By Kenneth Richard on 1. August 2024
“…higher atmospheric CO2…triggers…increased vegetation production and a greener landscape” – Chen et al., 2024
Plant transpiration is vital to plant growth and terrestrial ecosystems.
The rising CO2 trend over the last 30 years (1990-2020) has been the primary driver of planetary greening, or increases in Leaf Area Index (LAI).
The greening, in turn, is predominantly responsible for the widespread increase in plant transpiration over this period.
These elevated trends in greening and plant transpiration are expected to continue unabated to 2100, accelerating with the increases in emissions.
“The trend attribution analysis results show that the change in leaf area index (LAI) can explain 66.2% of the global PT trend, indicating that elevated LAI due to global greening is the dominant factor contributing to the upward trend in global PT. The elevated LAI can be largely attributed to the CO2 fertilization effect induced by elevated atmospheric CO2 concentration.”
Image Source: Chen et al., 2024
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
D’oh!
Yes, but what about the consequences of more O2? O2 is also being produced by metallic nodules on the ocean floor…….”Dark” O2.
But – unless the greenies have just placed the nodules there – presumably there is no increase in rate of O2 being given off.
Steady as she goes, Mr. Mate.
Auto
But there will certainly be more O2 from the greening planet. The nodules will get harvested, some of them. Nobody so far, apparently, has attempted to quantify the total O2 production of the nodules- yet the greens want to prevent harvesting them. I suspect the total is not much. Interesting, though. Mother Nature still has lots of mysteries.
It has long been argued what portion of the amazing increase in bu./acre of grain yields is explained by improved hybridization and what part by simple more CO2 nutrient effect.
As a phosphate engineer, I am willing to vote for expanded availability of CO2, which lets the plant utilize water more efficiently and overcome plant stresses. 900 ppm sounds about right for us.
Yay! CO2 is a plant nutrient!
One must wonder why Vegans would want to drive electric vehicles.
But on the other hand, cows eat grass. So one must also wonder why carnivores would want to drive electric vehicles too.
Kale. It’s what my food eats.
I don’t think even they would eat kale.
Actually they do. I remember a friend of mine letting the cows in on him left-over kale crops ..
They seem to actually like it.
Forage brassicas – quality crops for livestock production (nsw.gov.au)
I LIKE Kale! lt tastes like a Good Green should, and it is SO easy to grow (even in pretty cool weather).
It’s also loved by white moths who chew big holes in it.
I hate kale, my wife loves it. Maybe it’s just the way she prepares it.
A guy I used to know on the Central Coast has a large number of CO2 enhanced “grow shelters”.
He aims to keep levels around 1000ppm.
“These elevated trends in greening and plant transpiration are expected to continue unabated to 2100, accelerating with the increases in emissions.”
Oh, Noes, it’s much more worserer than we thought (& probably unprecedented) …
I was promised a future of drought & living in a desert with no food or water (except for weekly tsunamis & hurricanes ) & now that bloody CO2 is greening the planet, turning deserts into lands of milk & honey.
Can’t we get that nice Al Gore to save us from the world becoming greener ??
We need to kill the plants to save the planet.
JUST STOP PLANTS !!
Increased CO2 results in increased leaf area due to fertilization.
Increased CO2 results in reduced transpiration due to reduced size/number of leaf stomata.
It seems completely unsurprising, if not obvious, that a 30% increase in LAI would result in increased transpiration, but considerably less than a 30% increase.
The logic of your point is sound. Without data we cannot determine if the hypothesis you present is valid and if so, by how much.
Seems to be another question not yet answered in the “Settled Science.”
Almost as if the system deals with change by applying negative feedback to changes in environment.
The fact that the living environment, on a rock spinning around a hot star, could survive so long given all the things smashing into it, and countless variables trying to disturb it, shows just how tough Mother Nature is.
And up next –
Greta offers non- proliferation treaty with all 447 air-borne CO2 molecules.
“I see you.
I want to reach a state of peaceful co-existence with you.
Firstly, you need to stop terrorizing all the immature, uneducated losers like me all around the world just through your very existence.
So if you could immediately exterminate say half of yourselves, that could be an encouraging gesture.”
All Greta needs to do is stop breathing. That will definitely reduce CO2 emissions.
https://youtu.be/Jad1-vxh1vQ?si=yVtCvlCLkzUgBP-w
A detailed analysis of the exceedingly obvious.
It is possible that the greening is due to our emissions such that they never make it to the atmospheric concentration which is increasing for natural reasons. Most of our emissions are in the biosphere which is a different critter from the atmosphere. The reservoir models ignore this fundamental distinction.
