By P Gosselin on 24. February 2021
Looking at NASA’s Vegetation Index data, the news is good: the globe has greened 10% so far this century.
That’s good news because we know this ultimately means greater crop production area and forest expansion. Ironically, what many “experts claim to be a huge problem (CO2) is in fact one of the major reasons behind the greening.
Zoe Phin has a post on this topic at her site which really warrants attention.
Global Vegetation Index surges 10% in 20 years
Zoe downloaded all of NASA’s available 16-day-increment vegetation data from 2000 to 2021. Here’s her result:
NASA’s Vegetation Index has risen from 0.0936 to 0.1029, which is a 9.94% increase. Chart by Zoe Phin
“10% global greening in 20 years! We are incredibly fortunate!” Zoe comments on the results. “I just wish everyone felt that way. But you know not everyone does. To the extent that humans enhance global greening is precisely what social parasites want to tax and regulate. No good deed goes unpunished.”
Been greening 30 years!
This is not unexpected news to cool-headed climate realists. In August, 2019, we reported on a German study showing how the globe had been greening for 3 decades. Based on satellite imagery, German Wissenschaft reported, “Vegetation on earth has been expanding for decades, satellite data show.”
Sahara shrinking, becoming greener
Also not long ago a study by Venter et al (2018) found the Sahara desert had shrunk by 8% over the previous three decades. This is profound because the Sahara covers a vast area of some 9.2 million square kilometers. Eight percent means more than 700,000 square kilometers more area that’s become green – an area almost as big as Germany and France combined.
So in terms of vegetation, the planet probably hasn’t had it this nice in about 1000 years.
70% driven by CO2
And there’s more good news if you think CO2 is a problem as a greenhouse gas (it isn’t).
Last August, NTZ weekly contributor Kenneth Richard cited a study by Haverd et al, 2020), and wrote that “about 70% of the Earth’s post-1980s vegetative greening trend has been driven by CO2 fertilization” and that this greening will offset 17 years (equivalent) of the Earth’s anthropogenic CO2 emissions by 2100.
There are many more studies underpinning the good news of the greening planet – thanks in large part to mankind. It’s not as bad as the crybaby activists and media depict it to be. Not even close.
At this rate, food security will not be a factor in the future and we can’t have people not needing a hand out from government.
Food security will be always factor because as long as global population increases, so must global agricultural production increase. That said (the need for agricultural output to keep pace with population), by far the biggest threat to humanity is NOT climate change.
The biggest threat to humanity and resulting environmental destruction that a global famine would bring is Climate Change policy — the UN’s Socialist-Marxist climate policy to destroy access to affordable, abundant fossil fuels necessary to sustain global agricultural output.
Well, don’t forget that European extremist that suggested we start eating our offspring.
Your “european extremist” was the great satirist Jonathan Swift.
The writing you are referring to was his “A Modest Proposal” on how the 18th Century wealthy ruling class in Ireland were living off rents extracted their desperately poor tenants. He proposed that having metaphorically devoured the parents, they might be encouraged to reduce the surplus population by literally devouring their children. Swift, strangely, 300 years before it became fashionable, commented on carbon taxes when he advised the Irish, whose exports to Britain were heavily tariffed, to ‘burn everything British except their coal’. He also commented on air quality. When a visiting English nobleman remarked that the air in Ireland was very pure compared to that of London, Swift told him not to mention that in London, for the certainty that if it was known, Ireland’s air would be taxed.
So now, and wouldn’t Swift love this, even though the air is cleaner in the UK, the EU, the US and Canada we gonna tax our asses off and then tie ourselves to unsustainable wind and solar while heavy duty polluters, China, India, Africa, South and Central America keep their lights on using coal, natural gas or old tires. It’s hilarious 😅
Interesting comment. I learned something new!!
You are assuming the global population always increases. I reject the hidden assumption.
Covered population increase and food sufficiency in chapters one and three of Gaia’s Limits. Food will eventually slow then halt global population growth somewhere above 10 billion (my guesstimate was about 10.3 billion) by around 2050 or a bit later.
But the analysis is very long and complex. You have to dig into future caloric intake needs, diet changes, (e.g how much meat protein of what animal type because of varying feed/food ratios), the availability of virtual water, the future impact of gmo on yields, weed and pest evolution, irrigation, additional arable land… and then you have to do the granular food analysis by crop type and diet. For example, India pulses and Chinese potatoes and African sorghum but global wheat, corn, rice, and soy.
I am wondering how many people the Earth could feed at present if by some means all the food that is wasted was instead consumed, and nothing else changed?
Hi Nicholas, as promised I have left a comment on the gravity-speed of light matter on the neutron star post from the other day.
Hi Vuk.
I saw that, but it was late and I was kinda tired.
(By the way, I saw what you did here! ;-0 )
I will take another look at it after dinner.
Approximately 50% of all food grown is wasted. This is caused by pests, biological issues, poor harvesting techniques, poor storage, processing time, transportation to market issues, handling procedures, use-by dates etc.,
My point exactly.
But plastic bags, wrap, and containers have significantly decreased the spoilage over the last 60 years…
I would like to know where you got that statistic, it seems a bit high to me. That and it is more important to measure food wasted after harvest and especially wasted at market as opposed to crop failure or insect invasion. My understanding is that as of present times more food is produced per acre of arable farmland that of anytime in history. Invention and innovation are well ahead of doomsday reports of famine right around the corner. A substantial increase in potential farmland due to CO2 increases caused by the gradual warming of the planet from the last ice age coupled with the innate nature of human beings to continue to invent and innovate should guarantee our future as a species. It is God’s promise to us, unless of course we screw it up and embrace Marxist/Socialist ideology, which, IMHO, is the work of Satan. I’m not an especially religious man, but do believe in the forces of Good and Evil. The light and the dark. the dichotomy of existence.
The IS and the IS NOT, ultimately.
Or if all the 300+ pounders only ate food for one.
Or if everyone ate actual food instead of the fake modified cash crops being grown and processed today.
Population dynamics are complex. It is my observation that fertility rates are linked more to economics than food production. As poverty decreases and material wealth increases fertility rates decline.
If one views population in terms of human capital, in impoverished counties (third world) where people have little economic capital, they tend to produce more human capital (children) to expand their family labor pool. Children are an economic asset.
In wealthy countries (first world) with abundant economic capital, children become an economic burden rather than an asset.
What is lowering the population fertility curve is the increase in wealth that is fueled (pun intended) by cheap energy availability. The ‘zero population growth’ advocates need to get on board with ‘carbon fuel = lower fertility’. (Heck, make that ‘Nuke energy=lower fertility). That increased CO2 increases biosphere productivity is simply a boon that increases food security.
John Ehrlich’s population bomb was confounded by Norman Borlaug’s green revolution. The world is dynamic. There is an element of hysteresis that makes it hard to steer.
Indeed, it is also my observation although I see it more precisely as a function of fiscal policy rather than general economics.
In a centralised debt based monetary system managed by diktat by unelected officials, money and credit radiate out from a point zero towards the periphery. Profit however, must necessarily migrate back towards the centre. When factoring interest payments, more money must migrate back to the centre than what originally radiated out. This is a compounding dynamic.
Governments that adhere to this monetary system therefore, are constantly short of funds and must, per force, perpetually increase the tax burden on the members of society that produce wealth. This is particularly the case of developed economies where electoral politics guarantees overspending.
Hence, in this monetary system, as economies develop, the cost of living increases and children become gradually ore of a burden.
Marginal economies that do not have well developed fiscal enforcement policies, give more lee way to the individual to escape fiscal pressure which, on the other hand, concentrates on the legally registered thus the corporate sector. But, eventually, even in these economies, children become gradually more expensive as the cost of energy, education, healthcare and utilities rises.
The closest correlation I have seen to any single factor is, that the birth rate is inversely proportional to the educational level of women.
Of course, as you have said, there are many factors and they may interact in complex ways.
The ones you mention are important as well, and in fact educational attainment and poverty/prosperity are probably highly correlated as well.
Which is why we ought to stick with steering our own individual lives rather than those of others.
Rud
Any thoughts on seafood?
Seafood is currently a huge source of the world’s protein.
Seaford can be divided into wild caught and farmed.
Wild caught is slowly decreasing but farmed is increasing at a slightly faster rate.
If needed, I think there is plenty of room for a farmed seafood revolution.
10 billion?
This planet can do 10 trillion easy. And I’m not trolling.
Peak will be 9 billion or a bit below and will occur around 2040.
