4 ms·

Yes, it may increase it, but only it there is also enough water and nitrogene and it doesn't get too warm, which is not the case in many situations: http://new

by fhars 10y ago

Yes, it may increase it, but only it there is also enough water and nitrogene and it doesn't get too warm, which is not the case in many situations: http://news.stanford.edu/pr/02/jasperplots124.html http://news.stanford.edu/pr/02/jasperplots124.html

vixen99 10y ago
Not 'may' but 'does'. CO2 provides an important source of carbon for plant growth. Commercial growers have used carbon dioxide to enhance greenhouse production for many years. The effect is now continental due to the increase in atomospheric CO2. See “Human-induced greening of the northern extratropical land surface" Nature Climate Change 6, 959–963 (2016) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268280922_Ground_and_satellite_based_evidence_of_the_biophysical_mechanisms_behind_the_greening_Sahel https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268280922_Ground_an...
- parhurs 10y ago
  It is not "does" but "may" since, as gp wrote, it "does not" when certain conditions are not met.
  - vixen99 10y ago
    Apologies - my mistake! It's true that (not here!) in the rush to talk about its warming effect, many choose to ignore the positive effect of CO2 in the atmosphere <with respect> to its importance as a carbon source for plants. Greening has of course taken place. To quote NASA, [ I think I've got this one right ] ... "From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25. An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States." https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fer... This is not in the least surprising given extensive experimentation showing enhanced profitable growth for many plants (not all) with increased CO2. There will be upper limits of course.
    - epistasis 10y ago
      >in the rush to talk about its warming effect, many choose to ignore the positive effect of CO2 in the atmosphere <with respect> to its importance as a carbon source for plants. I'm not sure if you're meaning to, but your diction comes across as extremely biased. "Rush to talk" imputes a a hurriedness that does not seem justified based on any discussion I've seen. Also, a "choice" to "ignore" a particular effect, imputes a conscious decision to omit something that may be important. This uncharitable framing seems to be in error, as your own link doesn't seem very optimistic about greening countering climate change. >“Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time. The actual paper is quite interesting! http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n8/full/nclimate3004.html http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n8/full/nclimate30... And it's very important to study, but I don't understand the need to impute bad motives to others not involved in the HN discussion.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- phaemon 10y ago
  You linked the wrong paper. From that one's abstract: "We conclude that the observed greening in the Senegalese Sahel is primarily related to an increasing tree cover that caused satellite driven vegetation indices to increase with rainfall reversal."

by fhars 10y ago

vixen99 10y ago

Not 'may' but 'does'. CO2 provides an important source of carbon for plant growth. Commercial growers have used carbon dioxide to enhance greenhouse production for many years. The effect is now continental due to the increase in atomospheric CO2. See “Human-induced greening of the northern extratropical land surface" Nature Climate Change 6, 959–963 (2016) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268280922_Ground_and_satellite_based_evidence_of_the_biophysical_mechanisms_behind_the_greening_Sahel https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268280922_Ground_an...

parhurs 10y ago
It is not "does" but "may" since, as gp wrote, it "does not" when certain conditions are not met.
- vixen99 10y ago
  Apologies - my mistake! It's true that (not here!) in the rush to talk about its warming effect, many choose to ignore the positive effect of CO2 in the atmosphere <with respect> to its importance as a carbon source for plants. Greening has of course taken place. To quote NASA, [ I think I've got this one right ] ... "From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25. An international team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries led the effort, which involved using satellite data from NASA’s Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer instruments to help determine the leaf area index, or amount of leaf cover, over the planet’s vegetated regions. The greening represents an increase in leaves on plants and trees equivalent in area to two times the continental United States." https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fer... This is not in the least surprising given extensive experimentation showing enhanced profitable growth for many plants (not all) with increased CO2. There will be upper limits of course.
  - epistasis 10y ago
    >in the rush to talk about its warming effect, many choose to ignore the positive effect of CO2 in the atmosphere <with respect> to its importance as a carbon source for plants. I'm not sure if you're meaning to, but your diction comes across as extremely biased. "Rush to talk" imputes a a hurriedness that does not seem justified based on any discussion I've seen. Also, a "choice" to "ignore" a particular effect, imputes a conscious decision to omit something that may be important. This uncharitable framing seems to be in error, as your own link doesn't seem very optimistic about greening countering climate change. >“Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time. The actual paper is quite interesting! http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n8/full/nclimate3004.html http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n8/full/nclimate30... And it's very important to study, but I don't understand the need to impute bad motives to others not involved in the HN discussion.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
phaemon 10y ago
You linked the wrong paper. From that one's abstract: "We conclude that the observed greening in the Senegalese Sahel is primarily related to an increasing tree cover that caused satellite driven vegetation indices to increase with rainfall reversal."