“the atmospheric (CO2) concentration which is increasing for natural reasons.”
Burning hydrocarbon fuels is not natural. Only dingbats claim the CO2 increase is natural
Wildland fires started by lightning are not natural. Who knew?
The only way you can support that statement is to show that people are not natural.
That leaves divine intervention and intelligent design as your only arguments.There is no other choice.
That makes you a preacher, spreading the good word about your beliefs.
nailed it!
Did you know that human emissions are only 4% of total CO2 flux.
Did you know there is no isotopic evidence of human CO2 in the atmosphere.
Did you know that the rate of CO2 increase closely follows ocean atmospheric temperatures.
I can’t believe you are still ignorant of these facts….
Burning hydrocarbons is combustion.
Composting (which includes decomposition of leaf piles, of forest detritus, of layers of organic mulch, etc.) is a form combustion. Composting occurs naturally w/o any act of humans.
Does that mean I can stop turning my ‘composter’?
If you don’t turn your composter, it can become anaerobic, and produce more methane instead of CO2.
Do you have a factual and logically consistent argument against the conclusions of this research?
https://www.mdpi.com/2413-4155/6/1/17#B31-sci-06-00017
interesting- but will the Ruling Elite of the Climate Emergency cult read it?
Is it likely?
Kenneth Richard is normally a CO2 Does Nothing Nutter.
Now that he has finally posted an article on the benefits h of CO2, he is still confusing people
The right message is CO2 is greening ur planet and accelerating plant growth
With a higher atmospheric CO2 level, an individual plant needs less water than with a lower CO2 level. That is caused by higher water use efficiency and it is caused by reduced transpiration for that plant. I have read over 200 plant growth – CO2 enrichment scientific studies since 1997 — this is a very common finding.
It causes confusion to talk about total global transpiration, which is primarily increased by increased global leaf area.
Here is the summary of changes in global transpiration:
“We further find that the global transpiration increase is mainly driven by leaf area index increase (40%), followed by climate change (19%), though offset partly by CO2‐induced stomatal closure ( 38%) and land use and cover change ( 3%).”
Observational Constraints and Attribution of Global Plant Transpiration Changes Over the Past Four Decades – Cui – 2024 – Geophysical Research Letters – Wiley Online Library
A global attribution study that throws around numbers like “19%” and “3%” for anything seems crazy. How can they tell +/-10%?
You are certainly confused , RG.. reality seems to do that to you.
Did you know that human emissions are only 4% of total CO2 flux.
Did you know there is no isotopic evidence of human CO2 in the atmosphere.
Did you know that the rate of CO2 increase closely follows ocean atmospheric temperatures.
Do you have any empirical scientific evidence that CO2 causes warming ??
Or is it just a little fantasy of yours.
Apart for your Tourette’s moment in the first line you at least got something correct
CO2 is not plant fertilizer. If any gas is fertilizer is it NO2.
CO2 is plant food.
CO2 is an essential building block, same as H2O..
We don’t call H2O a fertiliser. Credit
Or you could say, “Carbon Dioxide and water are the feedstock of life on Earth”
🙂
Indeed. You can also say that greenhouse gases are that feedstock. Most folks look at (say) trees and think their enormous mass came from the soil, when in fact it nearly all came from greenhouse gasses, particularly CO2 and water vapor (when it precipitates).
Feedstock, food. Tomato – tomato.
🙂
And that’s why the combination of soil fertilizer and increased Co2 levels= magic.
And that, is a good thing.
Actually, they have it exactly backwards. When CO2 concentrations are low, green plants are forced to open up the stomatas on leaf surfaces to extract enough CO2 from the atmosphere … which causes transpiration to increase. When CO2 concentrations are high, the stomatas close down, losing less transpiration to the atmosphere, i.e., making the plants more water conservative.
Besides the fact that when supposed scientists make obviously incorrect statements they automatically lose credibility. Here in this paper they state that CO2 has a “fertilization effect” on plants (it doesn’t – fertilizers are trace substances that provide necessary nutrient chemicals to aid in plant food production … CO-2 IS the food, or more specifically CO2 is the primary feedstock not a trace element. Green plants convert the food intake using the energy from sunlight and convert it to cellulose (plant mass) and oxygen.
“supposed scientists “
Superb word choice — see my following comment.
On the other hand, number of leaves is increasing so, less transpiration per leaf but more leaves hence transpiration is increasing. Were the number of plants/leaves remain to remain static with increasing CO2 then you would be correct.
