Fresh Evidence Emerges That Global Vegetation Growth Reaches New Highs Due to Increased CO2 Fertilisation

From THE DAILY SCEPTIC

by Chris Morrison

Global vegetation reached a new greening peak in 2020, continuing a long-term trend since 2000 according to new dramatic findings published by a team of scientists based in the United States. The work helps confirm other recent scientific work that points to massive global plant growth directly related to recent increases in natural and human-caused carbon dioxide. Plants have evolved to grow in an atmosphere much richer in CO2 than current near-denuded levels, and the recent growth and its myriad benefits for humankind should not be surprising. Needless to say, the news is absent from mainstream headlines since the ‘pollutant’ is temporarily being blamed for climate collapse in the interest of boosting the collectivist Net Zero fantasy.

The latest work on the ‘gas of life’ notes that the greening is linked to continuous growth in boreal and temperate vegetation. The scientists also suggest that the increase has been complemented by a tropical vegetation boost due to higher rainfall. Higher growth in northern regions would also have been helped by slightly warmer temperatures which have marginally increased growing seasons. The climate might be collapsing for ill-informed readers of the Guardian and listeners of the BBC, but nature continues to find ways to thrive. The scientists note that there is a “robust resilience and adaptation” of global vegetation in the face of a changing environment. Using a number of remote sensing devises, the year 2020 is pinpointed as an “historic landmark” since it registered as the greenest year in modern satellite records from 2001 to 2020.

This is not the first time that an acceleration in global greening over the last two decades has been observed. Last year a group of Chinese scientists found that about 55% of global land mass had shown an “accelerated rate” of vegetation growth. The Chinese team that included the Eco-Climatologist Professor Tiexi Chen stated that “global greening is an indisputable fact”. Climate change drought is a favourite fear mongering scare with activists but it was found that any water scarcity trend only slowed global greening, “but was far from triggering browning”.

The extent of the recent greening is shown in the map above and along with the latest results from the US team it reveals extensive growth in northern regions. But there has also been obvious de-desertification south of the Sahara and many famine-prone areas in eastern Africa have been given a welcome natural boost to food supplies. 

In addition, these ecological improvements boost wildlife and create healthier eco-systems. They go back further than the turn of the century with evidence of widespread greening stretching back to at least 1980. Some estimates suggest increased levels as high as 14%. In a detailed paper published in 2016 by 32 authors from eight countries, it was noted that there was a “persistent and widespread increase” in growing season greening over 25-50% of the global vegetated area.

In fact, the new greening of the planet is helping to feed the world. The authors of a recent science paper Charles Taylor and Wolfram Schlenker recently stated: “We consistently find a large fertilisation effect; a 1 part per million increase in COequates to a 0.4%, 0.6%, 1% yield for corn, soybean and wheat respectively”. A previous extreme environmentalist scare about rising populations and food scarcity was forced to take a back seat as crop yields soared due to hydrocarbon-produced artificial fertiliser and higher levels of atmospheric CO2. Ironically, a successful Net Zero and a resulting collapse in global food supplies could see the former much-missed scare return to centre stage.

It is difficult to see how the idea that there is a climate ‘emergency’ can continue to be taken seriously given that it lacks any substantial or convincing proof. The trend in almost all extreme weather events is not getting worse and this is accepted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Increasingly discredited weather attribution linking individual events to humans conflicts with the IPCC fact-based view. Slightly warmer temperatures have benefited humans, a species that emerged from the sub-tropics and thrives best in warmer climes. Climate ‘refugees’ don’t exist and can’t even be defined. Climate tipping points exist only on the hard drives of climate models as does almost every prediction of Armageddon. Fake predictions heavy with dubious stats and temperature recordings are becoming the butt of jokes, if not in the mainstream media then across the more important social media arena. Meanwhile, corals, polar bears and whales multiply (the latter of course provided they stay away from the killing waters of offshore wind parks).

Screenshot

Even the deserts can’t be trusted to get bigger and create millions, perhaps billions, of climate refugees. According to a recent Yale Environment 360 article, CO2 is “fast tracking” photosynthesis in plants. By allowing them to use scarce water more efficiently, the CO2-rich air fertilises vegetation growth in even some of the driest places, it is observed. You can of course only have so much good news in Green Blob-funded operations like Yale and it also noted, “arid eco-systems matter”. We can but pray that nobody tells the Guardian about all this green encroachment and ruins its day. It recently reported that “desertification is turning the Earth barren” and the expansion of drylands is leaving entire countries “facing famine”.

