3 ms·
It's not. It's a false claim from climate skeptics based on this study: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04616-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s414
by mrpopo 8y ago
It's not. It's a false claim from climate skeptics based on this study:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04616-8 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04616-8
The study is about sub saharan Africa, mostly the African savanna, and the identified drivers are human causes (decline in burned area, changes in herbivores density). They explicitly exclude CO2 levels increase as a driver.
- nwah1 8y ago>Factorial simulations with multiple global ecosystem models suggest that CO2 fertilization effects explain 70% of the observed greening trend, followed by nitrogen deposition (9%), climate change (8%) and land cover change (LCC) (4%). https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004 https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004
- mrpopo 8y agoI acknowledge that CO2 contributes to fertilisation. I was refuting the claim about the saharan desert. Your new link doesn't seem to contradict me : > CO2 fertilization effects explain most of the greening trends in the tropics
- nwah1 8y agoYes, I accept your correction. I accept that the Saharan desert may be greening primarily for other reasons. It seems to have been on a long term trend towards greening irrespective of the Industrial Revolution, and there are other human activities that are greening it. Although, your link does leave open the possibility that rising CO2 explains up to 22% of the greening in the Sahara.
- saalweachter 8y agoIncidentally the second (earlier) paper is cited by the first (newer) paper, so hopefully they are not in contradiction (since it was merely referenced and not responded to).