An undated Earth.com article claims “The foundation of life is at risk from climate change.” This is false. Real-world data shows that the Earth is actually increasing its biomass in response to the mild warming over the last century combined with increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.
The article itself is nothing more than a mishmash of statements, none of which, separately or in combination, support the claim that climate change is threating life on Earth, as the title implies. There is only a vague statement in the first paragraph which reads:
Photosynthesis forms the foundation of life on Earth, yet climate change increasingly threatens this essential process. With advanced tools, scientists can now study how shifts in temperature, humidity, and light impact photosynthesis and, by extension, the future of ecosystems.
It is true that “[p]hotosynthesis forms the foundation of life on Earth.” Photosynthesis is considered the foundation of life on Earth because it provides the oxygen we breathe and the food we eat, essentially acting as the base of the global food chain by converting sunlight, water, and carbon dioxide into chemical energy that sustains almost all living organisms on the planet.
But what isn’t true is the claim that climate change is threatening the process of photosynthesis. In fact, data from multiple sources show that photosynthesis is actually being enhanced by the slight increase in temperature as well as the increased concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere. Climate at a Glance – Global Greening, discusses the fact that NASA satellite imagery analysis from 2016 shows significant plant growth globally over the past 35 years as seen in Figure 1 below. The reference article also says:
Research from NASA as well as multiple other studies conclude that the increased plant growth is a response to rising carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere creating better growing conditions.
NASA’s results confirm earlier research which found that the 14 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 between 1982 and 2010 resulted in a 5-to-10 percent increase in green foliage cover in warm, arid environments.
Plant life is not just expanding in temperate regions. A 2018 study found the Sahara Desert had shrunk in area by 8 percent over the previous three decades, due a CO2 fertilization induced expansion of plant coverage.
Follow-up studies in 2018 and 2020, showed that on a global scale, greening can be attributed to the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
This is logical, because actual greenhouses use warmth and artificially increased carbon dioxide to provide a better growth environment for the plants. These facts are not in dispute, therefore it stands to reason that a slightly warmer Earth and with more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, all things being equal, provides a better environment for plant growth. Not only that, but a very recent peer reviewed paper published in Nature from Cornell University and the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory found that Plants Absorb 31% More CO2 Than Previously Thought.
These findings refute the claims made in Earth.com’s article and headline photosynthesis and life on Earth are being “threatened.”
This isn’t truly surprising because the article itself provides no factual evidence to support its alarming claims. Earth.com’s article appears to be just another example of sloppy journalism in which a writer stitched together a few unrelated factoids about photosynthesis to make the article look “sciency,” only to leap to unsupported and false assertions that climate change is hampering photosynthesis and threatening life on Earth, when, in fact, there isn’t even a smidgen of evidence to support the claim. Earth.com did its readers a great disservice by pushing this false claim, which appears to be little more than a scare tactic.
Anthony Watts is a senior fellow for environment and climate at The Heartland Institute. Watts has been in the weather business both in front of, and behind the camera as an on-air television meteorologist since 1978, and currently does daily radio forecasts. He has created weather graphics presentation systems for television, specialized weather instrumentation, as well as co-authored peer-reviewed papers on climate issues. He operates the most viewed website in the world on climate, the award-winning website wattsupwiththat.com.
Originally posted at ClimateREALISM
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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.
It’s the ludicrous alarmism that just goes on and on that is the problem. It’s depressing the children…
Depresses me too, and since the end of August I’m an official octogenarian.
Welcome to the crowd… :<)
🤠
And this septuagenarian.
Likewise.
That’s nothing… I know someone who is an official Vegetarian.
Nut Zero has the potential to be a climate related crisis based on climate propaganda.
Is there ANYTHING on Climate Realism that I can’t find here?
6. There isn’t any Climate Crisis.
*************
The crisis is the belief in the alarmist narrative and govts that act on that belief with lots and lots of $$$$ going to people and places where it probably should not be going. Widespread lack of scientific literacy makes the creation of the climate cult possible for the perpetrators of this phony “crisis”. The greed for power, money and control is insatiable.
