700,000 Square Kilometers Of Added Green Vegetation, Climate Change Shrinks Sahara Desert By Whopping 8%!

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

Almost daily the CO2 Science site brings reports on the impact of climate change on the living world. Hat-tip: Die kalte Sonne here

Recently, CO2 Science brought up a paper in Nature Communications.

Using satellite images, Venter et al. 2018 found an eight percent increase in woody vegetation in sub-Saharan Africa over the last three decades, underscoring the global “greening trend”.

Recent study by Venter et al finds that the Sahara has shrunk by 8% over the past three decades. NASA image, public domain.

According to Wikipedia, the Sahara covers a vast area of some 9.2 million square kilometers. Eight percent of that translates into more than 700,000 square kilometers. That’s an area that’s almost as big as Germany and France combined! This is profound.

In other words, it’s well over 10,000 Manhattans!

If the added green area were effectively used for agriculture, it could produce enough food to feed the African continent. Unfortunately, this is a fact that the doomsday-obsessed media, activists and ruling politicians fear will become publicly known. They instead would prefer that the globe returns to a climate of the 1980s, when drought and famine ravaged the vast North African region.

According to the recent study, the cause was a decline in vegetation fires in a warmer and more humid climate. Abstract:

Drivers of woody plant encroachment over Africa
While global deforestation induced by human land use has been quantified, the drivers and extent of simultaneous woody plant encroachment (WPE) into open areas are only regionally known. WPE has important consequences for ecosystem functioning, global carbon balances and human economies. Here we report, using high-resolution satellite imagery, that woody vegetation cover over sub-Saharan Africa increased by 8% over the past three decades and that a diversity of drivers, other than CO2, were able to explain 78% of the spatial variation in this trend. A decline in burned area along with warmer, wetter climates drove WPE, although this has been mitigated in areas with high population growth rates, and high and low extremes of herbivory, specifically browsers. These results confirm global greening trends, thereby bringing into question widely held theories about declining terrestrial carbon balances and desert expansion. Importantly, while global drivers such as climate and CO2 may enhance the risk of WPE, managing fire and herbivory at the local scale provides tools to mitigate continental WPE.

Read more at CO2 Science.

Another element that is unmentioned is the fertilization effect of the added CO2 into the atmosphere surely provides.

Relotian media

This is positive news that no one will find in the Relotian mainstream media, which are fixated on purveying propaganda, falsehoods, half truths and censorship with the aim of distorting public opinion and vigorously marginalizing dissenting views.

Also (thanks to readers:

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0236.1
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
http://journals.ametsoc.org/D-17-0236.1
http://www.mdpi.com/htm
http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/10/3/424/htm

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

19 responses to “700,000 Square Kilometers Of Added Green Vegetation, Climate Change Shrinks Sahara Desert By Whopping 819!”

  1. Bitter&twisted

    This is worse than we thought.
    A pristine desert ecosystem is being destroyed by invasive plants, caused by climate change.

    1. Yonason

      Oh, come on B&t. What’s the worst that could happen?

  2. Kenneth Richard

    Greening is occurring not just in arid regions, but across the globe…even in the tropics.

    Zeng et al., 2018
    http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0236.1
    Leaf area index (LAI) is increasing throughout the globe, implying the Earth greening. Global modelling studies support this contention, yet satellite observations and model simulations have never been directly compared. Here, for the first time, we used a coupled land-climate model to quantify the potential impact of the satellite-observed Earth greening over the past 30 years on the terrestrial water cycle. The global LAI enhancement by 8% between the early 1980s and the early 2010s is modelled to have caused increases of 12.0 ±2.4 mm yr-1 in evapotranspiration and 12.1 ±2.7 mm yr-1 in precipitation — about 55 ±25% and 28 ±6% of the observed increases in land evapotranspiration and precipitation, respectively.”

    Munier et al., 2018
    http://www.mdpi.com/2072-4292/10/3/424/htm
    On average, all vegetation types have experienced greening over the last two decades at rates ranging from 0.026 m2m−2yr−1 for winter crops to 0.042 m2m−2yr−1 for coniferous forests. Coniferous forests are mainly greening in temperate regions and show the largest area affected by high positive trends. By contrast, grasslands are greening at a moderate average rate, but since they cover almost half of the total vegetated area, the grassland area affected by high trend values is greater than for any other vegetation type but coniferous forests. … In the tropical zone, evergreen forests and grasslands are rapidly greening (see Table 4), which seems to be related to rising CO2 in the atmosphere [Zhu et al., 2016]. On the contrary, in high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere where coniferous forests are dominating, Zhu, Z. et al. [2016] suggested that changes in the vegetation dynamics are mainly driven by climate change.”