Rud
The latest research I read had it peaking somewhere between 8-9 billion as early as 2035. And that was before the pandemic, which could bring peak humans half a decade earlier still.
Please show me the reasoning behind your rejection of so obvious an assumption.
Joel, I agree with your main point, but I would simplify it even more. The biggest threat to humanity and Earth’s environment is plain stupidity of the many who claim to be “leaders.”
Good point Gordon, it’s the environment which started it.
We should declare war on the environment and develop a first strike strategy !!
We should stop giving it all this nice CO2 and choke it back to 350 ppm, just as a warning shot across the bows. Let it know who’s boss.
McKibben is way ahead us.
The biggest threat to humanity have always been and still are absolute and totalitarian human made ideas?
We are at 80% or so of peak population now. We will probably rise to 10B but will decline a bit after as prosperity spreads (and fewer children per family that goes with it).
People don’t generally know that countries like Bangladesh and a few others have had double digit GDP growth, 15% annually in recent years (!!) Pakistan 6%, Africa 3% … these are World Bank figures. Malthusians and Marxists don’t spout these figures just like they don’t like to acknowledge the Greening. I’ve termed the phenomenon “Garden of Eden Earth” in the making. With widespread plenty, comes peace and prosperity, too. I wish I hadn’t sampled 10 decades. I would have liked to be here for it.
The world can sustain ten times it’s current population with less enviromental damage. Just build lots of nuclear power stations and place high yeilding environmentally controlled greenhouses on rooftops in cities. The problems the world faces today are a consequence of misinformation and political correctness.
Food is not a fixed resource. We can always produce more and we can always make limited land more productive. Infact 2/3 of US agriculture is for livestock. Food scarcity happens in places where there is war and people can not make the money to buy what the americans produce. Food is not limit to our prosperity and growth it is energy.
Two questions: Are you sure that nature will not limit human population growth? How can we be certain that the UN will even exist when or if this global famine that you predict ever comes to be?
You might be on to something there.
In the minds of those herding the warmunists, extra food for humanity is a bug, not a feature.
At this rate?
Which rate do you exactly mean? Do you mean the alleged 8 % increase in Sahara’s greening?
This is nothing else than simple-minded manipulation, Scissor.
Read the original 2018 article written by Venter & alii:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04616-8
There, you won’t find EVEN ONE reference to the Sahara. The article deals with sub-saharian regions, and NOT with the Sahara itself, which does not green at all.
” Here we report, using high-resolution satellite imagery, that woody vegetation cover over sub-Saharan Africa increased by 8% over the past three decades… ”
Moreover, the article clearly states, in the same paragraph:
” … and that a diversity of drivers, other than CO2, were able to explain 78% of the spatial variation in this trend. ”
*
What about reading this?
The Sahara Desert is expanding
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/03/180329141035.htm
J.-P. D.
Suggests ? That is supposed to be a scientific result?
But then read further that this speculation by one of the authors in an interview, NOT what the paper “suggests”.
Greg
All you did here is to dissimulate the main point, namely that this thread’s title
Sahara Alone Shrinks 700,000 Sq Km!
is nothing else than a manipulation, because
J.-P. D.
LOL….yeah and 4 years ago NASA said it was going to stop anyway
wrong again NASA
“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.”
Dream on. There will be such needs so long as there are politicians to exploit them.
Imagine all the climate migrants in the future that used to live in the desert and now need to learn to live in a forest. No one is thinking about them and the children?
Yes, what will the Bedouins do if they can’t drive their camels across the sands of the Sahara like their ancestors have done for centuries? This will destroy an entire culture.
go back to livestock like they did when the Sahara was green
That kind of culture has already been destroyed by statist in most parts of the world. Can’t have it difficult to catalogue your property.
What about their children, wont somebody please please think about the children, they wont have time to adapt and learn the new hunting skills they need to survive, they will never know what a 1000 mile beach looks like again.
Soon they won’t even know what sand looks like !
They’ll have to buy sand
Why has my post gone to awaiting approval ?.
Gary Ashe
Awaiting for approval
Reply to
Lee Scott
February 25, 2021 1:56 pm
What about their children, wont somebody please please think about the children, they wont have time to adapt and learn the new hunting skills they need to survive, they will never know what a 1000 mile beach looks like again.
Why has my post gone to awaiting approval ?.
Gary Ashe
Awaiting for approval
Reply to
Lee Scott
February 25, 2021 1:56 pm
What about their children, wont somebody please please think about the children, they wont have time to adapt and learn the new hunting skills they need to survive, they will never know what a 1000 mile beach looks like again.
why have my 2 posts gone to awaiting approval, theres zero controversial in them at all.
My replies to Lee
WUWT’s new filters have a Sc**thorpe problem. Your post triggered it with the K-word contained in the word after “hunting”
Pauleta
Climate refugees are a reality:
Texas weather: Thousands of cold-stunned turtles rescued – BBC News
Hold on! I thought you said that the increase in CO2 by 100ppm was so small it could make no difference to Thermal properties of the atmosphere.
But here you claim the same 100ppm makes the planet greener despite its insignificant proportion of the atmosphere. Clever stuff this CO2!
Its radiant significance is small when considering thermal results. However, it is the stuff of life for flora, just like protein is for humans. It’s thermal properties don’t apply to its plant food properties.
If you learned a little physics you would not have trouble understanding. The energy level of CO2 generated photons is so low it cannot piece the skin of the planet. Hence, it cannot warm the planet. It’s called physics. That doesn’t prevent plants from utilizing CO2 in chemical processes. Again, it’s basic physics. You really should learn a little.
“The infrared radiation penetrates but a few millimeters into the ocean. This means that the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere affects only the top few millimeters of the ocean. Water just a few centimeters deep receives none of the direct effect of the infrared thermal energy from the atmosphere! Further, it is in those top few millimeters in which evaporation takes places. So whatever infrared energy may reach the ocean as a result of the greenhouse effect is soon dissipated.” Dr. Robert E. Stevenson
The energy level of CO2 generated photons is so low it cannot piece the skin of the planet. — Oh dear that is so non-physics. You are not a “sky dragon” are you?
“The infrared radiation penetrates but a few millimeters into the ocean. This means that the greenhouse radiation from the atmosphere affects only the top few millimeters of the ocean —- IR penetration to sea is microns!. The CO2 energy is transferred by collision to all molecules in atmos at sea level pressures (there is little time for emition of photons). Thus the air above the sea surface is warm and in contact with the ocean and so will water will warm by conduction with the molecules. Wave action mixes the layers. Yes the surface will be hotter and evaporate more giving an additiona GHG.
CO2 is, in dependance of the temperature of the water, absorbed by the water.
g,
And that phenomenon was confirmed by measurements, or is it just conjecture?
roflmao,
You really are into fantasy fizzuc now aren’t you
Make it up as you go, science need never enter into it.
Atmosphere is NOT warmed by CO2, so your mindless little piece of non-science is just nonsense.
evaporation actually COOLS the surface of the ocean.
Ofcourse it does and not just the oceans but all the land water and wet surfaces after rain etc etc.
Conceivably the very small GHE could simply and minimally accelerate evaporation a miniscule amount, leading to an equally miniscule increase in w/v, which by it self even in clear sky conditions, reduces solar insolation into the oceans, and an equally small increase in clouds, which I believe have a cooling affect.
I see you are into complete denial. Not surprising. That is what happens when your views are driven by “faith”. I think I go with the world famous oceanographer over someone who believes in fantasies.
Good choice.
G can stick to his fisher-price physic’s and pound shop virtue.
the half-runt suffers permanently from Anti-carbon derangement syndrome.
A tiny, warped and twisted existence of the mentally inflicted..
Nobody has ever claimed that CO2 directly heats water.
Water is, as it has always been, heated by shortwave radiation from the sun.
How fast this energy can escape from the water into the atmosphere is controlled by the temperature difference between the water and the air.
The warmer the air is, the more the sun has to heat the water until the flow of energy balances again.
That is emissivity my little luke warmer friend
No it isn’t.
Richard M Could you tell me why the satellite CO2 mapping shows increased CO2 levels at the locations of extensive vegetation such as jungles and broadleaf forests? I am aware that vegetation is not supposed to produce higher CO2 level but I would think that those areas would show a reduced level of atmospheric CO2 during most of each 24 hour period.
From what I read that should be a maximum of 10 microns penetration before complete absorption, far short of even 1 mm.