I’ve consistently noticed that scaremongering pieces like this one from Earth.com rarely (if ever) have a link on the web page for comments. I have little doubt that intolerance for dissenting opinions is the main reason for it. Propaganda by any other name…..
There seems to be a lack of climate curiosity combined with a fear of being a non-conformist. First you accept whatever some turd at Earth.com writes without even checking his or her credentials. Second you say what you think you’re supposed to say because saying anything otherwise might be considered problematic or offensive. If offensive enough you might be accused of violence against society. It’s a form of weakness and a form of stupidity. The stupidity is the result of a complete lack of curiosity.
Communication on climate change is grossly tainted / warped as a result of the reward system… if you want to publish and get a tenured faculty position you must walk the talk. I am long term member of AAAS subscribing to Science family of publications. Every week has multiple articles, essays, papers on climate change. Correct scientific evaluations aren’t published, balanced views are punished by not being published.
Some of this is due to skeptical members of the various organizations just quitting. They should be fighting from within. Get the leadership changed, whatever you can do. Quitting just means the bad guys win, and their word becomes gold.
Past warm periods are referred to as Climate optimums, ie the Minoan Optimum and the Roman Optimum. Do we really think that a new Mini Ice Age would make the weather better.
The entire western world has been bamboozled
into believing that a warmer planet is a disaster.
Only if you’re in favor of crop failures and mass starvation.
Man. Maybe instead of filing this under “Bad Science Journalism” you need to add a new and more appropriate category called “Bald-faced Lies.”
The first three comments hit all the high points already.
About the writer…
Andrei Ionescu holds a PhD in cognitive humanities from the University of Padua.
WT* is “cognitive humanities” ???
So, no science, no biology, etc etc… just pretend thinking, with reality not anywhere on the horizon. !.
And the same people who give credit to this guy will say Anthony Watts isn’t a climate scientist “he’s just a tv weatherman.” Yeah, I’ve actually seen that argument.
But “climate” is all about the weather…
… so AW is eminently suited to “climate” discussion. 🙂
The opposite of non-sentient inhumanities?
I have to say I feel sorry for the Romanian footballer who shares the same name with Andrei Ionescu. Ouch.
Andrei Ionescu
As seen in: MSN (US), Wiley Online Library, MDPI, scoop.it, Genetic Literacy Project, NewsBreak, The Journal of the American Dental Association, Sport.ro, Earth.com, Blogarama and more.
https://muckrack.com/andrei-ionescu/articles
Spooky stories of the blood-sucking chupacabra: Fact or fiction?
Health threats of climate change have hit record levels
Can we fix faulty genes before birth?
The foundation of life is at risk from climate change
Recognizing emotions in horses can improve their health
Scientists detect molecules that store carbon in space
How will climate change affect our outdoor activities?
ad nauseam.
If one really knows an animal one gets an idea of how the animal is without the voodoo.
“I have to say I feel sorry for the Romanian footballer who shares the same name with Andrei Ionescu.”
For a while, if you googled my name, you’d get either a psychologist, bodybuilder, or Dutch soap actor. Never me.
Would you want to be any of them?!
Dutch soap actor would have been… interesting.
My name used to bring up a UCLA biochemistry professor. I studied biochemistry but I wasn’t him.
Remember to check both ends of the animal.
This one seems to spew the same stuff from both ends. !
The head of the World Wildlife Fund pays himself $1.2 million a year.
Somehow, that will reduce climate change?
“Climate change is the perfect crisis,” says Tierney, “You can attribute anything to it, and it’s always in the future.”
The fund says climate change increased the number of “major hurricanes.”
“There’s been no long-term growth in the intensity or the number of hurricanes,” Tierney points out, “but every time one comes, it’s a great photo op for the crisis industry to use to say, ‘This is climate change!'”
“The head of the World Wildlife Fund pays himself $1.2 million a year.”
