[kublikhan]

Yes, plants are a net carbon sink. And yes, said sink has increased as a consequence of increased co2 regardless of increases in temperature. In fact the greatest plant growth additions have been in the hottest driest regions, ie deserts.

And yet that increased carbon sink is smaller than the increased co2 emissions.

Those more familiar with petroleum geology appreciate just how rare have been instances of petroleum/coal creation over the millennia. It is not for me to instruct you in these matters.

Cumulative Carbon Emissions
The cumulative carbon emissions are the sum of the total CO2 emitted during a given period of time. Total cumulative emissions from 1870 to 2016 were 420±20 GtC (1539 GtCO2) from fossil fuels and industry, and 180±60 GtC (660 GtCO2) from land use change. The total of 600±65 GtC was partitioned among the atmosphere (245±5 GtC), ocean (145±20 GtC), and the land (190±45 GtC). Land-use change represents about 31% of cumulative emissions over 1870–2016, coal 32%, oil 25%, gas 10%, and others 3%.

Global Carbon Budget

Overall in 30 years, the green vegetation on planet Earth had increased by a rather extraordinary 14 per cent.

The world is getting greener. Why does no one want to know?

So cumulative emissions were 600 Gt of carbon, or 2200 Gt co2. Of that, the total amount the land sequestered was 190 Gt of carbon, or 697 Gt co2. However only 14% of that was new vegetation. So 697 * .14 = 98 GT. 98 Gt of co2 sequestered by new vegetation vs 2200 Gt of co2 emissions. Seems like you are in error pstarr.

[Pops]

Pictures of a greening planet.

Somehow pictures of a tropically green Fairbanks aren't comforting, lol

The empirical evidence is a picture. OK, I grant the picture is greener.

Did any of these studies look at other possible causes? Increased fertilizer use? industrial ag? N runoff? Urban migration? Increasing forest preserves? Ag Irrigation?
30 years is a long time, lots of stuff happened.

CO2 is not the only nutrient. If it has been the limiting factor until now, and that limit is raised, eventually there will be another limit hit, P, Ph, some micro nutrient in specific regions. Don't forget water.

My last thought on the green picture is that a pasture is just as green from space as a mature forest. I don't know the number but lots of S American forests have been cut and replaced with pasture.

I was never a climate doomer so I'm not arguing for doom, just playing the skeptic.

[dissident]

A climate doomer would be a species of climate denier: an individual not qualified in the field who is suffering from the Dunning-Kruger syndrome. Lots of unqualified individuals love to categorize people who are more qualified than they are as either "doomers" or "deniers". Whatever serves to reinforce their own delusional framework of reality.

The hothouse Earth we should be worried about the is the 35C and 100% RH regime. We do not need Venus like conditions to cover sizeable regions of the planet with such weather for parts of the year. We can expect, based on current state of the science, that such lethal for mammals conditions will become a serious problem after 2050.

As for CO2 greening: why is that such a great thing? Clearly the added vegetation is not offsetting the annual CO2 increase and is not even producing a visible impact. By contrast, the added vegetation is lowering surface albedo which directly contributes to warming.

[Pops]

Well that settles it, peak oil it is!

[vox_mundi]

[Tanada]

My last thought on the green picture is that a pasture is just as green from space as a mature forest. I don't know the number but lots of S American forests have been cut and replaced with pasture.

Actually not the case. Way back in the 1970's NASA astronauts on Skylab did a series of experiments to let them design settings for the LandSat series instruments. When the computer looks at an image from LandSat instruments they can tell you exactly what type of green stuff is growing in any particular spot from soybeans to sweet corn to grazing grass to evergreen trees. The way the light reflects off the leaf surface and the types of chlorophyll variations from species to species can give you pretty precise information on what is growing where.
Landsat forest cover vs ag land

[dissident]

BTW, here is a nice fact. CO2 greening is very selective to species. One cannot run around claiming that crops are all benefiting from CO2 increases. But certain species, namely ragweed, are responding nicely to CO2 increases. They are growing bigger and releasing more pollen.

https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/8 ... pollen.pdf

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4221106/

[Pops]

My last thought on the green picture is that a pasture is just as green from space as a mature forest. I don't know the number but lots of S American forests have been cut and replaced with pasture.

Actually not the case.

Now why didn't P come up with that? They've been measuring the "crop" in his area for years. LOL

[onlooker]

I am not sure we have discussed enough what stands to be a significant factor in CC and that is:

But greenhouses gases like CO2 are so named for their ability to magnify the sun’s energy, and 50 million years ago the sun wasn’t as hot— our star is getting hotter with age

https://www.popsci.com/carbon-emissions-warming

[kublikhan]

It's an interesting article. Talks about how Ridley was villified as the NASA data was initially being analyzed. Now that it is in Nature magazine (out for two years now) and peer reviewed there is little to dispute. The planet is greener and healthier because of additional CO2.

Greener yes. And healthier than models were predicting. But not healthier because of the additional co2. It's like we only have stage 2 cancer instead of stage 3. But we are still not healthy. The greening itself can increase the heat retention of the planet. Slightly slower increase via the greenhouse effect and slightly higher increase via direct radiation. And that stored carbon does not just disappear. As human activities continue to trash the ecosphere, all of that stored carbon will be released someday. In addition to any co2 we are already pumping out at that time. It is slowing down atmospheric accumulation of co2 for now. But later on the problem will be worse.

And that only scratches the surface of the changes higher co2 levels and global warming are doing to our planet. Melting ice caps, ocean acidification, rising sea levels, etc. This is not a situation I would describe as healthy.

Also, not all recent climate info is good. There has also been recent studies that point to things being worse than we thought. Such as this one:
Plants release up to 30 per cent more CO2 than previously thought

If the planet is 14% greener, but plants are 30% poorer carbon sinks than we thought, that puts these two pieces of news as a net loss as far as carbon sinks go.

[Pops]

Yeah, it's probably as good for the idea we should be doing something about emissions, as LTO is for the idea we should be doing something about alternatives.

[kublikhan]

Then what? You must have an explanation for the greening planet? Please share.

You misunderstand. I agree with you that the additional greening is largely because of the increased co2. The point I differ on is that the increased co2 lead to a healthier planet. Yes we have more green, that part is good. But our oceans are are also acidifying because of the increased co2. That is not healthy. Our sea levels are rising. That is not good. We are seeing increasingly extreme weather, violent storms, droughts, etc. That is not good. Do you understand what I am saying? More green is only one of many effects that higher co2 levels have caused to the planet. And the other effects are far from what I would call healthy.

[onlooker]

Sorry to say Pstarr, some nasty consequences to higher CO2 levels and greater warming are very much real especially the scenario of warming oceans interfering with ocean circulation which then can create anoxic ocean conditions which then can induce the creation of high levels of hydrogen sulfide that is a very
lethal gas/chemical to life. These links can help connect the dots

https://robertscribbler.com/2014/01/21/ ... ng-oceans/
 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anoxic_event
 https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1029/GB002i002p00115
 https://e360.yale.edu/features/will_climate_change_jam_the_global_ocean_conveyor_belt