You are correct Andy, it only penetrates the tension or torsion layer i forget the exact name, but you right, richard was only quoting someone else’s error.
Thats called cooling the ocean surface by aiding evaporation.
Or the greenhouse cooling effect, you heard it here first.
You are right, CO2 is clever, for the rest….. 😉
No, by models 😀
was the answer to willem posts question
I guess you are struggling to differentiate between Global Warming and Global Greening there Ghalfront?
You assume he’s bothered to try and understand the difference in the first place.
Like most progressives, ghalfont just reacts, he doesn’t think.
ghalfront == Griff is a paid troll. Whether he understands or not is immaterial, he tosses this nonsense to detract from the conversation.
Yeah one is real and measurable the other isn’t real and isn’t measurable because it doesn’t exist except in the minds of morons and luke warmer semi-morons.
Ghalfrunt didn’t you once tell us to drink bleach?
Muppet.
Muppets and reliable electricity are no longer culturally acceptable.
All the other words that sprang to mind would of got me in trouble 😕
Not if you misspell them.
You might be right but I think that a misspelled word somehow loses its impact, so I settled on a word that whilst not crude left no doubt about my feelings toward the person who made such a stupid comment.
CO2 is plant food, every cell in every organism on this planet contains carbon that was once in the atmosphere as CO2. Therefore, it’s not that clever. It made you.
Yes. Fundamentally, conservation of matter is one of the great principles of science.
Figured someone like you would stop by and spin the shrinking of the Sahara and greening of the planet into a negative. Can’t wait until Griff and Loydo to weigh in.
As I mentioned in another post, loydo claims to know the difference between logarithmic and linear effects, so I think she’ll be quiet on this one.
Once again, ghoulfont goes out of his way to prove that he never bothers to understand anything before reacting.
The greening of the planet has nothing to do with CO2 thermal properties.
Even a troll such as yourself should be able to figure that out.
Galfreak has a job figuring out what day of the week it is….
ghalfrunt
Congratulations!
You’ve successfully brain-washed yourself to complete inability to separate any ecological or biological issue from temperature. Pass go and collect 200.
Your self-taught underlying assumption that nothing other than temperature can affect plant growth, is asinine. CO2 effects of growth enhancement as explained in the Haverd paper are at the leaf level and are independent of temperature.
Yes temperature affects plant growth.
But so does CO2, independent of temperature.
Sorry about that – now go and stick your fingers in your ears and shout “La la la la!” loudly for an hour or so.
poor little half-runt piglet has been dong that all its life.
halfrunt,
I have another evil molecule and important movement for you to consider; the incredibly destructive oxygen molecule (O-O) which has been shown to be the cause of ALL fires and combustion! I am starting a group to reduce these atrocities against Life and stop children, puppies and grannies from being burned alive any longer!
Please send your donations to the Anti-Rapid Oxidation Organization (AROO!) With your help we will develop systems to lower the cruel oxygen to safe levels of about 5,000-6,000ppm! In addition to preventing structure and wild fires from ever occurring again, we believe that attaining our goal will also help prevent rich, white, cis-gendered males from driving their SUVs and flying their private jets; another noble goal in it’s own right!
With your help we plan to force governments around the globe to spend TRILLIONS getting this mutilating killer lowered to fire-safe levels! Remember, if you don’t send your BUCKs to AROO; then you’re showing you want puppies and babies and grannies to be burned ALIVE!
ghalfrunt == Griff
another idiotic drive-by from the master baiter.
Two different things completely, half-runt
PLENTY of evidence for greening by atmospheric CO2
Basic biology and chemistry shows it is an absolute necessity for plant growth
ABSOLUTELY ZERO EVIDENCE of warming by atmospheric CO2
Basic physics and measurement shows it CANNOT warm the atmosphere.
Please try not to remain ignorant all your pathetic half-runt life.
I’m surprised that I’m the first one to point out to this nitwit that the 100ppm supposedly “heating” the planet is governed by the Beer-Lambert Law, which is why units of global warming are expressed as a doubling of CO2. In other words, its effects are LOGARITHMICALLY reduced. Plant growth, as governed by the Calvin Cycle is LINEAR. In other words, yes indeed CO2 is clever stuff when it comes to making plants grow at current levels. Heating the planet, not so much, at these levels. In fact the empirical evidence shows that it’s quite useless in that capacity.
I think even loydo gets this one, but I may be wrong.
So you are as ignorant of botany as you are of atmospheric physics, is what you are saying?
Or perhaps more so?
We need more info…it is close, or are you significantly less informed in one of these areas than you are of the other?
What a plum you are, thermal properties zero, fertilizing properties 100%.
100 ppm is one in ten thousand. i.e. one molecule in ten thousand, about the concentration of water vapour in the Antarctic atmosphere at -42ºC.. “so small it makes (almost) no difference to the thermal properties of the atmosphere.”
CO2 on the other hand is much in demand and constantly being scrubbed out of the atmosphere by voracious vegetation!
It would be interesting to compare CO2 concentrations in central Antarctica where none is generated or consumed, with Mauna Loa data. At 30ºC (85ºF) saturated air carries 42,000 ppm water molecules, up over 40 thousand percent, makes a BIG difference to the thermal properties of the atmosphere.
Cheers
Mike
Would the observatory at the South Pole suffice?
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/dv/iadv/graph.php?code=SPO&program=ccgg&type=ts
The CO2 level there tracks closely with Mauna Loa and other sites. The primary difference is the near absence of a seasonal cycle.
Mike, this is a nice comparison of CO2 trends at different latitudes:
https://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_gallery/other_stations/global_stations_co2_concentration_trends.html
However, I think these are all measured and reported in dry air.
I recently read that greener, denser foliage also reflects more sunlight and lowers the albedo significantly. There goes radiant heating not sent to CO2. I wonder if the models have this built in?
Beautiful albedo change in Boulder, Colorado today.
https://boulderflatironcam.com/boulder/
I recently read that greener, denser foliage also reflects more sunlight and lowers the albedo significantly
It lowers the albedo, right, but not by reflecting but by absorption.
Except for the color green!
Don’t worry, this is being partly mitigated by solar panels absorbing more energy.
Jim
Albedo is defined as the apparent brightness of an object, resulting from diffuse reflectance. Your statement appears to be contradictory. Vegetation is not just a passive reflector like clouds, because it converts some sunlight into mass; however, that is only about 1%. Even so, if something is reflecting more light, then its albedo has to be increasing, by definition.
That lower albedo is a terrible problem.
But thankfully, they got a pill for that now.
CO2 is NOT A POLLUTANT. It is the food for OUR food!
For those of us who are omnivores, it’s the food for the food for our food. CO2->plants->cows->steak->yum.
It drives me nuts because there are so many actual pollutants that leech into our water and are dumped into the air and oceans. I used to consider myself an environmentalist because those are REAL problems.
Now ‘environmentalism’ has become so twisted that its sole focus seems to be stopping something that causes no harm and is a necessity for the plants and trees and algae that the entire biosphere depends upon!
It truly beggars belief.
Yeah. Manufacturing waste being dumped into the waterways, toxic fumes being vented into the atmosphere, those are things worth cleaning up. CO2 not so much.
For the most part, in the west, those things have been cleaned up.
yes, but some of it is because we shipped all the polluting jobs to China where they don’t care.
Those businesses that don’t take advantage of tolerated but illicit practices are run out of business. They must participate or go extinct.
The only way out for an ethical polity is to put up large tariffs against imported goods manufactured in abusive economies such as China’s.
Take away the unfair financial advantage provided by China’s mercantilist abuses and ethical businesses can compete.
Those illicit goods will have to be tracked, though, because the unethical businesses will ship them in through third or fourth parties to outflank the tariffs.
Yeah, where I was brought up, down river from an ICI paint and dyestuffs division in W. Yorkshire, UK, it was beyond horrendous. A few years ago, I was told by an avid angler that it was, in fact, fishing groups that brought about the changes and not the useless parasites we call politicians. I never doubted him.
Trump didn’t help
It’s been scientifically confirmed, bone-headed cultural-marxists don’t care about actual facts, only about “feelings”. Case in point above.
But wait, there’s more. They’re phony-cultural-Marxists. They wouldn’t know Marxism if Karl got in the shower with them.
You are so dumb and no we do not agree with you Ghalfrunt in drinking bleach.
halfrunt,
That is demonstrably another of your lies! President Trump brought manufacturing jobs back to the US from China, thus lowering pollution worldwide while increasing worker’s wages and lowering unemployment rates!
