“Climate Change” is greening the Arctic – and this is bad?

From NASA Goddard:
Warming Temperatures are Driving Arctic Greening

As Arctic summers warm, Earth’s northern landscapes are changing. Using satellite images to track global tundra ecosystems over decades, a new study found the region has become greener, as warmer air and soil temperatures lead to increased plant growth.

“The Arctic tundra is one of the coldest biomes on Earth, and it’s also one of the most rapidly warming,” said Logan Berner, a global change ecologist with Northern Arizona University in Flagstaff, who led the recent research. “This Arctic greening we see is really a bellwether of global climatic change – it’s a biome-scale response to rising air temperatures.”

The study, published this week in Nature Communications, is the first to measure vegetation changes spanning the entire Arctic tundra, from Alaska and Canada to Siberia, using satellite data from Landsat, a joint mission of NASA and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). Other studies have used the satellite data to look at smaller regions, since Landsat data can be used to determine how much actively growing vegetation is on the ground. Greening can represent plants growing more, becoming denser, and/or shrubs encroaching on typical tundra grasses and moss.

Data from NASA/USGS Landsat satellites show that during 1985-2016, vegetation in the arctic tundra of Canada, Alaska and western Eurasia showed a 38% increase in greenness – representing plants growing more, becoming denser, and/or shrubs encroaching on typical tundra grasses and moss. Credit: NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center

When the tundra vegetation changes, it impacts not only the wildlife that depend on certain plants, but also the people who live in the region and depend on local ecosystems for food. While active plants will absorb more carbon from the atmosphere, the warming temperatures could also be thawing permafrost, thereby releasing greenhouse gasses. The research is part of NASA’s Arctic Boreal Vulnerability Experiment (ABoVE), which aims to better understand how ecosystems are responding in these warming environments and the broader social implications.

Berner and his colleagues used the Landsat data and additional calculations to estimate the peak greenness for a given year for each of 50,000 randomly selected sites across the tundra. Between 1985 and 2016, about 38% of the tundra sites across Alaska, Canada, and western Eurasia showed greening. Only 3% showed the opposite browning effect, which would mean fewer actively growing plants. To include eastern Eurasian sites, they compared data starting in 2000, when Landsat satellites began regularly collecting images of that region. With this global view, 22% of sites greened between 2000 and 2016, while 4% browned.

“Whether it’s since 1985 or 2000, we see this greening of the Arctic evident in the Landsat record,” Berner said. “And we see this biome-scale greening at the same time and over the same period as we see really rapid increases in summer air temperatures.”

The researchers compared these greening patterns with other factors, and found that it’s also associated with higher soil temperatures and higher soil moisture. They confirmed these findings with plant growth measurements from field sites around the Arctic.

“Landsat is key for these kinds of measurements because it gathers data on a much finer scale than what was previously used”, said Scott Goetz, a professor at Northern Arizona University who also worked on the study and leads the ABoVE Science Team. This allows the researchers to investigate what is driving the changes to the tundra.  “There’s a lot of microscale variability in the Arctic, so it’s important to work at finer resolution while also having a long data record,” Goetz said. “That’s why Landsat is so valuable.”

By Kate Ramsayer

NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Maryland

85 thoughts on ““Climate Change” is greening the Arctic – and this is bad?

  1. Well, finally, some good news in a world of constant bad news. This should be a cause for celebration. Just think of all the new possibility for life, whereas just 50 years ago, it was just cold barren frozen tundra. And before that, it was buried under a mile or two of ice.

    • Are you saying this has happened because of these trace gasses? So they can have some affects, when they’re good affects.

      • Mostly natural variability, and perhaps other manmade influences going on totally unrelated to CO2, but the tiny bit of warming from CO2 is very welcome. If it were all CO2, then why wouldn’t Antartica have seen the same level of warming as the NH? If CO2 were to retard heat flows out to space, you would think we would see it very visibly in Antartica, and we don’t. Antartica has less water vapor, (it’s a desert) so CO2 should have a higher effect there and it doesn’t add any additional warming. CO2 plays a very tiny role in any atmospheric warming by slowing down outbound radiation and certainly isn’t the magical control knob for the climate.

        • Earthling2

          Here is some evidence to support what you said.

          Many warmists like to claim that the Medieval Warm Period (MWP), was ONLY regional. As if that means that it is not important.

          But what these warmists don’t realise is that present day global warming is ONLY regional, as well.