Chris Morrison is the Daily Sceptic’s Environment Editor

4.7 25 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

63 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 7, 2025 10:11 pm

Increased CO2 Fertilisation

__________________________

CO2 is way more than fertilizer, It’s every bit as important to life on Earth as water. 

CO2 + H20 and sunshine produces carbo-hydrates, simple sugar.

Every carbon atom in your body was once CO2 in the atmosphere. 

Nevada_Geo
Reply to  Steve Case
April 7, 2025 11:50 pm

TRUTH! This can’t be emphasized enough! CO2 is not “fertilizer”, it is the stuff of life itself. Carbon is the building block of life, and Oxygen is the element that maintains life, minute to minute. Without CO2 and sunlight, this would be a very, very dead planet.

Reply to  Nevada_Geo
April 8, 2025 7:29 am

Considering the individual properties of C and O2 outside of the properties of CO2 makes about as much sense as considering the individual properties of Na and Cl outside of the properties of table salt.

Nevada_Geo
Reply to  ToldYouSo
April 8, 2025 12:04 pm

Of course. That’s why I mentioned sunlight instead of going into a dissertation. Most people can understand the point. Life can’t exist w/o CO2.

Reply to  Steve Case
April 8, 2025 7:49 am

“Every carbon atom in your body was once CO2 in the atmosphere.”

Really??? . . . got any objective reference to support that statement?

WOW. Hydrocarbons, carbohydrates, stellar nucleosynthesis* (particularly the triple-alpha process) and nova/supernova events apparently don’t get the respect they once did. /sarc

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stellar_nucleosynthesis

Reply to  Steve Case
April 8, 2025 8:34 am

I note they found a way to keep the green color off the image. The NASA chart is a better representation:

comment image

Nick Stokes
April 7, 2025 10:18 pm

The latest work on the ‘gas of life’ notes that the greening is linked to continuous growth in boreal and temperate vegetation. The scientists also suggest that the increase has been complemented by a tropical vegetation boost due to higher rainfall. Higher growth in northern regions would also have been helped by slightly warmer temperatures which have marginally increased growing seasons.”

There is the spin. The paper is here. It doesn’t attribute the greening primarily to the ‘gas of life’, with a complement from tropical. It says
we found that the observed greening in 2020 was predominantly driven by increased tropical vegetation growth from enhanced rainfall, and further by a broader, long-term greening in boreal and temperate regions, linked with CO2 fertilization, climate warming and reforestation.”

leefor
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 7, 2025 10:23 pm

and further by a broader, long-term greening in boreal and temperate regions, linked with CO2 fertilization, climate warming and reforestation.” Thanks Nick. 😉

Nick Stokes
Reply to  leefor
April 7, 2025 10:37 pm

“and further”
Morrison turns around the emphasis. Morrison says the tropical greening due to rain “complements”; the authors say it is predominant.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 7, 2025 10:43 pm

“….. alongside a transient tropical green-up linked to the enhanced rainfall.”

Again straight from the abstract..

The greening from extra rain was only “transient”.

The greening from CO2 and warming was “exceptional” and “consistent”

“exceptional greening primarily stemmed from consistent growth in boreal and temperate vegetation, attributed to rising CO2 levels”

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 8, 2025 2:35 am

You are dissembling. What causes the “rain”?

Reply to  Tim Gorman
April 8, 2025 4:50 am

What causes the “rain”?

Anthropogenic global warming 🙂

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  nyolci
April 8, 2025 7:19 am

If this was intended as humor, it missed the target.

H20, not CO2, causes rain.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
April 9, 2025 1:09 am

H20, not CO2, causes rain.

Exactly. Like on the moon Europa. Full of H2O, full of rain.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 7, 2025 10:25 pm

Is that what you think, or are you just playing reporter?

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Steve Case
April 7, 2025 10:37 pm

Reporting what they actually said.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 7, 2025 10:59 pm

Except you are not. ! (see above)

MarkW
Reply to  bnice2000
April 8, 2025 7:10 am

He’s doing what he always does. He finds those phrases and facts that support his cause, while ignoring the rest.

Reply to  MarkW
April 8, 2025 11:22 am

Stokes never once posts in good faith.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 8, 2025 2:41 am

The scientists also suggest that the increase has been complemented by a tropical vegetation boost due to higher rainfall. “

This is exactly opposite of what you are saying. The rain complements the CO2-caused greening, not the other way around.

“Higher growth in northern regions would also have been helped by slightly warmer temperatures which have marginally increased growing seasons.”

