A recent article by the BBC reports on a new study from researchers at Ohio State University (OSU) who used historical documents to determine that trees in the region have experienced a nearly month long expansion of their growing season when compared to the 19th century. This is not surprising. Copious amounts of research and hard data show also show that plant life in general is benefitting from additional atmospheric CO2 and modest warming.
The article, “Climate change: trees grow for extra month as planet warms – study,” describes an OSU study, which is partially based on notes taken by an Ohio farmer between 1883 and 1912. The farmer kept detailed records of meteorological data and tree growth on his property from season to season.
The lead author of the study then recorded data from the farmer’s hometown between 2010 and 2014 and compared contemporary hardwood tree growth to the farmer’s notes, coming to the conclusion that leaves stay on the trees 15 percent longer than they did in the 19th century. This equates to about an extra month of growth.
The BBC writes that the “implications of the longer growing period are unknown,” but also that since trees take up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere during photosynthesis, “the researchers said a longer growing period probably meant they did more of that.”
The results of the study should come as no surprise to those who have paid attention to the data on plant growth trends.
According to satellite data from NASA’s Vegetation Index, the Earth’s vegetation cover has increased over the last twenty years. Depending on what statistical analysis method is used, as explained in a Climate Realism post, here, the greening over the past twenty years is between 5 and 10 percent globally. (See Figure below)
In addition, a 2020 study by Harvard et al describes how the present greening trajectory alone will offset 17 years of man-made emissions of carbon dioxide by 2100, and that about 70 percent of post-1980s greening is being caused by carbon dioxide fertilization. Another study found that the Sahara desert has shrunk by about 8 percent over a similar timeframe.
The greening of the Earth is good for human beings and animals, alike. This is especially true in major crop growing regions, where additional CO2 fertilization has contributed to increasing production and yields of important crops, as Climate Realism has shown here, here, and here, among many other posts.
Seemingly unable to end a story about climate change on a positive note, the authors of the BBC story and the researchers caution that “higher, fluctuating temperatures may also stress trees in ways so far unknown.”
The ways are “so far unknown,” because despite more than hundred years of warming, evidence of dangerous stress has not materialized, but the benefits certainly have.
The BBC struggled to generate an alarmist message with this story, because the net impact of additional atmospheric CO2 and modest warming over a long period of time has largely been beneficial to plant life, trees included, not harmful. Available data proves that extended growing seasons have been and will continue to be good for forest growth, as well as vital crop production around the world. The OSU research team and BBC reporters should not try to throw a wet blanket on the findings of this study, which only reinforces what previous research has shown about the benefits of climate change to plant growth.
Linnea Lueken is a Research Fellow with the Arthur B. Robinson Center on Climate and Environmental Policy. While she was an intern with The Heartland Institute in 2018, she co-authored a Heartland Institute Policy Brief “Debunking Four Persistent Myths About Hydraulic Fracturing.”
1. More rain is not a problem.
2 Warmer weather is not a problem.✓
3. More arable land is not a problem.
4. Longer growing seasons is not a problem.✓
5. CO2 greening of the earth is not a problem.✓
6. There isn’t any Climate Crisis.
Now if only the BBC would work on those other 3 points.
It is different in California. More rain is a problem, and less rain is also a problem. Fortunately our gifted Governor Gavin Newsom (D) extracts federal disaster relief money in both cases.
If California were allowed to return to its natural state it would revert to mostly desert with occasional rain induced flooding. Man transformed California into a farming bread basket.
Yes, let California come back to its origins 3 centuries ago, without modern men’s megapoles, towns, homes, roads, highway, electric lines etc… and you will end about 85% of its forest fires
Floods are never a problem in your world?
Floods have a big housing effect on those who are not bright enough to build or buy homes that are elevated higher than past flood levels. Why should the rest of us pay for them through higher insurance premiums? Geoff S
In the US you don’t pay higher insurance claims for flood damage. Flood damage coverage is excluded from all policies unless you buy flood insurance. If you have a mortgage on your property and live within a 100 year flood zone you are required to buy flood insurance. In most jurisdictions it is illegal to build within a 100 year flood zone unless the first floor elevation is higher than the 100 year flood elevation.
