Rising CO2 levels are re-GREENING the Earth with huge gains in forest coverage

[KW]

Rising CO2 levels are re-GREENING the Earth with huge gains in forest coverage across the Earth’s surface (climatesciencenews.com)

In a study published in the Nature journal, scientists analyzed 35 years of satellite data to assess the global land change dynamics that took place throughout the years from 1982 to 2016. Using historical satellite imagery from advanced, high-resolution radiometers, they explored the changes in cover of bare ground, short vegetation, and tree canopy across the planet and assessed the relation of these changes to human activity. They found that as the concentrations of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere rise, forest growth is supported.

The authors wrote: “We show that—contrary to the prevailing view that forest area has declined globally—tree cover has increased by 2.24 million km2 (+7.1% relative to the 1982 level).”

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Rising CO2 levels are re-GREENING the Earth with huge gains in forest coverage across the Earth’s surface (climatesciencenews.com)

In a study published in the Nature journal, scientists analyzed 35 years of satellite data to assess the global land change dynamics that took place throughout the years from 1982 to 2016. Using historical satellite imagery from advanced, high-resolution radiometers, they explored the changes in cover of bare ground, short vegetation, and tree canopy across the planet and assessed the relation of these changes to human activity. They found that as the concentrations of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere rise, forest growth is supported.

The authors wrote: “We show that—contrary to the prevailing view that forest area has declined globally—tree cover has increased by 2.24 million km2 (+7.1% relative to the 1982 level).”

So you agree that CO2 levels are rising and that this is environmental effects?

 

[Heyo]

Rising CO2 levels are re-GREENING the Earth with huge gains in forest coverage across the Earth’s surface (climatesciencenews.com)

In a study published in the Nature journal, scientists analyzed 35 years of satellite data to assess the global land change dynamics that took place throughout the years from 1982 to 2016. Using historical satellite imagery from advanced, high-resolution radiometers, they explored the changes in cover of bare ground, short vegetation, and tree canopy across the planet and assessed the relation of these changes to human activity. They found that as the concentrations of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere rise, forest growth is supported.

The authors wrote: “We show that—contrary to the prevailing view that forest area has declined globally—tree cover has increased by 2.24 million km2 (+7.1% relative to the 1982 level).”

"Global bare ground cover has decreased by 1.16 million km2 (−3.1%), most notably in agricultural regions in Asia. Of all land changes, 60% are associated with direct human activities and 40% with indirect drivers such as climate change. Land-use change exhibits regional dominance, including tropical deforestation and agricultural expansion, temperate reforestation or afforestation, cropland intensification and urbanization. Consistently across all climate domains, montane systems have gained tree cover and many arid and semi-arid ecosystems have lost vegetation cover. The mapped land changes and the driver attributions reflect a human-dominated Earth system. The dataset we developed may be used to improve the modelling of land-use changes, biogeochemical cycles and vegetation–climate interactions to advance our understanding of global environmental change1,2,3,4,6." - Global land change from 1982 to 2016 | Nature

That seems to contradict some of your opinions you stated in another thread.

 

[Bathos Logos]

Rising CO2 levels are re-GREENING the Earth with huge gains in forest coverage across the Earth’s surface (climatesciencenews.com)

In a study published in the Nature journal, scientists analyzed 35 years of satellite data to assess the global land change dynamics that took place throughout the years from 1982 to 2016. Using historical satellite imagery from advanced, high-resolution radiometers, they explored the changes in cover of bare ground, short vegetation, and tree canopy across the planet and assessed the relation of these changes to human activity. They found that as the concentrations of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere rise, forest growth is supported.

The authors wrote: “We show that—contrary to the prevailing view that forest area has declined globally—tree cover has increased by 2.24 million km2 (+7.1% relative to the 1982 level).”

This could be true, sure. But it doesn't change the idea that the changes are occurring more quickly than our environments/ecologies can handle. There have also been witnessed changes like areas heating up, causing indigenous plant species to have trouble coping, and as that happens, various forms of animal wildlife leave the area more and more due to scarcity of plant food resources. And then, without the animals, plants that rely on those animals to eat their seeds and deposit them elsewhere as their method of migrating their species don't have that method available to them, and so they end up "trapped" within that area with the rising temperatures that aren't good for them, potentially to the point of extinction.

