CO2 is Good for Plants, and the Warming is Natural? Who Knew?

[IanC]

The Green(leaf)ing of the Earth Continues

Reference
Liu, S., Liu, R. and Liu, Y. 2010. Spatial and temporal variation of global LAI during 1981-20006. Journal of Geographical Sciences 20: 323-332. Liu et al. (2010) write as background for their study that "vegetation covers three-fourths of the earth's land surface, and plays a key role in global hydrological, biochemical cycles and energy balance." In fact, it plays much more than a "key" role; for it is absolutely essential for all terrestrial animal life, as it resides at the very bottom of all terrestrial food chains, including those that lead to us. Without terrestrial vegetation, put very simply, we would not be here.
In the present study, the authors used leaf area index (LAI) data derived from satellite observations made over the period July 1981 through December 2006 to look for, and compute changes in, this important plant growth parameter for six different latitude bands that included all of earth's continents but Antarctica. These bands were 50-90°N, 30-50°N, 10-30°N, 10°N-10°S, 10-30°S and 30-63°S.

Results indicated that over the period of study LAI "prominently increased" throughout Europe, Siberia, the Indian Peninsula, America and south Canada, the south region of the Sahara, the southwest corner of Australia , and the Kgalagadi Basin; while it declined in southeast Asia, southeastern China, central Africa, central and southern South America, and arctic areas in North America. Yet in spite of these latter negative results, they found that all six of the latitudinal bands they analyzed showed positive trends. Consequently, for the globe as a whole (i.e., the conglomerate of the six different latitude bands they analyzed), they determined that "LAI has increased at a rate of 0.0013 per year during July 1981-December 2006," while for the middle and high northern latitudes (north of 30°N), the linear LAI trend was 0.0032 per year.

It is most interesting that over the period of time when the earth experienced a warming that (1) occurred at a rate that the IPCC contends was unprecedented over the past millennium or two, and that (2) took the planet to a level of warmth that the IPCC also considers to have been unprecedented over the past millennium or two, the planet's vegetation suffered no net ill effect, but in fact prospered.

Lo, T.-T. and H.-H. Hsu. 2010. Change in the dominant decadal patterns and the late 1980s abrupt warming in the extratropical Northern Hemisphere
Abstract
Widespread abrupt warming in the extratropical Northern Hemisphere (NH) occurred in the late 1980s. This warming was associated with a change in the relative influence of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)-like pattern and the Arctic Oscillation (AO)-like pattern. The AO-like pattern has had a dominant influence on the NH-mean temperature since the late 1980s, whereas the influence of the PDO has weakened. The AO-like mode appears as part of natural variability in the pre-industrial simulations of the CMIP3/IPCC climate models. However, its emergence in the late 1980s was not simulated by most models with or without the observed increasing greenhouse effect in the 20th century. Copyright © 2010 Royal Meteorological Society

consensus isnt all that it was cracked up to be.

 

[Old Rocks]

Fail to see where either study states that AGW is not occuring

 

[IanC]

the first link is to counter the nonsense that is being bandied about saying that warmer temps and extra CO2 is bad for plants. the second link is to show that much of the increased temps comes from natural variation in ocean currents and specifically that the current climate models failed to project them.

for an interesting climate lecture (only 30 minutes!) try Courtillot

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG_7zK8ODGA&feature=player_embedded"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG_7zK8ODGA&feature=player_embedded[/ame]

he gives a nice overview of how solar cycles interact with other natural variabilities. and points out the drawbacks of climate models with do not account them.

 

[Finnguy]

Well if all this green is expanding to places that it wasn't before isn't necessarily a good thing. It proves that global warming is happening. It also will push animals out of their habitat when it becomes to warm for them or other animals moving up from the south increase the competition for food resources.

 

[IanC]

Well if all this green is expanding to places that it wasn't before isn't necessarily a good thing. It proves that global warming is happening. It also will push animals out of their habitat when it becomes to warm for them or other animals moving up from the south increase the competition for food resources.

if your point is that you want the climate to stay exactly the same-- well that has never happened. your other point seems to be that more food is bad.

you do realize that global temp has gone up less than a degree, and shows little correlation to the increase of CO2, right? if it wasnt for climate models that are known to be wrong we wouldnt even be interested in CO2.

 

[Old Rocks]

Of course, the present warming was very good for the crops in northeastern Australia, Russia, and Pakistan in the last year. Real bumper crops in those places.

