Increasing CO2 makes life easier for plants that live in hot dry places.
Thanks to satellites we know the world has “greened up” since 1980, but we were not sure how much of that was due to the fertilizing effect of CO2. To solve that, one group suggests we need to look in warm arid environments where water is the predominant limiting factor. These are the areas which ought to show whether CO2 was really helping plants grow, because when there is more CO2 it enables plants to use water more efficiently for photosynthesis. In places where there is already a lot of water, it won’t make as much difference. So Donohue et al. did that, studying regions with a low level of rainfall. They found that the fertilization effect is real and significant and that the cover in these arid zones increased 11% from 1982 – 2010 and CO2 played a significant role.
(Thanks to pollution, trees are invading grasslands. Whatever will the Greens do to get us back to the Halycon pre-carbon days? Call Gunns?)
CO2 may be the only “pollution” that greens the deserts.
“Using gas exchange theory, we predict that the 14% increase in atmospheric CO2 (1982–2010) led to a 5 to 10% increase in green foliage cover in warm, arid environments. Satellite observations, analysed to remove the effect of variations in rainfall, show that cover across these environments has increased by 11%.”
Our results suggest that [atmospheric CO2] has played an important role in this greening trend, and that, where water is the dominant limit to growth, cover has increased in direct proportion to the CO2-driven rise in Wp.
Figure 2. Analysis extent and spatial distribution of the Fx edge. The analysis extent, over which we determined the annual Fx, is shown in gray. Cells within ±5% of the Fx edge for at least one of the 3-year averages are shown in red
Elevated carbon dioxide making arid regions greener
31 May 2013
AGU Release No. 13-24WASHINGTON, DC—Scientists have long suspected that a flourishing of green foliage around the globe, observed since the early 1980s in satellite data, springs at least in part from the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere. Now, a study of arid regions around the globe finds that a carbon dioxide “fertilization effect” has, indeed, caused a gradual greening from 1982 to 2010.
Focusing on the southwestern corner of North America, Australia’s outback, the Middle East, and some parts of Africa, Randall Donohue of the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO) in Canberra, Australia and his colleagues developed and applied a mathematical model to predict the extent of the carbon-dioxide (CO2) fertilization effect. They then tested this prediction by studying satellite imagery and teasing out the influence of carbon dioxide on greening from other factors such as precipitation, air temperature, the amount of light, and land-use changes.
The team’s model predicted that foliage would increase by some 5 to 10 percent given the 14 percent increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration during the study period. The satellite data agreed, showing an 11 percent increase in foliage after adjusting the data for precipitation, yielding “strong support for our hypothesis,” the team reports.
“Lots of papers have shown an average increase in vegetation across the globe, and there is a lot of speculation about what’s causing that,” said Donohue of CSIRO’s Land and Water research division, who is lead author of the new study. “Up until this point, they’ve linked the greening to fairly obvious climatic variables, such as a rise in temperature where it is normally cold or a rise in rainfall where it is normally dry. Lots of those papers speculated about the CO2 effect, but it has been very difficult to prove.”
He and his colleagues present their findings in an article that has been accepted for publication in Geophysical Research Letters, a journal of the American Geophysical Union.
The team looked for signs of CO2 fertilization in arid areas, Donohue said, because “satellites are very good at detecting changes in total leaf cover, and it is in warm, dry environments that the CO2 effect is expected to most influence leaf cover.” Leaf cover is the clue, he added, because “a leaf can extract more carbon from the air during photosynthesis, or lose less water to the air during photosynthesis, or both, due to elevated CO2.” That is the CO2 fertilization effect.
But leaf cover in warm, wet places like tropical rainforests is already about as extensive as it can get and is unlikely to increase with higher CO2 concentrations. In warm, dry places, on the other hand, leaf cover is less complete, so plants there will make more leaves if they have enough water to do so. “If elevated CO2 causes the water use of individual leaves to drop, plants will respond by increasing their total numbers of leaves, and this should be measurable from satellite,” Donohue explained.
To tease out the actual CO2 fertilization effect from other environmental factors in these regions, the researchers first averaged the greenness of each location across 3-year periods to account for changes in soil wetness and then grouped that greenness data from the different locations according to their amounts of precipitation. The team then identified the maximum amount of foliage each group could attain for a given precipitation, and tracked variations in maximum foliage over the course of 20 years. This allowed the scientists to remove the influence of precipitation and other climatic variations and recognize the long-term greening trend.
In addition to greening dry regions, the CO2 fertilization effect could switch the types of vegetation that dominate in those regions. “Trees are re-invading grass lands, and this could quite possibly be related to the CO2 effect,” Donohue said. “Long lived woody plants are deep rooted and are likely to benefit more than grasses from an increase in CO2.”
“The effect of higher carbon dioxide levels on plant function is an important process that needs greater consideration,” said Donohue. “Even if nothing else in the climate changes as global CO2 levels rise, we will still see significant environmental changes because of the CO2 fertilization effect.”
This study was funded by CSIRO’s Sustainable Agriculture Flagship, Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, the Australian Research Council and Land & Water Australia.
H/t Science Daily
REFERENCE
Donohue, R.J, Michael L. Roderick, Tim R. McVicar, Graham D. Farquhar. (2013) CO2 fertilisation has increased maximum foliage cover across the globe’s warm, arid environments. Geophysical Research Letters, 2013; DOI: 10.1002/grl.50563
Jo, I presume you know that Gunns is in receivership? The Receivers are Kordia Mentha.
—-
Then they really need the job eh? – Jo
61
(my bold)
Isn’t it refreshing, when some scientists talk in terms of “supporting an hypothesis”. No wild claims. No jumping to conclusions. Just the steady march of observation on top of observation around an idea that is being tested to the point where it is difficult for other people to find fault.
Yes, they are using models. But they are being used as an aid, and not as an oracle that can produce “The Answer” by magic.
That is real science folks. Would Vince and Margot, and any other passing troll, please take note.
371
Oh no, no. This will never do. We must have a CONSENSUS… then we will know that we have FACTS and can label anybody who disagrees with us as a denier and conspiracy theorist who supports free markets.
300
RW, you’ve nailed it concisely. Refreshing, init. You’d think the Greens would be now clapping with joy, except they won’t be; no money honey pots of our money to suck on.
220
Amoz
The Greens need a crisis to make people scared. When people are afraid, they will submit to authoritarian government. Which, I suspect, is the Green’s ultimate objective.
Cheers,
Speedy
240
Agreed. A hypothesis followed by observation which provides support for it.
I wonder how old the scientists involved in this research are? They are certainly not in the usual (or should that be unusual) mould of climatologists.
Re their ideas:
I point out that 7-9,000 years ago the Sahara Desert was green and well watered. The Tassili frescos prove that man could live there in what is now the most inhospitable part of the desert, surrounded by giraffes, lions, leopards (or cheetahs), elephants, various bovines and hippopotami. The last proves the existence of permanent water holes, if not flowing rivers.
Various scientists have claimed that the Earth was 2 ℃ warmer then, and others using (stomatal density of preserved leaves) have claimed that the CO2 level then was higher even than today’s figure.
They have been dismissed by the climatologists but it is obvious that the combination of those two effects would have been a good base for a green Sahara.
180
Maybe I am not so bright, but it has always been my thoughts that computers can only calculate answers from the information that is entered into them. So I think that climate alarmists will enter information that backs up their theories.
30
Coverage is partial, broad brush, low resolution, and “supports the hypothesis”.
An interesting second stage would be to home in on “dry tropics” areas such as NQ and elsewhere. Annual precipitation here (19°11’38″S 146°40’31″E) since 2004 only slightly above long-term average. No apparent increase in average temperature or insolation.
Cyclone Yasi obligingly re-arranged vast areas of vegetation. I am still dealing with +/- 10-15 tonnes of it from a mere 1400m2. 2+ years down the track, and it has substantially recovered, time to start trimming the stuff again. The evidence is in the tree rings. (Volunteers bring their own chainsaw.)
With residual fuel load plus new growth, no reduction in fire risk. Rural Fire Service already issuing warnings and getting on with remedial measures.
40
The chlorophyl derived from bad, man made CO2 is “unnatural” and therefore can not be considered “green”, every fully indoctrinated warmist knows that!
171
I have a hypothesis that the electrons within anthropogenic carbon dioxide spin in the opposite direction to those in natural carbon dioxide.
Since you obviously know something about marine life (and therefore jumping in at the deep end), and since I have an old IBM 386 lying around doing nothing, I wondered if we could put in a joint application for research funding. Waddya think?
150
Hey Rereke:
Let’s apply for a grant to study man made CO2 spin and its effect on ………….
We need to invite ideas from our contributors, here is a start –
1) Bad weather, 2) Green energy income, 3) Ocean rise and surfing tourism, 4) The new physics of hidden heat, 6) Your contribution!
81
Does CO2 spin in a different direction depending on the hemisphere it’s in ? If so does the conjunction of the hemispheres lead to a whirlpool effect or “CO2 spin turmoil” ?
60
I like your term “CO2 spin”.
It is much more concise than the long-winded explanation I was using before, and I am sure that nobody will notice the difference.
100
.
Obviously natural CO2 spins conservatively to the right,
whereas man-made CO2 has been forced to spin hard to the left.
230
I think I like the sound of that!
10
Well, remember though, from down under, left hand spin looks like right hand spin, just the opposite of what it looks like in the northern hemisphere. It all depends on which pole you’re near.