With change of climate there may be "winners" (your rain forest data, for example), and "losers" (the plants who rely on animals to migrate from my example). The trouble is, we can't know what numbers those dice are going to rest on once they are rolled. Changes are unpredictable, and it takes time for an ecological framework to regain stability. And with a statement of "it's better", the question that should be asked is always "better for whom"?

 

[KW]

So you agree that CO2 levels are rising and that this is environmental effects?

Yes.



CO2 levels have gone up about 80 ppm in the past 100 years or so.

We are currently around 400 ppm.

Greenhouses try to get CO2 levels to the 1200-1500 ppm rate for best plant growth results.

 

[KW]

This could be true, sure. But it doesn't change the idea that the changes are occurring more quickly than our environments/ecologies can handle. There have also been witnessed changes like areas heating up, causing indigenous plant species to have trouble coping, and as that happens, various forms of animal wildlife leave the area more and more due to scarcity of plant food resources. And then, without the animals, plants that rely on those animals to eat their seeds and deposit them elsewhere as their method of migrating their species don't have that method available to them, and so they end up "trapped" within that area with the rising temperatures that aren't good for them, potentially to the point of extinction.

With change of climate there may be "winners" (your rain forest data, for example), and "losers" (the plants who rely on animals to migrate from my example). The trouble is, we can't know what numbers those dice are going to rest on once they are rolled. Changes are unpredictable, and it takes time for an ecological framework to regain stability. And with a statement of "it's better", the question that should be asked is always "better for whom"?

The change in climate is greatly exagerated to fit a political agenda.

CO2 has not been shown to have any significant impact on our temperatures.

 

[KW]

"Global bare ground cover has decreased by 1.16 million km2 (−3.1%), most notably in agricultural regions in Asia. Of all land changes, 60% are associated with direct human activities and 40% with indirect drivers such as climate change. Land-use change exhibits regional dominance, including tropical deforestation and agricultural expansion, temperate reforestation or afforestation, cropland intensification and urbanization. Consistently across all climate domains, montane systems have gained tree cover and many arid and semi-arid ecosystems have lost vegetation cover. The mapped land changes and the driver attributions reflect a human-dominated Earth system. The dataset we developed may be used to improve the modelling of land-use changes, biogeochemical cycles and vegetation–climate interactions to advance our understanding of global environmental change1,2,3,4,6." - Global land change from 1982 to 2016 | Nature

That seems to contradict some of your opinions you stated in another thread.

Those aren't my opinions, they are from Nature magazine.

Your post is primarily related to deforestation by human activities, not plant growth rates.

 

[Yerda]

At least as we head towards the chaos of hundreds of millions of migrants, conflict and violence, the collapse of agriculture, mass starvation, the end of civilisation and probably extinction in the next couple of hundred years we'll know that there's a few more trees. Every cloud, eh?

 

[Bathos Logos]

The change in climate is greatly exagerated to fit a political agenda.

CO2 has not been shown to have any significant impact on our temperatures.

It doesn't even matter if the mean temperature across the Earth sees zero change. What I am talking about are observed effects that climate change has had on various localities. Those species of plants that are having trouble coping with the changed temperature of their local area are being observed. Period.

What we should ultimately want in order to maintain our human way of life is that, while change is inevitable, the change happens as slowly as it possibly can and that the transitions that occur give everything out there (plants animals, etc.) time to make moves or be moved by various processes in a natural and organic way. But we are artificially moving the boundaries and the changes are happening quickly and willy-nilly (see information on polar ice caps melting and polar bears drowning trying to cross larger and larger expanses of water). Changes are happening, and if there are things we can do to slow them, such that stable ecologies have a chance to regroup and recoup, then we should do them - that is, if we care at all about our relationship with the world around us remaining copasetic.

 

[KW]

At least as we head towards the chaos of hundreds of millions of migrants, conflict and violence, the collapse of agriculture, mass starvation, the end of civilisation and probably extinction in the next couple of hundred years we'll know that there's a few more trees. Every cloud, eh?

More propaganda.

Reality: Rising CO2 levels will increase food supply.

 

[KW]

It doesn't even matter if the mean temperature across the Earth sees zero change. What I am talking about are observed effects that climate change has had on various localities. Those species of plants that are having trouble coping with the changed temperature of their local area are being observed. Period.

