What actually happened? Satellites showed an 11% increase in foliage after adjusting data for precipitation.>> -- http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/natio...
This refers only to the areas studied, which did not include any ocean, and was limited to arid areas. No, it does not refer to an expansion of Rain forests across the globe. It refers to greener deserts. Your 21,275,000 square miles of foliage was specifically not studied, and these studies said nothing about them. It said that deserts got greener.
Deserts getting greener is expected since plants breath through their stomata. While their stomata are open, they lose H2O. To the extent that there is more CO2 in the air, the need for plants to keep their stomata open is reduced. They will be able to collect the CO2 faster, and thus, lose less water (2). This makes them better able to survive in the desert. Here is a data base telling the effects of increasing concentrations on various plants (1).
This property causes stomata concentration to vary on plants allowing average atmospheric concentrations of CO2 over a period of time that is less than provided by ice core data to be measured from plant fossils (3). Some of the variation in CO2 concentration in the past becomes apparent using this method.
Yes, deserts are becoming more green, and more trees are growing in grasslands. No, the total acres of foliage worldwide is not increasing due to CO2. That latter figure depends more on development.
Here is a study on how CO2 greened China over the same period (4).
Edit: Interesting response. Once again though, the greening is found in existing biomes, not by creating more square miles of foliage.
Edit: Yes, but more like kilograms than cubic feet. I really do not know how much.
Every cloud has a silver lining.
Now, all those poor folk who were about to be displaced because of AGW can now stay and rejoice in the benefits of extra CO2 in the atmosphere.
Funnily enough, we were taught this at school fully 50 years ago, turns out we were a pretty clever lot, no? For those of a certain age, remember the CO2 enriched terrariums? What happened? Plants flourished. The object of the lesson was to teach us not to worry about the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere, Mother Nature would compensate, and so she has.
At least cleverer than all the doom and gloom merchants prophesying death and destruction if we dare use the benefits the industrial revolution has brought us.
Forward to a greener world, let Bag Syph stay in his cellar moaning.
EDIT @ Big Syph: Your " with the millions of acres of deforestation since 88 "; does this include all the rain forest cut down to plant Eucalyptus for burning in power stations, or forest cleared to plant crops for Ethanol?
Or acres and acres lost in UK to site solar collectors?
Or acres in Ontario forever polluted to manufacture batteries for electric vehicles?
"There is none so blind as he who will not see."
Also remember for any increase in foliage, there is an increased biomass underground (roots and all the microorganisms that go with them) which has huge improvements in soil conditions and water holding abilities.
I don't see how this is possible with the millions of acres of deforestation since 88 as well as the destruction by wild fires.
So where is the article link. be aware just because something is published to the web or in a magazine does not mean it was actually published in a professional journal, which is where peer reviewed papers are published. Funny how the DA deniers as a rule accept magazine, blog, online site articles as peer reviewed. PLUS what we have been asking from the DA denier ilk here, is a peer reviewed paper written by real climatologist to support the lame denier viewpoint. So even if the article you reference is peer revied it isn't about GW and isn't likely to be by a climatologist.
Cyclops posted a question about the benefits of CO2 in the atmosphere : http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AqZdEx56LMLyEoXLozUWIRDsy6IX;_ylv=3?qid=20130602185833AAfUyuw
According to this article and peer reviewed science, the total foliage has increased 11% since 1982. Are these figures correct? :
If the foliage of the planet on land was 37% in 1982, then a 11% increase would mean there is now 41.7% of the land covered by foliage.
If the total land area is 30% of the Earth's surface, then the total surface area is 57,500,000 square miles - http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/Dani… -
That means 21,275,000 square miles of foliage has grown to 23,977,500 square miles of foliage. That's an increase of 2,702,500 square miles of foliage in 18 years. Doesn't anyone see how significant that is?
If the foliage of the planet on land increased 11% in 18 years, then how much of an increase was there in the oceans?
