Essay by Eric Worrall
Heads I win, tails you lose…
With CO2 Levels Rising, World’s Drylands Are Turning Green
Despite warnings that climate change would create widespread desertification, many drylands are getting greener because of increased CO2 in the air — a trend that recent studies indicate will continue. But scientists warn this added vegetation may soak up scarce water supplies.
BY FRED PEARCE • JULY 16, 2024
…
And Australia is far from alone. From Africa’s Sahel to arid western India, and the deserts of northern China to southern Africa, the story is the same. “Greening is happening in most of the drylands globally, despite increasing aridity,” says Jason Evans, a water-cycle researcher at the Climate Change Research Centre of the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia.
What is going on? The primary reason, most recent studies conclude, is the 50-percent rise in carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere since preindustrial times. This increased C02 is not just driving climate change, but also fast-tracking photosynthesis in plants. By allowing them to use scarce water more efficiently, the CO2-rich air fertilizes vegetation growth in even some of the driest places.
…
The negative impacts of hotter, drier climates have not gone away; but in most arid lands this CO2 fertilization effect is proving more powerful. This supercharging of plant growth seems unlikely to be short-lived if fossil-fuel burning causes atmospheric concentrations of CO2 to continue rising. A new modeling studypublished last month found that it will, if anything, become more marked in the coming decades. “Most of the global drylands are projected to see an increase in vegetation productivity,” says Evans, a coauthor of the study.
…Water is not the only potential limiting factor in plant growth in arid lands. The availability of nutrients, particularly nitrogen, is another. That raises questions about whether the benefits of CO2 fertilization will continue to increase. But recent climate modeling suggests that the greening of drylands is unlikely to slow before mid-century and may speed up.
…
So is this all good news? Far from it, ecologists warn. Most obviously, the greening created by agricultural irrigation of fields can play havoc with scarce water reserves and obliterate valuable arid-land ecosystems
Read more: https://e360.yale.edu/features/greening-drylands-carbon-dioxide-climate-change
…
What can I say? The climate science prediction that CO2 would cause deserts to expand turns out to be dead wrong – but it’s still bad news.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Good grief
Don’t fret, they’ll fix that Greening Desert problem like they will do in the Mojave… by cutting down the Joshua Trees to make room for useless solar panels
I hear that pieces of wind turbine blades, foam and fiberglass, are washing up onto the beaches around Nantucket.
https://nantucketcurrent.com/news/vineyard-wind-reports-turbine-blade-damage-in-offshore-incident
Was that the result of a nor’easter or hurricane Beryl?
It’s only been described as an incident.”
Absolutely not. Nor’easters are uncommon in the summer, we’ve been in a Bahama High air flow dragging up that awful Gulf of Mexico air directly.
Beryl went north then the remnants crossed northern New England.
This seems to be a (pick one) “infant mortality failure”, manufacturing flaw, or new model design flaw.
The failed turbine was still in a testing phase. The Nantucket Current article I linked to says:
https://nantucketcurrent.com/news/what-we-know-about-the-cause-of-the-vineyard-wind-turbine-failure-so-far says:
Meanwhile, GE Vernova stock fell 9.25% today. https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GEV/
Poor blade design and manufacturing.
Upgrading both will require some time and money, say one to three years
Floating Offshore Wind Systems in the Impoverished State of Maine
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/floating-offshore-wind-systems-in-the-impoverished-state-of-maine
World’s First Floating Wind Farm to Undergo First Major Maintenance Campaign, Turbines to Be Towed to Norwegian Port
https://www.offshorewind.biz/2024/01/15/worlds-first-floating-wind-farm-to-undergo-first-major-maintenance-campaign-turbines-to-be-towed-to-norwegian-port/.
By Adrijana Buljan
.
The world’s first commercial-scale floating wind farm, the 5 turbines, 30 MW Hywind Scotland, officially entered the operations and maintenance (O&M) phase in October 2017. After a little over six years of operation, the Siemens Gamesa wind turbines are now due for major maintenance work.