What causes the increased growing seasons? Rain? CO2?

“Even the deserts can’t be trusted to get bigger and create millions, perhaps billions, of climate refugees. According to a recent Yale Environment 360 article, CO2 is “fast tracking” photosynthesis in plants. By allowing them to use scarce water more efficiently, the CO2-rich air fertilises vegetation growth in even some of the driest places, it is observed. “

Are the deserts getting more rain or is CO2 just allowing better use of the scarce water resources that already exist?

You just can’t accept the truth, can you?

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Tim Gorman
April 8, 2025 3:46 am

This is exactly opposite of what you are saying.”

I’m not saying anything. I am quoting what the paper said. You are quoting what Chris Morrison said.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 8, 2025 5:36 am

From the paper:

Our study identified a notable peak in global vegetation greening in 2020″

“we found that the observed greening in 2020 was predominantly driven by increased tropical vegetation growth from enhanced rainfall,”

You seem to be trying to imply that increased rainfall is the cause of LONG TERM greening and that CO2 is just an enhancement to the greening caused by rainfall.

The truth is that the paper found that happened IN ONE YEAR! The paper also says:

“by a broader, long-term greening in boreal and temperate regions, linked with CO2”

I asked you what caused the increased tropical rainfall and you just ignored the question – doubling down on trying to imply that increased rain is the main cause of the overall global greening when the paper actually only mentions that happening IN ONE YEAR.

Do you have a lack of reading comprehension skills, it is quite a common malady among supporters of CO2 being “bad” for the earth. Or are you just trying to push propaganda that is wrong on the facts?

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Tim Gorman
April 8, 2025 7:21 am

He is just trying to entertain himself by getting into a flame war.

Do not feed the trolls.

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 8, 2025 7:11 am

As always, you take a quote, out of context, and try to pretend the rest of the paper doesn’t exist.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 8, 2025 2:41 am

The scientists also suggest that the increase has been complemented by a tropical vegetation boost due to higher rainfall. “

This is exactly opposite of what you are saying. The rain complements the CO2-caused greening, not the other way around.

“Higher growth in northern regions would also have been helped by slightly warmer temperatures which have marginally increased growing seasons.”

What causes the increased growing seasons? Rain? CO2?

“Even the deserts can’t be trusted to get bigger and create millions, perhaps billions, of climate refugees. According to a recent Yale Environment 360 article, CO2 is “fast tracking” photosynthesis in plants. By allowing them to use scarce water more efficiently, the CO2-rich air fertilises vegetation growth in even some of the driest places, it is observed. “

Are the deserts getting more rain or is CO2 just allowing better use of the scarce water resources that already exist?

You just can’t accept the truth, can you?

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 8, 2025 7:21 am

From the abstract:

 Using ensemble machine learning and Earth system models, we found this exceptional greening primarily stemmed from consistent growth in boreal and temperate vegetation, attributed to rising CO2 levels, climate warming, and reforestation efforts, alongside a transient tropical green-up linked to the enhanced rainfall.

Stop being dishonest!

1saveenergy
Reply to  Steve Case
April 8, 2025 2:32 am

Nick thinks he thinks,
but in fact he just parrots CACC.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 7, 2025 10:27 pm

NASA shows that CO2 is the dominant cause of increasing greening of the planet.

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds
Excerpt:

From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

LINK

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Sunsettommy
April 7, 2025 10:38 pm

Switcheroo. The question is, what does this paper say.

Leon de Boer
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 7, 2025 11:44 pm

It’s called a “pulling a Stokes” … you do it continually and now you are complaining about it … priceless.

Frankemann
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 7, 2025 11:50 pm

Kind of fair point, BUT – NASA shows that CO2 is the dominant cause of increasing greening of the planet. This article says the rain did it (and only in the tropics). Is it falsifying the NASA findings?

How can this model see the difference of greening caused by rain from greening caused by CO2?

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Frankemann
April 8, 2025 2:17 am

It’s different. And that is why I object to Morrison twisting it to seem the same. I don’t know which is right.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 8, 2025 2:43 am

What causes more rain?

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 8, 2025 3:26 am

Sorry but, as shown above, it is Nick that is doing all the twisting and turning.. As usual.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 8, 2025 7:06 am

LOL, you have already been exposed for selective quotes of the paper that generates a false conclusion, my source actually enhances the statement in the paper you chose to ignore.

