3 ms·

Isn't that in contrast to https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth-study-finds/ https://www.nasa.gov/technology/carbon-dioxid

• itishappy 3y ago
  > The declines challenge an argument often presented by skeptics of mainstream climate science to downplay the consequences of global warming: the idea that plants will grow faster with larger amounts of carbon dioxide. The argument hinges on the idea that food supplies will increase. > It’s largely a red herring, as climate scientists have patiently explained for years. Rising CO2 does benefit plants, at least up to a point, but it’s just one factor. Plants are also affected by many other symptoms of climate change, including rising temperatures, changing weather patterns, shifts in water availability and so on.
  • robertlagrant 3y ago
    You're thinking in terms of sides rather than facts. I think the question is the following: the NASA article seems to indicate that the Earth is getting greener. The headline in the posted article says no greening has occurred. Which is correct?
    • itishappy 3y ago
      I linked a quote from the article without commentary. I am very intentionally not thinking at all. Which NASA article are you referencing?
      • croisillon 3y ago
        the one you were originally replying to :)
        • itishappy 3y ago
          Got it (there's another linked further up the thread). Let's think! The NASA article claims our planet became greener from 1982-2015. The new study agrees the earth became significantly greener in the 80s and 90s, but the trend started reversing in the 2000s. I think they do not necessarily contradict each another.
          • robertlagrant 3y ago
            That would be the case if the NASA article was "The earth became greener from 1985-2000", but that's not the case. I think the quotes you cited earlier, which add up to "The baddies say this; here's a superficial response you can brush them off with", are indicative of the problem with politicised science. No one will admit that things might not be as they are constantly communicated to be, generally by communicators who are not scientists. In this case: it's interesting that CO2 has a negative feedback loop where less CO2 means fewer plants, increasing CO2, and more CO2 means more plants, decreasing CO2; have climate models taken this into account (enough)?
          • kbutler 3y ago
            Nasa also says the world was greening 2000-2017 https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/ames/human-activity-in-china-and-india-dominates-the-greening-of-earth-nasa-study-shows/ https://www.nasa.gov/centers-and-facilities/ames/human-activ... 5% increase in leaf area over the period (from CO2 and land-use changes) https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0220-7 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0220-7 The paper for this thread https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aax1396 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aax1396 also addresses data generally ending in 2015, and says "all four LAI [Leaf Area Index] datasets exhibited a transition from increasing trends before the late 1990s to decreasing trends afterward (fig. S5)" Those claims appear to be in direct contradiction, and I don't see any immediate way to reconcile them.
• jeroenhd 3y ago
  The article you linked is based on the difference between 1985 and 2015, while the article OP links is based on shorter and more recent data spans. Sadly, NASA's link to the original article is now dead. A large increase between 1985 and 2000, followed by a slow decrease between 2000 and now would perfectly fit both assertions.
• maverick74 3y ago
  oh... that's funny because i was going to share another link: https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-green...