With the Zhao Bai Den regime’s America Last policies there will be little or no economic recovery from the unnecessary and destructive lockdowns and our failing schools will cripple this generation of students, making them uncompetitive in the world job market!
China is laughing while watching their useful idiot mouthpieces spread propaganda and disinformation! Do they pay well!?
Another 730,000 applied for unemployment for the first time last month.
They are not just watching they are buying up the west education establishments at record levels, they intend to turn all the west’s children into Mao’s little helpers.
Trump will live forever in the minds of the feeble minded.
Trump helped the middle class a lot, which is why you hate him so much.
poor half-runt, TDS as well as ACDS.
No wonder your brain has so little functionallity
Its been over-run by two mental afflictions that turn you into a complete MORON. !
Caused by oxygen, reduce that and he will be fine.
It must take a lot of practice to come up with comments so idiotic.
I remember when we used to worry about things that matter, and left the weather to Mother Earth.
You sure take me back, brother….
You are a conservationist Tom, environMENTALism is a progressives gig.
As a proud, Native American, lesbian woman I have chosen the vegetarian lifestyle for it’s increased spirituality! Of course, many of my vegetables get processed through animals like cattle, elk, deer and buffalo to improve their flavor and protein content; nothing beats vegetarian dishes like roast prime rib or a big T-bone steak with a baked potato smothered with butter, sour cream and bacon!
By choosing Naive American, you may have cut yourself off from reparations.
Not to worry, there’s still time to change to African American, before payday.
pimf… Native American…
Naive works.
She could be a Freedwoman. They got a favorable ruling by the Cherokee Supreme Court a few days ago acknowledging their Cherokee citizenship without restrictions.
I believe the Cherokees are the largest Native American Tribe.
Navajo is the most populous tribe. Cherokee is second.
American Indians don’t call themselves Native Americans. They are smart, so recognize that anyone born in the USA is a native American.
Besides, they came here like everyone else.
Just earlier.
They stole it from the megafauna, right before they wiped them all out.
BTW…I got me some of that blood, Wissahickon Lenape.
So I am allowed to talk about it in critical terms.
You sound like someone I’ve met. Your name isn’t Licking Fox is it?
If meat eaters acted like vegans, ICYMI:
https://youtu.be/z0O_VYcsIk8
How can the New Green Weenie crowd not like the greening of the earth? Let’s get it up to 1,000 ppm and see how it handles the next intra-glacial cycle of the Ice Age we live in.
From the onset of the nonsense about CO2, I always wondered how something they claim is driving the climate towards heat, is always at its highest point right before we re-glaciate. How warm is that?
Ask any Texan; hotter makes it colder.
Yep, how ironic is that? Greens hate greening. The mind boggles.
No surprise, CO2 is good for you, climate alarmist i corona not so.
it’s far worse than expected:
“The Atlantic Ocean circulation that underpins the Gulf Stream, the weather system that brings warm and mild weather to Europe, is at its weakest in more than a millennium, and climate breakdown is the probable cause, according to new data.”
Europe is gona freeeeezzzzzz, ‘ELP !
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/feb/25/atlantic-ocean-circulation-at-weakest-in-a-millennium-say-scientists
In case you are climatically ignoramus
Climate Breakdown is “very serious and harmful change in the world’s weather, in particular the fact that it is believed to be getting warmer as a result of human activity increasing the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”
Other scientists say otherwise. https://ocp.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/gs/
Other scientists always say otherwise, 5 facts that prove the earth is flat
(14) 5 Facts That Prove The Earth Is Flat – YouTube
… except for the fact that the Gulf Stream is NOT what makes European weather mild, it is mostly due simply to the existence of the Atlantic Ocean, and the fact that the wind arrives mostly from the West.
Rahmstorf, who else …..
But, as usual, not true:
The Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is crucially important to global climate. Model simulations suggest that the AMOC may have been weakening over decades. However, existing array-based AMOC observations are not long enough to capture multidecadal changes. Here, we use repeated hydrographic sections in the subtropical and subpolar North Atlantic, combined with an inverse model constrained using satellite altimetry, to jointly analyze AMOC and hydrographic changes over the past three decades. We show that the AMOC state in the past decade is not distinctly different from that in the 1990s in the North Atlantic, with a remarkably stable partition of the subpolar overturning occurring prominently in the eastern basins rather than in the Labrador Sea. In contrast, profound hydrographic and oxygen changes, particularly in the subpolar North Atlantic, are observed over the same period, suggesting a much higher decoupling between the AMOC and ocean interior property fields than previously thought.
A stable Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation in a changing North Atlantic Ocean since the 1990s
AMOC is even increasing
At 45◦N, observations suggestthat the AMOC may already be increasing. Examining 26◦N,we find that the AMOC is no longer weakening, though therecent transport is not above the long-term mean.
Data source
The deplorable researcher with the delusion of the slowing AMOC:
THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW – some comments on the movie
Since than, he tries to find the slowing…..
Vuk
Correct – and three posts upstream there is evidence of a big reservoir of fresh water waiting to be released from the Arctic region – that could deliver a knock-out blow to the AMOC and then things get really interesting:
Freshwater outflow from Beaufort Sea could alter global climate patterns – Watts Up With That?
But then again maybe the AMOC doesn’t really exist, maybe South America never really separated from Africa, plate tectonics is a myth, there’s no Atlantic ocean and the world is flat. Always keep an open mind…
It’s not only Rahmsdorf of Potsdam who’s saying that the AMOC is weakening.
Here’s two more studies with the same conclusion published in 2018 (in terms of ocean circulation timescales, practically yesterday).
North Atlantic circulation slows down (nature.com)
The really hilarious thing about the AMOC (apart from the conspiracists who don’t believe in it) is that the warmists think that they can have it both ways and not look like idiots.
You see according to the doomsters, a slowing down AMOC caused warming.
While a speeding up AMOC also causes warming.
And presumably a staying-the-same locked down AMOC would also cause OMG warming.
In the real world faster AMOC moves more heat from equator to pole and brings warming (AMO warm phase) while the slowing AMOC reduces poleward heat transport and brings cooling (AMO cool phase).That’s what’s starting to happen now.
Funny how you tell us all about the conspiracy of people who believe in the AMOC, and then assert, without evidence, that skepticism of dumb and wrong ideas is a conspiracy!
Step away from the Kool-Aid, Chalupa!
Snap quiz: Point out the AMOC on this map showing all of the ocean currents in the worlds oceans.
Here is a hint…it does not exist on any map of ocean currents ever made, except the ones that show the AMOC and pretend none of the real ocean currents exist.
In fact, I will post two of them maps.
Then please explain how some fresh water in the North Atlantic will cause a current to stop that is driven by prevailing winds for over 10,000 miles?
Where will it go instead?
How much inertia is involved in entire oceans circulating, and what will happen that will stop all of that water from moving northward all the way from the southern tip of Africa, up into the Gulf of Mexico, and then out and up the East Coast of North America?
Nicholas
Two things reduce the dimensionality of turbulent chaos: internal positive feedbacks (excitability) and external periodic forcing. Yes fluid flow is chaotic. Not surprising. It is the reduction in chaos dimensionality from feedback and periodic forcing that causes structure and pattern to emerge, what Prigogine called dissipative structures. Their role is to export entropy – for the thermodynamic auditors!
So while you might expect all the oceans’ circulation to be nothing but high dimensional turbulence, there is none the less emergent pattern and rhythm. Driven internally, weakly forced externally.
Oh, OK.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.
To illuminate the magnitude of just a small aspect of ocean circulation:
1 Sverdrup=1 million Cu. Meters/second = 35 million CFS.
Gulf stream: mean transport = 32 Sv +/- 2 Sv @ 27 Deg N between the Bahamas and Florida,
90 Sv @ 35 Deg N, Cape Hatteras,
140 Sv @ 65 Deg N, New England Seamount.
That is a lot of heat transport being exported to the north Atlantic.
The real climate crisis – as far as the post-modern #ecoturnedonleftie is concerned – is things are actually getting better.
Global Vegetation Index surges 10% in 20 years
That has only been surpassed by the alarm of the alarmists – up 10,000%
That just shows you can’t regulate STUPIDITY.
Earl, I believe it was Einstein who said the universe is finite, human stupidity is not.
The exact quote: “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.”
Protect the Sahara!
Yes, we can’t allow any changes to take place!
I’ve always found it humorous that the same people who are always pushing for political changes are they very same ones who object most loudly about any changes in the environment.