So we’ve got flood risks well covered here in the US – that’s probably true in most first world nations.
Floods can and should be mitigated against by not building in flood plains. More rain on the other hand, which is what happens almost all the time, is a big positive.
all that good stuff IS a problem for climatistas who only wish for disasters and emergencies
“More rain is not a problem.”
Huh… tell that to the people on the east coast of the North Island of New Zealand. And it is rainfall patterns that are forecast to change. Farmers depend on rain to fall in a way that suits the crops they grow in any given area. If that changes…. that presents a problem.
“More arable land is not a problem.”
But the arable land will decrease as the oceans rise. Particularly so given most arable land is in low lying areas. The people of Bangladesh are a good example. They grow almost all their food in low lying areas. When the sea rises, they are going to be in serious trouble.
Simple Simon pops up again.
You have been told that those two tropical cyclones were caused by the Tongan eruption that threw 183 million tonnes of sea water into the atmosphere in January 2022.
Nothing to do with globawl warming Simon.
Sea level rise is close to 1.5 mm per year which translates to 6 inches in 100 years .
“You have been told that those two tropical cyclones were caused by the Tongan eruption that threw 183 million tonnes of sea water into the atmosphere in January 2022″
I have been told lots of things. You will forgive me for not rushing to celebrate your wisdom without any evidence. Got any?
183 million tonnes of evidence simon.
Soooo…. nothing but your word for it that the Tonga volcano was in any way responsible for the disaster that we saw in NZ. Gee who to believe? G.G.G.G.G. Graham or Niwa?
And here I was thinking the cropping practices depended on rainfall patterns, amongst other things. Moisture retention farming, long fallow and crop rotation must be figments of the imagination.
Rainfall patterns are forecast to change.
Much like everything else that so called climate science predicts, that isn’t happening either.
As to sea level rise, it’s been happening since the end of the little ice age and there is no sign of the rate increasing.
“there’s no sign of increasing.”
Bingo, here’s what that looks like:
“….forecast to change” – forecast by whom, using what modelling metrics, and who funds “them”?
Not true at all.
Actually most arable land is located far above sea level well inland. The “bread baskets” of the world are all located far above sea level and inland, such as the American midwest and northwest, CA Central Valley, Ukraine and nearly all of Europe. The bread baskets are the places that produce much of the food consumed in poor third world nations by virtue of far more effective and efficient agricultural practices.
Well, some fruit trees need a certain amount of chill days to set fruit, but I really doubt that is a problem in Ohio, whether in 1912 or now.
Average life expectancy of basket of the UK’s fruitcakes, plebs or aristos was about 49 years around 1900
For a similar basket of the above ingredients in 2020 it was about 81 years.
The other vegetables, as st. Margaret (god bless her soul) put it, just followed the trend.
Global warming among other things did greart contribution to the growing season of the average Brits.
I am a very long time resident of Ohio. It still gets plenty cold in the winter.
The location mentioned in the linked article is Wauseon, Ohio. It is a small town (pop. ~7,000) 30 mi (50 Km) west of Toledo. It is farm country, flat alluvial plains. No urban heat island there.
Curiously enough, canning tomatoes is a local business, and there is a large long established Mexican American community in the region, who came up there to pick tomatoes years ago.
One of my former partners, of whom there are many, is a Mexican American who grew up in that area. He went to the University of Toledo laws school and is one of the best litigation lawyers in Ohio. I asked him if he want to be referred to as Latinx, and he replied, no, I am Mexican.
My grandfather was Mexican, and Latinx is an atrocity. It proves you are both PC and do not know any Spanish or any other language but English. English is an outlier in not having grammatical gender.
CO2 itself is likely the cause, more so than temperature. https://mobile.twitter.com/aaronshem/status/1126891480625373184
c02 cant cause anything in trace amounts, and global temperature doesnt exist
plants breath it- the percent increase is substantial- so the effect on plants must be not insignificant- essentially beneficial
Uh oh, looks like Mosh is off his meds.
Pro tip: Trace amounts of lithium can stabilize brain function.
This not a Moshism because it’s true, at least in part.
