Extra CO 2 has increased global foliage mass by 11% since 1982 [W:52]

[rocket88]

LOL, more warm areas to grow in? Longer growing seasons? Sounds terrible for growing food.. If you are trying to claim the warming leads to drier conditions, tell it to the planet which just had an 11% increase in foliage...

That could hurt certain foods. Some of them are evolved to grow in colder climates. Of course, it's better for others, so...I don't know. They say the best potatoes come from regions where the ground freezes in winter. Something about that activates certain sugars or something. Certain grape varietals need the cool breeze blowing in from the coast and a warmer breeze would hinder them.

I'm really just saying that warm areas for farming aren't a no lose situation.

 

[flogger]

I didn't say there wasn't anything to like.


I was pointing out the exaggeration.

I see little reason to suspect this has not been happening in more temperate climates too. Its simply been easier to visually record this phenomenon happening in CSIRO satellite imagery from arid regions. However there was a marked increase in most areas on the planet if you check out the map in the OP.

 

[WorldWatcher]

I see little reason to suspect this has not been happening in more temperate climates too. Its simply been easier to visually record this phenomenon happening in CSIRO satellite imagery from arid regions. However there was a marked increase in most areas on the planet if you check out the map in the OP.

I did click the link.

Here is the link to the HiDef Image -->> http://www.csiro.au/~/media/CSIROau...ngRisingCO2/SatelliteData/High_Resolution.png

Lime Green, Yellow, Tan, and Red indicate little to no change or a decrease. Looking at the image the statement that "there was a marked increase in most areas of the plant" is incorrect because most areas of the planet are Lime Green, Yellow, and Tan. Optically speaking based on the image in your report the areas that are Blue, Teal, and Bright Green comprise a smaller area then "most areas of the planet".



>>>>

 

[flogger]

I did click the link.

Lime Green, Yellow, Tan, and Red indicate little to no change or a decrease. Looking at the image the statement that "there was a marked increase in most areas of the plant" is incorrect because most areas of the planet are Lime Green, Yellow, and Tan. Optically speaking based on the image in your report the areas that are Blue, Teal, and Bright Green comprise a smaller area then "most areas of the planet".

The image rather speaks for itself really. What point are you trying to make and why ? Interestingly some of the areas seeing the greatest decrease are tundra areas almost as if the ice were encroaching south. This is at odds with much we have been told about this

 

[WorldWatcher]

The image rather speaks for itself really. What point are you trying to make and why ?

I agree, it shows that most of the world has seen either little to no change or a decrease in foilage.

What point are you trying to make and why ?

The only "point" I was trying to make was stated in my first post:

Claiming an 11% increase for the surface of the plant is not a correct statement about the article you linked to.

I don't normally comment in climate threads, but I was scanning this one and this jumped out at me.


You do realize that an 11% increase in arid areas is not an 11% increase in surface greening of the plant right? That was just a slip of the tongue.


>>>>

>>>>

 

[grip]

If the number of category 3 hurricanes were increasing year over year then you may have an argument since the higher the number of hurricanes means the greater chance of any given location getting hit by more than one. But the number of hurricanes is decreasing so the only reason why your location would get hit by more than one is bad luck. Global warming doesn't cause hurricanes to target your house.

The funny thing in all of this is that hurricane mechanics dictate that the warming the upper atmosphere (where global warming is supposed to start) means fewer and weaker hurricanes (the power in a hurricane is derived from the temperature differential between upper and lower atmosphere), so a GHG warmed globe would have, as one of its characteristics, fewer and weaker hurricanes (since ghgs warm the upper atmosphere more than the lower atmosphere).

But somewhere down the line CAGW doomsayers must have realized that more vegetation and less hurricanes is not the best message to sell fear of CO2.

I agree that two freaky years does not a long term pattern make. But the cause of these particular big storms was the pattern of them passing thru the Gulf of Mexico's Loop Current, which was turning Cat 1 storms into Cat 5's over night. The warmer the water the more energy a big storm has to draw. With the right air currents and water temps the same intensity and increased amounts could happen more frequently.

 

[jmotivator]

I agree that two freaky years does not a long term pattern make. But the cause of these particular big storms was the pattern of them passing thru the Gulf of Mexico's Loop Current, which was turning Cat 1 storms into Cat 5's over night. The warmer the water the more energy a big storm has to draw. With the right air currents and water temps the same intensity and increased amounts could happen more frequently.