While offshore turbines undergo maintenance work more than once during their lifespans, and tasks, such as major component exchange are not uncommon, this is the first time this will be done on a floating farm.
“From operational data, we have identified the need for heavy maintenance on the wind farm turbines.
This is the first such operation for a floating farm and the safest method to do this is to tow the turbines to shore and execute the operations in sheltered conditions,” an Equinor spokesperson said in a statement emailed to offshoreWIND.biz.
The maintenance will be performed during the summer in the Gulen Port in Norway as Equinor has awarded the contract for the onshore works to the Wergeland Group, which is expected to finish the campaign in three to four months after the start.
“Wergeland is the closest port with offshore wind experience and sufficient water depth that can service these turbines. The work will be done in close collaboration with the turbine supplier Siemens Gamesa,” Equinor’s spokesperson said.
Hywind Scotland, located 25 kilometres offshore Peterhead in Aberdeenshire, comprises five Siemens Gamesa 6 MW turbines mounted on SPAR-type foundations.
The floating wind farm has been operating with high capacity factors since the commissioning. In 2021, Equinor reported that Hywind Scotland had reached the highest average capacity factor for any wind farm in the UK for its third consecutive year.
DOES MAINE FORESEE HAVING A DEEPWATER PORT FOR MAINTENANCE OF (250) 12 MW FLOATERS?
51.9% Rolling Load Factor, high for s wind factory, not that great really.
https://www.ref.org.uk/generators/search.php?GeneratorName=Hywind&start=0&dir=desc&order=11
I heard about this in a New Hampshire wind group. There are more recent articles, see https://nantucketcurrent.com/news/vineyard-wind-shut-down-by-feds-after-turbine-blade-failure for the best one at the moment . Has photo.
Solar panels are about 20% efficient so the other 80% goes into heating the atmosphere which they say they don’t want.
20% efficient at noon time, other times not to much, and zero at night
The 80% is akin to UHI effect. Same for the 800 foot tall pedestals in wind mills.
“But scientists warn this added vegetation may soak up scarce water supplies.”
Scientists who don’t understand why CO2 is greening deserts shouldn’t make dumb comments. When there’s more CO2 in the air, plants don’t need as much water, because the stoma that they open to take in CO2 don’t have to open as wide and less water escapes through them.
Don’t fret, CH4 emissions oxidize into CO2 and H2O. So long as we emit CH4 we will have more water
The concentration of methane in the air is about 1.9 ppm. The reason for this
low concentration in air is due to the initiation of combustion by discharges of
lighting, Mother Nature’s sparkplug. Every day there are many thousands of lighting discharges of lighting, especially in the tropics.
Methane is slightly in soluble in cold water. Water at 0 deg. C can hold 35 ml of per liter. This is only about 25 milligrams per liter. Although this is a small amount of methane, the amount of water in the oceans is enormous.
In cold water methane can form a complex called “methane ice”. In deep cold polar water, there are vast deposits of methane ice on the floor.
It’s almost as though it’s a cycle!
Imagine that? Wow. Who woulda thunk it.
I read that global CO2 rise leads to reduced maximum stomatal conductance in plant leaves, which is a good thing as I understand it – better utilization of water, making plants more drought resistant/tolerant; ergo plant life intruding back into deserts; just as God planned for this to work when mankind discovered His wonderfully provided Fossil Fuels. God commanded us in Genesis 9:7 “And as for you, be fruitful and multiply; Bring forth abundantly in the earth And multiply in it.” Knowing that to multiply, mankind would require energy so God provided it in the form of naturally occurring Fossil Fuels that when consumed also increased Plant Food, and other plant efficacy to provide for the ever increasing population per God’s command. Fossil Fuels: Comes right out of Good Old Mother Nature’s ground. You just can’t get more natural than that. And its consumption side effect – growing more plant food. God is wonderfully wondrous in His glory.
Actually it was Darwin
He was God’s messenger to tell us how it is, much like Moses
Also these “scientists” seem to have forgotten that it is difficult to destroy matter. So where do they think the water goes that is emitted into the atmosphere – a nuclear reaction that warms the earth? (sarc)
This is the key thought, if you can call it that, “the greening created by agricultural irrigation of fields can play havoc with scarce water reserves” that has nothing to do with the greening of deserts.
