh huh. You assume mankind must and “Mankind will mitigate the ill effects” of all this “staying the same”. But simultaneously lets just keep doing business as usual for oh, I don’t know, say until after my great, great, great, great granchildren are dead.
Is that the best you’ve got? Is that how vou’ve done a “better job of stating Zimmer’s (and Campbell’s) position than they do”?
Congratulations, you sir are a deluded kook.
[Snip. Name calling is not necessary. -mod]
Yes, thanks Bruce.
I call them as I see them.
[Perhaps, but not here. -mod]
Bruce’s comment was short, pithy, and completely accurate.
dangit, I wish I could have read it!
it seems to me the antagonists are really coming out in droves here all a sudden. the timing seems to coincide with TDS
RyanS ==> Tantrum over? Note that name-calling is better left on the schoolyard, it is not acceptable discourse here.
I’d be glad to hear why you agree with Campbell’s fear or why you feel that the simple fact that Global Greening will have to end sometime is a bad thing . . . . something to be feared.
I know you’d rather talk about green herrings, but I’d like to hear how you expect prompt mitigation to avert “the horror-story RCP 8.5 scenario” and “150 years” of BAU can occur simultaneously, because it seems to me only a deluded kook could.
Whoops, there is another category: disinformer.
The category of disinformer is owned, lock, stock and barrel by you Ryan.
RyanS – It would be productive to read your perspective in response to Kip. My impression after reading both sides of this issue is that Campbell’s position is an unsupported hypothesis. Feel free to chime in.
Chad, my point of view is that extra CO2 helps some crops in greenhouses and has probably contributed to the observed ‘greening’, probably. But in reality it is at best clutching at straws to think there will be much benefit – unless you exclude every other variable like you can in a glasshouse and at worst its just concocted turd-polishing.
If you include: rising temperature and thus evaoporation and changed rainfall patterns (plus god only knows what black swan events) the turd loses it’s gloss. These negatives matter a lot less to the relatively wealthy urbanites of northern latitudes who get roses for a few extra weeks or shovel a little less snow off their driveway, but to 2 or 3 billion subsistance farmers in the moonsoon belt, it is a little less appealing.
But see, now we are discussing it instead of Kip’s delusion.
Green herring.
In other words, Ryan is scared of his shadow and doesn’t care how many millions have to die.
Speaking of shadows.
vapid, pale comebacks aren’t helping you look any less unimpressive but I am enjoying the futile attempts,Ryan.
You are a one trick pony bud. Let’s step back down from our third grade stoop of poo-slinging and attempt polite discourse, per Kip’s request.
Are you capable of that? We have a similar distaste for your perspective, but we are willing to at least argue the evidence, or lack thereof. Couldn’t you least attempt it?
And you are so confident that the worst case scenario is definitely going to happen that you are willing to condemn millions, perhaps billions of other people to lives of deprivation and starvation?
he wouldn’t hold that opinion if he lived in one of those Shi*hole countries. I’d put big money on that.
The chances that plants will decide that they no longer need CO2 and stop taking it up is close enough to zero that only paid trolls worry about it.
Please list what this “ill effects” of CO2 are.
Drought. Rising sea levels. Melting glaciers which provide water for 1B people. When rainfall occurs, it is often coming in extreme amounts. Go ahead and tell India and the 800,000 people who have been displaced due to the worst flooding in 100 years about the “harmless, beneficial trace gas CO2”. I’m sure they can trade that for food and shelter.
Chris,
The connection you are attempting to make between CO2 induced warming and the flooding in India is absurd. And, if you read what you actually wrote, you’d find the reason…”worst flooding in 100 years”. The simple, unfortunate truth is that extreme weather events have always happened, and we have every reason to believe they always will. There’s no need to invoke the specter of henny penny and cry “the sky is falling”. Especially when doing so serves merely to line the pockets of crony capitalists and increase control of governments over their citizens.
rip
rip – go ahead and write to the Indian climatologists who say there is a connection, and tell them their conclusions are absurd. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253475882_Impact_of_climate_change_on_extreme_rainfall_events_and_flood_risk_in_India
Ah yes, appeal to authority.
Along with moving goal posts, one of your favorite intellectual activities.
1) The real world evidence shows that there has been no increase in such events over the last 50 years.
2) Even the IPCC states that it is impossible to tie individual weather events to CO2.
Mark…
, one of your favorite intellectual activities.
I’m not sure intellectual was an appropriate word choice
Chris,
I’m sorry, perhaps you meant to reference a different paper? The one you listed is a statistical analysis of rainy days in India, and makes no mention of CO2 directly. It does reference and quote IPCC AR4 in the intro:
Beyond this general statement, I found no science or research aimed at attributing any specific event to CO2…which is what I said was absurd. Pending any error in my reading/understanding of the paper you cited, and as well, any additional research to the contrary, I stand by my statement. Indeed, it’s been noted repeatedly by climate scientists on both sides of this issue that specific weather events cannot be attributed to CO2 induced warming.
