A new study was published in the journal Nature Climate Change by a team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries that Carbon dioxide emissions from industrial society have driven a huge growth in trees and other plants
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346
Some quotes from the BBC article:
"sensors show significant greening of something between 25% and 50% of the Earth's vegetated land"
"if the extra green leaves prompted by rising CO2 levels were laid in a carpet, it would cover twice the continental USA."
"This suggests that projected atmospheric CO2 levels in IPCC scenarios are significantly too high, which implies that global temperature rises projected by IPCC models are also too high, even if the climate is as sensitive to CO2 increases as the models imply."
Prof Judith Curry, the former chair of Earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, added: "It is inappropriate to dismiss the arguments of the so-called contrarians, since their disagreement with the consensus reflects conflicts of values and a preference for the empirical (i.e. what has been observed) versus the hypothetical (i.e. what is projected from climate models). "These disagreements are at the heart of the public debate on climate change, and these issues should be debated, not dismissed."
Put me FIRMLY in the empirical camp and not the hypothetical camp! Hypotheticals are like opinions...
This article basically says that all of our food and vegetation sources are going through the roof because of positive aspects of the greenhouse model, the models are all wrong and underestimating this factor, and further increases in the CO2 levels would probably continue to be beneficial to plant and food growth - like an airborne fertilizer.
Sounds good to me.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-36130346
Some quotes from the BBC article:
"sensors show significant greening of something between 25% and 50% of the Earth's vegetated land"
"if the extra green leaves prompted by rising CO2 levels were laid in a carpet, it would cover twice the continental USA."
"This suggests that projected atmospheric CO2 levels in IPCC scenarios are significantly too high, which implies that global temperature rises projected by IPCC models are also too high, even if the climate is as sensitive to CO2 increases as the models imply."
Prof Judith Curry, the former chair of Earth and atmospheric sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology, added: "It is inappropriate to dismiss the arguments of the so-called contrarians, since their disagreement with the consensus reflects conflicts of values and a preference for the empirical (i.e. what has been observed) versus the hypothetical (i.e. what is projected from climate models). "These disagreements are at the heart of the public debate on climate change, and these issues should be debated, not dismissed."
Put me FIRMLY in the empirical camp and not the hypothetical camp! Hypotheticals are like opinions...
This article basically says that all of our food and vegetation sources are going through the roof because of positive aspects of the greenhouse model, the models are all wrong and underestimating this factor, and further increases in the CO2 levels would probably continue to be beneficial to plant and food growth - like an airborne fertilizer.
Sounds good to me.