Yep, that stood out like a sore thumb.
A green thumb?
Don’t forget plants shade the soil slowing evaporation. Roots also break up soil allowing more penetration of water and less run off.
Important Role of CO2 for Flora and Fauna Growth
Plants require at least 1000 to 1200 ppm of CO2, as proven in greenhouses
Many plants have become extinct, along with the fauna they supported, due to a lack of CO2. As a result, many areas of the world became arid and deserts. Current CO2 needs to at least double or triple. Earth temperature increased about 1.2 C since 1900, due to many causes, such as fossil CO2, and permafrost methane which converts to CO2.
.
CO2 ppm increased from 1979 to 2023 was 421 – 336 = 85, greening increase about 15%, per NASA.
CO2 ppm increased from 1900 to 2023 was 421 – 296 = 125, greening increase about 22%
Increased greening: 1) Produces oxygen by photosynthesis; 2) Increases world fauna; 3) Increases crop yields per acre; 4) Reduces world desert areas
The ozone layer absorbs 200 to 315 nm UV wavelengths, which would genetically damage exposed lifeforms.
.
Energy-related CO2 was 37.55 Gt, or 4.8 ppm in 2023, about 68% of total human CO2. One CO2 ppm = 7.821 Gt. Total human was 4.8/0.68 = 7.06 ppm. See summary URL.
To atmosphere was CO2 was 421.08 ppm, end 2023 – 418.53, end 2022 = 2.55 ppm; natural increase is assumed zero; to oceans 3.5 ppm (assumed); to other sinks 1.01 ppm
Mauna Loa curve shows a variation of about 9 ppm during a year
.
Respiration: glucose + oxygen → carbon dioxide + water (+ energy)
Photosynthesis: carbon dioxide + water (+ energy) → glucose + oxygen
Plants respire 24/7. Plants photosynthesize with brighter light
In low light, respiration and photosynthesis are in balance
In bright light, photosynthesis is much greater than respiration
.
https://gml.noaa.gov/webdata/ccgg/trends/co2/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/new-study-2001-2020-global-greening-is-an-indisputable-fact-andhttps://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/co2-is-not-pollution-it-s-the-currency-of-life
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/summary-of-world-co2eq-emissions-all-sources-and-energy-related
https://issuu.com/johna.shanahan/docs/co2_pitch_4-3-24_baeuerle_english
.
Oceans Absorb CO2
Sea water has 3.5% salt, NaCl, by weight.
CO2 molecules continuously move from the air into sea water, per Henry’s Law
CO2 and NaCl form many compounds that contain C, O, H, Cl, Ca
They sustain flora (plankton, kelp, coral) and fauna in the oceans.
At the surface, seawater pH 8.1, and CO2 421 ppm, the % presence of [CO2], [HCO3−], and [CO3 2−] ions is 0.5, 89, and 10.5; “Free” CO2 is only 0.5%; CO2 out-migration is minimal, given the conditions.
The oceans are a major sink of CO2 (human + natural)
https://tos.org/oceanography/assets/docs/14-4_feely.pdf
.
https://storage.ning.com/topology/rest/1.0/file/get/12401907497?profile=RESIZE_710x
Regarding Retained Energy in the atmosphere, aka Enthalpy,, CO2 plays a less than 1% role.
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
Retained Energy (Enthalpy) in Atmosphere Equals Global Warming
About 5.5 million EJ/y from the sun enters the top of atmosphere, and almost as much leaves,
Some energy is retained in the atmosphere on a continuing basis
Retained energy, RE, is a net effect of the interplay of the sun, atmosphere, earth surface (land and water), and flora and fauna, i.e., all effects are accounted for, including radiation, evaporation, condensation, precipitation
WV in the TS, up to about 1.5 km, is nearly constant at 9 g/kg of dry air
WV decreases from about 2.5 g to less than 0.3 g, from 2 km to 6 km, per balloon measurements
WV percent above 2 km is small compared to total WV
Assume:
For 2023, WV near the surface is 9 g/kg dry air (14,500 ppm) at TS = 16 C
For 1900, WV is 8.305 g/kg dry air (13,380 ppm) at TS = 14.8 C
This method is suitable to objectively approximate the RE role of CO2
As temperatures, pressures and WV vary with elevation, specific heat contents vary, and RE calculations are needed at each elevation, for more accurate RE values. That complex method was avoided for simplicity.