    1. Yonason

      Even NASA admits it, though they try hard to downplay the role of CO2, and still say that the increased CO2 isn’t good. But still, they are forced to admit the world is greening.
      https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

      Even when the facts are screaming in their faces and proving them wrong, they refuse to accept that they are wrong.

      1. SebastianH

        Yonason, may I interest you in [placeholder*]. It will make you feel good in the short time but has devastating effects in the long term. Do you see how both effects are possible?

        Your logic is deeply flawed.

        [* = any kind of addictive drug]

        1. Yonason

          “Your logic is deeply flawed” – SebH

          What “logic?” I’m stating facts. Logic does NOT trump reality. And the reality is that CO2 is good for the planet. There is no down side.

          Now, if you know of PROOF (data and fact based, not theoretical or logically deduced from flawed assumptions) that CO2 is harmful, then by all means, present it.

          PS – your analogies are not getting any better. Also, thank you for proving that you can’t deal with the reality, but always have to try to redirect to some absurd warmist paranoid fantasy.

          1. SebastianH

            What “logic?”

            NASA “admitting” to the benefits of CO2 but simultanously warning from more CO2 somehow makes them wrong in your view.

            And the reality is that CO2 is good for the planet. There is no down side.

            Good one, really … unless you indeed mean just the planet and do not include most lifeforms currently inhabiting the planet 😉

            Proof? CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus influence the energy budget. It also gets absorbed by sea water. You somehow believe this is not the case or not a problem. Do you really think this is not “data and fact based” and just an assumption? What kind of reality distortion field does that to a person?

            PS – your analogies are not getting any better. Also, thank you for proving that you can’t deal with the reality, but always have to try to redirect to some absurd warmist paranoid fantasy.

            Normally people react positively when you give them an analogy that they might be more familiar with where similar principles apply. You guys seem to shut down all brain functions when the word climate isn’t included somewhere and need to pepper it with some insults. The only absurd fatansies here are yours, Yonason. And I suspect you know that deep down … no way someone like you can be serious.

          2. Yonason

            Poor delusional anti-science SebH thinks that just because NASA makes an unsubstantiated assertion that CO2 will cause warming AND that that warming will be harmful, when neither has ever been true in the past, that’s sufficient. It’s not. Never has been, never will be.

            “Normally people react positively when you give them an analogy that they might be more familiar with where similar principles apply.” – SebH

            Just because that’s the world you live in doesn’t mean the rest of us have anything to do with it.

            And it’s still a crummy analogy. Atmospheric CO2 at (almost) any concentration experienced on earth does NOT cause harm. It’s not a poison. It’s not a drug. It is an essential compound, without a minimum of which (to which we were perilously close at 180 ppm) all life WILL die.

            ===========================================

            “Proof? CO2 is a greenhouse gas and thus influence the energy budget. It also gets absorbed by sea water. You somehow believe this is not the case or not a problem.”

            1. – That statement is “proof” of nothing, except that you haven’t a clue what constitutes a proof. The influence CO2 has on climate isn’t measurable, and REASONABLE calculations show it to be a bit player, a minnow in the ocean, while the manatee in the goldfish bowl is water vapor.

            Great explanation of that and a lot more is here, though I doubt you will understand any of it.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzlSUU3nihE

            2. – Your accusation that I don’t believe CO2 plays any role, and that I don’t believe that CO2 is absorbed in the ocean, when I’ve written in the past that 90% to 95% of all CO2 is contained in the ocean, are both bald faced LIES!

            You just can’t help yourself, can you! You ALWAYS have to misrepresent what others say, or have said.

            As to CO2 being a problem, you provide no reason why anyone should believe that it is, and ignore the massive evidence (see links provided for some of it) that there is NO problem. It is NOT a matter of “belief,” but of reliance on evidence. You provide none for your assertions, ever.

            How else to say this… When we ask for “proof” we do NOT mean mere statements to the contrary of what we say, but actual data, or reliable reports based on actual data, not “adjusted” to fit a preconceived bias.