View attachment 67155862

But the reason warmer water makes stronger storms is it ups the differential between low and high atmosphere. Warmer waters make warmer air which rises at a speed that is correlated to the the temperature gradient of the atmosphere it passes through. Likewise the colder the air in the upper atmosphere the faster it will descend in displacement of the rising warm air. In other words, the atmospheric temperature gradient drives the power of the storm. If the upper atmosphere is warming from GHGs then the gradient is less than if it was not being warmed by GHGs, therefor storms are less likely/less powerful if GHGs are increasing in the upper atmosphere.

 

[grip]

But the reason warmer water makes stronger storms is it ups the differential between low and high atmosphere. Warmer waters make warmer air which rises at a speed that is correlated to the the temperature gradient of the atmosphere it passes through. Likewise the colder the air in the upper atmosphere the faster it will descend in displacement of the rising warm air. In other words, the atmospheric temperature gradient drives the power of the storm. If the upper atmosphere is warming from GHGs then the gradient is less than if it was not being warmed by GHGs, therefor storms are less likely/less powerful if GHGs are increasing in the upper atmosphere.

But as you say if you get an overall temp increase in the oceans they'll eventually transfer that energy to the atmosphere?

 

[gslack]

There has been some increase in extremes where I live (FL) in my lifetime, especially the last 15 years. We started out with in 1998 with the whole state practically on fire. I think over 500 thousand acres burned that year and ran us out of the house for a few days. Then in 2004-05 we had like 5 major hurricanes, one after the other.

I remember as a kid the weather had some extreme events but for the most part it was much more steady in it's patterns of seasonal rains and dryness. It was definitely a little colder back in the 70's-80's in the winter.

I am about 45 years old. And some days certainly seem like it is getting warmer, but then the colder sure seem a bit colder as well, and especially if I try and compare them to days of my childhood. I found it shocking when I check those more mild days of my youth and find they aren't actually any warmer, and the colder days weren't really any colder. It's juts perception and how a current state bears stronger on the psyche than a past one.

98' was a warmer than average year. In fact a record warm year by most accounts, yet since then temperatures have near flatlined despite CO2 increasing. And 2004-05 had a lot of hurricanes for the atlantic, and as terrible as it was, I have to ask how many have you had since then? In the 2000's you had 55 named storms that effected florida. In the 90's you had 32. in the 2010's so far you have had 3.. So for some reason you have had a major drop off in storms there for at least the last 3 years.

 

[gslack]

Real life is always more complicated. How much of that "foliage" is food crops, and how much of that would you say has been in the American grain belt?

I didn't say any of it was food crops. Matter of fact that wasn't your previous argument anyway.. Why not take a break and just admit adding more CO2 does have some benefits.. Would it kill you to concede one point? Would you be excommunicated from the the Goreacle's flock?

 

[jmotivator]

But as you say if you get an overall temp increase in the oceans they'll eventually transfer that energy to the atmosphere?

The storm itself churns the atmosphere and leads to a temporary lesser gradient in the atmosphere through which the storm passed due to the energy transfer from the surface to higher in the atmosphere.

Hurricanes leave a mixed, less gradient atmosphere in their wake. But the initial conditions of the hurricane require that gradient. In a GHG warmed atmosphere the upper atmosphere warms more everywhere so the initial conditions are not favorable for strong hurricanes anywhere in the system.

 

[grip]

The storm itself churns the atmosphere and leads to a temporary lesser gradient in the atmosphere through which the storm passed due to the energy transfer from the surface to higher in the atmosphere.

Hurricanes leave a mixed, less gradient atmosphere in their wake. But the initial conditions of the hurricane require that gradient. In a GHG warmed atmosphere the upper atmosphere warms more everywhere so the initial conditions are not favorable for strong hurricanes anywhere in the system.

That must explain the lack of hurricanes the past several years.

 

[jmotivator]

That must explain the lack of hurricanes the past several years.

It plays a part, I'm sure. But, like I said, less hurricanes and more greenery doesn't strike fear in the heart of the public so the AGW alarmists will sell the opposite.

 

[azgreg]

More plants is bad right?

It is if it's cauliflower. :lol:

 

[grip]

It plays a part, I'm sure. But, like I said, less hurricanes and more greenery doesn't strike fear in the heart of the public so the AGW alarmists will sell the opposite.

Ahh, I see. Well, I don't really know how much effect we've had on climate or if there's a lot more that we can realistically do. I know if I see another train of hurricanes heading this way I'm on vacation. Got an emergency bag with travel necessities always on standby since '04/05.

 

[azgreg]

Ahh, I see. Well, I don't really know how much effect we've had on climate or if there's a lot more that we can realistically do. I know if I see another train of hurricanes heading this way I'm on vacation. Got an emergency bag with travel necessities always on standby since '04/05.