.
NOTE: This short video shows, CO2 plays no detectable RE role in the world’s driest places, with 421 ppm CO2 and minimal WV ppm
https://youtu.be/QCO7x6W61wc
.
Specific enthalpy of Dry Air and Water Vapor
ha = Cpa x T = 1006 kJ/kg.C x T, where Cpa is specific heat dry air
hg = (2501 kJ/kg, specific enthalpy WV at 0 C) + (Cpwv x T = 1.84 kJ/kg x T), where Cpwv is specific heat WV at constant pressure
.
1a) In 1900, world enthalpy moist air, at T = 14.8 C and H = 0.008244 kg WV/kg dry air (13,282 ppm)
h = ha + H.hg = 1.006T + H(2501 + 1.84T) = 1.006 (14.8) + 0.008306 {2501 + 1.84 (14.8)} = 35.886 kJ/kg dry air
RE dry air is 14.889 kJ/kg; RE WV is 20.997 kJ/kg
1b) In 2023, world enthalpy moist air, at T = 16 C and H = 0.009 kg WV/kg dry air (14,500 ppm)
1.006 (16) + 0.009 {2501 + 1.84 (16)} = 38.870 kJ/kg dry air
RE dry air is 16.096 kJ/kg; RE WV is 22.774 kJ/kg
https://www.wikihow.com/Calculate-the-Enthalpy-of-Moist-Air#:~:text=The%20equation%20for%20enthalpy%20is,specific%20enthalpy%20of%20water%20vapor.
.
Specific enthalpy CO2, in 1900
h = Cp CO2 x K = 0.833 x (14.8 + 273) = 239.8 kJ/kg CO2, where Cp CO2 is specific heat
World enthalpy CO2 = {(296 x 44)/(1000000 x 29) = 0.000449 kg CO2/kg dry air} x 239.8 kJ/kg CO2 @ur momisugly 287.8 K = 0.108 kJ/kg dry air
Specific enthalpy CO2, in 2023
h = Cp CO2 x K = 0.834 x (16 + 273) = 241.2 kJ/kg CO2, where Cp CO2 is specific heat
World enthalpy CO2 = {(421 x 44)/(1000000 x 29) = 0.000639 kg CO2/kg dry air} x 241.2 kJ/kg CO2 @ur momisugly 289 K = 0.154 kJ/kg dry air
.
World RE in 1900: (14.889 + 20.991 + 0.108) kJ/kg dry air x 1000 J/kJ x 5.148 x 10^18 kg x 10^-18 = 185,268 EJ
In 1900, WV/CO2 RE % role ratio 58.33/0.30 was 194.9; WV/CO2 ppm ratio 13376/296 was 45.2, i.e., a WV molecule is 4.31 more RE effective than a CO2 molecule.
World RE in 2023: (16.096 + 22.774 + 0.154) kJ/kg dry air x 1000 J/kJ x 5.148 x 10^18 kg x 10^-18 = 200,896 EJ
In 2023, WV/CO2 RE % role ratio 58.36/0.39 was 147.8; WV/CO2 ppm ratio 14500/421 was 34.4. i.e., a WV molecule is 4.29 more RE effective than a CO2 molecule.
.
In 1900, CO2 RE was (0.108/35,993) x 185,294 EJ = 554 EJ
In 2023, CO2 RE was (0.154/39.024) x 200,896 EJ = 793 EJ
CO2 RE increase 239 EJ
.
I deleted the table, because it was garbled.
You can see it by opening the URLs at the top
Woke Yale, which loves racial preferences and DEI, likes to have it both ways to maximize revenues
CO2 is good for increased greening, which brings in federal study funds
CO2 is causing global warming, which brings in federal study funds
A maximum number of folks are kept busy, and no one is offended
Kumbaya
The perfect subtitle, Eric.