            We don’t mind if you disagree with us, just start supporting your claims with real evidence, not he-said she-said silliness. Stop using analogies. They only show how inept you are at generating them. And above all, stop lying about what we say!

  3. Skeptik

    It is a very ill wind that blows nobody any good!

  4. 700,000 Square Kilometers Of Added Green Vegetation, Climate Change Shrinks Sahara Desert By Whopping 84! – Truth is difficult but essential; to find, to understand, to accept

    […] No Tricks Zone – 700,000 Square Kilometers Of Added Green Vegetation, Climate Change Shrinks S… […]

  5. Jay

    I’m afraid your title is wrong. The Venter paper you refer to does not even study the Sahara desert. The paper instead talks about increased leaf cover in the non-desert area SOUTH of the Sahara.

    1. Kenneth Richard

      The southern edge of the Sahara (extending through Mali, Chad, Sudan) does indeed indicate there has been some modest greening in the southern Sahara itself according to Figure 1, right.

      https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04616-8/figures/1

      However, the vast majority of the greening occurs in the central and south-central regions of the continent which are quite a ways disconnected from the Sahara, and hence the 8% reduction in the size of the Sahara Desert itself is not supported by what’s shown in the satellite image/figure.

      Suggested new title: 700,000 Square Kilometers Of Added Green Vegetation In Sub-Saharan Africa – An 8% Brown-To-Green Change!

      1. SebastianH

        Good, just wanted to comment about the clickbaity headline that is not supported anywhere.

      2. Yonason

        Interesting, Kenneth, how when we fix errors we’re mocked by the trolls, as if our errors that we fix somehow justify the endless errors they make but NEVER correct.

        Point out the error of a skeptic, and he’ll thank you and fix it.
        Point out the error of post-modern Leftist, and he’ll mock you, double down on the error, and tell you that you just don’t understand “the science.”
        And with all the abuse you’ve taken, Kenneth, for their seemingly endless errors that you draw to their attention, you know that better than any of us.

        Thanks again for all the ways that you expose them.

        1. SebastianH

          Interesting, Kenneth, how when we fix errors we’re mocked by the trolls, as if our errors that we fix somehow justify the endless errors they make but NEVER correct.

          By definition science is a self-corrective force. That’s why it surprises me that you guys come up with posts/comments that basically say “but in 19xx science predicted this and that and it didn’t happen” as if nothing has changed from back then in the meantime.

          Point out the error of a skeptic, and he’ll thank you and fix it.

          That doesn’t happen. The usual reply is that I should present evidence or something and “that we can’t know” or a list of papers that the skeptic interpreted in a way to support his/her claim. Or often just a “well, what if the author is on to something” or the usual “if true, then XY” clause.

          Point out the error of post-modern Leftist, and he’ll mock you, double down on the error, and tell you that you just don’t understand “the science.”

          I don’t know what you mean by post-modern leftist, but I assume you see yourself as the opposite of that. So what makes you think that you aren’t moking your opponents, aren’t doubling down on your errors and don’t say that your opponent has no clue? Do you even read what you write when you reply to people like me?

          Thanks again for all the ways that you expose them.

          Well, if you believe this is what Kenneth’s replies are … they certainly expose something, as do yours 😉

          1. Yonason

            “By definition science is a self-corrective force.”

            “Science” is not a force of nature, it is a rigorous discipline practiced by humans in order to understand nature to the best of our ability. At least, that’s when it is practiced correctly. BUT, when perverted for political and personal gain, it can no longer be trusted. Once hijacked by knaves, it becomes a self-degrading force, not just for itself but for all who rely on the benefits we used to expect from it.

            Thank you for YET AGAIN demonstrating all too clearly that, you haven’t a clue “what science is.” 😉 yourself, troll!

  6. Louis

    Interesting. Great positive news. However France by itself is 550 000 km2. So instead of “Germany and France combined” you should write “Greece and France combined” =)
    From France with love !

  7. 700,000 Square Kilometers Of Added Green Vegetation, Climate Change Shrinks Sahara Desert By Whopping 8%! | Un hobby...

    […] P. Gosselin, January 16, 2019 in […]

  8. CO2 'Climate Change' Shrinks Sahara Desert By Whopping 8%! | PSI Intl

    […] Read more at notrickszone.com […]

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close