Thus all these spin theories are disproved. No one direction of spin can make any difference if they aren’t invariantly unique no matter the view point. This is in accordance with Hogue’s 2nd law of spin interpretation. The 1st law says: if it seems to be spinning, make sure your head is not spinning before applying the 2nd law; which the left violates all the time by the way.
The real difference between natural and man made CO2 is in the color and odor of the atoms. Natural CO2 is not made dirty by contact with those rotten, dark colored and smelly fossils from long ago. It smells clean and fresh. Man made CO2 has the color of sewage and smells bad. You choke on it! Just go outside, look around and take a deep breath in the heart of any big city if you don’t believe me. 😉
50
But of course this result must be wrong because we know from good authority that CO2 is always bad!!!! There must be some flaw in there somewhere and some enterprising young climate change acolyte will be sure to point it out.
BB
70
Andy we have a winner for the grant fire up the 386 and help disprove the above hypothesis.
Commenters always come through. Sarc/ off
20
Last year we had our driest 5 months on record [over a century] and during that period our grass was as green as any wet period. Trees and shrubs always stay green but grass doesn’t. Couldn’t help but lay it at the feet of ACO2.
20
Do you water the grass by any chance? That would make a big difference. My grass sure doesn’t stay green through the summer without water — water for which I pay through the nose by the way. Grass is one of the most water intensive things you can grow.
10
I’ve said it before. 280ppm is about the base level for continued plant sustinence. This is where the level drops down to in the preditor/prey scenario, and not much lower (that we know of).
And that’s where is been (mostly) for a very very long time.
Toward 700ppm, I say !!
Let the planet flourish !
151
Gee, I’ll bet a few graziers in the marginal country will see this as a paradigm shift moment.
These guys had the bloke who wrote “the text book” on side when they made their submission & yet the “trickle down” of the Howard compliance to Kyoto just steamrolled them.
http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/vegetation/subs/NVRegSub100AttA.pdf
20
Carbon is both the brick and the mortar of Existence.
Carbon Dioxide is the truck that transports it to Employment.
Chlorophyll: Its hunger,Sun-fed; Its thirst, Water-quenched, completes the Miracle!
…
It’s a source of continuing wonder to me why four billion-year old Water should be perceived as with the Angels when its contemporary cousin Carbon is cast amongst the Demons.
We’re all fossils.
Just recycled ones!
80
Jo – I thought a good sceptic of establishment science would be quite cynical of such a paper – and particularly with such a serious interest in “real” environmental matters – and a love of statistical significance. This sort of paper should ring alarm bells with all you good sceptics ” his colleagues developed and applied a mathematical model to predict the extent of the carbon-dioxide (CO2) fertilization effect” – A MODEL – A MODEL !! Oh tut tut. We all know models are tuned to tell you anything. And especially ones with CO2. A MODEL ! Oh my.
Many of these areas are fire sub-climax systems where a variable balance between tree, shrubs and grasses exist – local examples Piliga scrub NSW, Cobar woody weed patch, Mulga SQ Qld, Poplar Box Central Qld. But also southern Africa, south-west USA. A simple equation – temperate and tropical savannas need fire to control native woody species (shrubs and trees. Fire kills woodies, especially small ones. You need enough grass for fires to take and run. Overgrazing produces low grass cover. Increasing wariness of fire by graziers also means less fires. Less fire means more woodies. Less grass means more overgrazing and managers try to keep up.
So called woodland thickening, shrub invasion, woody weed encroachment.
There are also episodic decadal type massive wets like 2011 which set off massive germination events. Some of these get away if unchecked.
Other explanations – invasion of treeless Mitchell grass systems and the Channel Country by exotic woody weeds like Prickly Acacia (Acacia nilotica), Parkinsonia, etc.
Additionally some land clearing with bulldozers and chains can produce a sea of woody sticks (Tea trees – Melaleuca systems)and in general much clearing produces regrowth of woodies.
True that CO2 has an effect and that C3 woodies probably do better than C4 grasses but I reckon given all the other factors this would be straining the limits of statistical significance in noisy field situations. Not saying what I’ve described above happens everywhere but be “sceptical”. Models only have what’s in them.
CO2 ! Poppycock !
Any references – try http://imediaadmin.fairfaxrural.com.au/files/34/33/61/000613334/bushclearing2013drbillburrows.pdf
http://www.queenslandcountrylife.com.au/news/agriculture/general/news/wwf-in-wilderness-on-veg-reform/2659251.aspx?storypage=0
318
Dead-astro: They used a model, but the 11% result comes from satellite measurements. The question here is how much of that 11% was due to the added CO2 and not the other factors such as you’ve described.
Given that there are hundreds of studies showing plants grow faster and are more drought tolerant under higher CO2 conditions, I think their conclusions are quite reasonable.
This is the “A” page at CO2Science. Click here for B – Z.
223
Jo- serious ecologist would just laugh at this – don’t let the Dunning-Kruger go crazy here and be sceptical. Yes of course CO2 experiments show changes in plant growth – at what 2x and 3x CO2. And at optimum conditions – we all know FACE field experiments (which still don’t have droughts, fire, grazing beef herds, exploding ferals/macropod populations, exotic woody weeds, and bulldozers in) are much more nuanced and subtle in the results.
It’s your job to tell us what biomass we’d expect on an increase of 120ppm CO2 above 280ppm notional pre-industrial in a noisy field situation – on the limits of statistical detection I say.
Satellites – schmatellites – yes show increases in normalised difference vegetation index (NDVI greenness)- and yes indeed that what’s you’d expect if trees and shrubs were invading/thickening. The shrubs and trees tend to stay green while the grasses green, brown, decay with the seasons. Long term green increase comes from more trees and shrubs. Longer term green component of the vegetation. Knowing what eras of satellites they’d have patched together with all sorts of moving orbital parameters doodies adjusted for it would be fun to see the errors bars yes?
When did the Piliga scrub come into formation – decades ago – long before CO2 got a wriggle on. Same with the infamous Cobar woody weeds patch.
The soil isotopic studies in thickened areas show the C3 woody from C4 grasses transition in the soil profile – the transition isn’t that recent.
You’re also fighting a big ecological literature from southern Africa, SW USA and Australia on woodland thickening and shrub encroachment.
Interestingly you will notice that Cape York and the Top End of the Northern Territory are WHITE on the map – and yes exactly. Why – as fire frequency has increases in northern Australia (some say to the detriment of biodiversity and hot fires producing more methane and NOx than cool season fires – (sorry choke)). Why is the upper NT and Cape York white?
David of course would of course remember that the size of Aussie thickening per annum is in the 100 Mt per annum range (20% national inventory) – and if it’s from grazing management/mismanagement it’s an anthropogenically induced sink – but the DOIC and other bodies wouldn’t let it pass the “additionality” clause – it’s from business as usual. Of course that is assuming one might be interested in carbon sinks (choke). But I digress.
CO2 – poppycock – be sceptical.
418
In one line – it’s very little CO2 related – it’s an ecological transition from change in fire regime – grass to native woodies – and it’s anthropogenic.
419
“it’s an ecological transition from change in fire regime – grass to native woodies – and it’s anthropogenic.”
What – in Mongolia, the middle east, Sahara?
Sure what you are suggesting may apply to Australia but this is world wide in regions where man is pretty well nonexistent.
111
Well there’s not a lot of graziers in remote Queensland either – but humans are hardly unrepresented in Mongolia, the Middle East and Sahara. Fire is part of the international grassland biome cycle as is grazing domestic stock. Land managers even if sparse on the ground do control fire frequency and animal numbers. Increasing vegetation on the southern Sahara boundary is more to do with rainfall and human planting activity than anything else. Do you think it’s the result of 120ppm CO2? Wow !
39
Luke, we know and understand your obsession with woody weeds but the fact is even though all greenery improves with the extra CO2 the woody weeds will always dominate the grass because of their ability to smother and outreach while growing at a similar pace in summer and faster in winter. Trees are always slower but even so can eventually overwhelm both.
If you went outside occasionally you would notice the difference yourself.
90
I think it’s graziers’ obsessions not mine. Read the rural press. Been to any grazier meetings in the Gulf lately – no of course not.
“the fact is even though all greenery improves with the extra CO2” not really – I think you’re one that needs to get off the rocking chair and do some science which you never do. Old codger home spun yarns on a block somewhere are pretty myopic.
“while growing at a similar pace in summer and faster in winter” well how amazing – they grow at similar paces in summer and winter do they – wow – or are you some sort of ecophysiological fool?
” Trees are always slower” – ummm trees are the woody weeds. I think you need to leave SEQ and go out west !
what drivel
212
“It’s your job to tell us what biomass we’d expect on an increase of 120ppm CO2 above 280ppm notional pre-industrial in a noisy field situation – on the limits of statistical detection I say.”
You only have to look at prisoners in a POW camp, then after they have had a decent feed for a while.
That is about what plants are now experiencing.
133
So to isolate the effect of CO2 on plant growth, one MUST exclude all those other land management and independent environmental factors to determine the effect of increased CO2, or are you suggesting the bulldozers flourish in a CO2 enriched environment? I believe that is exactly how you determine at what level is CO2 optimal for plant growth, not by adding in a myriad of other factors that are not proven to be directly (or even indirectly) related to CO2 level.