They don’t object when land is covered in solar panels, or concreted over to build EV recharging stations.
That’s because they believe they benefit from those changes.
Same numpties will wail about church bells on a sunday, yet call you all kinds of bigot and racist if you object to loud speakers blaring out the call to prayer 4 times a day.
Careful what you dream about, careful what you wish for.
I’ve said here some squillions of zillions of times, dust from farmland and ‘atmospheric pollution’ (NOx,, SOx, soot, rubber dust etc) are very potent fertilisers.
They are the Liebig Limiters out there, CO2 is not
CO2 can certainly be made into the limiting nutrient, very easily and very often done so – inside commercial glasshouses.
They are = Different Planets.
British acid rain helps our trees, says Norway
Then we have the Olympian Feat of Conclusion Jumping that thinks this greenery is = ‘More Food’
Next:
Quote: from here
“When we first heard about this tree, this tree that can grow anywhere, we thought: good, this will bring shade, this will bring food,” he said. “But really it’s not like that. It’s a devil tree.”
That shit weed is growing on abandoned farms – abandoned because they are no good at growing food any more
Can the Sputnik tell the difference?
Would an abandoned farm be described as ‘desert’?
Even if not, that weed makes it so.
How many more of those charming & delicious herbs are out there.
Hello Sputnik – answers please.
BTW Sputnik, note the difference between ‘answers‘ and ‘pretty pictures‘
Next:
UK seems to do quite well in the greening dept – how much of that is due to autumn-planted cereals replacing spring-planted cereals?
Some of us live there and as part of our vocation, make a point of noticing such things.
Some of us would call Cooked Starch = ‘food’
In the same way that cocaine addicts talk about ‘sugar’, folks talk about wheat & rice as ‘staples’
None of those things are ‘food’. (for human critters anyway)
Next:
Some of us would say, OK, maybe more food. your mileage will vary.
Those with experience of nitrogen fertiliser would disagree, quite strongly.
See here Figure 1 on Page 1
See how nitrogen use has gone up by 20% over the 20 years.##
Yet greenery has gone up by 10% – because invasive weeds on deserts and autumn cereal plantings some might say.
Plus of stuff labelled as ‘pollution’, but isn’t.
## Some would say we “Got A Very Poor Deal”
Its like the spending on Healthcare – does spending more mean you are more healthy or less healthy?
What a crock on none sense
I think the main point with CO2 being like a fertilizer in the wild is because it reduces the water vapour loss through the stomata making plants more resilient to water stress.
Are “climate science deniers” (I’m one of them!) using this as evidence that the CO2 humans emit is contributing to the greening of the planet? Does this contradict arguments that human CO2 emissions are so low as to not have a material effect on the atmospheric levels of CO2; instead, the increase in CO2 levels is due to outgassing of the oceans as they warm up after the little ice age (LIA)?
There may be some doubt.
I have noted that a 0.1 C increase in the deep ocean would change the CO2 solubility enough to completely explain the recent increase in atmospheric CO2. If we assume that Henry’s law governs the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, then human emissions may be irrelevant. The oceans contain so much more CO2 than the atmosphere that the human contribution to the total is trifling.
This paper makes it clear that a lot of the experimental work on CO2 solubility is in doubt. In that light, I’m not willing to assert anything except that any simplistic model of the exchange of CO2 between the ocean and atmosphere is probably wrong to a greater or lesser extent.
Is there any actual evidence supporting an increase in ocean temperatures? Deep or otherwise?
Even the alarmists are only claiming a warming of 0.006C.
This link gives a rise of 0.02 – 0.04 C over a ten year span between 2009 and 2019 at four depths off the coast of Uruguay. I suggest you treat that information with the same degree of credulity you would normally apply to anything else related to the climate. 🙂
It amuses me to think that the increase in ocean temperatures may actually prove something the authors of the linked story hadn’t anticipated. ie. global warming causes increased CO2, and not the other way ’round.
Off Uruguay? I would check for the impact of El Nino/La Nina first.
I was thinking about the results claimed from the ARGOS probes, which are supposed to be world wide.
Monkton in a lecture i watched had a slide show on this matter Mark, very good i thought, the graphs he showed treated the ocean layers as 2 slabs the top slab cooling slightly and the bottom slab warming ever so slightly due to thermal venting, that was all ARGO data related.
Adding CO2 to a place devoid of water will not make it greener.
Adding water to a place devoid of CO2 will not make it greener.
There is no place devoid of CO2.
Much has been written about increased rainfall in the Sahel.
The 1970s and 1980s were very dry. It is wetter now.
As CO2 increases, plants need LESS water to photosynthesize! This is due to the number of, and length of time, their stomata have to be open to absorb the required CO2!
Please review evapotranspiration and get back to me!
It’s not the case that plants need less water to photosynthesize; rather, there is less squandering of water when stomata are constricted, which they are, somewhat, when CO2 concentration is higher. There is more diurnal variation than the annual 2 ppm increase that is currently observed.
None of that is relevant to the question of whether a greater area of an arid region is becoming vegetated.
For new plants to germinate they need water; they already have sufficient CO2 to make a go of it, notwithstanding the red herring that they’d be happy to have more.
If there is not an increase in successful germination, there is not an increase in greenery.
A lack of warmth in the Sahel is not a serious suggestion.
The WHOLE WORLD has been short of atmospheric CO2 for a LONG, LONG time
As it still is, just not as dangerously near empty as it was
The “WHOLE WORLD” is noticeably well populated by vegetation.
There were plants aplenty when CO2 was 290ppm.
Maybe there would have been none at 289ppm, but the evidence is clear that plants can do their thing at these levels of CO2.
If your car has enough fuel to get to the gas station, it doesn’t much matter that the gauge goes to 11.
Try learning some basic biology, twerp !
Don’t be IGNORANT all your life.
There is a huge amount of evidence that plants do better with more CO2 in the atmosphere. That’s why greenhouse operators spend their own money to boost levels to 1000 to 1200ppm.
Your analogy of a car is so bad, that only someone who knows nothing of cars or biology could come up with it.
By orders of magnitude, more vegetation on this planet grows without CO2 enrichment than does with it.
Even in greenhouses that do enrich CO2 in the heating season, they don’t in the cooling season because they cool by opening vents, not per the refrigeration cycle.
Only in your imagination have I said that enriched CO2 doesn’t increase plant growth.
What I have said is that CO2 enrichment does nothing to improve seed germination and seedling survival. Water makes an enormous difference and it is often absent. CO2 is never absent; there is always enough, even though growth would be greater with more.
As for stomatal constriction, it is of benefit to growth within the dripline of the plant concerned. It doesn’t conserve water meters away from those roots.
The narrow green strip each side of a river flowing through arid land could give you a clue but probably not.
The 1970s and 1980s were very cold. It’s warmer now.
Really?
It wasn’t warm enough in Mauritania to support an expansion in greenery?
How about “it wasn’t wet enough”?
Plants tend to humidify their own environment.
By both transpiration and creation and stabilisation of humic soils.
Hence the spread of trees in the Carboniferous led to that era being called Carboniferous. (Back then people thought that life-generated carbon was a good thing but of course we know better now…) Plants made the environment more suitable for themselves – as per Lovelock’s gaia hypothesis.
So increasing CO2 can cause and is causing the desert boundaries to shrink. Plants can advance into desert.
You get interesting fractal patterns at the boundary of desert – typical borderline chaos.
I’ll only believe this when I see it not reported by the BBC!!
Perhaps David Attenborough could be the voice that doesn’t tell this story on the program the BBC won’t be broadcasting.
As evidence keeps pouring in about the beneficial greening of the planet from CO2, the silence on the subject from the media becomes ever more deafening.
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/10/04/co2-fertilisation-and-the-greening-of-the-sahara/
Greening is shrinking the Sahara and boosting agricultural production:
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/10/24/world-wheat-crop-heads-for-new-record/
I guess it’s just taking them longer than expected to figure out a story about how this is all bad and worst than we thought.
I say it all the time to our liberal believers “find me one person you can prove has suffered from climate change, because I can find 7+ billion who have benefited”
Goselin,
The 30 years I have been going to Norway, I have noticed greatly increased greening and lushness, especially from Lillehammer south.
Norwegians agree.
The above graph for only 20 years proves it.
I wonder what such a graph would look like going back to 1900.
Dust from the Sahara provides nutrients to the Amazon. The alarmists may very well highlight the greening as scattered scrub whose presence is just another way Western society is damaging the rain forest (The Lungs of The Planet).