Poor Steve, he tries so hard to be clever. But that’s another thing he fails at.
Are you honestly trying to claim that everybody here believes that CO2 can’t do anything because it’s a trace gas, or are you just trying to look even more dumb?
Is that true? Or did you hear it on the BBC? – A book by David Sedgwick exposing the splendours of our Government Propaganda Mintru. Goebbels would envy them, and Orwell warned us
We could use some good ole fashioned global warming as 5+ inches of snow fell overnight. Let’s go spring I am waiting.
My article from a very scary 11 years ago, sets out numerous examples of the climate warming and cooling.I am quite sure the longer growing season referenced is correct but it needs to be put in context with the past
A short anthology of changing climate – Watts Up With That?
The problem with a longer growing season is when a frost comes 🙁
There’s frost at the end of every growing season. Why is having that frost come a few days later a problem?
maybe just because that first frost reminds us that winter is coming so regardless of when it comes it’s not welcome- maybe that’s Derg’s point
We had a disastrous late spring frost in New Zealand in October last year .
Our all knowing Prime Minister Jacinda blamed it on climate change .
If its too hot or if it is too cold , if it is too dry or if it is too wet politicians blame climate change .
They also need to take off their infrared colored glasses. The expanded growing season probably has more to do with co2 itself, epigenetic and soil responses, and water than temperature. https://mobile.twitter.com/aaronshem/status/1126891480625373184
It’s easy to determine the negative effects of additional tree growth. Just look about 100 km to the south and see how the trees are doing there. Of course, they are doing perfectly fine and that would destroy the narrative.
That is the same logical fail that all warmunists are guilty of. A changing climate merely moves around the distribution of temperature since our planet enjoys a continuum of climatic conditions from the tropics to the poles. Most of the mass of biota lives outside the polar regions, so what most of what people think of as the “environment” merely shifts latitudinally as the climate changes. The same living things merely see their habitat displaced north or south by a relatively short distance. A tiny proportion of species might see their preferred habitat disappear completely, akin to the loser in a large game of musical chairs. And for every loser there will be other winners.
Like coral reefs … if somehow coastal waters get too warm for the coral polyps, and if those polyps somehow fail to adapt to the warmer waters by natural selection, as they usually do … then the reefs simply move towards cooler waters. Likewise if sea level rises such that it gets too deep for a particular reef formation, then the reef simply moves over to where the water is shallower.
But the warmunists refuse to acknowledge natural adaption.
“Likewise if sea level rises such that it gets too deep for a particular reef formation, then the reef simply moves over to where the water is shallower.”. Actually, the reef simply grows taller. That’s how the coral atolls in the Pacific all come to be exactly at sea level, in spite of major differences in their land bases.
adaption doesn’t fit the story; where are the control levers?
The BBC has become a total laughing stock Its latest version of Great Expectations is a hoot; Magwitch is white yet Estella is black
How does that work?
Did you mean the BBC ‘Wokglish’ ?
Careful with the spelling – hope you do not have sausage fingers and a Magic Apple keyboard…
Some of this is from temperature, but a lot of it is from epigenetic responses, soil and microbial changes, and increased water availability due to CO2 itself.
“higher, fluctuating temperatures may also stress trees in ways so far unknown.”
Umm. Greenhouse gases stabilize temperatures, making them fluctuate less. The lows increase more than the average and highs increase less. There’s less arctic blocking, making big swings rarer.
“so far unknown”
Much like the mythical tipping points that are always, just around the corner.
Here’s something from NASA that I do actually believe. (link at end)
Because it has real actual (moving in this case) pictures, on the ground, of what the Sputnik (or its operators think it) saw
(Notable how when Zoe re-analysed the data, using a slightly different averaging technique, half the green seen by NASA simply vanished)
If the Sahel is now so massively extra green, enough to grow all of Africa’s food – why isn’t it being used to do exactly that?
So I visit Wacson township where this ‘meticulous’ (credibility takes a dive with that exaggeration) farmer lived using Google ‘sputnik’
I see a fairly large town/city.
Is that where the farmer farmed – was Wacson such a big town with asphalt roads and other Big City Mod Cons back then?