You have trouble drawing any conclusion whatsoever from satellite images for something they can see (and I’m not necessarily disagreeing that accuracy may be an issue with this paper and cause for some skepticism as you suggest), yet we are told that these same satellites can measure sea level rise down to the discrimination of 1mm?? I think you are prepared to discard any information from satellites that doesn’t conform with your predetermined idea of what you want to see, rather than objectively analysing what IS seen (I note the use of the emotive language-“invade”- very “sciency”). I would also say the observations in the paper (on the surface at least) are interesting, possibly confirm what many have long suspected in that the so-called effects of increased atmospheric CO2 are being looked at with biased eyes and without recourse to acknowledging any positive influences this CO2 rise might have on the biosphere, and the authors have merely suggested it is consistent with possible positive influence on vegetation distribution and growth.
You fail to show that fire frequency is related to CO2 (you seem to be stating this as a given unless I misunderstand your argument) and not other factors (whether anthropogenic or natural- you shouldn’t conflate them), nor have you showed that the drought we suffered at the end of the last century in Australia was anything other than a normal climate variant that has been occurring since the dawn of time on this continent, and will continue to occur at irregular intervals whether the atmospheric CO2 levels are 280ppm or 1000ppm.
“Climate change” is real since the word climate implies variability inherently, its just that man’s influence is, IMHO, minor to miniscule. If you want better land management, try not to conflate your arguments into one anti-human rant because few here would disagree with you.
131
Winston – yes bulldozers do flourish in a CO2 environment. It’s called the industrial age. 🙂
We’re not talking precision laser altimeters – we’re talking spectral radiometers 1.1km pixel NOAA AVHRR NDVI data – plus or minus a pixel in geo-registration. And from a time series of satellites adjusted for orbital drift, sensor decay and needing correct for bi-directional surface reflectance (sun angle, atmospheric haze). Compared to laser altimeters as precise as a brick to a pin.
Invade – well sometimes woody vegetation “invades” or colonises open grassland e.g. Gidgee western Queensland or exotic Acacia nilotica – sometimes existing woodlands like Poplar Box thicken up. Two different processes. Shrub invasion has been around for only about 40 years as a term. Sheesh if you find it emotional!
Fire frequency related to CO2 – what does that have to do with the price of eggs in China. It’s this simple – savannas are a fire sub-climax vegetation association. They are not stable – more fire less woodies. Less fire more woodies. What causes fire – lightning naturally and humans.
And in Australia we have 10,000s of years of Aboriginal fire stick farming pre-European. That has now changed dramatically due to grazing removing grass fuel load and graziers’ reluctance to spring burn lest they be caught with no grass in a drought plus wildfire threat. So apart from the top end and real forests vast areas of Australia now burn a lot less. The authors have not considered this major impact and should know better being from ANU School of Botany. One ponders if the paper is political in terms of ecological paradigm wars (with a bit of climate change for spice) and fails to consider the vast amount of international fire ecology literature.
Who said I was making an anti-human rant? I’m simply being descriptive. Sheesh again. “Better land management” is interesting – more open productive systems (from a beef grazing viewpoint) will burn more and produce more CO2 from CH4 and NOx in fires, but more less green trees and more grass means lighter albedo which reflects more radiation cooling?, but less trees also means reduced surface roughness so more wind and more evaporation). Net climate result is complex?
Man’s influence minor – don’t think so – see the clouds over the vegetation around the WA bunny fence. http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/14/science/earth/14fenc.html?_r=0
I haven’t mentioned climate change so not sure why you’re gone there.
I am saying most of what you are seeing on 120ppm increase of CO2 is simply anthropogenic fire regime change and woody plant “invasion” (oooo) not some minor CO2 fertilisation.
You guys are not being sceptical in the slightest – you just jumped on a paper that you think supports your predilection that CO2 is good plant fertiliser.
In the much longer term future extra CO2 may even be a hazard to savannas and their grazing wildlife as serious levels of CO2 fertilisation kicks in. Why – as C3 woodies will probably fare better with increased atmospheric concentrations (in terms of photosynthetic efficiency) than C4 grasses (although C4 gives better water use efficiency).
So again CO2 = always good plant fertiliser with great results is simply simplistic paff. Lots of work to be done.
Savannas choked with woody vegetation isn’t good news for domestic or native grazing animals across the world.
510
There’s the rub now isn’t it. Incredibly accurate, except for the assumptions, adjustments, tweaks and corrections, which aren’t. I think you made my point for me.
True, so the corollary of that is that previous statements from alarmists about rising CO2 and its effect on increasing drought, reducing arable land availability, etc would appear to be a little questionable in light of that also, don’t you think.
And while I’m not suggesting Aboriginal land practices might have damaged the land to a greater or lesser degree than Europeans, I actually find it interesting that there is more than a tinge of romanticism and noble savage mythology bias in suggesting that indigenous land practices were necessarily sustainable or ecologically benevolent (certainly some vegetation species were advantaged by widespread burning while others perhaps less so- who knows what real effects these had if any), or that some of the large areas of Australia with sparse vegetation and poor soils may not in part have been negatively impacted by pre-European anthropogenic factors. I think it is an assumption that they were uniformly positive, possibly a correct one but we hardly have any hard evidence one way or the other.
Anyone can construct arguments about albedo changes, aerosols, etc to reinforce some point about the good or bad effects stemming from land use changes- surely its more a question of degree and relativity, and whether in the overall scheme of things it makes any significant difference to the climate. I happen to think it probably makes little difference beyond that at a microclimates level causing very small regional variation, with perhaps the sole exception of widespread deforestation, which certainly effects precipitation, etc. I would agree that it is simplistic to say increased CO2 is certain to be better for all plant growth, but evidence seems to suggest that that is more likely than the reverse, as alarmists contend.
And humans can’t now clear land and manage that accordingly?? I doubt it is anything a farmer couldn’t handle if he needed to, provided government regulators didn’t prevent him from doing it. We are not entirely at the mercy of the elements, we can actually alter these things and manage them accordingly if we so desire. I find it puzzling and ironic that alarmists suggest that humanity is so powerful that our actions can dramatically alter the weather, but so powerless that we can do nothing to adapt to it.
90
“Accurate apart from adjustments” – well pretty well all instruments have calibration don’t they, even your school ruler. Maybe you like to measure noise and not signals? Fail to account for BRDF, sensor drift in satellite imagery and your green surface might really be brown. Are you advocating this is a good outcome?
“alarmists suggest that humanity is so powerful that our actions can dramatically alter the weather, but so powerless that we can do nothing to adapt to it” well dunno – depends on how fast, when, and where doesn’t it – how’s your Mandarin? We haven’t experienced a major climate shift with 6B humans going to 9B before. The planet will survive – some of us may not. Planet doesn’t care but we might.
“CO2 may be better for plant growth” – whether all plant growth is good for us is another question. Weeds are plants too. And then there is Liebig’s Law of the Minimum. If one thinks CO2 is simply magic juice one also might believe in Jack’s Beanstalk.
Pre-European Aboriginal culture burned the land continuously to suit themselves to provide all manner of habitat. http://theconversation.com/the-biggest-estate-on-earth-how-aborigines-made-australia-3787 is a great account. While widespread it wasn’t out of control. Burnt in patches in often cool season smokey fires that petered out. I’m not saying they were romantic noble or ignoble “savages” – simply that firestick farming happened for 40,000 to 60,000 years or more.
“and whether in the overall scheme of things it makes any significant difference to the climate.” well enough to change rainfall over the WA wheat belt, enough to change surface roughness and therefore wind speed and therefore evaporation. Depends if your small region happens to be your best food bowl doesn’t it.
Yes humans can clear land by a variety of means. Depends on the country’s access to technology like bulldozers. And cost. It can become very uneconomic e.g. Cobar woody weeds patch very costly to rehabilitate. So let things get out of hand and it’s a long way back. Do you have a cheap way of managing Prickly Acacia – elephants? camels? at Longreach? Maybe graziers in western NSW should have been more alarmist back in the day….
310
The amount of denial in your posts is amazing. It is not only satellite measurements. It is not “co2 may be better for plants”. Of course it is good for weeds too, as it is beneficial for all plants, this is why in agriculture there is a process to remove weeds that was done manually in the old time.
the earth biosphere is increasing :
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/02/earths-co2-sinks-increasing-their-uptake/
http://motls.blogspot.com/2011/06/eu-forest-density-doubled-since-1945.html
“According to a study by Aapo Rautiainen, Pekka Kauppi, and others from University of Helsinski and the New York Rockefeller University, the forest density has started to grow in Western Europe after the war and it doubled between 1945 and now. A little later, this process has also spread to North America and, even more recently, to East Asia and perhaps South America.”
http://resilientearth.com/?q=content/forests-flourish-human-co2
“The PNAS Early Edition paper, “Evidence for a recent increase in forest growth ,” was written by Sean M. McMahona, Geoffrey G. Parkera, and Dawn R. Millera, all researchers associated with the Forest Ecology Group at the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC).”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara_2.html
“While satellite images can’t distinguish temporary plants like grasses that come and go with the rains, ground surveys suggest recent vegetation change is firmly rooted. In the eastern Sahara area of southwestern Egypt and northern Sudan, new trees—such as acacias—are flourishing, according to Stefan Kröpelin, a climate scientist at the University of Cologne’s Africa Research Unit in Germany. ”
I could post really hundreds of studies, but it is not worth, as reading from your posts I am sure you will deny anything. It is sad to see the amount of denial by which alarmists try to negate any benefits coming from CO2.
http://ns.umich.edu/new/releases/8614
http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-greening-of-the-planet.aspx
As Freeman Dyson said: about 15% of the current agricultural production comes from increased CO2.