Yep… another example of a charity taken over by non-profit parasites. I guess anytime there’s a bunch of money in one place somebody will figure out how to get their hands on it :<)
“This isn’t truly surprising because the article itself provides no factual evidence to support its alarming claims.”
But… but.. who needs facts when you have emotions- and so many people who stand to enrich themselves from this phony emergency?
Several years a go I questioned a gentleman posting on an alarmist forum, similar to this but in a opposite vein, on his personal impacts from warming temperatures. His answer, after a little thought and actual observation, was that the impacts on his life had been positive. I lost track of him shortly after and saw no more comments from him on the dangers of global warming. Of course, this while it was still global warming rather than climate change.
I now ask if any negative impacts on their lives can be attributed to climate change or if government policy is a bigger factor. I usually leave at this point as the political arguments often become rather intense. Safer to move to another bar table and bring up religion.
The term “climate change” has been around since at least 1988, when the IPCC was formed. So which forums were you on in 1987? Fidonet?
Come on, the term climate change has been around much longer than that but it was not used as a replacement for global warming until global warming as a danger was thrown into doubt.
I think it was the comment section of Grit, but as I said it was quite some time ago, most certainly not before1988 although the global warming bit has been around since The seventies.
What planet are you from? What is Fidonet?
Sorry, that is Grist
You young whippersnappers 🙁
Next thing, you’ll be telling us you don’t know about archie, veronica or gopher either.
Thank you. I am coming 82 in a couple of months but apparently did not follow the same fads as you.
That was one of the perils of a career in IT.
Fidonet – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ng0NE4lDP2U&list=PL7nj3G6Jpv2G6Gp6NvN1kUtQuW8QshBWE&index=4
I’m from planet Sanity. But apparently planet Hyperbole is all the rage.
Such as demonstrated by weather described as “the worst evah.”
The benefits of more CO2 affect plants and humans. The warmer winters benefit humans and also extend the plant growing seasons. There is no bad news from more CO2 in the atmosphere..
But the recent claim of 31% more CO2 absorption by plants study is nonsense. No one knows exactly how much CO2 plants absorb in total. A 31% increase from an unknown starting point is just junk science.
Climate change is full of false peer reviewed studies. Mainly about the alleged dangers of CO2, which is not dangerous at all. But there are also some junk science studies that conservative favor.
Nature absorbs about half AS MUCH CO2 AS HUMANS EMIT TO THE ATMOSPHERE EVERY YEAR. THE CLAIMED PERCENTAGES ABSORBED BY OCEANS, PLANTS AND LAD ARE JUST ROGH ESTIMATES.
Apparently, climate change makes people say “and also” an awful lot.
Not to mention could, might, may, possibly , if etc.
“Nature absorbs about half AS MUCH CO2 AS HUMANS EMIT TO THE ATMOSPHERE EVERY YEAR.”
Which year?
From:
DEEP OCEAN SEISMIC EVENTS ADD ENERGY TO PERIODIC EL NINOs
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/natural-forces-cause-periodic-global-warming
https://www.windtaskforce.org/profiles/blogs/hunga-tonga-volcanic-eruption
.
Flora and Fauna Need More CO2, at least 1000 ppm
.
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 75% of total human CO2.
One CO2 ppm in atmosphere = 7.821 Gt. Total human CO2 was 4.8/0.75 = 6.4 ppm in 2023. See URLs
To atmosphere was CO2 was 421.08 ppm, end 2023 – 418.53, end 2022 = 2.55 ppm; natural increase is assumed zero; to oceans 2.50 ppm (assumed); to flora and other sinks 1.35 ppm
Mauna Loa curve shows a variation of about 9 ppm during a year, due to seasonal variations.
Inside buildings, CO2 is about 1000 ppm, greenhouses about 1200 ppm, submarines up to 5000 ppm
.
Respiration: glucose + O2 → CO2 + H20 (+ energy)
Photosynthesis: 6 CO2 + 12 H2O (+ sunlight+ chlorophyll) → 1 glucose + 6 O2 + 6 H20
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-andhttp://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/05/anthropogenic-global-warming-and-its-causes/
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
Yawn.. RG intentionally making a fool of himself again.
