4 ms·

Yes it already has. Earth has greened considerably, agriculture, forests have all been boosted the last forty years. Here chat 4: Piao, S., Liu, Z., Wang, Y.

Yes it already has. Earth has greened considerably, agriculture, forests have all been boosted the last forty years. Here chat 4: Piao, S., Liu, Z., Wang, Y. et al. (2020). Plant phenology and global climate change: Current progresses and challenges. Global Change Biology, 26, 1928–1940. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15004 https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.15004 This review paper discusses the impact of global climate change on plant phenology, which includes effects of elevated CO2 levels. Zhu, Z., Piao, S., Myneni, R. B., Huang, M., Zeng, Z., Canadell, J. G., ... & Zeng, N. (2016). Greening of the Earth and its drivers. Nature Climate Change, 6(8), 791-795. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3004 https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3004 This article provides evidence for the 'greening' of the Earth over a period of 33 years, attributing roughly 70% of this greening to increased atmospheric CO2. Smith, P., House, J. I., Bustamante, M., Sobocká, J., Harper, R., Pan, G., ... & Popp, A. (2016). Global change pressures on soils from land use and management. Global Change Biology, 22(3), 1008-1028. https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13068 https://doi.org/10.1111/gcb.13068 This article discusses the effects of global change pressures on soils, including the impacts of increasing CO2.

q87b 3y ago
Just to makes sure no one things that this means that extra CO2 is good because of this: Elevated CO2 levels drastically change the climate and will make Earth inhabitable for humans at some point if not reduced. It's good for some plants in some places but their growth does not fix the underlying and future issues with CO2 in our atmosphere.
- askin4it 3y ago
  Please stop "making sure" when it comes to MY thinking. Also on behalf of everyone who doesn't like being told what or how to think, please stop "making sure". If you really need to "make" something "sure" please pick something real and not a political football. In the early 70's alarmists were "making sure" everyone was panicking about an ice age. See..no ice... Wait a while....I predict the alarmists will change to something else when people no longer buy the current looming disaster. Please stop participating in the most recent fashionable doomsday fantasy.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
    In the 70s the gradually forming consensus was still that global warming was real. The popular press just ran with cooling more, so the lay person believed it. The modern "the 70s predicted cooling so can we believe anything these 'scientists' say?" talking point is based upon a false premise. https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.ht...
    - revelio 3y ago
      NY Times, 1976: https://www.nytimes.com/1976/07/18/archives/the-genesis-strategy-a-chilling-prospect.html https://www.nytimes.com/1976/07/18/archives/the-genesis-stra... But there is considerable evidence that this warm period is passing and that temperatures on the whole will get colder. For example, in the last 100 years mid‐latitude air temperatures peaked at an all‐time warm point in the 1940's and‐have been cooling ever since. [Climatologists] are predicting greater fluctuations, and a cooling trend for the northern hemisphere. The most imminent and far reaching [danger] is the possibility of a food‐climate crisis that would burden the well to do countries with unprecedented hikes in food prices, but could mean famine and political instability for many parts of the non-industrialized world.” So writes Stephen Schneider, a young climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., reflecting the consensus of the climatological community in his new book, “The Genesis Strategy.”
      - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
        If you're using that as evidence that media over-represented bad science, then I think that's a great example. Even before 1976 Schneider had already apologized and said that his assumptions regarding global cooling were overestimated and heating underestimate. Wikipedia also mentions that the book considers both global warming and cooling, it seems like the review was aiming at a particular popular angle. I don't know if I'd use a book review as an indicator of the actual scientific consensus of the time, but rather the media's understanding of the scientific consensus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider_(scientist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider_(scientist)

q87b 3y ago

Just to makes sure no one things that this means that extra CO2 is good because of this: Elevated CO2 levels drastically change the climate and will make Earth inhabitable for humans at some point if not reduced. It's good for some plants in some places but their growth does not fix the underlying and future issues with CO2 in our atmosphere.

askin4it 3y ago
Please stop "making sure" when it comes to MY thinking. Also on behalf of everyone who doesn't like being told what or how to think, please stop "making sure". If you really need to "make" something "sure" please pick something real and not a political football. In the early 70's alarmists were "making sure" everyone was panicking about an ice age. See..no ice... Wait a while....I predict the alarmists will change to something else when people no longer buy the current looming disaster. Please stop participating in the most recent fashionable doomsday fantasy.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
  In the 70s the gradually forming consensus was still that global warming was real. The popular press just ran with cooling more, so the lay person believed it. The modern "the 70s predicted cooling so can we believe anything these 'scientists' say?" talking point is based upon a false premise. https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.ht...
  - revelio 3y ago
    NY Times, 1976: https://www.nytimes.com/1976/07/18/archives/the-genesis-strategy-a-chilling-prospect.html https://www.nytimes.com/1976/07/18/archives/the-genesis-stra... But there is considerable evidence that this warm period is passing and that temperatures on the whole will get colder. For example, in the last 100 years mid‐latitude air temperatures peaked at an all‐time warm point in the 1940's and‐have been cooling ever since. [Climatologists] are predicting greater fluctuations, and a cooling trend for the northern hemisphere. The most imminent and far reaching [danger] is the possibility of a food‐climate crisis that would burden the well to do countries with unprecedented hikes in food prices, but could mean famine and political instability for many parts of the non-industrialized world.” So writes Stephen Schneider, a young climatologist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo., reflecting the consensus of the climatological community in his new book, “The Genesis Strategy.”
    - SketchySeaBeast 3y ago
      If you're using that as evidence that media over-represented bad science, then I think that's a great example. Even before 1976 Schneider had already apologized and said that his assumptions regarding global cooling were overestimated and heating underestimate. Wikipedia also mentions that the book considers both global warming and cooling, it seems like the review was aiming at a particular popular angle. I don't know if I'd use a book review as an indicator of the actual scientific consensus of the time, but rather the media's understanding of the scientific consensus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider_(scientist) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Schneider_(scientist)