The planet is the greenest it's been in decades

[carnutzzz]

The planet is the greenest it's been in decades, perhaps in centuries.


It ain't all doom and gloom folks...

"Planet Earth is on a roll! GPP is way up. NPP is way up. To the surprise of those who have been bearish on the planet, the data shows global production has been steadily climbing to record levels, ones not seen since these measurements began.

GPP is Gross Primary Production, a measure of the daily output of the global biosphere --the amount of new plant matter on land. NPP is Net Primary Production, an annual tally of the globe's production. Biomass is booming. The planet is the greenest it's been in decades, perhaps in centuries.

Until the 1980s, ecologists had no way to systematically track growth in plant matter in every corner of the Earth -- the best they could do was analyze small plots of one-tenth of a hectare or less. The notion of continuously tracking global production to discover the true state of the globe's biota was not even considered.

Then, in the 1980s, ecologists realized that satellites could track production, and enlisted NASA to collect the data. For the first time, ecologists did not need to rely on rough estimates or anecdotal evidence of the health of the ecology: They could objectively measure the land's output and soon did -- on a daily basis and down to the last kilometre.

The results surprised Steven Running of the University of Montana and Ramakrishna Nemani of NASA, scientists involved in analyzing the NASA data. They found that over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%. About 25% of the Earth's vegetated landmass -- almost 110 million square kilometres -- enjoyed significant increases and only 7% showed significant declines. When the satellite data zooms in, it finds that each square metre of land, on average, now produces almost 500 grams of greenery per year.

Why the increase? Their 2004 study, and other more recent ones, point to the warming of the planet and the presence of CO2, a gas indispensable to plant life. CO2 is nature's fertilizer, bathing the biota with its life-giving nutrients. Plants take the carbon from CO2 to bulk themselves up -- carbon is the building block of life -- and release the oxygen, which along with the plants, then sustain animal life. As summarized in a report last month, released along with a petition signed by 32,000 U. S. scientists who vouched for the benefits of CO2: "Higher CO2 enables plants to grow faster and larger and to live in drier climates. Plants provide food for animals, which are thereby also enhanced. The extent and diversity of plant and animal life have both increased substantially during the past half-century."

Click for more...

http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=569586&p=1

[HardDrive]

What kind of greenery?

Miles and miles of barren land converted to destructive, chemical heavy traditional farming does not sound like good news to me.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by HardDrive

What kind of greenery?

Miles and miles of barren land converted to destructive, chemical heavy traditional farming does not sound like good news to me.

The stupid is strong in this post!

Real scientists (not Algore moonies) have pointed out that co2 causes greening. Anybody who's ever had a top notch home horticulture project can verify this for you.

[carnutzzz]

Originally Posted by HardDrive

What kind of greenery?

Miles and miles of barren land converted to destructive, chemical heavy traditional farming does not sound like good news to me.

If you read the article, by REDUCING CO2 we would be INCREASING the need for chemical fertilizers.

So you're right- glad to hear you're on board.

[jyl]

What is the relevance of the amount of vegetation on earth?

Why do you think it is necessarily "good" or "bad" to have more or less plant matter?

[HardDrive]

Originally Posted by carnutzzz

If you read the article, by REDUCING CO2 we would be INCREASING the need for chemical fertilizers.

Not disputing that. I stand by my statement.

[cgarr]

Need to run my mower twice a week now, is that good?

[Porsche-O-Phile]

Look at the numbers for POT (Potash Corp.) over the last 12 months and you'll see the implications of this.

[carnutzzz]

Originally Posted by jyl

What is the relevance of the amount of vegetation on earth?

Why do you think it is necessarily "good" or "bad" to have more or less plant matter?

You didn't read the article did you?

[Z-man]

Originally Posted by Mule

The supid is strong in this post!

Real scientists (not Algore moonies) have pointed out that co2 causes greening. Anybody who's ever had a top notch home horticulture project can verify this for you.

Heck - anyone who has had 6th grade biology knows about photosynthesis...

Hmm - I wonder if this will lead to a sale on carbon credits.... Since my credit card is maxed out, maybe I should try this new card...

-Z-man.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by jyl

What is the relevance of the amount of vegetation on earth?

Why do you think it is necessarily "good" or "bad" to have more or less plant matter?

The stupid is strong in this post too! We need "good" vegetation! Bad plant! Bad plant!

[Mule]

Originally Posted by Z-man

Heck - anyone who has had 6th grade biology knows about photosynthesis...

Hmm - I wonder if this will lead to a sale on carbon credits.... Since my credit card is maxed out, maybe I should try this new card...

-Z-man.

I thought in CA everybody knew this!

http://www.cannabisculture.com/backissues/mayjune96/goodbudco2.html

[jyl]

I was serious in my question. Why is more vegetation mass an indicator of a welcome climate change?

Suppose, for instance, a given climate change resulted in avg global temps up 10F, avg sea level up 3m - but global vegetation mass up +20%.

Would the above be a welcome result, simply because there's more vegetation?

Or, to use an example more accessible to stupid - I take your tidy yard with grass, fruits and vegetables, and replace it with a tangled mass of yard-high weeds. Why are you upset? Total vegetation mass has increased.

Originally Posted by Mule

The stupid is strong in this post too! We need "good" vegetation! Bad plant! Bad plant!

[m21sniper]

Originally Posted by HardDrive

What kind of greenery?

Miles and miles of barren land converted to destructive, chemical heavy traditional farming does not sound like good news to me.

Since when is growing something in "barren land" 'destructive'?

I just don't understand people sometimes. LOL.

Originally Posted by jyl

What is the relevance of the amount of vegetation on earth?

Why do you think it is necessarily "good" or "bad" to have more or less plant matter?

More plants = more food and oxygen.
Less plants= less food and oxygen.

Seems pretty obvious to me...

[jyl]

Not all plants are food. And there is no shortage of oxygen.

[m21sniper]

All plants are food for something. And all plants absorb CO2.

The world population is growing extremely quickly. We will need more oxygen in the future as opposed to now as time passes. What's more, more plants = more animals(which we eat) in general.

Again, it all seems quite obvious to me.

[Mule]

Originally Posted by jyl

I was serious in my question. Why is more vegetation mass an indicator of a welcome climate change?

Suppose, for instance, a given climate change resulted in avg global temps up 10F, avg sea level up 3m - but global vegetation mass up +20%.

Would the above be a welcome result, simply because there's more vegetation?

Or, to use an example more accessible to stupid - I take your tidy yard with grass, fruits and vegetables, and replace it with a tangled mass of yard-high weeds. Why are you upset? Total vegetation mass has increased.

WTF if? IF a piano was falling from a ten story window & you were standing underneath??? We (most of us) don't live in a make believe world. Since you seem completely incapable of getting it, the point here is that one more tenant of Algore's made up climate alarmisim is going down the toilet with the rest.

[HardDrive]

Yes, yes, we're all stupid for questioning the article.

[m21sniper]

Hey, you say we're stupid when we question yours...

[ckissick]

Originally Posted by jyl

What is the relevance of the amount of vegetation on earth?

Why do you think it is necessarily "good" or "bad" to have more or less plant matter?

The stupid is not strong here. It's a very good point. If the green were to spread into desert regions, would that be considered good? I think not. It would result in the extinction of many species adapted to the dry environment.

Ecologists know all this, of course. I suspect that the GPP and NPP indices to measure greenery refer to the health of areas of natural vegetation that are supposed to be green.

The point here is that global warming is good. Al Goreleone and his ilk think that warming is bad and will kill the planet when, in fact, the opposite is true.