Zero point in asking him to prove any of his ranting though.
Let’s try a nice simple CO2 balance for RG.. little numbers, put simply so he can, maybe, comprehend.
Start with the fact that human CO2 flux is about 4% of the total CO2 flux.
Ins: 4% human, 96% natural
Outs: 0% human, 98% natural.
Atmospheric storage difference: +2%
(so that: Ins = Outs + Atmospheric storage difference)
Balance = Atmospheric storage difference: 2%, of which,
Humans: 2% X 4% = 0.08%
Nature: 2% X 96 % = 1.92%
Ratio Natural:Human =1.92% : 0.08% = 24 : 1
There is basically not much human CO2 in the atmosphere at any one time.
Wouldn’t take much increase in natural CO2 flux due to solar induced warming to swamp the human CO2
And those numbers seem to be in flux, if you will pardon the pun. See my comment at https://scitechdaily.com/new-study-reveals-oceans-absorb-more-co2-than-previously-thought/
Also, see the article at https://scitechdaily.com/unlocking-earths-deepest-secrets-how-ancient-volcanoes-disrupted-our-climate-and-reveal-paths-to-recovery/
Nature doesn’t care how much CO2 is emitted by burning fossil fuels. Nature absorbs the amount it does because that’s the amount life uses. Plus the amount of imbalance between the atmosphere and the ocean given the ocean temperature.
Its the natural result and has nothing to do with “half” and wouldn’t change if we immediately stopped emitting CO2.
Do you prefer another number?
I have difficulty with the 31%. Much more precise than what logically seems possible. I suspect the “more” is true, however.
There is a major difference “31% more by plants” and “31% more by the average plant”.
What did this “claim” actually say?
What about this then!
Humans only produce 4% of the total annual carbon balance in the Earth’s atmosphere of ~224 Gt C/year, based on IPCC estimates. After Demetris Koutsoyiannis 2024.
As a result of the global warming since the LIA, the biosphere has expanded and become more productive especially on land and also in oceans, leading to increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere and greening of the Earth. The atmospheric isotopic signature δ13C in the has decreased since the LIA implying more plant respiration but hasn’t changed over the last 40 years meaning no human emissions signature has been detected.
Story tip
Friederike Otto of World Weather Attribution says global warming made everything worse.
– – – – – – – – –
Revealed: The 10 DEADLIEST extreme weather events over the past 20 years – and scientists say climate change made them ALL worseFrom droughts, floods and heatwaves, it seems no corner of the globe has been spared by fatal climate events in the past two decades.
A new study reveals the 10 deadliest extreme weather events since 2004, which combined caused more than 570,000 deaths.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-14020333/10-DEADLIEST-extreme-weather-events-climate.html
Friederike Otto. Is a certifiable lunatic.
Fredi is a physicist with a doctorate from the Free University Berlin in philosophy of science
https://profiles.imperial.ac.uk/f.otto
In other words – a musicologist, not a musician.
An alternative perspective …
One of the conjectures on how life got started on planet Earth is that some primordial “Replicator” molecule was produced by the complex chemistry near hydrothermal vents on the sea-floor, at depths of 2 or 3 miles (3 to 5 kilometres).
3.8(-ish) billion years later some of their descendants, including multi-cellular lifeforms, can be observed via deep-sea submarines.
Question 1) How, exactly, is “climate change” on the surface supposed to impact those “foundational” ecosystems ?
Question 2) In a WW-III scenario, with a full-on nuclear exchange on the surface, how would (or could) those ecosystems be impacted ?
.
See also : Bacteria found in “solid” rock a mile or two (2 to 3 kilometres) below the surface in mines dug around the world.
Story tip
Papua New Guinea to boycott ‘waste of time’ UN climate summit
What is the link? The conference is COP29 in Baku. The poor countries will be
there begging for some of the billions dollars that the rich countries have promised
to donate.