That is food for 1 billion people out of the current 7 billion.
110
Lars, I think you’re wasting your time. DAS gave the game away in his reply to Jo, “Jo- serious ecologist would just laugh at this”. A serious ecologist wouldn’t, a deep ecologist might well. I suggest we’ve been well and truly trolled.
110
Perhaps we know now the meaning of “DEAD” agrostologist.
50
Jo hasn’t been trolled unless you assume trolls are those who disagree with you. Jo has just ignored 40 years of ecological research and done a Dunning-Kruger.
And to show how utterly silly you are Kevin – and I mean utterly – deep ecologists want the trees as has been the debate – over restoring grass balance to savannas with a decent fire regime and good herd management. Doesn’t sound very green or deep to me. You’re clueless matey.
011
Lars P just more Dunning-Kruger effect. If you weren’t a biome ignoramus you’d know we’re not talking about forests but savannas and steppes. Good grief. But have you considered what an increase in temperature and some extra rainfall might do.
Considered a wider literature on differnet biomes http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/global/pdf/Pe%C3%B1uelas-etal-2011%20GlobEcolBiogeogr.pdf of course you haven’t.
“While satellite images can’t distinguish temporary plants like grasses that come and go with the rains,” Utter utter rot. Satellite can well detect green pasture – you’ve had a little google haven’t you and found a comment to suit you while ignoring a whole literature.
You can take a satellite image when grasses are dry to resolve good tree grass discrimination. In fact green grass confounds NDVI measurement if you don’t select images at the right time. This really is amateur hour now isn’t it.
I could post 100s of studies but not from the disinformation sources that you love to frequent.
Dyson would be well off the reservation with his 15% increase in global ag production from CO2 – he wouldn’t know and should stick to physics. How does he separate the effects of improved genetics, agronomy, pesticides and changing climate – with a MODEL ? OH NO ! hahahahahaha
011
From “Dead agrostologists society” post
“Considered a wider literature on differnet biomes http………..of course you haven’t.”
“In this paper, we explore more integrated and long-term records of the effects of elevated CO2 on the intrinsic water use efficiency (iWUE) and tree growth through the study of tree rings over multiple decades.”
“We focused only on the variation between levels of growth during the mature phase of growth, marked by the abrupt change in slope (levelling off) after the release phase. We did not consider the data for the first stage in the life of a tree before reaching maturity.”
Interesting choice whereas mature trees grow significantly less then young trees, and a tree needs decades to mature. Of course more difficult to measure something, but even so there are some results:
“However, iWUE, significantly increased by 20%”
Water use efficiency significantly increased. Does this ring a bell? You talk of Dunning Krueger? Projections projections, so typical.
Main conclusion of your posted article:
“These results show that despite an increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations of over 50 p.p.m. and a 20.5% increase in iWUE during the last 40 years, tree growth has not increased as expected, suggesting that other factors have overridden the potential growth benefits of a CO2-rich world in many sites. ”
Half of their chosen sites see increase, half stationary! or decrease.
So there are more with increased growth then decrease, but it is clear that the authors do avoid to say this. Very interesting. They do show more growth in their data but you deny that.
“Such factors could include climate change (particularly drought), nutrient limitation and/or physiological long-term acclimation to elevated CO2. Hence, the rate of biomass carbon sequestration in tropical, arid, mediterranean, wet temperate and boreal ecosystems may not increase with increasing atmo-spheric CO2 concentrations as is often implied by biospheric models and short-term elevated CO2 experiments.”
is not negating CO2 enrichment, however they did not found it as high as expected. This is different to what you say.
It is not clear what do they expect.
On the other side you know very well that also the great increase in CO2 human emissions in the last decades -> 40% of all human CO2 emissions were emitted in the last 17years, with zero temperature increase we have minimal CO2 increase in the atmosphere, the same rate as before and studies doing research for carbon sequestrtion found a step change in the global carbon absorbed by the biosphere.
00
Awww what a party pooper.
Rather than a top-down or bottom-up approach, they seem to have taken a meet-in-the-middle approach. They start bottom-up with a “gas exhange model” predicting effect on greeness from a single CO2 cause assuming all other variables are the same.
Then they go top-down and take observed changes in greeness and subtract from this trend the seperately-modelled effects of various other causes that differ between regions. Whatever is left is the influence of CO2 plus other unmodelled causes and feedbacks.
They say the gas model predicted 5-10% increase, and after subtracting all known causes from greeness, the remainder was 11%.
So you’re alleging that when their net greeness model adjusted the observed greeness for “land-use changes” they forgot to properly account for back-burning and effect of land-use on bushfires?
How do you know this? Have you read the unpublished paper? Are you clairvoyant?
70
It seems during my editing interval that Winston has has a similar go, albeit more verbose. Not sure how much overlap between the comments yet, but the question of how much land-use was adjusted does seem to be a common point of dispute.
30
Yes I have read the paper – have you?
111
Sorry meaning it’s available pre-press at GRL
16
Oh the triple but-but – it’s not “back burning” or “bushfires” in the Australian coastal forest context. It’s “over the range” savanna burning of natural woodlands with scattered trees as a management tool to renovate pastures from accumulated moribund dry matter, increase levels of palatable perennial grasses, and to kill some woody tree/shrub seedlings to keep woodland thickening at bay.
38
Granted, Australia is a special case. Elsewhere in the world, grazing animals cause expansion of grassland by eating woody seedlings as they emerge. The process of desertification by grazing animals in marginal grassland is well documented. In north Wales National Parks, areas of land fenced off from grazers are showing signs of returning original woody shrubs and trees.
How come in Oz grazers enhance the growth of woody shrubs whereas in the rest of the world grazers have the opposite effect?
70
Kevin – not so – southern and East Africa and SW USA has same issues. South America, Asia. It’s global http://www.aridecologylab.com.au/pubs/Eldridge_et_al_encroachment_Ecol_Lett_2011.pdf
111
Please note from Deado’s referenced paper above:
70
I’m so impressed that you just read the abstract
112
Oh, so you really are clairvoyant.
50
I just found it remarkable that almost immediately I founnd a contradiction to your assumption that all this greening is a bad thing.
50
You have mentioned the fatal word here, “Ecologists”. “Ecology” has about as much validity as a real scientific field of study as “Astrology”. The sooner everybody is a wake up to this the better. Get thee gone with thy ecology.
11
Jo,
As one who is by training an agrostologist I was about to ask questions largely covered here.
30
“CO2 ! Poppycock !”
Oh.. you mean as a forcing for atmospheric temperatures..
Well, yes, of course its POPPYCOCK !! and BALDERDASH to boot !!!
40
Roy, nice analogy of religion and carbon,
I wonder if someone has created one from this?
HANG ON! 😉
40
Waiting for Trenberth to say that this is where his missing energy is.!
Thing is that if we now reduce CO2 all that energy will get released back into the atmosphere.
So sequestering and reducing CO2 is the very last thing we should do if we want to avoid catastrophic warming. 😉
(Tongue in cheek logic, btw)
30
I have always wondered what that missing heat is?
After all the models claim that the Earth is in radiative equilibrium, i.e. the energy flow inwards at the top of the atmosphere is the same as the energy flow outwards. From this they conclude that CO2 must be causing warming. Personally I have always thought it took extra energy to make something hotter, but then I haven’t kept up with ‘the science’ at all.
70
Thanks to that blasted CO2 I have to spend more time weeding and mowing the lawn. “Ban the stuff”, I say.
60
CAGW will, however, cost us all for generations:
31 May: BrisbaneTimes: Tony Moore: Queensland electricity prices to rise
Queensland electricity prices will increase $268 a year, or 22.6 per cent, for households on the typical tariff, the Queensland Competition Authority has confirmed.
QCA chairman Malcolm Roberts accepted the price increase would hit families and small businesses…
‘‘[Premier] Campbell Newman promised Queenslanders in writing that he’d [lower] their power bills,’’ Mr Pitt said.
‘‘It was a reckless promise and clearly a shameless pre-election stunt that Mr Newman never had any intention of honouring.’’…
Energy Minister Mark McArdle instead the blamed the carbon tax, which adds $19.83 a year – or 38 cents a week – to the $268 annual increase ($5.15 a week) to the residential electricity bill.
He repeated his concerns about the cost of providing the solar feed-in tariff, which in 2013-14 will add $32 a year (61 cents a week) to the $268 a year increase…
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/queensland-electricity-prices-to-rise-20130531-2ng00.html
10
pat says here:
The same applies in nearly every State over the recent short term.
I want you to be the judge here.
As recently as 12 Months ago, large scale coal fired power plants here in Australia were selling their power for $30/MWH, and that’s 3 cents per KWH Wholesale.
How many large scale coal fired plants have been built in the last, well, decade or two, and right from the start, they sold their power for that $30/MWH.
What then has happened in the last ….. well, short term anyway, since those most recent large scale coal fired plants went in.
You could say population increase leading to more housing developments to put those people in, also needing newer workplaces, and shopping, hence more Coles/Woolies, shopping Malls. Hence adding in a large way to the grids, and upgrading the grids to cope with all that.
