If you are interested in the subject of global warming, you should take some time to watch this interview of a renowned experienced climate expert.
We all know that in the process of photo-synthesis, plants and trees need carbon-dioxide (CO2) in order to grow. What struck me were the things William Happer said about more CO2 in the air CAUSING more greening. To quote from the report that he referred to: ‘Increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) have helped boost green foliage across the world’s arid regions over the past 30 years through a process called CO2 fertilisation, according to CSIRO research.
In findings based on satellite observations, CSIRO, in collaboration with the Australian National University (ANU), found that this CO2 fertilisation correlated with an 11 per cent increase in foliage cover from 1982-2010 across parts of the arid areas studied in Australia, North America, the Middle East and Africa, according to CSIRO research scientist, Dr Randall Donohue.’
Professor Happer notes that if plants receive more CO2 from the air, they become more resilient and can survive with less water. Hence, the observed greening of the desert areas. It seems CO2 is our dung in the air: “more CO2? Yes, please!”
In a more recent study it appears that some of the extra greening of earth is also linked to human activities….:
‘Taken all together, the greening of the planet over the last two decades represents an increase in leaf area on plants and trees equivalent to the area covered by all the Amazon rainforests. There are now more than two million square miles of extra green leaf area per year, compared to the early 2000s – a 5% increase.’
“China and India account for one-third of the greening, but contain only 9% of the planet’s land area covered in vegetation – a surprising finding, considering the general notion of land degradation in populous countries from overexploitation,” said Chi Chen of the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University, in Massachusetts, and lead author of the study.”
Ja. Ja. Sure. We all want more lawns and more trees in our towns and in our own backyards. Planting of trees is what we now teach all our children, to absorb our CO2 emissions. This is happening everywhere in the world now. That is not a bad thing. Also, for more people to live, we need bigger crops….Nothing wrong with all of that! But what does all of this extra greening do to local temperature? A first indication came to me from reading a report from John Christy, published in 2006. I show the conclusion of the report:
‘Our results indicate that the central San Joaquin Valley has experienced a significant rise of minimum temperatures (∼3°C in JJA and SON), a rise that is not detectable in the adjacent Sierra Nevada. Our working hypothesis is that the rapid valley warming is caused by the massive growth in irrigated agriculture. Such human engineering of the environment has changed a high-albedo desert into a darker, moister, vegetated plain, thus altering the surface energy balance in a way we suggest has created the results found in this study.’
During my statistical analysis of 54 weather stations back in 2015, see Table 1, An Inconvenient Truth | Bread on the water, I came across 2 weather stations with somewhat puzzling results. In statistics, we call these results ‘outliers’. In the case of Las Vegas (USA), I found the minimum temperature rising by 5 degrees C since 45 years ago, pushing up the average temperature by almost 3 degrees C. In the case of Tandil (ARG) we find the minimum temperature decreasing by 2.2 C over same period, dragging the average temperature also down by almost 2 degrees C.
For more details, see here:
Now, as we know, 50 years ago, Las Vegas was a desert. There was no running water. Water was brought in from afar and gradually the desert was changed and developed for human habitation. Sure, some of the warming noticed in Las Vegas may be due to an urban heat effect as many skyscrapers were also built. But most probably not all of it. I am sure the change of the desert area into a big green oasis had something to do with it. (1)
In contrast, it appears that in Tandil many forest trees were chopped for logging or to make way for agricultural – and housing developments. A loss of about 10-15% in leaf area is apparent (see picture, area is orange). (2)
Looking again at my own results for South-Africa, I find that Johannesburg is about the only place here that shows some significant warming over the past 40 years. Here too, there was no running water or river. It used to be a savannah area. But there was gold….(3)
Note again the picture at the beginning of this post. Do you see that the leaf areas around the arctic seas all appear to have increased by more than 50%? Remember that it was here that we found most of the warming taking place? See: An Inconvenient Truth | Bread on the water (4). We were also aware of the difference in the warming of earth where there is more land (5), i.e. in the NH, see: Wood for Trees: Interactive Graphs
In his latest report on Climate Change in Alabama, John Christy wrote:
‘Every trend calculation starting from 1895 through 2010 and ending in 2020 produces more warming in the lows than the highs’.
Which is exactly what we would expect if the trend of greening in Alabama is increasing. Indeed: It is up about 10% from 1982 (if my chart at the top of this post is correct). (6)
These 6 observations all support the argument that it is the extra greening [of earth] that is causing extra heat entrapment.