The oceans are the “Lungs of the Planet” as the photosynthesis that occurs there dwarfs the Amazon’s contribution to nearly non-existence. Of course the greenies don’t care about facts – you can barely see photoplankton, but tree canopies are symbolic grandeur itself.
Where did you read that? Most of the area of the oceans is desertlike with little life and photosynthesis to be found. The annual CO2 concentration fluctuation clearly follows a northern hemisphere -land mass foiliage seasonal pattern. The pattern would be inverted if the southern hemisphere oceans would absorb /sequestre the bulk of CO2.
Here’s the first article I found:
https://www.reference.com/science/produces-world-s-oxygen-b62edacb2bd59362
Another very important article:
http://phzoe.com/2021/02/12/effect-of-clouds-on-global-upwelling-radiation/
It’s a wonder this improving greening index hasn’t been monkeyed with to make it look like it’s something bad. Well, give them time….
Vegitation creates increased water vapor and humidity. What is the most potent green house gas by far? water vapor. That is why the globe is warming, but deserts aren’t. CO2 doesn’t impact temperatures, H2O. does.
Neither warms the surface.
http://phzoe.com/2021/02/12/effect-of-clouds-on-global-upwelling-radiation/
The point is that deserts are warming with less nightime cooling and so are the polar regions where the air contains little water vapor. In the tropics where water vapor content of the air is high CO2 does not play a significant role.
There have been many studies showing that plants grow faster in CO2 enriched atmospheres than in CO2-poor atmospheres, which is why greenhouse owners inject CO2 into their greenhouses so that the plants grow faster (in order to get all those flowers ready by Valentine’s Day). Higher CO2 levels also help plants to use water more efficiently, so that plants adapted to an arid climate can spread further into the desert.
If increased plant growth will “offset 17% of the Earth’s anthropogenic CO2 emissions by 2100”, that is equivalent to 13.6 years’ worth in the next 80 years. But if CO2 concentrations continue to rise, the “greening” or acceleration of plant growth could continue throughout that time, removing more of the anthropogenic emissions.
A mass balance over the atmosphere shows that about 8 gigatonnes of CO2 would result in a 1 ppm increase in CO2 concentration (if no CO2 was removed by natural processes). However, the actual CO2 rise rate (at Mauna Loa) is only about 55% of that predicted by the mass balance using known anthropogenic CO2 emissions, with 45% removed from the atmosphere by natural processes.
If the removal rate was proportional to the CO2 concentration (assuming a first-order reaction), then the removal rate would equal the emission rate when the CO2 concentration reached the current concentration divided by 0.45, or about 410 / 0.45 = 911 ppm. At this point, the CO2 balance on the atmosphere would be in equilibrium, and would stabilize at about 900 ppm. CO2 concentrations have exceeded 900 ppm in the distant past, and life has flourished during those times.
The assumption of a first-order reaction may not be correct, and there are other natural sources of CO2, and other natural sinks besides photosynthesis, so the actual equilibrium concentration may be different from 900 ppm. But the fact that photosynthesis rates increase with CO2 concentration shows that the current increase is bounded by an upper asymptote, not a runaway reaction or thermal runaway.
Even if we use the IPCC sensitivity of 1.8 C per doubling, equilibrium at 911 ppm would result in a warming of about 2.1 C from now. The actual “sensitivity” is much lower, because the Arrhenius equation used by the IPCC does not model physical reality (the Beers equation should be used). But since any observed warming seems to be concentrated at high latitudes, this could result in further greening of Canada, Siberia, and Scandinavia, with little effect anywhere else. We don’t have to worry about the Greenland or Antarctic ice caps melting–if the average temperature changes from -30 C to -27.9 C, ice still won’t melt.
But an Earth that produces more than twice as much food as it does now, with a CO2 concentration of 900 ppm, and a slightly warmer climate, what’s not to like? The future looks bright…green.
The reasoning relating to the ice caps is flawed as average is not the issue as you well know from the melting graphs. 9 months of ice growth and three months with melting partly during melting events, hot air flowing north (Arctic) or south (Antarctica). Not that I am very woried.
The Venter article only states that sub-Sahara Afrika has more than 8% increase in woody vegetation. Sub-Saharan Africa also known as black Afrika is below the Sahara all the way down to Cape Town. The Sahara is an area that does neither grow nor shrink, The borders like the Magreb and Sahel are subject to varying drougth patterns. In many Sahara border areas desertification is increasing. The message under the image in the article is just plain wrong.
Look at that:
Climate change will very likely result in southern Europe becoming much drier. Ironically, however, significant global warming could lead to an increase of vegetation in the Sahara – as has frequently occurred in the past. Martin Claussen, Director at the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg, simulates the interplay of climate and vegetation, and in doing so, explores the possibility of a greener future for northern Africa.
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
The claim of an 8% shrinking of the Sahara is plain wrong and based on not knowing what sub Sahara Africa means and not reading that it is about woody vegetation. I am glad that the world is growing but wrong claims about a spectacularly shrinking desert do not help a soul.
greening
AV
The hilarious thing about the Venter article is that it calls increased growth and number of trees “woody plant encroachment” and discusses it in a negative sense, like it is a problem. It’s almost like self parody, Mr Bean style – but it’s supposedly serious scientific text. The spread of cities reduces slightly the spread of trees. Now your average card-carrying Khmer Vert environmentalist, given the choice between cities and trees, might be expected to choose the latter. But not here! Instead urban spread is described as “mitigating” woody plant encroachment. Mitigating! Can you believe it? Trees actually become bad since they’re caused by CO2 increase. As if they are trees of the wrong race or something. And urban spread is good because it “mitigates” the spread of enemy-of-the-people trees!
Sorry but the article explicitly states at the bottom that this is positive news that you wont find in the mainstream media.and credits CO2 increase as a contribiuting factor. “ëncroachment” is just a technical term and if negative it is from a farmer’s perspective. The point is that the Venter article is just not about the Sahara at all (despite what is written below the picture).It is about Africa below the Sahara, Sahel to Cape Town Africa.
Also increasing vegetation is Capitalism. The world has gotten a lot richer in the last 20 to 30 years.
At this rate there won’t be enough of the Sahara left for all those solar panels.
I gotta wonder how long before NASA “adjusts” the greening data to fit the narrative.
It’s been experimentally proven plants are STARVING for more CO². People act like current CO² levels are horrible, yet we are barely above the minimum required for life.
Global warming was always good. Lush tropical climate extended over most of the earth at one time. Even the poles were subtropical or temperate. Witness fossils found all the way to both poles. Tropical forests contain thousands of species per acre – the most biologically dense places on earth.
Historically, flora and fauna were much more diverse and abundant when the earth was much warmer. 99 percent of all species are now extinct, partially due to global cooling.
Far more land will be available for crops, the huge land masses of Siberia, northern China, Canadian north, Greenland, and Alaska. And plants grow better with a higher concentration of carbon dioxide in the air.
Warmer is simply better. And no, the equator can’t stay at 150 degrees while the poles stay below zero. Increased temperature differential will drive air circulation and moderate temperatures.
How much was due to climate and how much was due to terrorist affiliates claiming the region?
Yes, but food produced under increased atmospheric CO2 is less nutritious.
Here’s a link:
https://climate.ai/podcast/dr-lewis-ziska-rising-co2-levels-makes-our-food-less-nutritious/
They are real scientists with real PhDs, they wouldn’t lie. They leave no stone un-turned, and their studies have the Good Housekeeping seal of approval and are advertised in “LIFE” magazine. Dr. Michael Mann even has them on his rolodex.
Yes, but food produced under increased atmospheric CO2 is less nutritious.
Ecofascist hogwash and infantile nonsense. Go to the website CO2 science and there are collected scores of paper that show that nutrient responses in plants to elevated CO2 are varied but positive as often as negative.
Not this nonsense again.
As to your claim that real scientists wouldn’t lie. Just check up on the reproducibility crisis.
Any way, a plant grows 20% bigger, but at the same time has 1% less nutrition by unit volume.
Only a problem to those who are desperate to prove that CO2 can’t possibly have any good properties.
Since most grains produce seeds, wheat/milo/corn/etc, you can’t use the entire volume of the plant to determine how nutritious it is. What does the CO2 do to the actual head of the wheat or to the amount of corn on the cob? I think you’ll find that higher CO2 produces more *harvest* weight.
I’m pretty sure you need to rein in your indignation on this obviously sarcastic comment!