The general trends discussed in P Guhathakurta et al (2011) are certainly of interest for “hydrological planning” as noted in the paper, but do not offer us any insight into CO2’s specific role.
rip
Chris ==> You are conflating the benefits of Global Greening with the possibilities of harm from “climate change caused by rising CO2”. This is what Zimmer and Campbell were doing.
The point of this four part series was to disentangle the two issues — Global Greening being wonderful does not necessarily mean that everything about rising CO2 is wonderful. Likewise, if one believes that rising CO2 is the most terrible thing ever, that does not mean that Global Greening, a positive effect, is also terrible. That view is illogical.
So let me take a quick stab at summing up this whole thing… Greening due to rising CO2 is bad because it has to end sometime. Is that it in a nutshell? So the response could be as simple as, I concede your point, but let’s ride this pony as far as it will go! Fair enough?
Chris, all of those delusions exist only in computer models, not the real world.
As to the flooding, like this summer’s heat wave are just regular ordinary weather. There isn’t a shred of evidence that CO2 influenced any of them.
Chris,
Get a grip and take a deep breathe.
I sure am sorry you are so emotionally overwrought by your misapprehensions about matters geographical.
Maybe try breathing into a paper bag for a while.
Once you calm down and quit panicking, here are some facts to consider:
Worst flooding in 100 years means that 100 years ago, when CO2 was barely above preindustrial levels, they had worse floods.
Worse.
Sea level has risen steadily as CO2 has increased hugely. No correlation is the only rational conclusion.
Precipitation provides water for people…glaciers lock it up and prevent it from being used.
If people are using glacial melt…it is because they are melting, instead of not melting and hence growing.
If it gets colder and glaciers stop melting…that will be a real problem.
Most mountain valleys have no glaciers, and from these places come rivers that do a fine job of providing water for people.
Which part of the word “glacier” does your brain translate into “only reason people have water to drink”?
From Campbell, just before where we hit the paywall:
based on long-term atmospheric carbonyl sulfide (COS) records, derived from ice-core, firn and ambient air samples. We interpret these records using a model ….
Epic.
The guy measures sulphur, a Liebig Limiter for plant growth second only to nitrogen THEN uses a model, = a reflection/magnification of the computer programmer’s own thinking, to tell us that carbonoxide made the plants grow
Amazing. How long was he hospitalised having his own foot stitched back together.
Since, say, 1850 when the Victorians kicked off the Industrial Revolution, VAST amounts of coal were burned. Not far from here is in fact ‘The Black Country’.
If you don’t know why its called that, look it up.
Question: When did any sort of flue gas de-sulphurisation, in earnest, actually start?
Tail-end of the 20th century. Where did all the sulphur from that coal (and diesel) prior to that time go?
Then and all along, we are assured that soil organic matter is increasing.
OK
Show me pictures. In God I trust, all others bring data blah blah.
And I want current data, data from 50 years ago, 100 years ago and 200 years ago.
I don’t need to show you pictures. All I do is ask you to visit your local stream/creek/river after a typical local rainstorm and tell me the colour of the water you see.
If it is brown, red, yellow or orange – I assert that soil organic matter in the soils upstream of your recording place have less organic content than they previously did.
Its very simple.
Or, you can ask any countryman /farmer about ground-nesting bird populations and or earthworm populations.
Not difficult.
Even simpler, visit places, lots of different places. When there, kick your shoes off and walk.
High organic soil is soft and bouncy, low organic is hard.
See what you can figure about the horticultural history of those bits of dirt. In particular, how often the dirt is ploughed and whether or not artificial fertilisers have been used on it.
Without getting out of your car, is the landscape masculine or feminine?
You know what I mean.
Now, my appeal to authority. This is potentially very very scary what’s going on…
Picture 1:
Without absolute values, what is all that CO2 doing where it is?
Global Greening (GG) says it should not be there. GG says CO2 should be high over industrial areas and low over places with lots of plants.
Even the CO2 over China.
Of course you say its because of all the industry there.
Yeah?
I refer to a number I came upon 6 or 7 years ago that stated that China had only 7% of the world’s farmland yet somehow managed to feed 22% of the world’s population off that dirt.
So what was everyone else doing? How did the Chinese manage to feed 22% of the people from 7% of the dirt – if not by throwing colossal amounts of artificial (nitrogen) fertiliser at that dirt?
Or could it be the sulphur again, from all the coal they’re burning.