“we found this exceptional greening primarily stemmed from consistent growth in boreal and temperate vegetation, attributed to rising CO2 levels, climate warming, and reforestation efforts,”

Shame on you.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 7, 2025 10:30 pm

Right there in front of you:

In fact, the new greening of the planet is helping to feed the world. The authors of a recent science paper Charles Taylor and Wolfram Schlenker recently stated: “We consistently find a large fertilisation effect; a 1 part per million increase in CO2 equates to a 0.4%, 0.6%, 1% yield for corn, soybean and wheat respectively”.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 7, 2025 10:48 pm

“we found this exceptional greening primarily stemmed from consistent growth in boreal and temperate vegetation, attributed to rising CO2 levels, climate warming, and reforestation efforts,”

Direct copy from the abstract of the paper.. !!

Note, they also mention warming as being a beneficial factor to greening

Win-Win.. CO2 rise + natural warming… and the world’s plant life LOVES it !

Plants-Luv-CO2.2
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 8, 2025 12:35 am

Nick writes

There is the spin.

But you’ve picked a sentence from the conclusion, here is an excerpt from the abstract

Using ensemble machine learning and Earth system models, we found this exceptional greening primarily stemmed from consistent growth in boreal and temperate vegetation, attributed to rising CO2 levels, climate warming, and reforestation efforts, alongside a transient tropical green-up linked to the enhanced rainfall.

So take your pick of spin to use from the paper.

observa
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 8, 2025 6:57 am

Hey Nick the tree rings only measure drought not temperature-
New Tree Ring Analysis Points to Historic Megadroughts
but then you already knew that from Mike’s Nature trick

MarkW
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 8, 2025 7:08 am

Thanks to Nick’s paymasters, any paper that listed CO2 as a primary cause for something good, would never get published.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 8, 2025 7:18 am

There is the spin. The paper is here. It doesn’t attribute the greening primarily to the ‘gas of life’, with a complement from tropical. It says

You are correct. The article no where states that the greening is primarily due to CO2.

So the only spin comes from you.

Reply to  Nick Stokes
April 8, 2025 8:06 am

There is the spin. The paper is here.

Before demolishing your “conclusions”, thank you for providing a non-paywalled link to a PDF version of the paper in question so that we can all have an informed — however “robust” it may turn out to be — debate about it.

Having read through the paper, let me start by copying your selected extract, but with modified highlighting :

… we found that the observed greening in 2020 was predominantly driven by increased tropical vegetation growth from enhanced rainfall, and further by a broader, long-term greening in boreal and temperate regions, linked with CO2 fertilization, climate warming and reforestation.

So the greening for one specific year was “predominantly driven by … rainfall” while the “long-term” trend is associated with a combination of “CO2 fertilization, climate warming and reforestation”.

NB : The entire dataset analysed in the paper is only 20 years long. To me, at least, that means that we can “conclude” absolutely nothing about “climate trends” from that paper.

.

Later on in the “Conclusions” section you got your extract from :

The exceptional greening observed in 2020 highlights the remarkable resilience and adaptability of global vegetation to environmental changes.

Repeating the “one-off” nature of the 2020 numbers.

NB : This also contradicts the usual “ecosystem fragility” and “all life on Earth is going to die by 2030 / 2050 / 2100 [ Delete as appropriate ]” messaging, and reinforces the older “Nature is a tough old bitch, that’s why they call her a Mother” attitude.

.

From the Abstract :

Here, by leveraging diverse remote sensing measurements, we pinpointed 2020 as a historic landmark, registering as the greenest year in modern satellite records from 2001 to 2020. Using ensemble machine learning and Earth system models, we found this exceptional greening primarily stemmed from consistent growth in boreal and temperate vegetation, attributed to rising CO2 levels, climate warming, and reforestation efforts, alongside a transient tropical green-up linked to the enhanced rainfall.

Hang on a second … that directly contradicts the phrasing in the “Conclusions” section you extracted !

Which factor is more important, “rainfall in the tropics” or “rising CO2 levels in boreal and temperate” regions ???

.

From the “Materials and methods” section :

To evaluate global greening status, we utilized three groups of remote sensing-based vegetation indices (VI), including Enhanced Vegetation Index (EVI), Solar-induced Fluorescence (SIF) and leaf area index (LAI).

“EVI” gets 23 hits when searched for in the PDF file, “SIF” gets 26 … and “LAI” gets 75.

For the dominant “LAI” dataset Zhang et al spent so much time and effort analysing, panel b of Figure 4 shows the relative weights for each factor they ended up calculating.

Note that “LUCC = Land Use / Cover Change” and “Ndep = Nitrogen deposition”.

