In our look at how the IPCC handles the issue of global greening last week we showed that if you dutifully read the Summaries for Policymakers (SPMs) you would learn nothing about it. This week we are looking at the Technical Summaries and to spoil the plot somewhat we will state here that deep down in the chapters they admit, somewhat grudgingly in places, that extra CO2 in the air translates into more plant growth around the world and better water use efficiency by plants. Which is a big if well-hidden deal since it counts against the idea of CO2 as the dreaded “carbon pollution”. And it is well-hidden because each of the Working Groups put out rather lengthy summaries of their even lengthier reports, and the idea is that if they give themselves 100 pages or more to fill they can cover everything that matters in more depth than in the SPM though by that point it’s no longer a summary and few people will bother reading it. But if you did, what you would learn about global greening is ... still nothing.
The Working Group I Technical Summary is 112 pages long. And if you make it all the way to page 84 and don’t blink you might catch this admission:
“Increasing atmospheric CO2, warming at high latitudes, and land management interventions have contributed to the observed greening trend, but there is low confidence in their relative roles. There is medium confidence that increased plant growth associated with CO2 fertilization is the main driver of the observed increase in amplitude of the seasonal cycle of atmospheric CO2 in the Northern Hemisphere.”
So all that extra CO2 might have helped with plant growth. But we’re careful not to be sure and indeed give only “low confidence” to the idea. But even if CO2 has boosted plant growth, the only effect they care to mention is that the annual CO2 cycle has a larger amplitude than before.
As for Working Group II, which specifically deals with impacts of adding CO2 to the air, the Technical Summary makes no mention of greening. Same with Working Group III which supposedly deals with policy responses.
As we will later show, the report chapters themselves actually have a lot to say on the subject so they can’t be accused of not knowing anything about it or of not surveying some of the evidence and data. But they can be accused of keeping it out of the Summaries.
The green theocracy prefers a benefit cost analysis devoid of benefits otherwise they might be seen as wearing no clothes instead of their self-delusional image as caped crusaders.