          Can I prove that? Of course I can. I divided the earth up into 8 equal sized areas, by latitude. They were:
          90N to 48N
          48N to 30N
          30N to 14N
          14N to Equator
          Equator to 14S
          14S to 30S
          30S to 48S
          48S to 90S

          See this article for the evidence:
          https://agree-to-disagree.com/new-regional-warming

      • Atmospheric plant food has increased 16.5% during study period:

        1985 CO2 ~345 ppm
        2016 CO2 ~402 ppm

      • Loydo, the greening of the Arctic happened before, such as during the Mid-Holocene Optimum when spruce trees covered what is, even today after all the supposed anthropogenic warming, tundra, you know, where it is so cold the soil is permanently frozen and trees are unable to grow. So what were the forcings that caused the Mid-Holocene warmth? Safe bet it wasn’t from humans burning fossil fuels.

        • An article in American Antiquity (82(2), 2017, pp. 223–243) presents results from at least 12 ice patches in the Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) that point to a warmer past. Here’s an excerpt:

          “Today, ice patches tend to exist at or above treeline; however, throughout the GYA, numerous ice patches contain in situ rooted stumps and tree trunks. These large-timber trees are distinct from the stunted and deformed krumholtz that typify treeline today, indicating that treeline was significantly higher at times during the past . . .”

      • When you have to lie about what your opponents have said, then you might as well just come out and admit that even you know you can’t win an honest argument.

        Only the sky dragons claim that CO2 has no influence on climate. The rest of follow the science to recognize that it’s possible for CO2 to warm the climate by a few tenths of a degree. We also recognize that there is nothing dangerous by a such a warming, it is entirely beneficial.

        Beyond that CO2 has been proven over and over again, to be good for plants.

      • There is NO EVIDENCE of any adverse effects from trace levels of atmospheric CO2,, Loy

        You have made that patently obvious by your total inability to show that it has cause any of the warming since the LIA.

        Increased atmospheric CO2 is totally beneficial to all life on earth.

        And even if it did cause some unmeasured warming, that would be beneficial as well.

        Why do you HATE plant and other life so much, that you want to see it starve and freeze??

      • …… effects Loydo effects.

        Everyone on here knows you’re an idiot, but please try harder anyway.

        • Actually llodo isn’t an idiot. It generally takes more intelligence to argue for things that are false than to explain why something is true.

          However it takes a lot more intelligence to make such arguments in a way that they are not as easily disposed of as lloydo’s are.

      • Even if there is zero warming associated with the change of CO2 there is very real benefits for plants to this CO2 even without temp change, we’ll documented science accepted by all

        Eventually you will get it
        Just keep trying

  2. uhhh “…associated with higher soil temperatures and higher soil moisture.” Did they consider higher CO2 levels??

  3. These researchers still believe the disproved superstition that thawing permafrost is a net source of GHG emissions. It will take some time for that superstition (negative learning, the learning of a wrong concept) to disappear. It will take some time before that “net source” superstition is replaced with the studies that show the thawing permafrost, while yes it does emit methane, is a net sink for CO2. The summer-fall seasonal drawdown of CO2 as recorded in the Barrow CO2 record is screaming that hard fact. The rest of the year the permafrost is refreezes and is neutral.

      • The basic science originally done was junk science done at the level of high school geophysics/biology experiment.
        1) Take a representative cube of tundra, cut it out of the ground.
        2) Thaw it in an oven in a lab.
        3) Measure how much CO2 and methane it gives off as it melts, dries out and bakes.
        4) Claim this release is what will happen when the Arctic thaws.

        Other variations on this have been to use assays to determine how much organic matter there is (carbon in other words) in a volume of permafrost, and then claim this is what will be released when melted and decays.

        The obvious question (obvious to the the thinking person) is figuring out how the heck did all that organic matter get there in the first place to be permanently frozen? Has it been there 4.5 billion years? No of course not. 1 Billion years. No of course not.

        Well we know the (partial) answer:

        “All sites contained syngenetic permafrost in which the active layer and the uppermost permafrost have experienced numerous freeze-thaw cycles since formation during the Holocene22. Permafrost organic matter radiocarbon ages ranged from 7850 ± 30 to 830 ± 20 y B.P. (Supplementary Data), with the western sites containing the oldest SOM and the northern Hudson Bay peatlands containing the youngest SOM.”
        source: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-18331-w

        Across Northern Canada’s permafrost regions, all the organic matter samples in that study tested well under 8,000 yr bp. That means during the HTO (10Kyr to 6 Kyr ago) most of that Arctic ground was thawed and biologically productive. It hasn’t been there for millions of years like petroleum or coal.

