by Patrick J. Michaels
We’ve long been fond of showing the satellite evidence for planetary greening caused by increasing carbon dioxide, particularly the work of Zhu et al.(2016):
Figure 1: Trends in Leaf Area Index around the planet. Note the units are in hundredths (10-2) of meters per square meter. An increase of 25 (Purple, right end of scale) is actually an annual change of .025 square meters per year. Note that the largest greenings are in fact over the South American, African, and Australasian tropical rainforests.
The variable usually shown is the Leaf Area Index (LAI), an interesting measure of vegetation density. A value of 1.00 means that one square meter of the sensed vegetation, if the leaves were spread out, would entirely cover a square meter.
Plants with exceedingly dense vegetation (think of your over-fertilized tomato plants by the end of summer) have LAI values far in excess of 1.0, and some, such as sparse grasslands, may be quite a bit less than 1.0, indicating the presence of a lot of bare ground.
A new paper by Simon Munier, of France’s Centre National de Recherches Météorologiques, and several co-authors, segregates satellite-sensed LAI data into different vegetation types, taken over the period 1999-2015. This allows the researchers to quantitatively determine the amount of greening that is taking place over time, depending upon the vegetation type.
A note on LAI: when applied to crop plants, it doesn’t necessarily directly correlate to the yield or productivity of the plant. Think about those over-fertilized tomatoes again. Gardeners often complain that they have huge vegetation masses (i.e. large LAI’s) but few fruit. However, if the vegetation in question is in fact consumed entirely as an agricultural product (think lettuce, for example) the LAI in fact is a direct measure of agricultural productivity.
The most common vegetation type on earth—grassland—is often agricultural in usage. Many are either directly grazed, or, as is the case for the most productive ones, harvested for hay which is then consumed when pasture is no longer growing enough to support cattle or sheep. Rapidly increasing grassland LAI values are therefore a very useful greening of the earth.
Munier’s team divided the satellite data into that sensing broadleaf (deciduous) forests, evergreen forest types, summer and winter crops, and grasslands. Their 17-year time series provides average LAI values as well as temporal trends.
The cool part of the paper is its Figure 8, showing mean and trend values worldwide for the LAI in six vegetation types:
Figure 2: Average LAI value for the six vegetation types (given quantitatively in the lower left corner of each map) and the trend in LAI per year, on the right. The +/- is the spatial standard deviation, which is generally large because soil, terrain, and weather difference clearly influence LAI and vegetation health. Nonetheless, all the trend values are significant at the p-value<.01 These seemingly arcane figures reveal a spectacular greening of the world’s grasslands. See text for details.
The details are in the numbers. The average (1999-2015) grassland LAI is 0.55, meaning its ground cover worldwide averages less than complete. The trend, of 0.0279 square meters per year, is a remarkable 5.0% per year. Over the 17-year period of record, this means that grassland LAI increased by 85%. According to Munier et al., grassland, as the most common vegetation type, covers 31% of the global continental surface measured (Antarctica was not sampled). This is a remarkable greening.
The aforementioned Zhu et al. study performed a factor analysis to determine the causes. According to the paper,
Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics, whereas climate change resulted in greening of the high latitudes and the Tibetan Plateau.
In other words, 78 [70 + 8] percent of observed planetary greening is caused by carbon dioxide and its effect upon climate.
We have repeatedly demonstrated (within here, for example) that about a half of a degree (C) of observed planetary warming is ascribable to anthropogenerated changes in the atmosphere. The main result appears to be a planet that is becoming so much greener that it is readily apparent from space.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.


What part of “warm” don’t people understand? Why do Canadians go to Myrtle Beach in March? Because it is WARMer than Canada. Why do people sit by a fire in winter? Because it is WARM. Why do crops grow in the Spring and Summer and NOT in the Fall and Winter? Because Spring and Summer are WARM.
So, what’s wrong with a warmer world? Am I missing something?
PS – All that scientific gobbledygook is interesting, but huh? Us simple folk think: Warm good. Cold bad. Food good. Dessert bad.
Hee, hee, hee. Oops. Misspelled that.
A lot of the greening is due to increased soil moisture from increased water efficiency of plants.
Warming also results in a net transfer of water from ocean to land (water evaporates much more readily from water, especially with IR).
The nitrogen increase is likely also due to CO2. CO2 increases nitrogen fixing and bio available phosphorus where those are limited. Plants provide more resources to the bacteria and fungi that do the job when CO2 increases.