Or nitrogen oxides coming from all that coal burning, in China currently and from the Black Country previously.
Is the sulphur and nitrogen nourishing soil bacteria, in China and the Rainforests and THEY are releasing the CO2 plumes above the place in Picture 1 and doing it by eroding soil organic material. It also acidifies the soil, releasing/mobilising toxic heavy metals.
Ah. Now you know why it is not advisable to consume large amounts of ‘Chinese Herbal Medicine’
Now visit the OCO gallery properly:
https://oco.jpl.nasa.gov/galleries/gallerydataproducts/
It takes forever to load so here is just one photo from it:
WTF is going on there.
Why is there no data from the places that previously had very high levels of CO2?
It drives a Coach and Horses not only though the notion of Global Greening but the entire notion of CO2 induced Climate Change.
What *are* NASA up to there……….
China imports a tremendous amount of food. I’m not sure what fraction of their consumption this represents but I would note nutrition gains and resulting increase in the weight and height of their youth.
Peta,
Your 2 maps have different dates and are for different seasons. Seasons have an effect of patterns.
As I understand it from memory of a few years back, to measure the absorption of light by CO2, by the satellite’s sensors, the best result is when there is strong light. This has been done by using light from specular reflection on the ground (as an example, a flash of light from a chrome car bumper). The abundance of the chance reflections on the ground changes with the ground surface, so different regions accumulate more better data in a given time. This might not be the answer you seek, but I hope it is at least a start.
There are many, many questions following in the wake of this CO2 data. Geoff.
“What I worry about is that the average NY Times reader is so deficient in basic science education that they will have read Zimmer’s “Global Greening…Its Terrible” and not seen through the illogic and pseudo-science. Hope that some of them may read here springs eternal.”
The sun will probably burn out before that happens, because they haven’t figured out any other aspect of this subject yet. But then, that isn’t the point anyway. Knowingly or not, they will continue the fairy tale on purpose.
The average NYT reader IS that deficient. People are graduating acclaimed universities today with not even the most basic biological grounding in how their and their pets’ bodies work, let alone physics and meteorology. Hence, they can be sold literally anything–product or idea.
CAGW’s the tip of the cliche iceberg. How about cryogenic chamber weight loss, anti-GMO’s, anti-vaxxers, “gender” theory, veganism, biking to work will save the planet, and “evil doesn’t exist, people just have differing perspectives,” famous last words of the two dewy-eyed naifs who just got a fatal tutorial by the ISIS JV team in Tajikistan?
“There’s a wild card out there.”
Yes, the fact that weather is random about its manifestations.
(I guess they are playing their jokers, hoping to win the hand.)
–I don’t think that it is overly optimistic to think that in the next 150 years we will see energy breakthroughs that obviate our worries of Global Warming by eliminating the need to produce electricity energy by burning hydrocarbons — oil, gas, coal, wood.–
Nature grows plants and human grow crops. Nature makes Methane Hydrates, why humans can’t grow and farm Methane Hydrates. It seems if one is farming Methane Hydrates you might do in a way that allows it to be easier to mine. Such a crop might take a long time to grow, though one find ways to grow it faster, but we grow crops of trees which may require 50 year to harvest, though more commonly less time [less than couple decades] and are harvesting smaller trees. And methane hydrate may require longer time, but it’s real estate on the ocean floor, so why does matter much long time it takes?
Anyhow, in next 150 years, we probably to mining the naturally grown Methane Hydrates, and burning natural gas creates a lot less CO2 for same amount energy as burning coal and burning coal for 80% of China’s electrical power needs is why China emits more than twice the CO2 as the US does. And of course natural gas is much cleaner in terms of pollution as compared to “other fossil fuels” [though Methane Hydrates aren’t related to “fossils”- as in taking large periods of time to develop- or there are no fossils found or associated with oceanic methane hydrates deposits- and entire ocean floor is geological speaking, young:
“In essence, oceanic plates are more susceptible to subduction as they get older. Because of this correlation between age and subduction potential, very little ocean floor is older than 125 million years and almost none of it is older than 200 million years.”
https://www.thoughtco.com/how-old-is-the-ocean-floor-3960755 ]
And 70% of earth surface is ocean, there lots ocean area in boundary of continental shelves and deep ocean and such regions have Methane Hydrates- and continental shelves in terms being covered with ocean water- is very young, geologically speaking- though older than living trees.
And there is issue of energy efficiency and there a lot things related to that, an major aspect is related to population density and how cities are designed- which really very backward in terms of having much technological improvement. And efficiency related to computers and internet being used and getting new uses and greater use.
And my favorite is the increased use space environment- satellite and etc.