A screenshot of “Fig. 4 (b)” is attached below.

QED.

Zhang-2024_Fig-4-panel-b
April 7, 2025 10:22 pm

Satellite Data Used in Study Finding Significant Greening in Earth’s Vegetative Areas NOAA

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds NASA

https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/goddard/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/

April 7, 2025 10:23 pm

CO2 levels…

co2-levels
Reply to  huls
April 7, 2025 10:50 pm

Levels can easily reach 1500ppm in a closed bedroom at night.. Or in a meeting hall.

observa
Reply to  bnice2000
April 8, 2025 7:19 am

How much at a COP kneesup?

Reply to  observa
April 8, 2025 1:10 pm

Lots of fetid hot air, no doubt !!

April 7, 2025 11:21 pm

Begin sarcasm-

Global greening is bad for agriculture.

The greening and spreading of global flora is increasing the velocity of the hydrologic cycle. More runoff is occurring as a result, and soils are being leeched/washed out of their fertilizing nutrients. There’s less wind-blown deposits of nutrients in the world’s semiarid breadbaskets. The global greening is decreasing Earth’s albedo, and increasing humidity. Water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas.

Global greening is leading us to a Mannian/Thunbergian temperature and agricultural Malthusian singularity. AI and Skynet won’t even have the chance to kill us off.

-End sarcasm

April 8, 2025 12:00 am

Something isn’t adding up….supposedly we have 16% more greening, human CO2 emissions are only 4% of total CO2 cycle, annual CO2 variation on the Keeling curve is about 8% as vegetation dies and rots…is all the new “green” dieing every year ? Only annual plants are greening ? What the …? Yet no CO2 reduction….

Frankemann
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 8, 2025 12:24 am

Given 16% more greening – how much CO2 would this sequester annually?

Reply to  Frankemann
April 8, 2025 7:49 am

Just the change in “greening” of the more land mass in the Northern hemisphere causes 8 ppm swings. Rough guess that at being a “global greening change” of 25%…so if the satellites apparently see greening of 16% overall attributable to increased CO2 according to somebody’s pee-reviewed spreadsheet, shouldn’t we see that 8 ppm swing be reduced by about 2/3 ? But no….apparently more greening just results in the same amount of more rotting….So we need to bury the extra green before it rots to save us from thermageddon…
Need lots of diesel for the bulldozers…The science is settled.
/s

MarkW
Reply to  DMacKenzie
April 8, 2025 7:17 am

When plants die, they rot, and put that CO2 back into the air.

Bruce Cobb
April 8, 2025 5:01 am

We need to stop Catastrophic Global Greening (CGG) immediately!

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 8, 2025 7:25 am

Humor – a difficult concept.
— Lt. Saavik

April 8, 2025 5:24 am

Greening is a fact, and a lot is attributable directly to Anthropogenic CO2 increase, and a lot to the indirect effects. But land management changes are also a factor, at least in Europe. In my own country woodland area almost doubled in the last 35 years, for example.

Sparta Nova 4
Reply to  nyolci
April 8, 2025 7:26 am

I will give you a mol of CO2.
Please sort the molecules into to groups: natural and anthropogenic.

Reply to  Sparta Nova 4
April 8, 2025 3:22 pm

Please sort the molecules into to groups: natural and anthropogenic.

Oops, you’ve caught me 😉 I can’t compete with such wittiness… I have to give up 😉

Reply to  nyolci
April 9, 2025 3:05 am

Your wit will always be limited to “half”. !

Bruce Cobb
April 8, 2025 5:45 am

The children just aren’t going to know what deserts are. Think of the children!

1saveenergy
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 8, 2025 3:17 pm

“Think of the children!”

You can get jail time for that !!!

Editor
April 8, 2025 6:18 am

The graph refers to “LAI” the article says it’s “Leaf Area Index.” I don’t know what the difference is between growth rate (one year?) and trend (>1 year?).

If someone has access to the full paper or more time to search, please do so and report back.

Editor
Reply to  Ric Werme
April 8, 2025 6:28 am

Nick Stokes offered a link to the full paper but it doesn’t have the plot above!

It may be the growth rate is for 2020 (I assume 2020’s increase over 2019).

Reply to  Ric Werme
April 8, 2025 7:14 am

If someone has access to the full paper …

That graph comes from the Chen et al (2023) paper referred to in the paragraph preceding it in the ATL article.

Click on the “indisputable fact” red text … which is actually a link / URL … in that paragraph to access the Chen et al paper.