Christ greenhouses with co2 enriched air must be lethal for the human race then, 600 years weve been wrongly using them for, its a wonder the human race ever got above a billion population.
Did you actually *read* this link?
“ Well Guess what it’s not, you know, it’s not the wheat, it’s the weeds.”
The guy is saying the wheat provides less food with high CO2 because weeds grow faster than the wheat!
I guess the guy never heard of using a broadleaf herbicide on you crops!
“…a study by Venter et. al. (2018) found the Sahara desert had shrunk by 8% over the previous 3 decades.”
Tomorrows headline: “World shortage of sand looms due to Global Warming!”
Here’s what is being hidden and denied
Some more papers on global greening and a re-greening Sahara. Look out for the African monsoon starting up again.
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/10/04/co2-fertilisation-and-the-greening-of-the-sahara/
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/10/24/world-wheat-crop-heads-for-new-record/
CO2 increase is so devastating that we’ve just had a record (large) global wheat harvest. That’s gotta be bad, right?
There is a flaw in the estimate. The satellites track only terrestrial greening. There is also provable greening in the oceans by significantly more as a percent based on North Atlantic trawls.And this ocean greening is more of a permanent carbon sink thanks to things like greening coccolithophores.
Rud
Coccolithophores are suffering in these low-CO2 conditions. Their peak abundance and diversity were in the late Cretaceous with 1000 ppm CO2.
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/09/11/coccolithophores-calcified-plankton-who-like-it-hot-and-hate-our-ice-age-cold/
Hence, the Cretaceous Period, thanks to the chalk deposited.
Yes you would think that huge and very conspicuous white cliffs at Dover, a nation-defining symbol even, would be a clue that CO2 at 1000 ppm is about optimal for planet earth. But no. Politics wins out over intelligence and common sense which are now right-wing attributes and censored across the internet.
The Sahel is Greening
https://d1wqtxts1xzle7.cloudfront.net/48621298/Greening_the_Sahel_mueller-sahel.pdf?1473189950
If not for stupid bio-fuels, we would have reached peak farmland..
I don’t think the term “crybaby” is particularly appropriate. I prefer Monckton’s bedwetter metaphor.
Apparently, Zoe’s plot of NASA’s vegetation index (VI) unduly favors the northern hemisphere.
The actual real-world net primary productivity (NPP), which was determined for 1987-2015 by the International Global Biosphere Programme, indicates higher year-round tropical NPP and Dec-Jan southern NPP than is indicated on the NASA vegetative index plot relative to mid-year, as shown by this map of global NPP (g C m-2yr-1):
Gross primary productivity (GPP) and Leaf Area Index (LAI) tell a similar story.
It seems the dense year-round tropical LAI with higher GPP/NPP should lead to a higher Dec-Jan vegetation index than just a quarter of the annual NH peaks as Zoe plotted, near zero.
Zoe figured out it’s easier to use a fraction of the globe than fraction of the land. The intensity of the index is not as important as the trend. Thank you.
…it’s easier to use a fraction of the globe than fraction of the land.
Where does your ‘fraction of the globe’ come into this?
The intensity of the index is not as important as the trend.
The trend is interesting of course to the greening storyline but incidental to the relative seasonal magnitudes (intensity) I’m asking about. This gets to Dec-Jan, where you show minima. Why is the index so low then? Do you really think the NH summer is 4X the SH summer considering the year-round tropical vegetation and Dec-Jan southern LAI/GPP/NPP is still high?
On the other hand, NASA also produced this image of LAI trending upward for 2000-2017, with new growth dominated by the NH, consistent with Zoe’s vegetative index plot upward trend.
While the % NH growth shown here is impressive, the overall tropical/southern absolute LAI/GPP/NPP is still large.
Oh no, not her. Please check all work and claims carefully !
Too late Greg, the opposite has happened; skepticism has evaporated like a morning fog in the Sahara, or Sahel as Alexander Vissers above points out. Howls of deluded joy and “what could possibly go wrong” have already rung out from monitor-lit bedrooms across the nation for the unplanned, uncontrolled injection of a teratonne of CO2.
S. Piao, et al. (2020) Characteristics, drivers and feedbacks of global greening Nature Reviews Earth & Environment 1,14–27
[Relevant] Key points
What has gone wrong, Loydo?
Can you factually point to any aspect of the climate that has deteriorated due to human CO2 emissions?
Many, but the question was: What could go wrong?
Let’s see them.
Thanks.
I am equally skeptical about human CO2 improving things through greening as I am about climatic deterioration due to human CO2. I seem to be alone with that opinion.
“…as I am about climatic deterioration due to human CO2”
It is to laugh.
Yes we know you are TOTALLY IGNORANT about basic BIOLOGY of plants Loy-dodo.
He/She/It is totally ignorant about pretty much everything.
Oh so that is why you keep making mindless innuendos about CO2 causing atmospheric warming.
I guess that you must KNOW by now that there is absolutely NO EVIDENCE of warming by atmospheric CO2.
You should also know that the increase in atmospheric CO2 has a massive effect on plant life, proven, measured in THOUSANDS of studies.
Or you could just keep living your pitiful life in abject DENIAL of the FACTS.
You *really* need to get out of the basement more. Go visit an actual greenhouse and actually talk to the manager about what they do to maximize their harvests!
What part of photosynthesis don’t you get?
More CO2, ie plant nutrient, in the air, the more sugar plants can make. Also, they need leave their stomata open for less time to get the CO2 they require, saving water. Hence, vegetation has advanced into drier regions, like the Sahel, thanks to human activities having enriching the air with more vital plant food.
This is a fact, not theoretical. Experiments show the effect on plants of having sufficient CO2. They do best at three times the current level. Experience has taught greenhouse owners to maintain air at 1000 to 1300 ppm.
That the planet has improved thanks to more CO2 is proven. The data is unequivocal.
The claims that CO2 is harming the planet remain hypothetical despite 50 years of searching for the data.
You didn’t answer the question, Loydo. The question to you was what had gone wrong.
As to “what could go wrong,” we have a very large empirical data base addressing that very question: the geological history of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Co2 much higher than now. No evidence of CO2 as a driver of air temperature. Life throve the entire time.
That history says, no evidence of a bad outcome from human CO2 emissions.
Really? Which 200 year long, teratonne plume are you basing that on?
How about the PETM?
Just a few tens of millions of years ago, CO2 levels were between 5000 and 7000 ppm, and life thrived.
Once again, we have data, you have climate models.
Here you go, Loydo:
I’m sure your fetid, ignorant ACDS infected little mind can come up with all sorts of FANTASIES. !
None of them will have the tiniest bit of evidence to back them up
Grimm Bros fairy-tales were far better.
I am equally as skeptical of these models as I am of general circulation models.
More CO2 makes leaves bigger.
It makes those leaves bigger quicker.
It makes little trees into bigger trees quicker.
It does not make seeds germinate and flourish.
Seeds will germinate most anywhere they land. Many tiny sprouts are seen each spring even in dry areas. Most soon die due to lack of water. Only those seeds which receive adequate moisture where they happened to fall will live through the summer. Plants thrive beside rivers in the desert not because that is the only place they could germinate, but because that is where they continue to receive water throughout the summer. Increased CO2 enables sprouts to survive farther away from the river where they would have died before due to lack of summer moisture.
In the face of actual data, skepticism naturally fades.
When the climate scientists are able to come up with some actual data, they will be taken more seriously as well.
Good idea, Greg. I provide source code. No one else does. Maybe I’m wrong, but compared to what? A black box?
Please come to my blog and critique to your hearts content.
This is great news! So when can we lock up Bill Gates and all the other globohomo world order satanic fascist for their man made global warming hoax.
Zoe the code-cutting queen.
We were C++ for machine control and CAD engines.
Nice to see Zoe’s elegant data crunching forays.
There’d be the odd prof and NASA hack trembling every time she digs into their data; ha ha!
Before we injure our arm patting our self on the back, there is something else that might be considered. North Africa had a problem with over grazing that stripped the ground bare. They started erecting fences to control where the animals grazed and the difference was noticeable. Areas controlled by the fences had vegetation and outside that area, the ground was bare. We need to understand exactly where the greening is taking place to understand what has changed.
experts claim to be a huge problem (CO2) is in fact one of the major reasons behind the greening.
ive yet to see any evidence that increasing co2 caused this. the earths been green before
That CO2 causes plants to grow bigger and to grow in areas where they couldn’t survive before is a claim that is backed by thousands of studies.
