Rise in CO2 has 'greened Planet Earth'

[gilliam]

Carbon dioxide emissions from industrial society have driven a huge growth in trees and other plants.

A new study says that if the extra green leaves prompted by rising CO2 levels were laid in a carpet, it would cover twice the continental USA.

Climate sceptics argue the findings show that the extra CO2 is actually benefiting the planet.

But the researchers say the fertilisation effect diminishes over time.

They warn the positives of CO2 are likely to be outweighed by the negatives.

The lead author, Prof Ranga Myneni from Boston University, told BBC News the extra tree growth would not compensate for global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, ocean acidification, the loss of Arctic sea ice, and the prediction of more severe tropical storms.

The new study is published in the journal Nature Climate Change by a team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries.

bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346

 

[Theo520]

It’s interesting how these researchers always feel compelled to qualify the impact of their research, so they don’t get labeled as a ‘denier’

 

[JonNC]

It’s interesting how these researchers always feel compelled to qualify the impact of their research, so they don’t get labeled as a ‘denier’

Especially with Loretta Lynch threatening legal action to silence them if they do.

Jon

 

[lmachine]

It’s interesting how these researchers always feel compelled to qualify the impact of their research, so they don’t get labeled as a ‘denier’

They’re qualifying to make sure the public understands the research.

 

[Theo520]

They’re qualifying to make sure the public understands the research.

No, they are protecting their reputations ,
The details still broadsides the alarmist side of the consensus. The research raises many questions about the validity of the models and attenuates their more alarmist projections. The models do not include the ‘GAIA’ effect of buffering feedbacks.

The sensors show significant greening of something between 25% and 50% of the Earth’s vegetated land, which in turn is slowing the pace of climate change as the plants are drawing CO2 from the atmosphere.

This is in line with the Gaia thesis promoted by the maverick scientist James Lovelock who proposed that the atmosphere, rocks, seas and plants work together as a self-regulating organism. Mainstream science calls such mechanisms “feedbacks”.

 

[EleanorArr]

No, they are protecting their reputations ,
The details still broadsides the alarmist side of the consensus. The research raises many questions about the validity of the models and attenuates their more alarmist projections. The models do not include the ‘GAIA’ effect of buffering feedbacks.

When the oceans are choked with algal blooms flourishing in a CO2-rich atmosphere, we can talk about alarmism. Not even the ‘greening’ of the Earth by itself is necessarily helpful. And probably not as significant as the release of carbon from drying soils elsewhere…

 

[Theo520]

When the oceans are choked with algal blooms flourishing in a CO2-rich atmosphere, we can talk about alarmism. Not even the ‘greening’ of the Earth by itself is necessarily helpful. And probably not as significant as the release of carbon from drying soils elsewhere…

You have some excellent deflection skills, but no facts to really back up your outright dismissal of this research.

Accept it for what it is, evidence that Mother Gaia will attenuate some of the harm predicted in the models.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

You have some excellent deflection skills, but no facts to really back up your outright dismissal of this research.

It is not deflection to point out that not all “greening” is beneficial.

 

[lmachine]

No, they are protecting their reputations,

Their professional colleagues understand the research.

His qualifications in the article are to a news source intended for public consumption. Part of scientific research is explaining it to people who may not have all the background information. Someone who knows CO2 emissions are bad might read the headline and think, “This is great! Maybe we don’t need to worry about CO2.” He included that statement for the benefit of those people.

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

…Climate sceptics argue the findings show that the extra CO2 is actually benefiting the planet…

Wouldn’t someone promoting the findings that the extra CO2 is benefiting the planet no longer be considered a climate skeptic? Seems to me they are no longer skeptical since they are accepting the new findings regarding the climate.

 

[SusanneT]

Doesn’t this just prove that it is all very complex and there are lots of natural factors to consider.

But whatever your views it can’t be sensible to pollute the atmosphere and take a big gamble with the climate.

 

[Theo520]

It is not deflection to point out that not all “greening” is beneficial.

There is zero chance of the oceans becoming “choked with algal blooms” from modestly higher CO2 so YES, it is a method of deflection.

Research has been conducted on methods to massively increase algae blooms (C02 sequestration) and it doesn’t work that way.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There is zero chance of the oceans becoming “choked with algal blooms” from modestly higher CO2 so YES, it is a method of deflection.

Research has been conducted on methods to massively increase algae blooms (C02 sequestration) and it doesn’t work that way.

Here is the evidence you asked for: from NOAA, and from phys.org.

 

[Theo520]

Here is the evidence you asked for: from NOAA, and from phys.org.

It’s just childish fear mongering to threaten increasing CO2 levels will** clog up the oceans with massive algea blooms! **

While we know of many factors that contribute to HABs, how these factors come together to create a “bloom” of algae is not well understood. HABs occur naturally, but human activities that disturb ecosystems seem to play a role in their more frequent occurrence and intensity. Increased nutrient loadings and pollution, food web alterations, introduced species, water flow modifications, and climate change all play a role.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

It’s just childish fear mongering to threaten increasing CO2 levels will** clog up the oceans with massive algea blooms! **

Then your issue with EleanorArr’s post is mostly over the style rather than the substance of the post. After you take away the emotionally-laden phraseology of that post, what remains is a valid concern over negative effects of increasing algal blooms, and therefore not a deflection.

 

[Theo520]

Then your issue with EleanorArr’s post is mostly over the style rather than the substance of the post. After you take away the emotionally-laden phraseology of that post, what remains is a valid concern over negative effects of increasing algal blooms, and therefore not a deflection.

No, there is no research that supports anything she said. We’ve always had such algae blooms and always will.

The Oceans will never be “clogged”. The blooms occur on the coasts and NOT out in the middle of the oceans. Any man made increases are related to sewage and fertilizer usage, not CO2 levels. I find intentional fear mongering to be disingenuous.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

It’s interesting how these researchers always feel compelled to qualify the impact of their research, so they don’t get labeled as a ‘denier’

Maybe they are just being objective and accurate.

 

[Theo520]

Maybe they are just being objective and accurate.

Naw, it’s more likely the witch hunt underway to label dissenters as ‘denialists’, then prosecute them.
Now that is a real crime.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

No, there is no research that supports anything she said.

The two articles I quoted support the substance of what she said, if not the style.

 

[Expatreprocedit]

Naw, it’s more likely the witch hunt underway to label dissenters as ‘denialists’, then prosecute them.
Now that is a real crime.

Hmmm, who to trust? Scientists with graduate degrees in climatology or representatives of an industry that makes billions based on the premise that climate change is a myth? I just can’t decide.