One of the potential downsides of global greening that is becoming apparent is the increase in forest productivity. That also means fuel loads are accelerating.
The recent incidence of wild fires across the globe suggest that management practices are not keeping pace with the rate of fuel increase.
RickWill ==> Read the literature of those who are actually responsible for forest management and fire suppression. It has long been established wisdom that the wildfire problem in the US was caused by Smokey the Bear rushing out to put out every fire instead of letting these fires burn through the forest quickly, clearing out the extra fuel load and thinning the trees, but not hot enough to kill mature trees. Living trees are not the problem, but the fuel load on the forest floor and brush loads — remaining unburned by naturally caused lighting strike fires every few years.
Kip …and in addition some (many?) seeds, such as longleaf pine, NEED fire to even germinate. So new seedlings aren’t starting, which means the age of the forest is increasing, with consequent increased mortality, adding even more fuel, at a faster rate. Yeah, we really “managed” that forest well.
There’s a table I can’t find right now, starts off with, for prairies, a fire should happen every 2-3 years, in a pine (conifer) forest, every 3-5 years, in hardwood forests, … I can’t remember it all, but EVERY type of ecosystem must have fire, at varying intervals depending on the ecosystem, to remain healthy.
It’s not all bad. Seems to me I first heard of fire as a necessary part of ALL ecoscapes nearly 30 years ago. The word is gradually getting out.
“plants have been growing at a rate far faster than at any other time in the last 54,000 years. Writing in the journal Nature, they report that plants are converting 31 percent more carbon dioxide into organic matter than they were before the Industrial Revolution.”
How did they get from 1980 back to the Industrial Revolution?…there’s no science for this
According to NASA…they didn’t start measuring “greening” until 1980…when CO2 levels were about 340ppm….according to NASA it’s the equivalent of two continental USA’s
“Even more remarkably, the plants have been scrubbing the same fraction of carbon dioxide out of the air even as our emissions explode.”
…that’s not even possible..but fits with their linear graphs they are famous for
If the “earth is greening”…then it’s adding green….and will progressively take more and more CO2 out
Latitude ==> I’m not quite following you there …. NASA of course didn’t start measuring greening until they had satellites up and were taking high definition color (multi-wavelength) images. Dr. Campbell studied ice cores for atmospheric carbonyl sulfide (COS), to determine photosynthesis levels over time, discussed in a Nature report.
Kip, I can’t find what I’m looking for on the internet..not even NASA
I’m looking for rate of doubling…1 plant, 2 plants, 4 plants, 8, 16 etc
If the planet is greening, that’s what it’s doing…it wouldn’t be linear like the increase in CO2….it would start slowly increasing….then take off
edit: LOL…I just realized….it would be a hockey stick
Latitude ==> It is not the reproduction of plants that is increasing, though it is true that there are more plants as well. It is photosynthesis that is increasing — which means plants are busier doing their planty thing — turning sunlight and water into sugars and then into plant matter which is animal food.
No one thinks that a doubling of CO2 equates to a doubling of the number of plants or the planet-wide rate of photosynthesis.
Plants are just busy growing more, growing bigger, spreading where they weren’t recently growing (like the Arctic southern edges).
I think it is also more and larger plants and trees on what was once marginal lands.
Even more puzzling… how did “…before the Industrial Revolution…” turn into “…the last 54,000 years…”? (I admit 54,000 years would be before the Industrial Revolution, but don’t get me sidetracked.)
I’m gonna repeat… Campbell’s comments sound like: increased greening due to increased CO2 is bad because it has to end sometime. That’s all.
Well… history would seem to indicate that there will NOT be a great plant die off at 1000ppm CO2. Afterall, back when CO2 was 3000ppm, plants were big and abundant, and so were animals on both the land and in the sea. So history would indicate that the fear of 1000ppm CO2 is completely irrational.
Well, the whole fear of increasing CO2 is completely irritational!!!
I published an article “Discussion: Over-emphasis on energy terms in crop yield models”, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology 77 (1995) 113-120. In this figure 1 highlights the limitation of relative radiation stress, relative water stress or relative nutrient stress on relative growth or relative yield. In this region ‘a’ growth and yield are nearly linear with radiation stress increases. In region ‘b’ growth and yields are marginally related to radiation stress [similar to figure presented in the present article with reference to CO2 — 1000 ppm peak]. CO2 is rarely used in this.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
[It is not clear what you mean by “radiation stress”. Does that mean when solar radiation levels (UV, light, IR ?) increase? Or when the growing season extends longer each year? .mod]
Dr. Reddy ==> Yes, light levels and soil nutrients, along with water availability are the other 3 of 4 factors affecting plant growth. CO2 being the fourth.
Humidity levels can also be important, especially when it is hot.