That Steve refuses to believe stuff that is backed by data, yet on the other hand fervently pushes his AGW beliefs, despite a total lack of data, is just more proof that he never was serious about this science thing.
Astonishingly to me, I find myself in agreement with sm, (sometimes SM).
I haven’t seen any evidence that a gradual increase in CO2 has greened the dry regions.
I’m a little surprised that the warmers don’t claim that it’s indirectly caused by CO2 changing rainfall in the warm zones and heating the temperate, but then that would be conceding benefits from the evil gas.
On the other side, the determination to have CO2 leap over every tall building is just tedious.
Steve
ive yet to see any evidence that increasing co2 caused this. the earths been green before
Chu et al 2016 in Nature had this to say:
Here we use three long-term satellite leaf area index (LAI) records and ten global ecosystem models to investigate four key drivers of LAI trends during 1982–2009. We show a persistent and widespread increase of growing season integrated LAI (greening) over 25% to 50% of the global vegetated area, whereas less than 4% of the globe shows decreasing LAI (browning). 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.
But I understand your reservation that models aren’t really data 😁
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004
As to the mechanism, Rebecca Thomas and colleagues (2016) explored the mechanism for CO2 greening, finding it to be attributable to increased light use efficiency by photosynthesising leaves:
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL070710
I can imagine how this will be spun in the news headlines: Carbon emissions cause Sahara to shrink, local wildlife threatened. Species native to the Sahara will have to migrate because their natural habitat has shrunk. This is a direct result of man’s carbon emissions, experts say.
Here’s more proof that we’ve only got 12 more years (or is it 11 already?) before the extinction of humanity:
The Greening of the Sahara: Past Changes and Future Implications – ScienceDirect
In the future, the Sahara and Sahelian regions could experience more rainfall than today as a result of climate change. Wetter periods, termed African humid periods, occurred in the past and witnessed a mesic landscape in place of today’s hyper-arid and semiarid environment. Such large past changes raise the question of whether the near future might hold in store similar environmental transformations, particularly in view of the growing human-induced climate, land-use, and land-cover changes. In the last decades, geoengineering initiatives (in the form of active re-greening projects of the Sahara and Sahel) have been proposed and could have significant effects on the climate of the region. Here, we synthesize the literature on past and projected changes in the hydroclimate of the Sahelian-Saharan region and the associated feedbacks. We further address the current state of knowledge concerning Saharan and Sahelian afforestation projects and their consequences. Our review underscores the importance of vegetation in land-atmosphere-ocean feedback processes and the far-field impacts of northern African ecosystem changes.
A warmer world means a greener world…just a short 13,000 years ago, the world was locked in an ice-age that spanned the globe. It warmed up, thank goodness…and the world saw an amazing flourishing of life, not to mention the rise of human civilization as a result.
Michael Crichton:
You think man can destroy the planet? What intoxicating vanity. Let me tell you about our planet. Earth is four-and-a-half-billion-years-old. There’s been life on it for nearly that long, 3.8 billion years. Bacteria first; later the first multicellular life, then the first complex creatures in the sea, on the land. Then finally the great sweeping ages of animals, the amphibians, the dinosaurs, at last the mammals, each one enduring millions on millions of years, great dynasties of creatures rising, flourishing, dying away — all this against a background of continuous and violent upheaval. Mountain ranges thrust up, eroded away, cometary impacts, volcano eruptions, oceans rising and falling, whole continents moving, an endless, constant, violent change, colliding, buckling to make mountains over millions of years. Earth has survived everything in its time.
It will certainly survive us. If all the nuclear weapons in the world went off at once and all the plants, all the animals died and the earth was sizzling hot for a hundred thousand years, life would survive, somewhere: under the soil, frozen in arctic ice. Sooner or later, when the planet was no longer inhospitable, life would spread again. The evolutionary process would begin again. Might take a few billion years for life to regain its present variety. Of course, it would be very different from what it is now, but the earth would survive our folly, only we would not. If the ozone layer gets thinner, ultraviolet radiation sears earth, so what? Ultraviolet radiation is good for life. It’s powerful energy. It promotes mutation, change. Many forms of life will thrive with more UV radiation. Many others will die out. You think this is the first time that’s happened? Think about oxygen. Necessary for life now, but oxygen is actually a metabolic poison, a corrosive glass, like fluorine.
When oxygen was first produced as a waste product by certain plant cells some three billion years ago, it created a crisis for all other life on earth. Those plants were polluting the environment, exhaling a lethal gas. Earth eventually had an atmosphere incompatible with life. Nevertheless, life on earth took care of itself. In the thinking of the human being a hundred years is a long time. Hundred years ago we didn’t have cars, airplanes, computers or vaccines. It was a whole different world, but to the earth, a hundred years is nothing. A million years is nothing. This planet lives and breathes on a much vaster scale. We can’t imagine its slow and powerful rhythms, and we haven’t got the humility to try. We’ve been residents here for the blink of an eye. If we’re gone tomorrow, the earth will not miss us.
A great man and greatly missed.
Such insight and wisdom would get you cancelled nowadays.
The climate news today reminds me of the cartoon in playboy magazine decades ago of Christopher Columbus coming ashore with ships in the background, sees a viking helmet in the sand and says “Quick hide it and don’t say anything”.
The media chronicling a false narrative is criminal especially during a time in the earth’s weather that is more favorable to life.
My apology to Columbus who’s achievements cannot be diminished.
Hatter Eggburn
Re.: ‘The Sahel is greening’
Your link doesn’t work properly. Maybe you need some help?
https://www.thegwpf.org/images/stories/gwpf-reports/mueller-sahel.pdf
But… did you notice that the document doesn’t contain any publication date at its beginning?
The only way to have an idea of how thoroughly old it is, is to look at the reference list.
Nothing newer than… 2009, most recent access to sources was… 2011.
Brand new info indeed!
I propose a somewhat more recent paper:
Changes in rainfall distribution promote woody foliage production in the Sahel
Brandt & al. (2019)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-019-0383-9
J.-P. D.
Bindidon
This paper by Vanessa Haverd et al 2020 is one of the most important recent ones cited by the Pierre Gosselin NTZ article above:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.14950
Of the recent papers it was the Nature article by Chu et al 2016 that really got the ball rolling:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004
A few more are summarised here:
https://ptolemy2.wordpress.com/2020/10/04/co2-fertilisation-and-the-greening-of-the-sahara/
Maybe there really is a God helping out once in a while.
“You can’t always get what you want, but if you try sometimes you get what you need.” Rolling Stones as quoted often by DJT
Vegtables are good for you. Except when it’s your “p”resident like china joe
Global warming sure is a b#%(* lol. Can we get it up a few more degrees it appear to be working out. Oh yeah, we’re also still coming out of an ice age.
Guess what’s the next petition, “SAVE THE SAND!” There will soon be a shortage of sand… which will … KILL EVERYONE!
Please forgive me if I offend anyone with my thoughts here. In my opinion the entire climate system they want to impose has nothing to do with facts, we have most definitely reached the point with technology that they can extend life we will never see or hear of this technology because we are not part of the “club” and has anyone noticed who profited off of this pandemic? The rich are getting richer and if they can now live forever these people most definitely look upon us as parasites who are using their precious resources. They would like to put an end to this because they know eventually the resources will dry up. Has anyone looked at their climate goals of 0 carbon emissions by 2030? Has anyone considered how they might reach this goal? I think of the Scarface line “I see a lot innocent people have to die now” has anyone thought of the famous Bill Gates speech about how they can get carbon emissions down through vaccines? Has anyone thought about how this might relate to where we are now and how Bill Gates is very much at the center on this vaccine for Covid-19? If you add it all up I think we are witnessing something very sinister that is about to happen in the next 9 years. Take care and remember Jesus is coming back very soon.
How dare you!!!! – Gerta the psycho to Mother Earth.
if we reduce CO2 emissions, the world will starve.
This is a hook the left didn’t see coming. The more CO2 the more green growth taking advantage of it. I expect we will see the left wanting to destroy the green vegatation now because it’s making their climate change hysteria look bad. The Earth perfectly balances itself. That’s why it’s been around for 6 billion years. All those years without the whacko leftists to look after it. How “on Earth” did it survive? Haha
I’m still trying to figure out why a “greener” planet is a BAD thing.
When the globalist bankers stop
loaning out money for seaside properties, that’s when I’ll start to consider global warming as real. Everyone knows damned well that the banks wouldn’t risk a single worthless red cent to secure property that even has a hint of literally being underwater in 10 years.