However, what power plants have gone in then?
Some small scale solar plants, every wind power plant, the explosion of rooftop solar, and from that, the exorbitant FIT for all of those.
Existing (old) coal fired plants just hum along doing what they’ve always done, supplying huge amounts of cheap power.
Look especially at South Australia. They (and how I hate this bogus term) had 5 days during the 3 Months of Summer when they experienced (here it comes) Peak Power, and the cost for power shot up beyond $100/MWH as consumption rose, but not really by all that much, and what are you going to do, wholesale disconnection. It just has to be handled.
5 days in 3 Months when Power costs boomed up beyond $100/MWH.
Now, here we are in the benign Month of May, one Month before Winter starts, and average power consumption in SA has dropped by around 300MW.
The average wholesale power price for this Month in S.A. is $120/MWH and they have had 15 days in just this Month with power cost beyond $100/MWH and 4 days beyond $200 with a high of $462.
Why is that?
Playford has closed and Northern made the decision to only operate during Summer.
So, S.A. is paying exorbitant cost for its electricity, because there is no coal fired power feeding into their grid.
You be the judge why power costs are going up.
Tony.
171
And yet they are charging the consumer something in the region of $250/MWH so *gasp* their profit margin was reduced to a mere whisper at 150% must have been terrible.
72
That isn’t ‘profit margin’.
One of the realities of generating large quantities of electricity at central locations and consuming it over a huge geographical area is that it has to be transported.
So the business that operates the high voltage distribution demands a tariff, and since these businesses are by and large publicly owned the costs don’t include ‘profit’.
Then the businesses the distribute the electricity over ‘poles and wires’ and provide and maintain the myriad transformers that reduce the voltage to a value useful to the consumer require at tariff. Then the retail enterprises that operate the billing systems, the call centers, the meter readers, and chase people who simply don’t pay their bill (in Tassie that is about one third of the customers) have to cover their costs. At the end, the ‘profit’ is essentially ‘sweet buggar all’.
20
And they charge me an extra daily maintenance fee for “poles and wires” on top of the unit price of electricity. It’s right there listed on the bill.
They make a massive profit. About half the money the consumer spends goes to the government-owned distribution companies, and no only do those companies declare a profit every year, they also pay tax to the government (i.e. to their shareholders) as well.
30
http://www.endeavourenergy.com.au/AnnualReport1011/management_discussion.html
The reports are available to the public, you can see they are making a healthy profit, and at the same time significant capital investment. The return on assets is listed at 10% and the return on equity is listed at 20% and that’s after tax which is better than most business is seeing right now. As I said, since they are government owned, the tax is to all intents and purposes also profit for the shareholders, to the real return is even better.
They can do this, because they are a monopoly and people have difficulty living without electricity.
30
.
I’d love to know where they get the “increase” of $268.00 a year from.
$268.00 is 22.6% of a bit over $1100.00, which translates into a quarterly bill of $275.00.
I don’t know anybody who pays that little.
Thumper and I cook with gas, and we average around $450.00 a quarter, or about $1800.00 a year.
For my son and his wife, with two school age kids, it’s more like $650.00 a quarter, or $2600.00 a year.
That puts the yearly rise at around $400.00 for us, and nearly $600.00 for the kids.
.
When we returned from Perth to QLD in 2008, we paid 11 cents a KWH.
Now we pay 22.5 cents a KWH.
From July we will be paying around 27 cents a KWH.
And yet they tell us the cost of living has only increased about 12% in the same time.
40
TonyfromOz – over to you:
29 May: NYT: Todd Woody: Solar Industry Anxious Over Defective Panels
LOS ANGELES — The solar panels covering a vast warehouse roof in the sun-soaked Inland Empire region east of Los Angeles were only two years into their expected 25-year life span when they began to fail.
Coatings that protect the panels disintegrated while other defects caused two fires that took the system offline for two years, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost revenues.
It was not an isolated incident. Worldwide, testing labs, developers, financiers and insurers are reporting similar problems and say the $77 billion solar industry is facing a quality crisis just as solar panels are on the verge of widespread adoption…
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/29/business/energy-environment/solar-powers-dark-side.html?_r=0
30
LOL:
Banks, investors desert key carbon market event
BARCELONA, June 1 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Governments and voluntary offset sellers took centre stage at a major carbon market conference in Barcelona this week after banks and investors – previously amongst the biggest exhibitors at the annual event – skipped it, in part due to rock-bottom CO2 prices…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2397531
reuters pt carbon trying to keep the “fix” dream alive:
Backloading changes show MEPs remain split on CO2 fix
LONDON, May 31 (Reuters Point Carbon) – Amendments to draft law showed Friday that lawmakers remain deeply divided over EU plans to prop up carbon prices, but several changes tabled to the EU Commission’s so-called backloading bill signal some MEPs that voted against the plan could change their minds…
http://www.pointcarbon.com/news/1.2396842?&ref=searchlist
10
A scientist discovers that mankind’s technology is causing the world to warm.
Although the effect is currently subtle, it will rapidly grow more pronounced.
Research indicates that Europe will soon become a tropical zone.
A few years later the entire world will be a sweltering inferno, unfit for life.
.
The discovery was attributed to the Italian astronomer Giovanni Donati, who for many years, it was said, had been making daily measurements of the distance from the earth to the sun by means of an invention of his own design.
In the course of making these measurements, Donati noticed that when the first transatlantic telegraph cable was laid, in 1858, the earth began to move closer to the sun.
Initially the shift in orbit was quite gradual, but it quickly grew larger.
And when another cable was subsequently laid connecting France to Massachusetts, the movement of the earth toward the sun accelerated rapidly.
.
Donati realized, to his terror, that the cables were acting like enormous electromagnets, pulling the earth into the sun.
He calculated that if the earth’s current trajectory continued unchecked, Europe would become tropical in 12 years, and the entire earth would be uninhabitable soon after.
Finally the planet would plunge into the sun.
.
Donati warned the governments of the world, but the politicians were preoccupied with plans for war and paid him no heed.
So he convinced several of his colleagues to join him in chartering a boat and breaking one of the cables.
But the break was soon repaired, and the earth’s descent into the sun continued.
.
The Global Warming Hoax of 1874
[Note: The Museum of Hoaxes periodically receives emails suggesting that we should add modern-day global warming to the site because it’s apparently the “biggest hoax in human history.”
We don’t believe this to be the case, but we’re hopeful that this confirmed (nineteenth-century) global-warming hoax might satisfy these correspondents.]
90
From the NZ blogsite, Whale Oil Beef Hooked:
PEER REVIEWED THIS, AND PEER REVIEWED THAT…STILL CRAP
“The Green taliban love to declare a study isn’t valid unless it is peer reviewed…they use this to dismiss anyone who publishes anything that doesn’t fit their narrative.
A pommy bastard currently residing in Australia emailed me.
~ You love the Green Taliban’s peer review even less than I do.
Here’s some interesting research which won’t extend that love affair any….
The link he refers to is this one on a study on the relevance of the peer review process.”
.
Someone call John Cook.
.
Worth a look.
Another post from this site salutes our defenders of freedom: BARRETT M107, 1 SHOT, 1000 YARDS, STANDING, 9 WITNESSES
60
So now they plan to decimate the beautiful King Island with 200 wind turbines!!
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/islanders-torn-on-turbines/story-fn59niix-1226654811476
30
Increase the supply of food and the life form that feeds on it flourishes.
Surprise surprise.
50
And plant life has been on near starvation rations for a long long time.
We HAVE to get the carbon out of the ground and into the atmosphere WHERE IT BELONGS !!!
20
Its only getting worse for folks in the UK – UK Climate Act
00
It is often said the EU makes rules just to keep the Britain in line, because the Brits can’t help themselves when they see a rule or a queue. They just got to join it or try and outdo it, because they are instinctively such good sporting chaps.
Not that the Europeans are any less sporting, but they just can’t understand why Brits get so worked up about rules or take them so seriously.
Britain & Europe are temperamentally unsuited to each other in their approach to rules.
00
RADIATION leaked after Japan’s Fukushima nuclear disaster in 2011 is unlikely to cause any ill health effects in the future, says a UN scientific committee drawing up a major new report.
“Radiation exposure following the nuclear accident at Fukushima-Daiichi… did not cause any immediate health effects,” the UN Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR) said.
“It is unlikely to be able to attribute any health effects in the future among the general public and the vast majority of workers for which dose histories have been assessed.”
The committee, presenting after a meeting in Vienna the main findings of a report developed by 80 scientists from 18 countries due to be published later this year, also praised the actions of the Japanese government immediately after the March 2011 disaster.
“The actions taken by the authorities to protect the public (evacuation and sheltering) significantly reduced the radiation exposures that would have otherwise been received by as much as a factor of 10,” UNSCEAR said.
“No radiation-related deaths have been observed among nearly 25,000 workers involved at the accident site. Given the small number of highly exposed workers, it is unlikely that excess cases of thyroid cancer due to radiation exposure would be detectable in the years to come,” it added.
The world’s worst nuclear accident in 25 years was caused when a huge tsunami triggered by an earthquake hammered Japan’s northeastern Pacific coast, sending multiple reactors at the decades-old nuclear power plant into meltdown.
The tsunami also crushed whole communities and some 19,000 people were killed by the natural disaster, but no one is officially recorded as having died as a direct result of the radiation that spewed from the crippled units in the following months.
Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/no-radiation-problems-from-fukushima-rep/story-e6frfkui-1226654915469#ixzz2UwNCzlNp
30
oh what good news for the CAGW nuclear shills – james hansen, revkin, george monbiot, fred pearce & others. of course, the UN would be “foreseeing” the scientific truth!
NYT: Andrew C. Revkin: Experts Foresee No Detectable Health Impact from Fukushima Radiation
The levels of exposure to radiation following the leaks and explosions at the earthquake-damaged Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power station in 2011 were so low that they led today to this important conclusion from experts convened in Vienna by the United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effect of Atomic Radiation…
I also don’t imagine that Nancy Grace at CNN will provide an update to viewers of her fear-mongering proclamations about danger to Americans. But hopefully the news division at CNN, at least, will report on this welcome news…
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/05/31/experts-foresee-no-detectable-health-impact-from-fukushima-radiation/
below, just one of the excellent websites which follows fukushima daily, not just when the nuclear industry wants a good headline. of course, it tells a different story:
ENENews
http://enenews.com/
00
pat – The NYT has changed its spots very quickly:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/30/world/asia/radioactive-water-imperils-fukushima-plant.html?pagewanted=all
10
Pat – you won’t see the ABC reporting this which is why they should be taken over or closed down.
10
Rising CO2 has starved NSW Appeals Court Judges’ brains of oxygen!
(Okay, I admit, this is shamelessly offtopic.)
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-01/gender-story/4727326
No. NO. We are not doing this. You can have all the po-mo sociological discussions of gender you want, but the only objective answer to what sex you are is whether you have a Y chromosome. You can’t HAVE one, and NOT have one. There is no “neutral” option here.
Can somebody find out if Labor or the Greens appointed the judge that made this decision?
Maybe this was done as a favour to China so we can be the first country to correctly record the gender of their national swim team? 😀
00
That does it. There is no intelligent life on this continent. Beam me up, Scotty.
00
Before everyone went OT, this was a very interesting thread. I have noticed for a long time that ecologists without an axe to grind have been missing from the CAGW debate. Of course those of us with training in climatology look for supportive papers. On balance, the agrologist has clearly laid out the complexity of the “greening” paradigm, which parallels the complexity of the “climate paradigm”. If we keep open minds and skeptical attitudes all these sciences can make slow progress if the political dimension can be neutered. I live in the semi-arid region of Western Canada and have watched the complex response of vegetation to both natural and human disturbance. Either or both can dominate depending on a number of factors. I like this discussion/debate. Regards from the great white north.
10
It is amazing to see the denial to which astrologists come when it is about plants growth and CO2 – see also the above posts of ‘Dead agrostologists society’.
Yes more carbon dioxide is good for almost all plants, and especially for trees. But do astrologists care for plants and trees?
http://www.plantsneedco2.org/html/PlantPPM2.jpg
Dead astrologists please post the opposite picture for the plants of your choice.
40
752 ppm sure looks like nice cattle food to me…
and that’s no bull !!
22
Well Lars – Don’t verbal me.- I’m well aware of what CO2 might show in lovely little lab experiments. Show me the picture with hust 120ppm extra on a crappy soil in semi-arid growth chamber? Oh sorry – you don’t have one do you? Perhaps if your were able to hold more than one concept in your head at once. You don’t think fire shapes vegetation patterns? And to answer your question a good agrostologist (if there are any left as they’re close to extinct) would definitely want too see the grass before the trees. I guess you just want too see savannas choked out with woody weeds. Maybe you’d like to adopt a Serengeti wildebeest or maybe a few 100 ? LOL.
18
Since you ignored my statement above regarding your reference paper:
You actually have no evidence that the result of rising CO2 is “savannas choked out with woody weeds”.
As we can see, warmist trolls come in all shapes and sizes.
51
Well I’m actual happy to agree with you – but pretty disloyal to doubt Jo’s editorial and key hypothesis. You’ll now have to sit at the back of class and march down the back on rallies. Don’t troll me matey. Can I help it if you’re clueless?
210
Just think about Backslider (and golly you are doing your share of backsliding here) (1) I said it’s fire regime, exotic weeds and grazing management not CO2 (in the main) (2) lots of papers from round the world on woodland thickening, shrub invasion/incursion – and in Australia graziers worry about such things and recently up in Queensland landholders have won back clearing rights with bulldozers to open up country (3) you’re the ones touting additional CO2 advantage and C3 woodies have greater photosynthetic efficiency so one might hypothesise as years go on and CO2 increases further that the woodies will have a net advantage. And Lars is telling me how much trees love CO2 above. But that’s tomorrow not today. Backslider you haven’t thought about any of this for 5 minutes. You’re a trolling cheer squad member here with no independent thought nor brains. I also note the moderators don’t police threads and let them fill up with all manner of off topic tripe.
[No we don’t police threads. That is your job and you’re not doing it very well.] ED
210
The Dead grasses society has the problem that his perspective is fairly limited. That and given that ecology, in which he seems to ground his understanding is, in its grosser forms, little more than neo-paganism lends little weight to the opinions of this wilted grass expert.
He does however, in one of his posts, distinguish between what one deduces from the laboratory and what is more likely to be happening in a more complex real world.
That insight is what leads skeptics of anthropogenic global warming to take the “settled” science, laboratory style, (Arrhenius et al) with a grain of salt when applied to the little understood, highly complex, chaotic climate system of the “real” Earth.
61
Llew – what a non-backed up poncy comment. Ecology “in which he seems to ground his understanding” SEEMS? Neo-paganism – wow ! Need to look that up. Limited perspective – yea – just 40 years of research on 3 continents.
12
Dead Agro, Where the trees suffer and cannot advance, grass takes over, where the grass suffers the desert starts. If the trees are coming, things are getting better?
00
Llew, Good to see somebody else with a realistic understanding of ecology. This extends to all areas of conservation biology. Any study done in these field should be immediately discounted as BS. It is the modern day equivalent of eugenics and lysenkoism. I am sure people who followed those fields and studied all of the dogma thought they were in a valid scientific field. Useful idiots the lot of them.
00
And this is where it all falls down for you. Were CO2 the only factor, then the World would already be overrun by C3 woodies…. but it isn’t. I shall leave you to study why not.
41
I feel admonished and sad. 🙁
[Don’t really care. Stop antagonizing the others.] ED
15
Sounds like you are agro-astrologist to me.
You are sure blustering about like a person in the last throws of the death of your belief system.
71
No just agrostology not agronomy too. And I don’t believe anything – I know facts.
17
From Fauxfact and WWF… roflmao !!!!!
31
ACtually WWF wouldn’t like what I’m saying. Wrong again I’m afraid. and you appear factless? Are you trolling perhaps?
110
You just lost any argument.
It must be a sad life for grass doctors… feeling it necessary to come here trolling and expounding your own self importance while denigrating others….
You need a life sonny.
82
DEAD grass doctors
31
True and a major concern for the graminoids.
24
“Were CO2 the only factor, then the World would already be overrun by C3 woodies” But the editorial study cited says it is the dominant factor? And so good at exaggerating – “the world” – oh come now – you’re such a rherotical alarmist. And why would it already be overrun – coz you really squeezed those little hands so tight, had a big big think and concluded so. I’m not denigrating you – you’re perfectly capable of doing that to yourself. I think we know for who the bell trolls? Vouz ! I think you need to give it away and put your Mum on – you’re not very good are you.
28
You really do find it difficult to follow things, don’t you.
CO2 may well be a dominant factor for greening – many studies show this to be the case. The point is that you think that because of this the World will be overrun with C3 woodies.
Did I say it would be overrun?… I think not…. it is you who is saying this will happen because of increased CO2. Why don’t YOU answer WHY the World is not already overrun with C3 woodies, since if they have an advantage they always have?
61
“And I don’t believe anything – I know facts.”
You don’t know shit, Lukie. You are only blithering when you deny the extra greening is due to CO2.
And as usual, you have no proof, only assumption.
But it’s a fun change to watch you make a sceptical argument with your usual arrogance.
71
Spanglers – fancy swinging at a wide ball like “I know facts”. Come in spinner. Wish fishing was as easy. And you have no proof that CO2 is a cause either. Me I’ve got a whole literature (some of it fairly right wing pinup stuff actually and unread by you)that fire is THE cause, followed by exotic weed invasion, climate shifts etc. And a whole literature of CO2 fertilisation, including FACE experiments, that would tell you that you’d be darn pressed to get any stats significance on CO2 fertilisation as yet. Of course it’s not CO2 – it’s one of Jo’s silliest posts and hubby would tell her so too (if he was semi-conscious doing FULLCAM). Note you’re not seeing the effect in Cape York and the Top End – why coz they burn the crap out it regularly.
Backslider – “Why don’t YOU answer WHY the World is not already overrun with C3 woodies, since if they have an advantage they always have?” WHOA BOY – gee you’ve got me pinned there son. Hot damn. mmmmmmm what could it be – mmmmmm well there’s these things called bulldozers, fire, a neat chemical called Tebuthiuron, elephants ….. but sometimes things do right away and ya lose it to the woodies – like Piliga Scrub and the Cobar woody weeds patch, Mulga forests in SW Qld that weren’t there 100 years ago. It’s in transition mate. Whereas you’re in denial. Hey this is right wing science all this burning and bulldozers stuff – why are you supporting poofy harmless CO2 – are you some of greenie? As I said – how old are you – put you Mum on.