Plants love it hot and humid.
When people are suffering due to high humidity and hot weather, plants are loving it.
I have found over many years that people are not quick to understand this…at all.
Plants react to low humidity the same way we react to high humidity…it puts them under stress.
When we are incredibly uncomfortable outside, is when plants are experiencing optimal conditions and explosive growth rates.
The role of relative humidity and soil humidity on crop development are discussed in the book referred above & Reddy, et al. (1984b) paper. In the case of crop growth relative humidity is accounted through potential evapotranspiration.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Thank you Dr. Reddy!
Cont— From my book of 1993 “Agroclimatic/Agrometeorological Techniques: As Applicable to Dry-land Agriculture in Developing Countries”, pages 147-149 & 170-172:
The crop growth models several stress factors such as radiation (Ri), temperature (Ti) and fertilizer (Ni) are considered in addition to water stress (Mi). The integrated stress index is expressed as the product of individual stresses (Gi) as:
Gi = Ri x Ti x Ni x Mi
Ri = 1.0 – Exp [-3.5 x Rt/750] wherein Rt is the daily total solar radiation
However, the temperature stress may be a duplication of radiation stress. Temperature is the primary driving force in crop development while radiation (in terms of energy) is the primary driving force in the growth of a crop. Many biological processes follow a typical curvilinear pattern with the temperature (Figure on page 147]. This is a bell shaped pattern with 5 critical points, namely Tmin [minimum temperature], Tmax [maximum temperature, Ti inflection points around this temperature the changes in biological activity is maximum [linear ] and Tc a critical (or optimum) temperature at which the biological activity is maximum]. The limits vary according to crop/variety/phenophase. Thus, it is more important to define Tc and Ti for a given crop, which facilitates in the establishment of crop development function with reference temperature. One such function is given as (Reddy, et al. 1984b]:
D = a ± b x [|19.6 – T|]1/3
– b if T >19.6 oC or + b if T < 19.6 oC where D is the phenophase duration in days.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Mod — Sir, the energy from the Sun that reaches the Earth is termed as total solar radiation. The balance at the Earth surface is known as net radiation. These are given in my book of 1993 [revised edition is under printing by San Francisco based company] referred above in Chapter 1. Total [Global] solar radiation vary with the latitude and seasons. For crop growth we need certain level of this energy. If this is lower than this the growth is reduced and thus biomass and grain yield even if there is no moisture stress or fertilizer stress. After the optimum level the impact is not much on the growth. Total solar radiation is also an input in the evaporative demand that is used in the moisture stress.
Growing season vary with the season and latitude depending up on the sunshine period — day length. Crop development means — period of days required to complete a phase of entire growth period. This relates to photoperiod and temperature. This is estimated in terms of degrees days or using the temperature function given in the cont– observation. If this period is reduced then the growth will be affected — early start of winter or early withdrawal of summer. These reduce the development period that affects the yield. [see pages 145 for crop development in the above referred book].
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
I just realized… I’m hanging out with the nerds again. 😀
There is about 50 times as much carbon dissolved in the oceans in the form of CO2 and CO2 hydration products as exists in the atmosphere, http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=17726
As the water warms, so carbon dioxide comes out of solution. But as the atmospheric carbon dioxide increases, more goes into solution. The relevant rates of these processes must surely be known. So which is the more important, and thus are the oceans a net sink for CO2 or are they a net source of CO2?
I hope someone knows.
dudley ==> No one really knows — the basic biological, chemical and physics facts are much more complicated than that (as always). We have no way to accurately measure anything about the oceans really, they are too vast for our limited tools — even the thousands of ARGO floats barely manage even the grossest measurements.
We know the basics: warmer seas hold less CO2 gas, but CO2 is not just another dissolved gas in the ocean, it becomes involved in sea water chemistry, both inorganic and organic, and things get complicated quickly.
The oceans are not like a balloon that gets filled with CO2 under this circumstance and lets it back out under some other circumstance. See the references in some of my Ocean Acidification essay (use the WUWT search tool).
Dudley,
For a pan of water under lab conditions, these things are known.
But as noted, the oceans are not simple at all.
The water at depth is very cold and thus can hold huge amounts of CO2, and there are vertical movements of water that bring deep water to the surface and surface water to depth.
At the surface there are diurnal changes in temp, and changes due to cloud cover and wind patterns and velocity. Over longer periods of time the patterns are even more varied and complex. There is rainfall, and evaporation. Salinity varies. Waves can vastly increase surface area at times. There are biological processes creating and absorbing CO2 all the time. And, again as noted, various complex and interrelated chemical processes are interacting with all of the above.
The situation is likely more complicated than trying to keep track of water on, above, and below, the surface of the Earth.