In addition, seeds produced in higher CO2 are heartier and germinate earlier and more successfully. Increasing growing season and productivity.
https://metro.co.uk/2018/10/03/four-day-work-week-to-be-made-permanent-after-company-finds-no-downside-8000431/
Wrong clipboard paste:
Greening is mostly from increased soil moisture due to increased water efficiency of plants.
Warming also transfers water from the ocean to land since IR in particular causes more evaporation from water than land.
The increase in nitrogen is also largely a result of increased CO2. As CO2 rises, plants provide more resources to symbiotic bacteria and fungi when nitrogen and phosphorus are constrained.
1.) Increased water retention makes water available for other plants and to aquifers. Warming also transports more water from the oceans to land. http://archive.news.iupui.edu/releases/2016/02/drylands-global-greening.shtml
2.) Increased CO2 causes most plants to produced heartier seeds which germinate earlier and more successfully and others to produce more seeds. https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/nph.12691
3.) Increased CO2 allows plants to transfer more resources to symbiotic fungi and bacteria which make Nitrogen and Phosphorus more bio-abvailible https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01159.x
Which leads to…
4.) Increased CO2 increases Carbon and Nitrogen in soil. https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01159.x
5.) Similarly, Nitrogen fixing bacteria are also more productive in the oceans.. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01314.x
I’m more concerned that if our emissions growth declines and carbon capture is adopted, severe stress could be put on subsistence farming as nature and CC out compete subsistence farmers for CO2 and concentrations decline than that the weather might one day be on net worse for society. I expect the airborne fraction to decline as emissions level off, as plants will continue to become more productive.
I’m also contesting eCO2 simply improves germination. 2 years of Garbanzo bean (“chickpeas”) seeds grown under 569-600ppm CO2 had a germination rate of 65-69%. Those grown under ambient CO2 germinated at the rate of 87-90%.
The speed of germination was 26-32% slower for eCO2 garbanzo seeds. Their seed coats were softer, as were their cotyledons. Cotyledons had 6-8% less nitrogen , 5-7% more carbon &
9-13% more starch. To be precise the eCO2 seedlings’ length & dry weight were not different than ambient CO2 ones.
Interesting.
That’s the type of plant I would expect to benefit substantially.
Were they fertilized?
Concurrent studies with otherwise similar population and conditions?
Yes fertilized. Try this free full link (2015) = http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agree.2015.02.002
Got busy and didn’t get around to looking at the paper. Unfortunately the link didn’t work when I finally tried.
Generalization about elevated CO2 (eCO2) and nitrogen should be given context. The trend is not always in one direction.
With regard to symbiotic N2 nitrogen fixation the range of in the kinds of plants studied eCO2 boosts N2 by 25.1% to 95.4% (data as of 2016 meta-analysis). Bear in mind if only consider legumes with their biological symbiont we are not looking at the majority of worldwide farmland (estimate ~10% of cropland).
In the case of non-symbiotic N2 nitrogen fixing eCO2 is reported to result in anywhere from -8.6 % to +41.3%. Yet once exclude rice paddys from this non-biological N2 fixation category eCO2 has a wide variation of effect on N2 fixation; namely from -20.2% to +35.7% (data likewise as of 2016 meta-analysis)
Greening is mostly from increased soil moisture due to increased water efficiency of plants.
Warming also transfers water from the ocean to land since IR in particular causes more evaporation from water than land.
The increase in nitrogen is also largely a result of increased CO2. As CO2 rises, plants provide more resources to symbiotic bacteria and fungi when nitrogen and phosphorus are constrained.
1.) Increased water retention makes water available for other plants and to aquifers. Warming also transports more water from the oceans to land. http://archive.news.iupui.edu/releases/2016/02/drylands-global-greening.shtml
2.) Increased CO2 causes most plants to produced heartier seeds which germinate earlier and more successfully and others to produce more seeds. https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/nph.12691
3.) Increased CO2 allows plants to transfer more resources to symbiotic fungi and bacteria which make Nitrogen and Phosphorus more bio-abvailible https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01159.x
Which leads to…
4.) Increased CO2 increases Carbon and Nitrogen in soil. https://nph.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2004.01159.x
5.) Similarly, Nitrogen fixing bacteria are also more productive in the oceans.. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01314.x
I’m more concerned that if our emissions growth declines and carbon capture is adopted, severe stress could be put on subsistence farming as nature and CC out compete subsistence farmers for CO2 and concentrations decline than that the weather might one day be on net worse for society. I expect the airborne fraction to decline as emissions level off, as plants will continue to become more productive.