That's one of the reasons I live in Arizona.

 

[Deuce]

So even when something is observed thats clearly a positive, you simply cant allow yourself to see it that way and have to find fault with it in any way you can ?

My food supply is based on the ability to grow certain plants in certain regions. Instead of looking at that research in particular, you seem to think it's more important to focus on me. Why is that?

 

[flogger]

My food supply is based on the ability to grow certain plants in certain regions. Instead of looking at that research in particular, you seem to think it's more important to focus on me. Why is that?

Because your stonewalling perhaps. Why cant you even admit there may be positives to this extra CO2 and they may even outweigh the negatives ? The vast majority of plant species benefit from this as most greenhouse owners have been aware now for decades. Proof of this beneficial effect in the wider biosphere is now also proven in this latest research.

Why must you believe the worst of this because frankly it isnt predicated on any observable reality ?

 

[Verax]

Clearly the 11% increase in surface greening of our planet over recent decades due elevated CO2 levels is something to be profoundly wished for for our ever increasing populations . This very beneficial observed effect surely massively outweights the hypothetic negatives ascribed to our CO 2 contributions

Anyone hear the sound of crickets and birds chirping here because the silence from the doomsters is deafening ? :shock:

Sorry for taking so long but I was calling all the climate scientists around the world to alert them to this incredible news. We all broke out the champagne after realizing that a scientist by the name of flogger had brought up an incredible point that nobody has ever thought about or taken into consideration.

Shows over folks! Increase foliage can only mean one thing... let the good times roll baby!

 

[flogger]

Sorry for taking so long but I was calling all the climate scientists around the world to alert them to this incredible news. We all broke out the champagne after realizing that a scientist by the name of flogger had brought up an incredible point that nobody has ever thought about or taken into consideration.

Shows over folks! Increase foliage can only mean one thing... let the good times roll baby!

Err .....this isnt my research I'm just the messenger. Sorry you dont want to hear the message but thems the breaks .......'baby' :roll:

 

[Verax]

Err .....this isnt my research I'm just the messenger. Sorry you dont want to hear the message but thems the breaks .......'baby' :roll:

What is the message anyways? That some increased foliage is some kind of silver lining to all this? This is like getting your car waxed before entering a demolition derby.

 

[flogger]

What is the message anyways? That some increased foliage is some kind of silver lining to all this? This is like getting your car waxed before entering a demolition derby.

Oh boy yet another blinkered catastrophist ! :roll:

Why not just read through the thread.

 

[Verax]

Oh boy yet another blinkered catastrophist ! :roll:

Why not just read through the thread.

Nah that's ok, I'm pretty sure I already know what it contains. Some conservatives / libertarians saying either there is no warming or it won't actually be a problem. Some libruls saying the science says otherwise. Some cons saying the scientists are wrong / paid off, etc. Some libruls saying no they're not.

Sure though call me a catastrophist because the idea that the climate changing will have a significantly negative effect on the environment is just so so crazy right? I mean who would think that everything in the world is connected and changes propagate throughout the system. Sounds like something a scientist with all their "learnin" would say.

 

[flogger]

Nah that's ok, I'm pretty sure I already know what it contains. Some conservatives / libertarians saying either there is no warming or it won't actually be a problem. Some libruls saying the science says otherwise. Some cons saying the scientists are wrong / paid off, etc. Some libruls saying no they're not.

Sure though call me a catastrophist because the idea that the climate changing will have a significantly negative effect on the environment is just so so crazy right? I mean who would think that everything in the world is connected and changes propagate throughout the system. Sounds like something a scientist with all their "learnin" would say.

Todays conditions have existed many times before in recent millenia and will doubtless exist many times after we are all long gone. I heard the same hype over the global cooling scare in the 70s and guess what ? That one was supposed to be all our fault too. Beware the hype because panic sells

 

[Verax]

Todays conditions have existed many times before in recent millenia and will doubtless exist many times after we are all long gone. I heard the same hype over the global cooling scare in the 70s and guess what ? That one was supposed to be all our fault too. Beware that hype

I just wanted to make fun of you real quick. I really have no interest in walking you through all your ignorant ideas to help you understand why you don't know what you're talking about. You're #183,384 that has made the silly global cooling argument among the other top 100 dumb things people think are a good counter climate change argument.

You're not a scientist and neither are the other armchair observers in this thread that think their casual passing thoughts are so special as to challenge what billions of dollars of research and countless lifetime committed scientists have gone over and concluded as what the most likely future reality is.