What we should ultimately want in order to maintain our human way of life is that, while change is inevitable, the change happens as slowly as it possibly can and that the transitions that occur give everything out there (plants animals, etc.) time to make moves or be moved by various processes in a natural and organic way. But we are artificially moving the boundaries and the changes are happening quickly and willy-nilly (see information on polar ice caps melting and polar bears drowning trying to cross larger and larger expanses of water). Changes are happening, and if there are things we can do to slow them, such that stable ecologies have a chance to regroup and recoup, then we should do them - that is, if we care at all about our relationship with the world around us remaining copasetic.

You can't stop climate from changing.

Our climate is dictated by solar activity. Human activity is a tiny factor.

We need readily available power and technology to adapt

 

[Bathos Logos]

You can't stop climate from changing.

Did you even see the part where I admitted that "change is inevitable"? Do you just like being argumentative for the sake of being so?

 

[KW]

Did you even see the part where I admitted that "change is inevitable"? Do you just like being argumentative for the sake of being so?

So we agree.

Do you dispute my point that we need readily available, cheap power to adapt to our changing climate?

The attack on fossil fuels is going to kill millions of people if the left gets their way.

 

[Yerda]

More propaganda.

Reality: Rising CO2 levels will increase food supply.

Hey, I'm not saying I don't appreciate this recent pivot towards admitting that CO2 is driving warming. It's really great that you're all taking vital steps towards recognising the problem. But I don't really feel it's worth my engagement until you reach the point where the global scientific community isn't viewed as a conspiracy and you're capable of looking at the evidence like a rational person.

Until then, old bean.

 

[KW]

Hey, I'm not saying I don't appreciate this recent pivot towards admitting that CO2 is driving warming. It's really great that you're all taking vital steps towards recognising the problem. But I don't really feel it's worth my engagement until you reach the point where the global scientific community isn't viewed as a conspiracy and you're capable of looking at the evidence like a rational person.

Until then, old bean.

Who admitted that?

There is zero empirical evidence that CO2 has any significant impact on our temperatures.

The left cares about advancing their agenda. Leftist scientists cannot be trusted. We've seen them caught in multiple lies regarding climate change data, covid data, and cancer rates with relation to abortion, just to name a few.

For the left, everything is political.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes.



CO2 levels have gone up about 80 ppm in the past 100 years or so.

We are currently around 400 ppm.

Well that's something, at least.

Do you agree that these rising CO2 levels would have effects besides those described in the OP?

Greenhouses try to get CO2 levels to the 1200-1500 ppm rate for best plant growth results.

And are you arguing that this is the ideal CO2 level for the planet as a whole, all things considered?

 

[KW]

Well that's something, at least.

Do you agree that these rising CO2 levels would have effects besides those described in the OP?


And are you arguing that this is the ideal CO2 level for the planet as a whole, all things considered?

There is no evidence that CO2 has a significant impact on temperatures, if that's what your getting at.

I don't know what the ideal CO2 level is. I do know that higher CO2 levels will enable faster plant growth rates, increasing forest area, increasing agricultural production, and increasing food sources for animal life.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is no evidence that CO2 has a significant impact on temperatures, if that's what your getting at.

No evidence except for the overwhelming evidence that you refuse to acknowledge, you mean.

 

[KW]

No evidence except for the overwhelming evidence that you refuse to acknowledge, you mean.

No correlation. Temperature goes up in down in long stretches but CO2 is rising steadily. Look at 1940 to 1970s, and look at 2000 on. CO2 keeps rising but temperature follows its own path.

 

[KW]

Did you even see the part where I admitted that "change is inevitable"? Do you just like being argumentative for the sake of being so?

• Global temperatures are recovering from the coldest period (Little Ice Age) of a warm period (Holocene) within one of the coldest periods (Quaternary) of Earth’s history
• It is not true that we are breaking temperature records. Moreover, we’re much closer to breaking all-time cold records then all-time highs
• It is true that CO2 concentration levels are the highest of the past 2.5 million years
• It is true that rising CO2 levels are due to human carbon emissions
• It is not true that these high CO2 levels are a threat to life on Earth. Life started and thrived at much higher global temperatures and CO2 levels
• It is not true that CO2 concentration fluctuations are the main driver for temperature variation. None of the four timescales we've observed show evidence of a clear positive correlation between CO2 and global temperature.

Temperature versus CO2 – the big picture | Holoceneclimate.com