If you think you’re seeing a CO2 fertilisation effect – well you probably believe in the Tooth Fairy and Jack’s Beanstalk. What a non-sceptic blog.
49
Nah, I think the woodies are all gone.
I remember, years ago though, I had one.
30
Have you ever been to the Piliga Scrub? Do you know what it is even?
Its fairly clear that if anything threatens grazing country, to you its a bad thing, because you have only one love in this World…. grass (I feel so sorry for you!).
The fact is sonny that the Piliga Scrub is a perfectly natural environment, not some out of control weed infestation. Back to school for you, dummy.
11
Actually Backslider, The Piliga was open grass lands when the first settlers arrived there..
01
Indeed CamoeronH – there’s the famous book on the subject – a Million Wild Acres by Eric Rolls – Jo Nova should read it ! http://www.booktopia.com.au/a-million-wild-acres-eric-rolls/prod9780868064642.html
And yes I’ve been to the Piliga many many times including the “caves” (unlike Backslider).
22
DAS,
You say:
(1) I said it’s fire regime, exotic weeds and grazing management not CO2 (in the main)
(2) lots of papers from round the world on woodland thickening, shrub invasion/incursion – and in Australia graziers worry about such things and recently up in Queensland landholders have won back clearing rights with bulldozers to open up country (
3) you’re the ones touting additional CO2 advantage and C3 woodies have greater photosynthetic efficiency so one might hypothesise as years go on and CO2 increases further that the woodies will have a net advantage
I notice you don’t mention C3 grass (native & introduced) only C3 woodies.
Have you got the biomass ratio changes of C4 to C3 grasses in these areas. I have travlled through most of Cape York into the Gulf and south to Winton areas. The incidents of C3 woodies is apparent in some areas, but the big increases over the last few years is the C3 grass levels here. Most pastures use C3 seed as C4 is not as readily available, and even though the majority of native grasses are C4, yet the C3 seem to be increasing west of the range in Queensland even though these C3 prefer cooler and wetter spring time (which now seems to be the norm).
Why do you totally discount CO2 totally as one of the causes for the increase of biomass in Australia. Have you got data on C3 to C4 grass ratio (species, populations and densities)?
20
Dave thanks for an intelligent question. I don’t totally discount CO2 but suggest fire regime, introduced noxious weeds and grazing management are much bigger drivers. Would one detect a 120ppm increase in CO2 on growth in such noisy field environment. If CO2 is the factor why isn’t Cape York and the Top End responding? I guess Donohue et al would say it’s water use efficiency on more xeric areas.
As for C3 grasses increasing which species are you noticing? Most of these systems are C4 dominated including many introduced grasses.
22
DAS
“If CO2 is the factor why isn’t Cape York and the Top End responding?”
This is not exactly an arid (xeric) area, and mainly is not pastoral in many areas, plus the rainfall is large and the biomass is already quite large, woodlands, savannas, mangroves etc – so any increase via satellites would not be picked up as it does in the central QLD etc. If it was, you’d find an increased density of CAM species etc.
I am just saying the CO2 influence shouldn’t be discounted. I’ll find out some of the C3 grass species on the increase(from south of the Tablelands) from a cattle guy who’s been there for years. The C4 species are still dominant, and there has been no decline, but in the seeded pastures, the C3 are going well. I was asking why?
20
So do you know what C3 seeded pastures they’re using? Far from an extensive native system. More like a crop.
21
replying to dead Agro society:
I don’t have a semi-arid growth chamber. I just live in one. Example: Corymbia Tessellaris. Out the back. 20+ years old, not felled, but rendered unsafe by Yasi. I felled it from about 0.8m above ground level, across the block. Got my trig right – length on ground 18m, just short of the opposite boundary. There is now regrowth from the stump, 5-6 “water” branches now up 6m. Thickest at the stump is 150mm in diameter. Bit of a surprise after just a little over 2 years. I guess its old toes reach the aquifer, but never seen growth like that before. Crappy soil? You bet. Salt pan clay fill overlying old dune sand.
Well, there’s savanna and savanna … The savanna here is on “old alluvial” (aka horrible heavy clay). Stocking rates are around 1 head per 10 hectares. Open woodland savanna, not much in the way of “woody weeds” as such, and not because of any human intervention. The grass does burn off in the dry, but not all of it. The local herd are used to this, move back to the creek edges. When dry, the soil cracks open to a depth of 4 metres or more. Bit of rain, seed in the cracks germinate, gets to the top before the crack closes, so new tree growth as well as regrowth of what was burnt. A lot of it burnt last year, but the only evidence is a few black logs here and there. The rest has spectacularly recovered.
30
Martin, If you’re talking Yasi I assume you’re up north there somewhere. Remember you’ve had a one in 50 year wet in recent years so eucs are tapped in deep and can use it.
Woody weeds can just be the native trees. But yep it does vary depending on where you are and how much fire gets in. Sounds like you are getting a few burns in and a big driver in keeping things open.
23
“up north there somewhere” yep 19.2S. Not sure about the recent 1 in 50 wet though, but we had a 1 in 200 in 1998 and another 1 in 200 in 2000.
Average annual rainfall from 2004 only slightly above long-term average. There are also significant “gene-pool” effects; paper-barks, eucalypts, even casuarina thrive if they are local, are a bit sad if from elsewhere.
30
“I’m well aware of what CO2 might show in lovely little lab experiments. Show me the picture with hust 120ppm extra on a crappy soil in semi-arid growth chamber? Oh sorry – you don’t have one do you? Perhaps if your were able to hold more than one concept in your head at once.”
Sorry, but your answers are of a person being completely ignorant of what is he/she/it talking about. You do not have any supporting evidence, just alarmist high-perch preaching. Please come back with some supporting material.
Arid environment? Well you should know that plants not having to open more often their stomata resist better to aridity with more CO2 as they lose less water.
I gave you above the example from arid environment, from National Geographic, a paper which is very difficult to clasify as AGW-skeptic, explaining exactly to your questions referring aridity and satellite versus local observations:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara_2.html
“While satellite images can’t distinguish temporary plants like grasses that come and go with the rains, ground surveys suggest recent vegetation change is firmly rooted. In the eastern Sahara area of southwestern Egypt and northern Sudan, new trees—such as acacias—are flourishing, according to Stefan Kröpelin, a climate scientist at the University of Cologne’s Africa Research Unit in Germany. ”
Pls see here directly in the environment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB29Mfw-HcU
Why don’t you check plant by pland and study by study?
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/dry_subject.php
Letter A:
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/a/abelmoschuse.php
number of studies 1
http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/a/abiesa.php
Journal References, experimental conditions are explained there. And so on, you have over 100 only for the letter “A”
Why do you think that all producers do pump more CO2 in their greenhouses? Just confused by small little lab experiments?
http://www.list-of-companies.org/Spain/Agriculture/Agricultural_Greenhouses/
Show me one greenhouse in the world that reduces the CO2 into their greenhouse.
http://www.usgr.com/co2-generator/johnson_co-2_generator.php
“Carbon dioxide is one of the essential ingredients in green plant growth, and is a primary environmental factor in greenhouses .”
42
Lars – just woeful matey. You’ve Dunning-Kruger-ed and Googled yourself into a frenzy. The Saharan greening is from increasing rainfall, loss of population from rural-urban migration and war, and planting trees. It’s not CO2.
I know about all about CO2 growth experiments but you’re an ecophysiological ignoramus I’m afraid. You’ve obviously just come down in the last shower. Of course plants look great in 750pmm CO2 with optimum light, optimum water and nutrients. That’s the optimum conditions you find in glasshouses. And why it works so well in glasshouses.
Guess what happens in a drought with stacks of CO2 – the plants DIE ! Yes CO2 is not magic pixie dust. Try looking up Liebig’s Law of the Minium with google – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebig's_law_of_the_minimum and yes I know WUE (water use efficiency) is improved by CO2.
But why don’t you use you new found Googling skills to see how real world FACE (that’s Free Air Carbon Dioxide) experiments face up – that’s exposed to some of the real world. It ain’t near as rosey. Why don’t you also google away how many FACE experiments are in savannas – diddle all.
CO2 will have had some effect but NOWHERE near the massive effect of fire regime, grazing management of cattle, sheep, ferals, macropods, elephants, aboricides, bulldozers, invading exotic woody weed species, and changes in rainfall ALL have on tree/grass balance.
You should check what biomass gains from 120ppm extra CO2 you’d get among all that noisy interaction – given you’ve googled the growth numbers you’ll now be full bottle mate. TELL US ! You’d be pressed to find statistical significance of CO2 fertilisation in savannas right now in the current day in the real world. In 50 to 100 years time you well may have a larger effect but that’s not now is it?
I know you think you’re onto something special Lars but you’ve googled only half the literature you should have ! Only about 40 years of fire ecology work by people who wouldn’t be greenies ! You’re confusing sceptic-speak-meme of widdly impacts with biggie impacts. Get educated and stop slumming around CO2Science.
35
“Guess what happens in a drought with stacks of CO2 – the plants DIE ! Yes CO2 is not magic pixie dust. ”
Of course, with increased water use efficiency plants with more CO2 live longer and survive drought. And you know there is no drought increase through the increased CO2, so yes, plants survive and develop better with increased CO2 even in arid areas. This is reality, no matter how much you try to say otherwise, reality is there and can be seen.