 

[IanC]

Of course, the present warming was very good for the crops in northeastern Australia, Russia, and Pakistan in the last year. Real bumper crops in those places.

do I really have to link to newspaper accounts of all those things in the last century? why do you continue to confuse weather with climate?

 

[Trakar]

The Green(leaf)ing of the Earth Continues

Reference
Liu, S., Liu, R. and Liu, Y. 2010. Spatial and temporal variation of global LAI during 1981-20006. Journal of Geographical Sciences 20: 323-332. Liu et al. (2010)

...It is most interesting that over the period of time when the earth experienced a warming that (1) occurred at a rate that the IPCC contends was unprecedented over the past millennium or two, and that (2) took the planet to a level of warmth that the IPCC also considers to have been unprecedented over the past millennium or two, the planet's vegetation suffered no net ill effect, but in fact prospered.

What (or should I say Watt?) is more interesting is that this last paragraph isn't a part of the paper your quote seems to be attributing it to? Where exactly does this quote, and presumably your understandings of the paper and its findings actually come from?

From my reading of the actual paper, there is very little unusual or surprizing about its findings, which seem generally in accord with Climate science understandings in general (and the portrayal of unfolding climate effects by the IPCC in particular) and its impacts upon the planet. If you can find any thing in climate science or the specific reports from the IPCC that you feel contradicts the actual findings of this paper, as they are actually portrayed in the paper, please present your evidences.

Lo, T.-T. and H.-H. Hsu. 2010. Change in the dominant decadal patterns and the late 1980s abrupt warming in the extratropical Northern Hemisphere
Abstract
Widespread abrupt warming in the extratropical Northern Hemisphere (NH) occurred in the late 1980s. This warming was associated with a change in the relative influence of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO)-like pattern and the Arctic Oscillation (AO)-like pattern. The AO-like pattern has had a dominant influence on the NH-mean temperature since the late 1980s, whereas the influence of the PDO has weakened. The AO-like mode appears as part of natural variability in the pre-industrial simulations of the CMIP3/IPCC climate models. However, its emergence in the late 1980s was not simulated by most models with or without the observed increasing greenhouse effect in the 20th century. Copyright © 2010 Royal Meteorological Society

And you feel this is of especial significance, why?

consensus isnt all that it was cracked up to be.

It isn't about concensus, its about what the evidence supports. Concensus is merely a measure of how the relevent fields of specialty study assess and evaluate the current understandings and evidences.

 

[Trakar]

the first link is to counter the nonsense that is being bandied about saying that warmer temps and extra CO2 is bad for plants.

Who is saying this and what qualifications are they using when they make such assertions?

CO2 and increasing temperatures lead to a mixed bag of harms and benefits for different plants, depending upon how rapidly changes occur, the degree and scale of the changes, what other changes accompany the changes in CO2 loading and temperature increases, and most importantly what types of plants we are talking about. For instance, under many generalized conditions of increased CO2 and Temperature, the plants we most commonly classify as "weeds," and many fungi thrive and prosper, whereas many of the plants we consider "crops," not so much so. Different plants and conditions generate different responses.

Elevated CO2 effects on plant carbon, nitrogen, and water relations: six important lessons from FACE - Elevated CO2 effects on plant carbon, nitrogen, and water relations: six important lessons from FACE

Rising CO2, Climate Change, and Public Health: Exploring the Links to Plant Biology - Rising CO2, Climate Change, and Public Health: Exploring the Links to Plant Biology

Elevated carbon dioxide concentrations indirectly affect plant fitness by altering plant tolerance to herbivory - SpringerLink - Oecologia, Volume 161, Number 2

Plant–pathogen interactions and elevated CO2: morphological changes in favour of pathogens - Plant

the second link is to show that much of the increased temps comes from natural variation in ocean currents and specifically that the current climate models failed to project them.

The abstract you quoted, did not state what you assert, and nothing in AGW states or implies that there are not natural variations in climate, in fact, the vast majority of climate understanding comes from studying and investigating the causes, extents and impacts of natural climate variations.

for an interesting climate lecture (only 30 minutes!) try Courtillot

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IG_7zK8ODGA&feature=player_embedded

he gives a nice overview of how solar cycles interact with other natural variabilities. and points out the drawbacks of climate models with do not account them.

Don't have 30 minutes right now, but I've saved the link, and will let you know on the "interesting" vs. "entertaining" aspects after reviewing it.