From the we told you so department.
The links between rising carbon dioxide levels, and greening trends have been supposedly confirmed by fossilized leaves from a 23 million-year-old forest.
Researchers previously postulated that ancient increases in atmospheric CO2 during the early Miocene allowed plants to perform photosynthesis more efficiently. But the latest research, published last Thursday in the journal Climate of the Past, is said to confirm the link between CO2 and greening in the fossil record.
This is something NASA satellites have already observed in the modern-day era. Recent satellite surveys suggest rising CO2 levels are responsible for greening patterns across the planet, including Arctic and drylands ecosystems.
The latest research suggests that greening trends are likely to continue as CO2 levels approach those recorded during ancient period of warming.
According to the new study, increases in photosynthesis rates won’t be able to keep up with current rates of human-caused carbon emissions. In addition, previous studies suggest increases in rates of photosynthesis can prevent staple crops from absorbing calcium, iron, zinc and other minerals important for human health.
By comparing the fossilized leaf structures, including microscopic veins, stomata and pores, to those of modern leaves, researchers designed a model to more accurately predict CO2 levels.
“It all fits together, it all makes sense,” said study co-author William D’Andrea, a paleoclimate scientist at Lamont-Doherty. “This should give us more confidence about how temperatures will change with CO2 levels.”
Well, it may “all fit together” but the plants sure seem happy as of late.
Again, does temperature follow CO2 or does CO2 follow temperature.
It’s deja vu, all over again.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/08/20/fossil-leaves-show-high-atmospheric-carbon-spurred-ancient-global-greening/
h/t: y berra
Thanks Anthony, looking forward to greener times due to increasing CO2, but without greenies, thank you. The original article presents some comments in conflict, like mummified versus fossilized, but the basic claim appears legit. The Early Miocene, 23 mya, saw the onset of tremendous pyroclastic volcanic eruptions in central Nevada and adjacent Utah, with many calderas formed (OK, also some gold deposits). Volcanos and lush vegetation, lots of tasty critters to eat, what’s not to like?
“According to the new study, increases in photosynthesis rates won’t be able to keep up with current rates of human-caused carbon emissions.”
It is like the fire triangle. The fire can’t keep up with the increase in oxygen.
What a bizarre 23 million year old leave.
market gardeners use 700 to 1,100 ppm CO2 to speed up growth. Does this indicate that this is the “normal” level of CO2?
Researchers also discovered that the links between water, and greening trends have been confirmed by fossilized leaves from a 23 million-year-old forest.
Researchers previously postulated that ancient increases in rain during the early Miocene allowed plants to perform photosynthesis more efficiently. But the latest research, published last Thursday in the journal Climate of the Past, is said to confirm the link between water and greening in the fossil record.
Next up: Researchers “shocked” to discover that warming is generally beneficial to all living things.
Aint “science” grand?
Thanks, Anthony!
Most informative and entertaining website EVAH!
My tomatoes and jalapeños want to say thanks to everyone who contributes to their health and vigor; especially those who drive big, gas guzzling SUVs and V8 powered vehicles!
I seriously doubt that our small addition to trace gas levels will prevent the next period of glaciation, but maybe it will ameliorate the drop in temperatures a bit.
Here’s hoping we become a safer, stronger nuclear powered nation with CO2 in the 800-1,000ppm range! HCQ works!!
The study uses a very simple CO2 = Temp-increase model and oxygen isotope ratios to conclude that the atmospheric CO2 during the Miocene was much higher than previously thought. The study also concluded that the leaf matter found in the deposit came from a very dense forest. I have never seen information on the amount of CO2 under the canopy of a dense forest versus the CO2 in the free air above, but it seems likely to me that there is/was more; it coming from rotting vegetation on the forest floor and CO2 being heavy, it might tend to stay under the canopy for a time. Anything growing under the canopy in the diffuse humid air would exhibit CO2-enrichment growth. It would depend on the amount of rotting stuff and its “rottability.” Anybody know?
“This should give us more confidence about how temperatures will change with CO2 levels.”
I have not read the study, so it may perhaps provide greater insight on this claim. However… it seems the study shows a correlation between a “greening” planet and carbon dioxide levels (which, based on actual greenhouses, we’ve known all along), but where is the correlation with a greening planet and CO2 levels and temperatures? I have yet to see any definitive evidence that increasing CO2 causes increasing temperatures. Again we find “scientists” grasping at straws to justify an anthropogenic effect on climate. It seems that this is just another example of good science being extrapolated to explain bad science.
We just had this bit of ”the science” a few days ago, whats changed.
A friend , a fearful young Thunbergite. who listened condescendingly to my mantra of “Go and look at the raw data before you pontificate” : I gave him web addresses for all the tidal gauges and all the GISS temperature stations in the world and urged him to look for the catastrophic roasting or cataclysmic inundation that is happening right now and let me know where they are. Alas he values the opinion of consensus science over raw data. A lost cause I’m afraid. “But you can not deny that phytoplankton is disappearing from the world oceans”he said “I’ve no idea about that but please show me the data and I will believe you” said I Not having a clue whether what he claimed was true or false.
This study would appear to indicate that phytoplankton are doing just fine although we should be looking at rate of change of greeniness rather than greeniness itself.
