Global Warming? No, Satellites Show Carbon Dioxide Is Causing 'Global Greening'

[The Straight Story]

Rising atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are bolstering plant life throughout the world, environmental scientists report in a newly published peer-reviewed study. The findings, published in Geophysical Research Letters, are gleaned from satellite measurements of global plant life, and contradict assertions by activists that global warming is causing deserts to expand, along with devastating droughts.

A team of scientists led by environmental physicist Randall Donohue, a research scientist at the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization in Australia, analyzed satellite data from 1982 through 2010. The scientists documented a carbon dioxide “fertilization effect” that has caused a gradual greening of the Earth, and particularly the Earth’s arid regions, since 1982. The satellite data showed rising carbon dioxide levels caused a remarkable 11 percent increase in foliage in arid regions since 1982, versus what would be the case if atmospheric carbon dioxide levels had remained at 1982 levels.

“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 in a press release accompanying the 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.”

The study noted that foliage in warm, wet regions such as tropical rainforests are near their maximum capacity. In warm, arid regions there is room for greater increases in foliage and rising carbon dioxide levels are inducing more prevalent plant growth.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/07/10/global-warming-no-satellites-show-carbon-dioxide-is-causing-global-greening/

[mahina]

1. Logic error: false dichotomy

Didn't RTFA, but I will.

[jollyreaper2112]

2. Forbes

All you need to know, the source. It's bullshit. Moving on.

[hobbit709]

3. It's going to take more than increased CO2 to get growth in arid regions.

Maybe changing rainfall patterns have more to do with that.

[Motown_Johnny]

4. This is an old argument and has been refuted

The two main reasons are that 1) The amount of CO2 being absorbed by the plants is a small fraction of what we are creating by burning fossil fuels and 2) Plants are just a temporary "carbon sink" where the CO2 is held for a limited period of time, once the plant dies and decays the CO2 is once again released into the atmosphere.

I don't doubt that there is a greening effect but that doesn't change the fact that the ice caps are melting and the ocean waters are warming.

[Igel]

10. What argument?

That increased CO2 leads to more plant growth?

That's been refuted, overall? (I've heard it's been challenged for particular species/microclimates.)

This isn't a "there's no global warming" article; nor is it a "this will balance out global warming and make it go away" article. It's not even necessarily a "this is a good thing" article.

[Motown_Johnny]

11. "Global Warming? No....."

"contradict assertions by activists that global warming....."

"Although global drought is becoming less frequent and less severe as the Earth modestly warms, activists claim global warming is causing harmful drought in Australia"



Links to other articles by the same author on the same page include:

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97 Percent Consensus' Claims

Sorry Global Warmists, But Extreme Weather Events Are Becoming Less Extreme

Conservatives Reach Common Ground On A Carbon Tax, And That's The Problem




and a quick Google search of the Author turns up things like:

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/02/14/james-taylor-misinterprets-study-by-180-degrees/

^snip^

James Taylor misinterprets study by 180 degrees


http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2013/02/15/denialism-from-forbes-courtesy-of-heartland-hack-james-taylor/

^snip^

Denialism From Forbes Courtesy of Heartland Hack James Taylor



http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2011/07/29/no-new-data-does-not-blow-a-gaping-hole-in-global-warming-alarmism/#.UeB0uTvMCSo


^snip^

No, new data does not "blow a gaping hole in global warming alarmism"
By Phil Plait | July 29, 2011 10:45 am

I received a few emails, tweets, and comments on the blog yesterday asking about an Op/Ed article in Forbes magazine that claims that new NASA data will "blow [a] gaping hole in global warming alarmism".

And in this case, those outside opinions are very important. Why? Because of Dr. Spencer’s background: you may find this discussion of him interesting. He is an author for the über-conservative Heartland Institute (as is James Taylor, the author of the Forbes article), which receives substantial funding from — can you guess? — ExxonMobil. He is also affiliated with two other think tanks funded by ExxonMobil. Seriously, read that link to get quite a bit of background on Dr. Spencer.





I could go on and on since this guy's only job seems to be to write lies about climate change. Don't kid yourself. Just because this is one of his softer hit pieces does not mean that it isn't an attempt to deny the truth.

[Warren DeMontague]

5. Yay! What a relief. Guess that "global warming" nonsense is nothing to worry about.

Off to the gas station! Whoopie!

I also just found out from Forbes that smoking crack might occasionally result in some penile enlargement, so my plan to deal with that annoying crack addiction will just have to wait another day!

[Shankapotomus]

6. I don't see why, even if true

it is some kind of refutation of climate change? If it is getting hotter, wouldn't more water evaporate into the atmosphere and then more water come down as precipitation to produce a temporary lushness in plant life? And I stress, temporary.

I don't see how an expanded area and level of water distribution would be inconsistent with climate change and a planet that is warming and oceans that are rising.

[LisaLynne]

7. Yeah, that's what I'm thinking.

Even though it's total bunk, even if it WERE true, it wouldn't mean that global climate change isn't happening or that it would be a good thing. Forbes is teh dum.

[trumad]

8. Global Warming.... question mark.

The minute I read the Op headline...I knew it would come from shit rag.

I was right.

[byeya]

13. Yes you were right and it's a sorry state of affairs when media with a large circulation

prints fantasyland stories that tend to deter action on the paramount problem of our time.

[Viking12]

9. James Taylor = Heartland Institute liar, Koch toadie

why do people post shit like this? are you really that ignorant?

[byeya]

12. Most plant growth stops at 103F. With the heat waves we are seeing, we will

also witness plants shutting down in the extreme heat. There will be rolling crop failures around the globe I am afraid.

Also, quoting from Forbes should require a backup corroborating source.