Imagine trying to figure out if the land of the Earth was losing or gaining water.
One could probably say for a limited space in a defined period of time which was the case…maybe. But overall, or with any great precision or certainty?
Of course, none of that will keep some people from telling everyone that they have it all figured out and we should just take what they say as the Gospel chiseled in stone.
Like they do with the temperature.
All that complexity helps explain why GCMs don’t work and emergent structures analysis does.
This Zimmer of the NYT what is he? The fashion editor?
Ve2 ==> He is a science journalist — not all NY Times science section journalists are ex-something ridiculous (though there are some….especially in climate)
I think that, amongst the folks who take every word in the NYT as akin to the Gospel, climate alarmism is quite fashionable, so in that sense…
Now that was funny!!!
I believe several practical experiments with increased CO2 levels on plant growth put the “ideal” CO2 value nearer to 1,100 PPM. Of course they didn’t cover all different types of plants as that would require an exorbitant amount of funds, work space, support staff, and my personal favorite… testing repeated by different people at different locations.
ScienceABC123 ==> Like many topics, CO2 enhancement experiments get very complicated quickly. The easiest to manage are greenhouse experiments in which all four plant growth factors can be regulated (water, light, soil, and CO2).
Real world conditions involving CO2 enhancement in real open field conditions are very hard to conduct — and for our purposes, these are the ones that matter.
Bingo! These reports, indicating that crops under increased CO2 levels have a reduced proportion of protein (for example) come from studies conducted under laboratory conditions, where CO2 can be increased while holding all other variables constant (that’s the way I would design the experiment). Which is fine for a laboratory, but in real world conditions, when one is gifted with an increase in atmospheric CO2 so that it is no longer the limiting factor, the intelligent farmer would strive to match all the other variables so they are not the limiting factor. So if the crop is coming in with reduced starch percentages, throw on some more N2 fertilizer. Problem solved! Keep playing with it, figure out the limiting factor and unlimit it!
Hey, maybe we could look at satellite pictures over time and see if the Earth is greening up, particularly in areas we would expect would only do so if CO2 was having an effect, if trees are growing faster for no other apparent reason, if crop yields are uniformly increasing even where all other factors are more or less the same, etc.
Oh, wait…
A challenge to the websites “Open Mind” and “AndThenTheresPhysics”
In my opinion, “Open Mind” and “AndThenTheresPhysics”, are both just Alarmist echo chambers.
They are NOT interested in open debate about global warming.
The people who run these websites, and their followers, sit around insulting people who they see as “the enemy”. But they won’t engage with “the enemy”, in honest debate.
They have insulting names for “the enemy”. “Deniers” is the most common.
It is ironic, that Alarmists are actually the biggest “Deniers”.
I have posted comments on both of these websites, in the last week. Anybody who reads my posts, knows that they are polite, they do not attack people, they do not use foul language, and they provide evidence to back up my views.
Tamino always deletes my comments immediately. He doesn’t want his followers exposed to global warming heresy.
AndThenTheresPhysics initially posted my comment, because he has not had contact with me before. After he checked out my website, he deleted most of my comment. The ideas on my website must be very scary, and AndThenTheresPhysics didn’t want his followers exposed to them.
In response to my initial comment, AndThenTheresPhysics said, “I tend to have a low tolerance for comments that promotes scientific views that are clearly wrong. If you want to call that an “alarmist echo chamber” go ahead.”
When did AndThenTheresPhysics become the God of Science, deciding what is right, and what is wrong.
I thought that Science was an open ongoing debate, and that ideas which didn’t get disproved, became accepted. If you stop ideas being expressed, because you think that they are wrong, then it is no longer Science, it is Religion.
My challenge to “Open Mind” and “AndThenTheresPhysics” is, decide what you want to be. An open forum for discussing global warming, or a bunch of losers, who sit around bitching and moaning.
It’s YOUR choice.
Your friend,
Sheldon Walker
https://agree-to-disagree.com
Mr. Van Winkle…is that you?
A lot has changed while you were snoozin’.
Almost everyone here could have told you exactly what was going to happen and saved you the complete and utter waste of time.
Some other stuff has changed too:
That’s meme material! Can I steal it?
The fact that individual plants may reach a CO2 saturation point is irrelevant. The real concern here is that plants may breed beyond a ideal population saturation point. As well-nourished flora breed profusely, they may become so concentrated that humans will not be able to see the trees for the forest.
nutso ==> Cute!
Kip,
“… that plants will not only stop absorbing China’s portion of emissions, but will die and all that carbon will be released back into the atmosphere — all at once — as CO2 through the breakdown of the plant debris. This is what Campbell means when he says “If respiration catches up with photosynthesis, this huge carbon reservoir could spill back into our air.”