Interesting to note that terrestrial deserts occur at the same latitudes as Marine deserts
Different cause though Terrestrial deserts starvation of fresh water
Marine deserts starvation of nutrients? I suppose. But why the latitudinal coincidence?
If stomata are liked as CO2 indicator, why not base CO2 levels just in general on stomata ?
CO2: Ice Cores vs. Plant Stomata
or here:
The CO2 Record in Plant Fossils
Time to forget the 280 ppm preindustrial CO2 level….
The increase in CO2 levels will not result in the greening of the world on its own.
Other completely benign and naturally occurring compounds must be present: available Nitrogen, NO, NO2 and NO3. These are all produced every time lightning flashes in earth’s atmosphere.
And having classified NOx as a dangerous manmade pollutant, the boomers are of course moving on the trace gas, CO2. It’s merely their second act. It is not nearly as ridiculous and scientifically illiterate as the first.
Most soils do not contain enough of these minerals in the first place. These are provided by using chemical fertilizers. As these are outlawed by the environmentalists and complicit governments, there will be a reduction in the absorption of calcium, iron, zinc and other minerals important for human health in crops.
It is amazing how environmentalist policies and economics more often than not cause the very problems they are falsely prophesying in the first place.
Does anyone have clue what a 3 to 7 C increase to present global average surface temperature of 15 C would be like?
Let’s pick upper number of 7 C, so that is global average surface air temperature of 22 C.
So if global air temperature was 22 C what would be the average temperature of our ocean?
What is our current average temperature of our ocean?
Some say, “More than 90 percent of the warming that has happened on Earth over the past 50 years has occurred in the ocean. ”
And they don’t mean the surface of the ocean.
The average surface temperature of ocean is currently about 17 C so less than 1″ of the top of surface water of our ocean averages around 17 C.
The sun mostly warms waters in our ocean, and warmer water rises and is at highest temperature at the surface of the ocean. But when say in your ocean they talking about thousands meter down in the deeper parts of the ocean, and deep waters warming is suppose to be 90% of all global warming.
And our entire ocean average temperature is about 3.5 C or in last 50 year most warming increasing this temperature of 3.5 C.
What would world be like if this average 3.5 C were increase by 7 C, so the entire ocean average temperature was about 10.5 C?
That’s not impossible, in rather 23 million years ago the entire ocean average temperature was around 10 C.
23 million ago, we were not in an Ice Age.
We have been in Ice Age for last few million years ago, because our ocean is cold, and when Earth is not in Ice Age the ocean is about 10 C or warmer.
But question has to do, what it be like if global average air temperature was 3 to 7 C warmer, and I picking the highest number of 7 C warmer air temperature.
So 70% of Earth is oceans and it has average global surface air temperature of about 17 C. And 30% of the area is land, and it’s average global air temperature is about 10 C.
So you have 7 C to add and would it add equally to ocean and land average temperature? Ie, 17 + 7 = 24 C and land of 10 C + 7 = 17 C ??
Let’s look ocean average surface temperature of 17 C, the tropical ocean which about 40% of global ocean is about 26 C, and average of 60% of the rest of the ocean surface water is about 11 C.
If going to add to ocean average surface temperature of 17 C + 7 C, you could think most of the warming will increasing the average temperature of 60% of the ocean with average of 11 C. So might imagine +9 C is added to 11 C, and giving the 60% of the ocean temperature having average surface temperature of 20 C. And having a lot less of 7 C being added to present tropical ocean of 26 C.
Before going further, what effect would there be upon land temperatures if 60% of ocean was 20 C rather than 11 C.
Europe currently has average temperature of about 9 C and Canada’s average is about -4 C. And the reason Europe is currently as warm as it is, is because it’s warmed by about 10 C from the ocean. Or Gulf Stream adds about 10 C to Europe’s average temperature of about 9 C. And if gulf stream was even warmer than it is now, it should warm Europe even more than 10 C.
And since gulf stream is warmer ocean would be otherwise, if 60% of ocean became warmer, it acts like the Gulf Stream and warm regions on west coast of North America. For example the Oregon has currently average temperature of about 9 C, by having warmer ocean it increase more than 15 C due to gulf stream type effect. And further south in California, the state California could become tropical. Or average of California is currently is just over 15 C, and warmer ocean
could cause it to over 20 C. And Japan would become warmer just from the ocean surface water being warmer. And so on other land regions.
But anyhow, which would prefer entire ocean increasing it’s global air temperature by 7 C OR increase entire ocean from 3.5 C to 10 C.
It’s trick question, it’s the same thing.
The “Green” movement is an oxymoron: they oppose the two things required for a green planet, warm temperatures and a sufficient amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Thank you so much @ur momisugly admin for share your valuable thoughts and ideas We always enjoy your articles its inspired a lot by reading your articles day by day. So please accept my thanks and congrats for success of your latest series. We hope, you should published more better articles like ever before
solar energy
Are we absolutely sure that increased vegetation due to warming isn’t the cause of the increased atmospheric CO2? The CO2 mapping from the new CO2 measuring satellite shows higher CO2 levels corresponding to the locations of higher levels of vegetation.