“But scientists warn this added vegetation may soak up scarce water supplies.”
Really? The whole world is greener right before everyone’s eyes and satellites, but the activists pretending to be scientists still won’t let go of their desertification apocalypse fever dream. Even the JWs have a better prediction rate than climate adventists.
So do astrologers. Of course, they usually talk in such vague terms any result fits. Hmm. Global warming causes warming and cooling, floods and droughts… I guess I know where climate “scientists” learned their techniques.
I wonder if Arizona’s Astrological Institute offers a degree in climate science? There are at least seven accredited astrology schools in the US.
Seven Astrological schools? How do they assess the quality of mumbo jumbo? Who determines what is correct imagination to pass on and teach?
Just further evidence that there is no problem, no AWG, nothing to be afraid of. If anything CO2 is good for the planet and its inhabitants. But, the smart folks already knew that.
What’s AWG?
American Wire Gauge… must be something to do with “requisitioned” EV charging cables. 😉
Ask Richard Greene. He’ll tell you…..
A desert climate changing to green. The climate “scientists” just know in their heart that increased CO2 is necessarily bad. This leads to cognitive dissonance which yields the above.
All change is a Bad Thing! Human caused change is doubleplus ungood!
“All change is a Bad Thing!”
Except gender change. 😉
In the face of strong and consistent data to the contrary, the Leftist fear-mongers keep insisting extreme weather is getting worse because of CO2. If anything, weather patterns are moderating around the globe. Your governments lie to you constantly about matters both large and small.
Two-thirds of Republicans under the age of 30 support the so-called “Climate Change” agenda. The craziness is widespread.
The UN/IPCC is the main one pushing it with their doom-and-gloom predictions every other week to every nation on Earth.
I guess since they can’t stop wars anymore they have to make up something to stay relevant.
“So is this all good news? Far from it, ecologists warn. Most obviously, the greening created by agricultural irrigation of fields can play havoc with scarce water reserves and obliterate valuable arid-land ecosystems”
Nice how they switched the topic to farming – has nothing to do with the topic, but hey, haters gotta hate.
Not a single word about how the extra green stuff will actually cool the earth and trap moisture under the leaves.
Imagine if the Sahara becomes more like it’s neighbour, the Congo rainforest!!!
Nor did they mention the massive increase in crop yields. Record cereal grain production on less land. How will they twist more food into being bad?
More obesity probably.
Perhaps more input is required from those grain growers who live in the wheat belt. Despite rising CO2 levels, grain yields vary up and down in accordance with the annual rainfall.
They represent grain growers as a data variable in their computer models…
The beauty of the higher CO2 levels is that the plants make more efficient use of the available soil moisture.
That then changes the limiting factors, most likely P, N or K.
As with the climate, grain harvests are the result of a multiplicity of factors. Rainfall and CO2 are just two of many. The rain has to come at the right time, too early and it can cause losses from mold, too late and grain losses occur from not being able to get into the fields with the combines.
As with the climates, models of grain production are too complicated to be complete. Most of the models wind up being nothing more than projections of the subjective guesses of the programmers.
That is why seed manufacturers pay farmers to plant test plots in their fields. You see those when you drive on the highways and see the providers signs and variety type. The signs are advertisements but also show people what the plantings do. Those that can’t make models, those that can study real stuff.
I have my doubts that most of those in climate science have ever even heard of “hardiness zones”.
How much of the tree growth used as evidence of longer growing seasons was due to CO2 fertilization rather than global warming?
And how much are tree rings affected by the CO2 deficit before the modern slightly warm period ?
Nitrogen?
Many of these plants will have Nitrogen fixing nodules.
Thunderstorms also fix nitrogen. If the greening increases the frequency of thunderstorms with rain then the plants win both ways. Dry thunderstorms start wildfires which will be seen as bad.
And we still wait for a single correct prediction from the ecofascists….
Used to think Yale was a decent university. 360.yale.edu has convincingly proven me wrong.