I doubt that this is what Campbell means. I suspect he means that increased respiration could catch up to the increase in photosynthesis. As you know, plant respiration happens at night, when they are using the energy from stored sugars (which is why plants need O2, as well, which they use in the oxidation of carbohydrates), leading to the release of CO2. When temperatures rise, so does the respiration rate. If photosynthesis is limited by temperature, drought, water-saturated soil, nutrients, etc., at the same time respiration rates are higher, the net CO2 uptake can drop to zero. As I understand it, the “huge carbon reservoir” is actually referring to the current increase in carbon sequestration. When it is no longer sequestered, it just goes back into the atmosphere, and the rate of CO2 increase will grow.
Note on your figure that respiration is not coming just from the cow, but from the garden below the cow.
I suppose you could be right that Campbell is referring to plant death, but I don’t think anyone is seriously predicting that- not globally, anyway, unless there is runaway global warming. That truly would be catastrophic. I think it more likely that Campbell is saying something off-the-cuff. The point is that “global greening” could be limited by many factors, and without that greening CO2 levels will rise more rapidly.
Greenhouses grow plants under carefully controlled conditions, and photosynthetic saturation curves like the one you show are ideals, not directly applicable to the field.
Kristi ==> I agree with you (mostly) about what Campbell fears — but what I still don’t get is how this basic fact of plant physiology — summarized in the phrase “Global Greening can’t last forever” — then makes Global Greening Terrible.
Of course, for individual plants, respiration can not outrun photosynthesis. This means as well that individual forests can’t outrun their own photosynthesis. I added decay and ocean CO2 output under respiration as well, and you still can’t outrun photosynthesis (without a massive die-off to feed decay).
And, right, Global Greening is of course limited — by the four factors of growth — light, temperature, soil, and CO2. Being limited also fails to make Global Greening Terrible.
That’s what this series is about. Global Greening is not Terrible — it is wonderful.
The issue here is similar to the nonsense in Nutrition science — where someone somewhere says “Vit XX is a SuperVitamin – cures everything known to man — prevents hair loss and cures cancers”. The comes the counter-attack — which often leads to the idiocy of “No, Vit XX is horrible — it is possible to overdose than that causes YY and TT and etc”. Well, Vit XX is really just another necessary Vitamin and is a good thing. The fact that it is not magical doesn’t make it a bad thing, it is still a good and necessary thing. One needn’t falsely paint it black to counter the over enthusiastic pro-Vit XX-advocates. Better just to tell the truth as well as we understand. That’s what Zimmer and Campbell should have done.
Thanks for stopping by.
Kip,
Just a guess, but I suspect the title of the article was not Zimmerman’s, but an editor’s. It’s a ridiculous title.
Saying “Here are four reasons he believes nobody should be celebrating ‘global greening'” is different from saying it’s bad. It might not be worth celebrating if it’s expected to be a temporary phenomenon, for instance, or a “mixed blessing:” it could favor types of plants that aren’t beneficial, like weeds, or alter water tables through its effect on water use efficiency, or change microbial communities. I’m just playing devil’s advocate, I’m not arguing any of these is probable. Possible, though.
“And, right, Global Greening is of course limited — by the four factors of growth — light, temperature, soil, and CO2.” Water, humidity, wind, ozone and other pollutants, O2, herbivory, disease, competition, symbiotic and parasitic organisms also play roles in growth. Many of these have the potential to be affected by climate change.
Fortunately the effect of CO2 peaks out on temperature at much lower concentrations, so yes, photosynthesis outlasts the GH effect.
All I know is, if CO2 concentrations and temperature keeps rising, it will be like the inside of a greenhouse, where plants don’t grow well…
sarc tag missing?
“Typical greenhouse temperatures vary between 10-20 °C (50-68 °F). Too high
temperature reduces plant growth, eventually resulting in plant wilting and death whereas too low temperature limits plant growth”
https://www.vaisala.com/sites/default/files/documents/CEN-BAU-Greenhouse-Climate-Application-Note-B211142EN-A-LOW-v3.pdf
“Optimum photosynthesis occurs between 21 to 22 °C (Portree 1996), this temperature serves as the target for managing temperatures during the day when photosynthesis occurs. Optimum temperatures for vegetative growth for greenhouse peppers is between 21 to 23 °C, with the optimum temperature for yield about 21 °C (Bakker 1989). Fruit set, however, is determined by the 24-hour mean temperature and the difference in day – night temperatures (Bakker 1989), with the optimum night temperature for flowering and fruit setting at 16 to 18 °C (Pressman 1998)”
http://www1.agric.gov.ab.ca/%24department/deptdocs.nsf/all/opp2902#1
Tropical species will not grow at all at the temperatures noted.
