Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

As our planet gets greener, plants are slowing global warming

#1
C C Offline
https://www.bu.edu/articles/2020/plants-...l-warming/

RELEASE: Chi Chen, a Boston University graduate researcher, and Ranga Myneni, a BU College of Arts & Sciences professor of earth and environment, are authors on a new paper that reveals how humans are helping to increase the Earth’s plant and tree cover, which absorbs carbon from the atmosphere and cools our planet. The boom of vegetation, fueled by greenhouse gas emissions, could be skewing our perception of how fast we’re warming the planet.

Taking a closer look at 250 scientific studies, land-monitoring satellite data, climate and environmental models, and field observations, a team of Boston University researchers and international collaborators have illuminated several causes and consequences of a global increase in vegetation growth, an effect called greening.

In a new study, published in Nature Reviews Earth & Environment, the researchers report that climate-altering carbon emissions and intensive land use have inadvertently greened half of the Earth’s vegetated lands. And while that sounds like it may be a good thing, this phenomenal rate of greening, together with global warming, sea-level rise, and sea-ice decline, represents highly credible evidence that human industry and activity is dramatically impacting the Earth’s climate, say the study’s first authors, Shilong Piao and Xuhui Wang of Peking University.

Green leaves convert sunlight to sugars while replacing carbon dioxide in the air with water vapor, which cools the Earth’s surface. The reasons for greening vary around the world, but often involve intensive use of land for farming, large-scale planting of trees, a warmer and wetter climate in northern regions, natural reforestation of abandoned lands, and recovery from past disturbances.

And the chief cause of global greening we’re experiencing? It seems to be that rising carbon dioxide emissions are providing more and more fertilizer for plants, the researchers say. As a result, the boom of global greening since the early 1980s may have slowed the rate of global warming, the researchers say, possibly by as much as 0.2 to 0.25 degrees Celsius. “It is ironic that the very same carbon emissions responsible for harmful changes to climate are also fertilizing plant growth, which in turn is somewhat moderating global warming,” says study coauthor Dr. Jarle Bjerke of the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research.

Boston University researchers previously discovered that, based on near-daily NASA and NOAA satellite imaging observations since the early 1980s, vast expanses of the Earth’s vegetated lands from the Arctic to the temperate latitudes have gotten markedly more green. “Notably, the NASA [satellite data] observed pronounced greening during the 21st century in the world’s most populous and still-developing countries, China and India,” says Ranga Myneni, the new study’s senior author.

Even regions far, far removed from human reach have not escaped the global warming and greening trends. “Svalbard in the high-arctic, for example, has seen a 30 percent increase in greenness [in addition to] an increase in [summer temperatures] from 2.9 to 4.7 degrees Celcius between 1986 and 2015,” says study coauthor Rama Nemani of NASA’s Ames Research Center.

Over the last 40 years, carbon emissions from fossil fuel use and tropical deforestation have added 160 parts per million (ppm), a unit of measure for air pollutants, of CO2 to Earth’s atmosphere. About 40 ppm of that has diffused passively into the oceans and another 50 ppm has been actively taken up by plants, the researchers say. But 70 ppm remains in the atmosphere, and together with other greenhouse gases, is responsible the land warming patterns that have been observed since the 1980s.

“Plants are actively defending against the dangers of carbon pollution by not only sequestering carbon on land but also by wetting the atmosphere through transpiration of ground water and evaporation of precipitation intercepted by their bodies,” says study coauthor Philippe Ciais, of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-sur-Yvette, France. “Stopping deforestation and sustainable, ecologically sensible afforestation could be one of the simplest and cost-effective, though not sufficient, defenses against climate change,” he adds.