Where exactly was this farm?
Was Wacson township surrounded by hundreds of square miles of arable farmland – poisoned and eroded by Ammonia Nitrate & Roundup back then.
Or was it a Hicksville comprising a few wooden shacks with a saloon, hotel and grocery/merchant’s store.
Tending to farmers who drove horse & carts and kept livestock on perennially green fields
You’ll being seeing a google screenshot of Wacson taken Oct 2022
OK from the angle of the camera there, that field looks to be nearly (high albedo) white.
But from the perspective of El Sol looking straight down through the (maize?) stubble, it will be nearly black in colour
IOW Was Wacson in those meticulous days of yore an urban heat island situate in the dried-out & aridified low albedo rural heat ocean it is now?
Growing tasteless mush that’s so low in actual nutrition as be be positively toxic.
Mush hideously and criminally misdescribed as ‘Food’
(I imagine that most of what’s farmed there now gets burned via Biofuel?)
Maybe you might visit London and stay at one of the many hotels along the Bayswater Road. You might ride on top a double decker bus, if you went during late November early December
From where you will see spring flowering bulbs in full bloom along the line of the railings dividing Hyde Park from the pavement – easily 2 and 3 months before you’d see them anywhere else in the UK
You won’t see many headless chicken BBC reporters there tho, raving about Global Warming.
Here’s why not
What a sweetie, and no Star Trek Technology or data adjustment needed to prove its existence either. Sorry NASA
“If the Sahel is now so massively extra green, enough to grow all of Africa’s food – why isn’t it being used to do exactly that?”
Extra green is a relative term. In the Sahel, it means you can grow stunted scraggly crops in place you couldn’t formerly grow stunted scraggly crops. Here’s a cherry-picked chunk of Mali (it’s just east of Mauritania) looking 13 years apart.
Now, now, Peta,
We know that you have strong feelings about agriculture. It is excellent that you take such an interest, that you educate yourself in this topic.
But – there has to be a “but” – you have to take more care with data.
When you write of “poisoned and eroded by Ammonia Nitrate & Roundup” you have to be able to give evidence.
Backstory: About 1970 as a recent Science graduate, I worked for Austral-Pacific Fertilizers, a new Dow Grace USA joint venture. The plant was in start-up to produce urea, with demand mainly from Queensland sugar farming. Over the Gibson River another plant was already making ammonium nitrate.
So, you have several reasons to dislike my work choice. But during this work, I was never to encounter any person who was poisoned in the sense of hospitalisation or death. Monsanto’s glyphosate chemical Roundup was not yet in commercial use (started 1974) so no comment here. Erosion of farm soils had long been a problem, before chemical fertilizers, and was responding to technology like contour farming. Chemicals were not then implicated in erosion. So your claims are down to poisoning from nitrogenous fertilizers. The old but hard question is “Where are the bodies?” Life expectancy has grown longer since 1970. The life style of most people has shown marginal improvement if you like reduction in personal physical stress in the workplace, more machinery, less manual effort.
You are trying to sell us a story that people have met sickness and early death because of nitrogenous fertilizers. You seek to convince us that this could escape detection and correction by the hordes of people paid to detect such effects.
No such effects have been attributed, with evidence, to nitrogenous fertilizers. The same can now be said of Roundup. We chemists, like most people, work to improve life for all, not in evil ways that harm. Roundup is an example of rather skilled chemists improving the lot of many people, for which reward like a Nobel is appropriate. Don’t you agree? Cheers. Geoff S
Well written Geoff
Organic farming cannot feed the world.
I have been farming since 1958 which was before urea or ammonia nitrate was used in New Zealand to any extent.
We used Paraquat which was dangerous if inhaled untill Roundup was introduced ,a much safer herbicide .
Show me some data on deaths caused by Roundup and any data on its effect on earth worms , soil microbes and flora.
Back in the 1970s and 80s clowns like Gwyn Dyer preached world starvation was around the corner .
World starvation has not happened because of nitrogenous fertilizer and the use of herbicides and pesticides.
It might be galling to some but nitrogenous fertilizer grows food to feed 4 billion people on this earth .