        It also means that as the permafrost thaws, unlike the pseudoscience bake and measure CO2 release experiments, actually biology will take over and stuff will grow in the dirt and absorb vast amounts of CO2 to make organic matter where it gets built into the soil that then becomes permafrost when things get cold again.

        Simply measuring some sterilized release of CO2 potential from Permafrost and declaring a permafrost GHG bomb is garbage science done by many to push a narrative that gets alarmist coverage and more grant money. Very similar to supposed disaster on the Great Barrier Reef that isn’t happening. Like Polar Bear population collapse that isn’t happening….. etc.

        Alarmism sells. Ho-hum no big deal science gets defunded. It’s a self-reinforcing scam.

        • Let’ not forget that much of the Northern Shield only has a very thin layer of soil over solid bedrock for over much of Alaska and northern Canada, which extends all the way up from the lower 48 USA. Or the solid rock mountains in Alaska, Yukon, NWT and Nunavut and the Arctic Archipelago. Or much of it is muskeg with no easy drainage such as around Churchill/Hudson Bay, northern Ontario and Quebec and would have minimal methane release for its release if all that permafrost melted because the soils are so thin.

          But the vegetation that would grow back, including trees and forests that we see growing basically in solid rock (such as the Rocky Mountains) are going to be net carbon sinks if it warms up to that point where the shallow permafrost melts and actually starts growing things. I would say it is a moot point, or probably a net carbon sink over time. All of the ground in deeper soils under the continental ice sheets in NA, Europe or the SH, would also have had a lot permafrost which already melted without causing a carbon ‘bomb’. This idea that the melting permafrost is a big problem waiting to happen is CAGW propaganda.

          • Loydo,

            around 90% of the Permafrost has vanished since the end of the Glaciation phase, yet here we are to today, no Methane explosion or run away heating, no mass doe offs, Humans grew the entire interglacial phase, Polar Bears are still here…..

            CO2 and CH4 are trace gases with trace warn forcing effect.

          • It hasn’t “thawed” yet hence it hasn’t been studied

            But productive soil absorbs CO2

            Even you cannot deny that

            Effing trolls with useless trolling comments

            The real problem is you are a symptom or cause of the disease that infects humanity and the internet

            You are a disease

            Harsh but true

        • Joel, Thanks, every day I learn something, and today a learned a tremendous amount.
          “…during the HTO (10Kyr to 6 Kyr ago) most of that Arctic ground was thawed and biologically productive…”

      • Loydo
        What studies?

        Here are some. According to Vogel et al 2009 it’s not so simple. Thawing permafrost, depending on the degree of thaw, can be either a sink or a source of CO2. Initially, it’s more of a sink.

        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008jg000901

        However Wilson et al 2017 find thawing permafrost to be a my sink of carbon, even in the long term, making it a negative, not positive feedback of warming climate:

        In greenhouse gas terms, the transition from frozen permafrost to thawed wetland is accompanied by increasing CO2 uptake that is partially offset by increasing CH4 emissions. In the short‐term (decadal time scale) the net effect of this transition is likely enhanced warming via increased radiative C emissions, while in the long‐term (centuries) net C deposition provides a negative feedback to climate warming.

        https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016JG003600

        • Thank you for the links, but neither study supports Joel’s speculation. For the forseable future permafrost is a source carbon not a sink, in other words a positve feedback.
          “For the growing season, plant primary productivity increased enough with the initial permafrost thaw to offset increased respiration, but this trend was not sustained when permafrost thaw and thermokarst development became extensive.”

          The second link says source in the “short” term…
          “In the short term (≤100 year time scale) the net climatic effect of this transition is likely to be enhanced warming via increased radiative C emissions, while in the long term (>500 years) the net C deposition at many of the sites appears to result in a negative feedback to climate warming.

    • Joel, with a doubling of plant mass in the tundra, the Barrow swings in CO2 will be intensified. This total silence on CO2 is a prima facie case of scientific fraud.

      It would be wonderful if someone in the discipline were to have the NASA paper retracted. The sahel in Africa and the Greening of arid areas around the world didn’t require warming at all to green. CO2 is the major cause because it permits plants to grow where limiting water formerly prevented growth. And what about bumper crops? Agricultural improvements were a factor, but no one disputes the big CO2 factor.