68 degree soil temp is the cutoff point below which these plants will go dormant.
Below 50 and some tropical species will become damaged.
Plants like Aglaonema and certain Dracaena varieties can experience cold damage at 45 F, just to name a few widely grown examples.
Try growing a field of corn between 50 and 68 degrees.
Let us know how that works out for you.
BTW…the tropics, defined geographically, is 40% of the Earth and over 1/3 of the land.
Biologically and climate-wise, the tropics are the majority of the planet.
https://hortintl.cals.ncsu.edu/content/chilling-and-freezing-injury
https://www.cornandsoybeandigest.com/corn/high-temperature-effects-corn-soybeans
Has anyone gone to the comments section of the NY Times article cited above and left the Watts Up With That website address so the readers have the opportunity to read the truth? I try to do that when I can. Great article as usual!! Love this website! Thank you!!
that comment wouldn’t last long though
honest liberty ==> The NY Times almost never (never to my knowledge) deletes comments that aren’t wildly in violation of their policies — even when reported by other readers.
Never ever deletes mine — and I am a known contrarian in several different newspaper sections.
Andy Revkin once referred to me as a “long time reader and sometimes critic” and linked to an essay of mine here at WUWT, then published a Guest Essay of mine at Dot Earth.
Zimmer, though contacted, did not reply to my questions.
interesting. I must be used to the operations of the guardian and other such echo-chambers that refuse to allow polite, contrarian discourse based on evidence.
I’m interested to see where the NYT moves with this new editor of theirs. sarah Jeong
Michelle Green ==> Welcome! The NY Times doesn’t allow comments on all articles. No comment section on Zimmers MATTER column which featured “Global Greening …is Terrible”.
Epilogue:
Thanks to you all for commenting here — a pleasant surprise with very little trolling and a lot of helpful and interesting input.
One of the worst aspects of today’s media is the substitution of Advocacy for Journalism. We see this on the front pages regarding politics, in the Health and Science sections, popular science news outlets and even in scientific journals. Having and expressing a viewpoint about a science topic is not what I’m talking about — but the efforts to influence the minds of the general public with patently false or intentionally misleading information for the sake of forwarding a socio-political-ideaological position. This is what Zimmer and Campbell were engaged in in the New York Times with their “Global Greening…it’s Terrible” article.
Note to Carl Zimmer — if you are reading here (like Andy Revkin did when I was writing about his NY Times pieces), please email me at my first name at the domain i4 decimal net. I’d really like to understand the reasons for your latest article — totally off the record — just to satisfy my curious mind.
I am open to suggestions for topics to cover here at WUWT — if your suggestion rings my Curiosity Bell, I’ll give it a go.
Thanks for reading.
“One of the worst aspects of today’s media is the substitution of Advocacy for Journalism”
I agree Kip, but you’ve already trodden in your own turd.
“Global Greening being wonderful does not necessarily mean that everything about rising CO2 is wonderful”.
Um, no of course it doesn’t, at this stage the jury is well and truly out as to any so-called benefits of greening. I am not saying there are none, but for all we know right now, the only benefit form Global warming might a brief period of less snow-shoveling for the lucky few who have driveways.
Your advocacy is blatant and transparently biased. “Wonderful” is not journalism.
I have a topic to suggest:
Wagathon | February 2, 2016 at 4:19 pm | Reply
Restart Question #1: does changing the atmospheric composition of Earth by ppm of CO2 cause the global to heat?
From http://archive.is/nUBBg#selection-817.0-837.111
Global greening might just end up becoming the wedge issue between the Warmists and the Greens.
They conveniently leave out that more plants means more animals as well as more timber, hay, and other products.
“the general figure given for maximum benefit by many experts is 1000 ppm”
Sigh! Here’s another misunderstanding of the meaning of words.
When a greenhouse operator says these words – maximum benefit – he is talking about the increased marginal growth compared to the increased marginal cost of putting more CO2 in the greenhouse. If additional CO2 were free to the greenhouse operator, then he would use more CO2.
I expect that research has been done to determine the most CO2 some particular plant species can utilize. And, since the earth has had past levels of CO2 in the atmosphere of many thousand ppm, I expect that topping out figure to be many thousand ppm.
You can’t determine that figure by asking a greenhouse operator because the question has a different meaning to him. You need to talk apples to apples (no pun intended), etc. You need to run controlled experiments actually using different levels of CO2 WITHOUT RESPECT TO THE COST OF THE CO2.
BTW, as population grows, and arable land remains finite (though larger with higher CO2), I expect greater use of greenhouses with their normally elevated CO2 levels.