This is a fact and the other fact that is not mentioned is that world populations are all living longer than even 50 years ago despite consuming food grown with nitrogen fertilizer.
Copious amounts of research and hard data show also show that plant life in general is benefitting from additional atmospheric CO2 and modest warming.
perhaps the author missed previous “science” here that determined
“we cant detect any changes”
yes we can- I’ve worked out doors for 50 years here in Woke-achusetts- the winters are not as frigid as they used to be- we used to get many subzero F days- now hardly any- I don’t say it’s “climate change”- just the usual wild swing of weather- those cold winters will come back
Ah, I was wrong, it is a Moshism.
Is this what you’re reduced to now?
Steve is not content with making a fool of himself once, he has to repeat it in case anyone missed it the first time.
“Seemingly unable to end a story about climate change on a positive note, the authors of the BBC story and the researchers caution that “higher, fluctuating temperatures may also stress trees in ways so far unknown.””
With zero evidence for such a problem- it’s ludicrous to even suggest it.
If some trees are stressed, other will front up and help their neighbours – can we start a fund to send these BBC Wokanistas copies of Peter Wohlleben’s seminal work and suggest they also study the work of Clemens Arvay and peers – then they would really learn something useful….possibly.
Trees are stressed all the time for many reasons. If the tree is weak, very high temperatures might kill it. But at least here in New England, I don’t see unusually high temperatures. We’ve always had heat waves- some years more than others. Wohlleben’s work is worthless- pure fantasy.
Here is an agricultural study of some of the U.S. A couple of observations. The study used heating/cooling degree days. Last Frost Days, First Frost Days, Growing Degree Days, etc. Somewhat related to temperature but measurement uncertainty comes out in the wash.
It basically showed that night time temps increasing is beneficial for growing crops. The LFD occurs earlier and the FFD happens later giving an expanded growing season.
I started to go to your link, but stopped when I saw that it was nature.com. I don’t waste my time with them. I also don’t trust any of the manipulated global temperature data, either. However, I think there is something to be gained from looking at the actual thermometer readings in the US. Given the claim is GLOBAL warming, it obviously would be affecting US thermometers. Several days ago, Willis gave us an analysis of the million, or so, thermometer readings from the US and found about a one and a quarter degree F of increase in the median daily high temperatures over a century. Given that would include urban heating effects, I would take away the quarter, and say there has been roughly a modest one degree increase in daily high global temperatures over the last century. That, along with the CO2 increase, could certainly extend the growing season a bit. I certainly would trust Willis long before I would trust anything from Nature.
Too bad for you then. It is a good paper with data that can be verified. First Frost and Last Frost days are hard to fake. Growing Degree Days are pretty hard to fake. It is why Heating and Cooling Degree Days are a better baseline to examine to see what is going on. You won’t get fake stuff like temperatures “calculated” to the one thousandths degree from temps in the units.
Au contraire. ‘Degree days’ and ‘frost dates’ are dependent on temperature data. They can vary considerably based on the source and selection of data. ‘Nature’ is far more political than scientific. Its biases are not in what is written, rather, it’s in what is omitted. It omits that which is contrary to its narrative.
But not random samples of temperatures to the one thousandths of a degree to find something. And, in fact the new Degree Day, calculations integrate the entire temperature stream of an entire day to determine the values to use. No more spikes or random samples. Lastly, FFD and LFD days only depend on frosts. Those are not likely to be adjusted to what someone thinks they should be.
As an alumnus, it’s THE Ohio State University. I apologize for Lonnie Thompson but we do have the greatest football team in the Universe.
From the article: “and modest warming.”
As compared to what?
Technically, the United States for example, is experiencing modest cooling since the 1930’s.
According to this theory, plants should have grown better in the 1930’s, because it was warmer then than now.
So what is difference with the 1930’s and today? Answer: There’s more CO2 in the air today then then. So maybe “modest warming” has nothing to do with how plants are behaving today.
From the article: “The lead author of the study then recorded data from the farmer’s hometown between 2010 and 2014 and compared contemporary hardwood tree growth to the farmer’s notes, coming to the conclusion that leaves stay on the trees 15 percent longer than they did in the 19th century. This equates to about an extra month of growth.”