It is not easy to accurately estimate the cooling benefit from global greening because of the complex interconnected nature of the climate system, the researchers say. “This unintended benefit of global greening, and its potential transitory nature, suggests how much more daunting, and urgent, is the stated goal of keeping global warming to below 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius, especially given the trajectory of carbon emissions and history of inaction during the past decades,” says study coauthor Hans Tømmervik of the Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Norway.
Reply
#2
Syne Offline
So the ecosystem has natural means of reestablishing balance (which many people pointed out long before this study)...and that's evidence humans are doing bad things?
Why does it always seem to take science so long to catch up with the obvious? More CO2, more plants, less CO2. Duh.
Reply
#3
confused2 Offline
Unfortunately the authors https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-019-0001-x choose to ignore the available evidence and present a paper based on 'modelling'. This 'modelling' is the curse of real science based on data and allows anyone to accept or dismiss the result of the (any) model based on their own opinion which (usually) owes more to self-interest than any actual data.

from https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Taking one of the headline graphs https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/cc...nd_mlo.png we see the seasonal change in the CO2 concentration. We have 60 years of good data and a 25% increase in CO2 concentration so with more 'green' we should be seeing a larger seasonal fluctuation as a consequence of this 'more green' - this is a data mining exercise which (if done) would give an indication of the extent of the 'more green' effect.

When data is discarded I think it is fair to ask "Why?".
My first question would be:
"Does funding (of the authors) depend on a result that the available data does not support?".
Reply
#4
Syne Offline
Then show us how Mauna Loa, a volcano that spews CO2, has appreciably greened.
Or quit trying to rebut things that are out of your depth.
Reply
#5
C C Offline
(Feb 5, 2020 02:45 AM)confused2 Wrote: Unfortunately the authors https://www.nature.com/articles/s43017-019-0001-x choose to ignore the available evidence and present a paper based on 'modelling'. This 'modelling' is the curse of real science based on data and allows anyone to accept or dismiss the result of the (any) model based on their own opinion which (usually) owes more to self-interest than any actual data.

from https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/

Taking one of the headline graphs https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/webdata/cc...nd_mlo.png we see the seasonal change in the CO2 concentration. We have 60 years of good data and a 25% increase in CO2 concentration so with more 'green' we should be seeing a larger seasonal fluctuation as a consequence of this 'more green' - this is a data mining exercise which (if done) would give an indication of the extent of the 'more green' effect.

When data is discarded I think it is fair to ask "Why?".
My first question would be:
"Does funding (of the authors) depend on a result that the available data does not support?".

Although technology is partially distinct from science, occasionally I feel like it's the only reliable enterprise left. With respect to one actually being able to witness its products working or not, and (if applicable) a principle being vindicated if the product's functioning is dependent upon such.

However, similar to the growing deficiencies of science disciplines, if you zero in closer for the details there may be a history of burying negative details -- or unscrupulous shenanigans being exposed, which got an apparatus approved. But for the extensively used for many years stuff, that may have more to do with social/health fallout and environmental/ecological concerns than a milk-making machine not actually working (i.e., having a hidden cow inside it).
Reply
#6
confused2 Offline
Looking at the source of the data is as important as the data itself.
The Mauna Loa measurements are made on a volcano - they claim to eliminate the effects of local CO2 emissions - their claim.

So, looking at sea level measurements https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trend...tml#global


[Image: co2_trend_gl.png]
[Image: co2_trend_gl.png]



We see a seasonal increase of about 8ppm and a seasonal fall of about 4ppm. As 1ppm is about 7 Gigatonnes of CO2 we can say that, over the course of a year, the amount of CO2 in the air increases by (roughly) 56 Gigatonnes of CO2 and then falls back by 28 Gigatonnes as 'all causes' catch up with the rate CO2 is added - leaving an extra 28 Gigatonnes of CO2 in the air at the end of each year.

From the rate of rise we know (roughly) how fast the CO2 is going in and and from the rate of fall we know (roughly) how quickly it is being taken out. The Mauna Loa data looks better for the purpose and goes back further but this still works with the sea level data.

If greening has had any significant effect over the last 40 (or 60) years then we should see (hopefully) an increase in the rate CO2 is being removed from the atmosphere. I don't think you have to be particularly clever to see this. Given the politics of climate change you might know the result and choose to keep quiet about it.

-C2.
Reply
#7
Syne Offline
(Feb 5, 2020 10:02 PM)confused2 Wrote: The Mauna Loa measurements are made on a volcano - they claim to eliminate the effects of local CO2 emissions - their claim.