‘Pollution Paradox: How Cleaning Up Smog Drives Ocean Warming’
“New research indicates that the decline in smog particles from China’s air cleanups caused the recent extreme heat waves in the Pacific.”
https://e360.yale.edu/features/aerosols-warming-climate-change
…CO2-rich air fertilizes vegetation…
______________________________________________________________
Carbon dioxide is way more than mere fertilizer. The general formula for photosynthesis says CO2 + H20 and Light yields Oxygen and carbohydrates.
CO2 and water is the starting point for the life cycle on Earth
I always thought the word “fertilizer” was a poor choice for a starting material for the desired reaction.
Fertilizers are the trace micro-nutrients required for building amino acids.
Phosphorus, Nitrogen, Potassium and some others.
CO2 , H2O are essential building blocks.
You would hardly call H2O a fertiliser, so why call CO2 a fertilizer.
You would hardly call H2O a fertiliser, so why call CO2 a fertilizer.
_____________________________________________________
Excellent ! ! !
We already have a word, carbohydrates, that describe CO2 and H2O role in food production. So I agree maybe they could be called essentializers.
I get you.
CO2 is what plants breath but they need more. Water, fertilizers in the soil (Ever buy a fertilizer that didn’t break down it’s components?), but, they need to breath.
The more “air” plants have, one less missing component so they can grow.
I’m pretty sure a plant’s breath would be termed ‘fragrance’, whereas they ‘breathe’ in and out. lol
CO2 is what plants have for dinner (and breakfast, lunch and snacks to boot).
Strange.
When else in history has a receding desert been considered to be a “bad thing”?
If increased CO2 in the air can start plants growing in relatively arid areas, once the plants are established, they tend to shade the underlying soil and reduce evaporation, and conserve soil moisture between rain storms. This can encourage the growth of more plants in the (somewhat) moister soil.
These types of people just aren’t happy unless they are miserable. I’ve had depression for over 40 years but I’m more upbeat than the climate alarmists.
Irrigation dating to before 5,380 years ago has been found in the Andes.
I’ll pass on getting excited about new developments.
Take Yale off the grid and require that they operate exclusively of wind and solar. They can be an example for everyone else in academia that insists on putting a negative spin on the good that CO2 is doing.
“The climate science prediction that CO2 would cause deserts to expand “
As usual, no citationof who actually said that, ot what they said. In fact, most discussion in the AR3, at least, was of reduced rainfall. And what does this Yale paper say?
“Over the past half-century, most drylands have been experiencing a decline in rainfall, along with higher temperatures and greater rates of evaporation. “
Yet dry-land plant life expands. Those plants will hold water and reduce temperatures.
Show us where “most dryland temperatures” have been measured over the past half-century.
Nick is actually claiming that the AGW climate scientists haven’t been harping on “Climate Change Desertification”? Really? Wow…
One example:
https://sustainabilitylabs.org/ecosystem-restoration/desertification/#:~:text=Rising%20temperatures%20and%20changing%20precipitation,predicted%20to%20gradually%20dry%20out.
Lal (2001) predicted a yearly sink of 3 – 6 gigatons of CO2 by carbon sequestration into degraded dryland soils alone, a number which has been confirmed by several independent analyses. The global carbon sink potential of dryland rehabilitation is up to ten gigatons of carbon dioxide per year (Grunzweig et al, 2003; Leu, 2005). This corresponds to about 25% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, and up to 50% of the greenhouse gas accumulation rate in the atmosphere.
Our annual emissions equate to no more than a couple of extra CO2 molecules per tree leaf on the planet. Then consider that every living thing on the planet on the land, in the sea and in the air is composed of carbon compounds that were once in the air as CO2. The claim that it is only our “emissions” that remain in the air and accumulate year on year, nature cannot cope with our contribution or that the carbon cycle was somehow magically in perfect equilibrium before we started to burn coal and oil is a complete fairy tale designed to fool the gullible.
First hit on a google search, Nick:
misplaced response moved to above
Two things are required for green plants, H2O and CO2 along with sunshine to make sugars. Less H2O but more CO2 just don’t add up to more plant growth.