What this says is the average first freeze date for this study area has been extended further into the fall by 30 days, since the 19th century.
I don’t believe it. Show me.
From the article: “The results of the study should come as no surprise to those who have paid attention to the data on plant growth trends.
According to satellite data from NASA’s Vegetation Index, the Earth’s vegetation cover has increased over the last twenty years. Depending on what statistical analysis method is used, as explained in a Climate Realism post, here, the greening over the past twenty years is between 5 and 10 percent globally.”
What should come as a surprise is that “modest warming” is included as part of this mix. Obviously, increased CO2 is the key ingredient, which is plainly stated here, without reference to “modest warming”.
From the article: “Seemingly unable to end a story about climate change on a positive note, the authors of the BBC story and the researchers caution that “higher, fluctuating temperatures may also stress trees in ways so far unknown.”
The ways are “so far unknown,” because despite more than hundred years of warming, evidence of dangerous stress has not materialized, but the benefits certainly have.”
This implies that the Earth has experienced one hundred years of constant warming.
This is not the case. The Earth has experienced both warming and cooling since the Little Ice Age with a range of about 2.0C between the warmest and the coolest periods, and the Early Twentieth Century for one, was just as warm as the current temperatures, so it is debatable whether there has been any net warming since the Early Twentieth Century.
One warm phase of a cycle seems to have fooled a lot of people into believing that the upward direction will go on forever. But it doesn’t go on forever, according to past history. Instead, a cooling phase kicks in for a few decades.
The Earth’s temperatures are currently 0.6C cooler than the 2016 high temperature point (the warmest in the satellite era). According to climate change alarmists, the climate shouldn’t be cooling at all because more CO2 is being constantly added to the Earth’s atmosphere. But it *is* cooling. The alarmists have it wrong.
I don’t see an update for the UAH satellite chart yet, so as of now, it is still 0.6C cooler than 2016. Will it be warmer or cooler in March? 🙂
I can assist the bbc.
Yes, the growing season has lengthened since the little ice age, a period of famine, plague, death, and all around unpleasantness.
Sane people would celebrate that.
Meanwhile, where I live, we have had one of the slowest snow melts on record due to much lower average temperatures the last two months.
Look at this link and think how many batteries would be needed to run this equipment for 12 or 13 hours a day
How much to charge these over night so they can go again the next day.
Not believable for the near future.
“OSU study, which is partially based on notes taken by an Ohio farmer between 1883 and 1912. The farmer kept detailed records of meteorological data and tree growth on his property from season to season.”
29 years of farmer collected “detailed records of meteorological data and tree growth“.
Meteorological data? What, “It rained from 4 AM until 2 PM, total 0.01 inch of rain?; Temperature at 5 AM was 29°F, at 12 PM was 44°F?; Wind was 25 mph at 5 AM, 43 mph at 12 PM?
Yeah right, a farmer spends hours carefully collecting, tabulating and archiving meteorological data, for 29 years, 24h/7d/52w/29y…
Then there is that bit about recording “tree growth” data…
Height of tree? Estimated at best, an impossibility in most forests.
Tree Circumference? Measured where, every year, throughout the year, for every tree?
That sure sounds like exaggerated fantasy.
“The lead author of the study then recorded data from the farmer’s hometown between 2010 and 2014 and compared contemporary hardwood tree growth to the farmer’s notes, coming to the conclusion that leaves stay on the trees 15 percent longer than they did in the 19th century.”
Then thee is that bit of mighty magic: “coming to the conclusion that leaves stay on the trees 15 percent longer than they did in the 19th century“!
Comparing the author’s assumed methods to measure hardwood growth over four years in current stands of hardwood trees and comparing that to some farmer’s assorted measurements and ramblings regarding unknown trees in the 1880s to 1912.
Leaping from that bit of dishonest pseudo science to a gross assumption regarding leaf out through leaf fall periods.
How did they consider oak and beech trees? Both trees hold their leaves well into the winter versus persimmon and black walnut that drop their leaves starting in late August?
Truly sloppy science. Not surprising that the BBC publishes it.