Aside from wondering how they do that, why pick a site where that would be necessary in the first place?
Reply
#8
confused2 Offline
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/obop/mlo/


Mauna Loa Observatory (MLO) is a premier atmospheric research facility that has been continuously monitoring and collecting data related to atmospheric change since the 1950's. The undisturbed air, remote location, and minimal influences of vegetation and human activity at MLO are ideal for monitoring constituents in the atmosphere that can cause climate change. The observatory is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) - Global Monitoring Division (GMD).

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/...o2-record/

Most of the time, the observatory experiences “baseline” conditions and measures clean air which has been over the Pacific Ocean for days or weeks. We know this because the CO2 analyzer usually gives a very steady reading which varies by less than 3/10 of a part per million (ppm) from hour to hour. These are the conditions we use to calculate the monthly averages that go into the famous 50-year graph of atmospheric CO2 concentration.

We only detect volcanic CO2 from the Mauna Loa summit late at night at times when the regional winds are light and southerly. Under these conditions, a temperature inversion forms above the ground, and the volcanic emissions are trapped near the surface and travel down our side of the mountain slope. When the volcanic emissions arrive at the observatory, the CO2 analyzer readings increase by several parts per million, and the measured amounts become highly variable for periods of several minutes to a few hours. In the last decade, this has occurred on about 15% of nights between midnight and 6 a.m.

These periods of elevated and variable CO2 levels are so different from the typical measurements that is easy to remove them from the final data set using a simple mathematical “filter.”

-------------------

A site 2 miles above sea level in the middle of nowhere without surrounding vegetation - Mauna Loa?

-C2.
Reply
#9
Syne Offline
(Feb 6, 2020 02:36 AM)confused2 Wrote: ...minimal influences of vegetation...
Trying to dispute greening?
Reply
#10
confused2 Offline

[Image: co2_trend_gl.png]
[Image: co2_trend_gl.png]


Oh dear. The graph is a global average of CO2 levels. When the CO2 level rises in Autumn this is the result of every CO2 source on the planet. When the CO2 level starts to fall in spring this is the influence of everything that removes CO2 from the atmosphere - the contribution of every tree, bush and blade of grass on the planet is included in this graph.

Syne Wrote:So the ecosystem has natural means of reestablishing balance

The paper referenced in the OP speaks of an effect - you speak of a balance  - these are not the same thing. I assume by balance you mean that the amount of CO2 removed is equal to the amount of CO2 added such that over the course of a year the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere does not increase. I am looking for evidence of that balance being achieved.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Climate damages by 2050 will be 6 times the cost of limiting warming to 2° C C 0 24 Apr 18, 2024 11:42 PM
Last Post: C C
  Research Passing star may have altered Earth's orbit, triggering global warming 56 mil yrs ago C C 0 45 Feb 19, 2024 06:00 PM
Last Post: C C
  Article Closing coal plants for health vs climate reasons: Which scores more virtue points? C C 0 50 Jan 19, 2024 05:15 PM
Last Post: C C
  Article Low hanging fruit: replace coal with nuclear power plants C C 2 88 Dec 7, 2023 06:42 PM
Last Post: confused2
  Article Original sin + Plants might absorb more CO2 from human activities than expected C C 4 131 Nov 20, 2023 02:50 AM
Last Post: C C
  Rapid warming in the Gulf of Maine reverses 900 years of cooling C C 1 134 Aug 9, 2022 10:57 PM
Last Post: RainbowUnicorn
  Antarctic research links warming to fish decline C C 0 58 Feb 9, 2022 02:12 AM
Last Post: C C
  The warming climate is causing animals to 'shapeshift' C C 0 83 Sep 27, 2021 05:53 PM
Last Post: C C
  Half of US faces apocalyptic summer + Unexpected: desert plants struggle in high heat C C 0 104 Jun 25, 2021 07:53 PM
Last Post: C C
  Solar geoengineering may be effective alleviating impacts of global warming on crops C C 0 239 May 22, 2021 10:17 PM
Last Post: C C



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)