Furthermore you use ad-hom to create the answer that you hope and then say: oh, any discussion with these so called skeptics comes down sooner or later to ad-hom. This is why your kindergarten level language style.
“You should check what biomass gains from 120ppm extra CO2 you’d get among all that noisy interaction “”TELL US !”
there is no need to scream. It has been done, and you will not like the answer:
From the University of Bristol
“Dr Marko Scholze of the University of Bristol’s School of Earth Sciences, co-author on the paper said: “The difference between glacial and pre-industrial carbon stored in the terrestrial biosphere is only about 330 petagrams of carbon, which is much smaller than previously thought. The uptake of carbon by vegetation and soil, that is the terrestrial productivity during the ice age, was only about 40 petagrams of carbon per year and thus much smaller: roughly one third of present-day terrestrial productivity and roughly half of pre-industrial productivity.”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/21/carbon-on-the-uptake/
According to them the increase in the biosphere from the pre-industrial level to the current is equal to the increase from glacial to pre-industrial, which is tremendous, actually much more then Dyson estimated.
In one of the posts above, you say:
“In the much longer term future extra CO2 may even be a hazard to savannas and their grazing wildlife as serious levels of CO2 fertilisation kicks in.”
Again: as serious levels of CO2 fertilisation kicks in.
So you are well aware of the effect, you just play ignoramus when convenient.
A discussion with you does not bring anything, as you just maintain stupid things without arguments, so I will not continue unless you are capable of bringing up arguments and not just contradiction for the sake of.
21
I see you have no answers then. You just tried a bit more googling and did a lah lah lah I’m not listening.
Your reference cites climate models and dynamic vegetation models. Weally? You guys just pour scorn on models. Your cite isn’t an answer in the slightest and you haven’t even read the reference to boot as to think it’s even relevant ! How laughable.
Lars – I am shocked – your knowledge is such amateur drivel. And you don’t listen. Your have simply ignored 40 years of literature! Why? Didn’t even make an attempt did you… amateur hour. Just believe whatever you like mate – it’ll be easier for you.
24
“I see you have no answers then. You just tried a bit more googling and did a lah lah lah I’m not listening.”
These are no new items but points that have been reviewed and I have bookmarked them, sorry to disappoint you for not googling.
And again, you are looking at your mirror, that is you with your fingers deep in your ears chanting around.
“our reference cites climate models and dynamic vegetation models. Weally? You guys just pour scorn on models.”
Models are tools. One needs to know how to work with tools and validate models results against real data. This is the point about models and where the CAGW crowd is breaking the rules. We do not pour scorn on models but on not validating the data against the reality.
You still did not understand how these tools are to be used and where the skeptics critique is. Jo has also explained to you above “validated by real data”.
“Lars – I am shocked – your knowledge is such amateur drivel.”
Rofl. I am an amateur, no profi in the area, therefore there is no reason to be schocked, poor you, but if you say something like this, you need to point to where, what sentence was amateur drivel? Else it is again only your ad-hominem, patronising & kindergarten way of speaking. You do not show maturity in your language and seem to have no clue how to debate, present arguments.
“And you don’t listen. ” oh really?
“Your have simply ignored 40 years of literature! Why? Didn’t even make an attempt did you… amateur hour. Just believe whatever you like mate – it’ll be easier for you.”
You seem to be unable to post any arguments or reference to support your claims. The one link that you posted above was very easy to deconstruct and to show it does not support your position. The rest was just hand waving and your own opinion.
10
Filler
[Sorry, I disagree. LarsP has responded to you and this reply is the filler. You are behaving badly just like a troll would behave.] ED
02
Troll = someone who disagrees with the editorial? Lars is simply frantically googling away to support his non argument – I enjoyed “You seem to be unable to post any arguments or reference to support your claims.” my first post did !
He has no expertise on the issue and hasn’t thought about it. I have not denied that CO2 increases plant growth – how much, in what conditions, and with what other factors are the real world issue. Do you think the cheer squad has added any intellectual value here? Fire is a major shaper of savananas world-wide affecting the tree/grass balance, exotic weeds are invading some systems, and CO2 is causing some small effect in there too (at the moment). Is this so controversial or unthinkable?
12
DAS You say now:
“I have not denied that CO2 increases plant growth – how much, in what conditions, and with what other factors are the real world issue.” “and CO2 is causing some small effect in there too (at the moment)”
However you should recognise that this is totally different from:
“This sort of paper should ring alarm bells with all you good sceptics ” his colleagues developed and applied a mathematical model to predict the extent of the carbon-dioxide (CO2) fertilization effect” – A MODEL – A MODEL !! Oh tut tut. We all know models are tuned to tell you anything. And especially ones with CO2. A MODEL ! Oh my.”….
“True that CO2 has an effect and that C3 woodies probably do better than C4 grasses but I reckon given all the other factors this would be straining the limits of statistical significance in noisy field situations. Not saying what I’ve described above happens everywhere but be “sceptical”. Models only have what’s in them.
CO2 ! Poppycock !”
Why you do not accept the use of models by skeptics you clarified here: “Weally? You guys just pour scorn on models.”
I explained you that it is not the case. Engineers use models all the time, but the majority of engineers are skeptics of CAGW. However their use of models is a bit different…
There are statistic significant results with CO2 enrichment with 300 ppm, and as the CO2 effect is available at all levels it is logical to admit an increase of 115 ppm from 280 ppm to 395 ppm more the 33% of the total CO2 amount in the world would have an effect on the plants world.
An increase of 33% in plant food and measurable increase in water use efficiency cannot be dismissed by hand waving as you do.
“Lars is simply frantically googling away to support his non argument ”
You are basing your accusations on preconceived ideas, and you did not want to admit the fact that most of the people know: the great majority of plants fare better with 395 ppm CO2 instead of 280 ppm CO2. Also you do not want to admit that such an increase could be observable.
DAS, you come again with noble savage theories and fire regime keeping savanas “grassy”. We are lucky to be away from the slash and burn agriculture. Then you try to bully and insult that we are unskilled and not able to understand our mistakes.”One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision”)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
As skeptic I learned to be very weary of such arguments from authority. I have done scientific work and know to appreciate and read a paper, and I know very well to double check arguments and theories. You try a diversion here trying to minimise the CO2 enriching effect for which a much better scientific data and proof exists then in comparison for the warming effect of CO2.
And yes it is good to see from time to time papers showing the benefits of CO2 what some kind of people would not want to accept. This is showing that things are not as simple as the alarmists want to show. Interesting in reference to Dunning-Kruger: You seem to be very certain of what you say, exactly like the CAGW modellers who are 95-97-98% sure of the dooming catastrophy… Well a bit less sure with the time.
In the above post I answered you point by point, sentence by sentence and you post simply “filler”. Well this is a trollish behaviour, if you like it or not, it is how it is being called.
11
I repeat again that during 3600 years of civilisation in China there have been three warmer periods than the one that ended in 1998, the delegates from China at Copenhagen reported. And each period brought greater prosperity from higher crop and grass yields and more.
60
Trolls exhibiting artificial emotions: An odd kind of ‘artificial’ emotionalism and an unusually thick skin — an ability to persevere and persist even in the face of overwhelming criticism and unacceptance. This likely stems from intelligence community training that, no matter how condemning the evidence, deny everything, and never become emotionally involved or reactive. The net result for a disinfo artist is that emotions can seem artificial. Most people, if responding in anger, for instance, will express their animosity throughout their rebuttal.
But disinfo types usually have trouble maintaining the ‘image’ and are hot and cold with respect to pretended emotions and their usually more calm or unemotional communications style. It’s just a job, and they often seem unable to ‘act their role in character’ as well in a communications medium as they might be able in a real face-to-face conversation/confrontation.
You might have outright rage and indignation one moment, ho-hum the next, and more anger later — an emotional yo-yo. With respect to being thick-skinned, no amount of criticism will deter them from doing their job, and they will generally continue their old disinfo patterns without any adjustments to criticisms of how obvious it is that they play that game — where a more rational individual who truly cares what others think might seek to improve their communications style, substance, and so forth, or simply give up.
50
“Trees are re-invading grass lands, and this could quite possibly be related to the CO2 effect,”
Possibly. But trees invade grassland when the ground is denuded, especially if the topsoil has been eroded.
In Australia large areas of good grassland were taken over by timber and scrub after the ravages of the rabbits in the first half of the 20th century. The rabbits eat not only the grass, but also dig up and eat the roots, which leads to terrible loss of topsoil when the rains come, as well as to wind erosion. It was only since 1960 that the use of “1080” (ten-eighty) poison with carrots enabled us to bring the rabbits under control.
Grasses do not thrive on many types of subsoil. Woody vegetation can, and after a period, which may be up to hundreds of years, builds up new topsoil. Then, after a drought or some other cause kills off the trees, grass can once again grow there.
00
Meanwhile around Australia’s country roads weeds and creepers are taking over at a rapid pace.
00
Glad to see you pointing this out, Jo. To me obvious, but for intellectuals, it is very difficult to accept your ideas are wrong.
00
[…] thanks to Steve my interest in this phenomena was rekindled and I did some more searching. I found this source quoting from the Australian Research Council and Land & Water Australia. Thanks to satellites […]
00
[…] life from Mother Earth and turn it from green into a black lifeless cinder? In fact a strong case can be made that fossil fuel actually improves the environment. It is the height of […]
00