I swear Nick that you have no experience with agriculture at all. You’ve probably never sat down with a seed provider to choose the variety best suited to your land and forecasted weather during the growing season. I’m pretty sure you’ve never tested soil to see what nutrients need to be added for the crop you are going to plant. I’ll bet you’ve never plowed, disked, planted, or harvested any crop.
I’m pretty sure these “scientists” are very much academics who have never had to survive based upon what is grown and harvested from the soil.
The warmunists leave out the inconvenient fact that higher CO2 concentrations allow plants to use available water more efficiently. Low CO2 causes the plants to have to open their stomata’s – equivalent to breathing passages or nostrils in animals, which accelerates evapotranspiration (ie transferring water from plants to the atmosphere). So dry land plants don’t get greener only because they acquire more food – they also get greener because they do a better job of water conservation.
China continues to try to tame Mother nature….the desert in China has been expanding so a mega project to plant trees around its boundaries has been undertaken. The mega dam in China is now nearly running its floodgates wide open like back in 2020….this causes flood and erosion downstream. China is planning a larger dam in the west which will affect water flow into India….China loves to affect its neighbors.
Mother Nature got there first:
From Wiki
For several hundred thousand years, the Sahara has alternated between desert and savanna grassland in a 20,000-year cycle[9] caused by the precession of Earth’s axis (about 26,000 years) as it rotates around the Sun, which changes the location of the North African monsoon.
The deserts are mostly due to the latitude….the atmospheric air motion results in the air being “rained out” by the time it reaches the Sahara.
11,000-5,000 years ago
Green Sahara: African Humid Periods Paced by Earth’s Orbital Changes. Paleoclimate and archaeological evidence tells us that, 11,000-5,000 years ago, the Earth’s slow orbital ‘wobble’ transformed today’s Sahara desert to a land covered with vegetation and lakes.
https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/green-sahara-african-humid-periods-paced-by-82884405/
Yes. And places like the Sahara have been green in the past. When it turned into desert places like Egypt became more important due to the Nile and irrigation methods. All just natural cycles..
More on stomata.
The Yale article says in small part:
Either the author doesn’t understand or has over simplified, but:
Chloroplasts need both water and CO2 (and sunlight!) to make glucose and ultimately starch and cellulose,discarding O2 along the way. I wouldn’t separate those, perhaps he’s writing for people who can’t read chemical formulae.
Stomata open and close based on CO2 needs, CO2 diffuses in, H2O and O2 diffuse out. In arid conditions plants can’t afford the H2O loss so they want to limit the open time, and high levels of CO2 help immensely.
WUWT has known that for years, e.g.:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/21/co2-enrichment-improves-plant-water-use-efficiency/ is focused on the issue and shows greenhouse experiments with low/high CO2 levels and well-watered, moderate drought or severe drought conditions.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/10/musings-on-forest-fires-fuel-load-dr-ehrlich-and-the-co2fertilization-effect-upon-u-s-forests/ notes:
The fossil record provides leaf fossil evidence that has been used as part of trying to understand past temperature and CO2 levels.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/08/20/fossil-leaves-show-high-atmospheric-carbon-spurred-ancient-global-greening/ notes:
Finally, over 13 years ago, https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/26/co2-ice-cores-vs-plant-stomata/ ends with:
I have always believed the ice core co2 data to be too even
That is because they use an average with a timeframe of several thousand years which tell you very very little..
If I understand what has been posted in several of the ‘above’, it is supported by my daily observations of our California Poppies.
“Water is not the only potential limiting factor in plant growth in arid lands. The availability of nutrients, particularly nitrogen, is another”
There’s these things called animals that show up to feed and take habitat on plants and they poop, pee and die providing nutrients. Also, plants like legumes fix nitrogen from the air to their roots.
My understanding is that CO2 on its own cannot cause global warming but the warming it does cause would lead to more water vapor in the troposphere. Water vapor being the primary greenhouse gas would act as a positive feedback and that is what would cause global warming. So they are saying more water vapor will cause it to get drier?