Andrei Ionescu, writer, seems to NOT be the source of the story (maybe needing to pay the rent), relies on the work of Rakesh Tiwari, a postdoctoral researcher at Uppsala University‘s Department of Ecology and Genetics. They have “discovered” that many plants do not perform optimally when it gets really hot and dry. Who knew?
Wine grapes (Vitis vinifera) have been studied for years and show they do best between 25° and 30°C. [mid-point = 81.5° F] Grape growers have responded by installing misting systems over or within the canopy. I first saw such a set-up in 1976, but it is much older than that, beginning long before modern science could measure it accurately. Here is a link to a 2012 article:
https://academic.oup.com/aobpla/article/doi/10.1093/aobpla/pls009/175387
I’m going to go out on a limb and speculate that plants that evolved during warmer regimes have an optimum temperature range that is higher than for grapes.
Where I work is wise enough to block that site.
Fork me, you’d think these people had never seen an actual greenhouse…
Very nice Anthony.
Keep repeating the lies, and some people will always believe it. Wash, rinse, repeat.
Fight misinformation with information.
Yes, but where?
Most media won’t publish corrections to misinformation.
I frequently have comments deleted from MSN and Yahoo when I provide factual replies to misinformation.
As someone has said: There is no “misinformation”, “disinformation”, there is only “Information” which we are to analyse to arrive at an acceptable answer/conclusion.
Everything is information of one form or other. Whether one defines it as misinformation or disinformation surely comes down to the motivating manner in which it was presented including financial incentives and ideology.
How could there be a 14 percent increase in CO2 in the 1980’s if there was only a 1/100th of one percent increase in the CO2 level from 1960 until 2020 according to measurements by the Ala Moana measuring station (315ppm to 420ppm)?
I also wonder whether the warming is the chief cause of the increased vegetation, and the increased vegetation is the major source of the increase in atmospheric CO2. This would occur if vegetation, like humans, absorbs oxygen and respires CO2.
I say this because earlier CO2 mapping using satellite data showed a definite correlation between higher areas of vegetation and higher levels of CO2 presence. Recent mapping doesn’t show this, but it also doesn’t reveal if the recent mapping used data from the same altitude level as earlier mapping.
Photosynthesis far outstrips plant respiration, so plants have the net effect of absorbing CO2.
In one of the earliest mappings of atmospheric CO2 using data from the CO2 measuring satellite, the areas with the highest CO2 presence were the Amazon Rain Forest, Central Africa, Eastern and Southeastern China, Southeast Asia and Indonesia. These areas are the most heavily forested (or jungled) in the World. If they were net absorbers of CO2, then CO2 levels in those areas would be diminished compared to other areas.
It has to do with how it’s expressed.
420 / 315 = 1.33, so a 33% increase.
0.0420% – 0.0315% = 0.0105 percentage points, or 1.05 basis points.
Basically, if it’s a proportion it’s expressed as percentage, if it’s a difference it’s expressed as percentage points or basis points.
But the real atmospheric values are not 420 or 315, they are 420/1000000 and 315/000000. That makes for a huge difference in size and the result is 4/100th of one percent and 3/100th of one percent.
0.000420 / 0.000315 gives the same result as 420 / 315.
42000% – 31500% gives a vastly different result to 0.0420% – 0.0315%
That’s what I was saying about expressing proportions of percentages as percentage differences and differences of percentages as percentage points or basis points.
The oft encountered Scripps-NOAA graph entitled Atmospheric CO2 at Moana Loa Observatory shows a line of CO2 increase from 1960-2020 that looks like the climb-out path of a jet fighter. However, if the vertical axis of the graph showed the percentage of atmospheric CO2 from 0 to 100 percent, the CO2 level would appear as a virtually flat line resting against the bottom border of the graph. That would be a realistic depiction of the atmospheric CO2 presence from 1960-2020. This points up the necessity of recognizing the need for remembering that 420 ppm is 420/1000000 not 420.