I’m no biologist but my knowledge tells me that plants take in CO2 + H2O and make sugar. This results in O2 being released. However, plant growth is done by taking the sugar and through respiration builds the stalks, leaves, seeds, etc. and it releases CO2. I would think that as there is larger leaf area and plant size, more CO2 would be released. I have no idea how much.
Three points:
1: Plants do better with increases Carbon Dioxide. Who Knew?
2: The inclusion of RCP8.5 is a useless exercise.
3: Quote- “This study is of great significance for the scientific response to challenges of climate change for regional water resource management.”
Trying to unpack this statement leads to a brain freeze. Looking at the “CrediT authorship contribution statement” doesn’t help. Consider the lead author’s interests: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Software, Validation, Visualization,
So, they want more money to “visualize” how to use the term “Climate_Change”™ to promote “water resource management” or anything else they can “conceptualize.”
Sorry, I missed my morning beer. Rant over!
3: Quote- “This study is of great significance for the scientific response to challenges of climate change for regional water resource management.”
What would a water resource manager _do_ with info from this study?
Wet his pants in excitement?
kill all excess plants within his domain?
More Oxygen… fire hazard!!
Yeah, but more water to douse the fires !!
Is it my imagination or is there an increasing number of papers that tend to fly in the face of the ‘Consensus’ emanating from China?
And the most accurate model in one IPCC report was Russian? Political danger abounds.
“indicating that elevated LAI due to global greening is the dominant factor contributing to the upward trend in global PT (plant transpiration)”
What is ‘unprecedented’ is having to tell scientist morons this!
It would be interesting to see if the increased transpiration is balanced by reduced land-based evaporation.
The Amazon provides a good example. Moisture has to find its way up the trees to be set free into the atmosphere above in dense tropical forests. The trees keep enough moisture in the atmosphere so the air over them become the dominant convective engine near the tropical Atlantic where moist air is preferentially drawn over the land rather than creating ocean warm pools in the adjacent parts of the Atlantic ocean.
Australia could look like the Amazon in a few decades if greening is sustained.
The Mediterranean is getting warm enough to support cyclones and these storms will gradually feed more water over the Sahara. That means the Sahara will be greening from the north as well as the south. When Sahara becomes forest again, the retained moisture will cause preferential convective instability and the lows will form over the Sahara rather than the Mediterranean. Moisture begets moisture.
Only China and India are presently doing the heavy lifting. The rest of the world has gone bonkers trying to reduce CO2. Australia is doing its bit be exporting coal to China and Indaa.
Australia provides a good example of the virtual spiral. Australia could well become the Amazon. We saw glimpses of this last January when convective storms spun up over the Northern Territory and the monsoon trough migrated well south over Australia. Will be interesting to see if these condions recur later in 2024 like they have since 2020 or if they remain cyclic. But the greening of central Australia is helping.
It could also be the case that global warming is the cause of the greening of the Earth and the greening is the cause of the CO2 rise. Annual temperature rise has not been continuous but has shown a pattern of alternating equal length periods of warming and pause in warming of about thirty years duration. Some CO2 satellite data mapping shows an apparent correlation between areas of high CO2 presence and intense vegetation especially areas of increased presence of broadleaf trees. Are these trees releasing CO2 similar to the human CO2 release?
In any event, the atmospheric CO2 level only rose one hundredth of one percent from 1960 to 2020 to then comprise only four hundredths of one percent of atmosphere. Not much of a climate threat if a threat at all.
The trees are probably not directly releasing that much additional CO2. But over time, the buildup of decomposing leafy material *will* release CO2. But I don’t believe climate science takes this into account in their models – they just assume its all human emitted.
There is a NASA document entitled “Satellite Reveals Human Contribution To Atmospheric CO2” which describes the results of a Finnish study of the human contribution to atmospheric CO2. The mapping of the US in this document shows about ninety percent of the human contribution to be in the Eastern half of the US. The only similar level human contribution in the Western half is in Northern Idaho. The heaviest CO2 levels in the East were along the Appalachian Mountain chain which is heavily forested with a mixture of needle leaf and broad leaf trees. The forests of the West are needle leaf. However, the Cedar trees in Northern Idaho, while of the needle leaf variety, appear to have a much more extensive leaf surface. Is this possibly evidence that trees with extensive leaf surface are contributing to the atmospheric CO2 level by emissions through their leaves? It also indicates that the CO2 contributions shown on the mapping are not of human origin and that is something I proposed to NASA a few years ago after viewing the mapping. They did not agree with me.