      • The Sahel greening was also likely due to a shift in the summer ITCZ northward during the HTO to bring more regular rainfalls. Starting 6,000 years ago the Sahel/Shara grasslands began to disappear and human nomad grazing cultures migrated to the fertile Nile strips, and built the ancient Egyptian civilization starting 4,500 yrs ago. The desertification of the Sahara was likely complete to today’s levels by around 4,000 yrs bp.

  4. Okay, this really does explain everything. Natural changes made by Mother Nature are something these people simply cannot control. They are so frantic about it that they are almost delusional. They have ZERO control over what the planet does, they can’t deal with it, and even though change is a natural occurrence and takes place regularly, it just terrifies them.

    You have to feel somewhat sorry for people like that. When the next Really Long Duration Cold Event occurs, they won’t know what to do about it, either.

    I do not understand how anyone can be so utterly terrified of natural changes. Perhaps someone will be kind enough to explain it to me.

    Meanwhile, I”m going to make a nice pot of chicken soup with white beans and noodles and have that for supper tonight. I’m simply grateful for my good health and the availability of things that other people take for granted.

    • I do not understand how anyone can be so utterly terrified of natural changes. Perhaps someone will be kind enough to explain it to me.

      “Man has to subdue the earth and dominate it, because as the ‘image of God’ he is a person, that is to say, a subjective being capable of acting in a planned and rational way, capable of deciding about himself, and with a tendency to self-realization.”

      That or s. th. like that must be the reason, BS, I now, but it’s based on religion….

      • It depends on the philosophy. The secular philosophies, yes and no. The Judeo-Christian lines prioritizes people over Nature, but also advises a separation of logical domains, and normalizes a need for reconciliation.

        • Christianity says that man is the steward of nature. A steward is someone who has been hired by the owner to manage his property for him. The steward has a responsibility to care for and preserve what has been placed in his charge.

          This does not mean that the steward has maintain the land in a pristine condition. The steward is also expected to manage the land in a way that maximizes the long term return for his master.

      • Yeah, but, Krishna, they have no real religious connections and that argument, as we both know, does not hold water. In fact, a sieve is better at holding water. Nothing about them is rational, with the exception of their intense greed.

        But thanks for the feedback!

        Add chopped celery and chopped onion to the chicken soup, squeeze in a few drops of fresh lemon juice in lieu of salt, sprinkle some parsley on the soup in the bowl and enjoy it.

    • Well, these are the same people who want all of us to live for another year in lockdown.

      They treat “herd immunity” as a dirty word. And while they were locking down all of us who were not at risk they were transferring people with active cases of COVID to elder care facilities thus increasing the number of elderly who died. These people just aren’t very good at reality and are completely lacking common sense.

      As an example, Michigan’s governor just announced that all K-5 children must wear a face mask in school. One wonders who raised her children because anyone who has ever met a kindergarten aged child would know that having them wear a mask all day is impossible, as is social distancing, and frequent hand washing.

      It is all trendy hysteria, empty moral preening, and politics.

    • Excellent comment. Climate never stops changing, often quite dramatically. I have no idea why some people wish that moments in time should be permanent, and why they always assume that changes will be for the worse. Strange.

      • Adam,
        Perhaps they are recalling the eight years of the previous administration where pretty much ALL the hope and change turned out bad or worse!
        It’s really great living in an era when things can actually improve and many things are changing for the better.
        Now if we can just get them to admit the pandemic is over, and all we’re seeing now is an epidemic of supposedly positive cases! Hospitalizations and fatalities have dropped down close to zero! If the DemoKKKrat rioters would stop destroying their own cities we could all sit back and enjoy a slightly warming and greening planet, and watch President Trump win the electoral college AND the popular vote!

        • Pandemics are never over, we enjoy several pandemics every year. The difference is that cvd-19 was declared a pandemic while the others were not.

          If its any consolation, the rioting ..i mean peaceful protesting, is helping Trump win.

          Keep up the peaceful protesting, lefties!

        • I’m a medical professional, and a conservative. I don’t think all folks on the right understand that the disease can be very serious, indeed. There are politics being played by both sides.

          The mechanisms of this disease are slowly being elucidated. Treatment has improved dramatically as a consequence. So, even in the absence of a vaccine, serious illness and death will be reduced over time.

    • Actually I found using frozen edamame beans perfect for soup
      Good protein and green but don’t go mushy in cooking
      Hate mushy beans in my soup

      Instant pot for making the bone broth starter has been indispensable tool in my kitchen

  5. So, the takeaway is that the prophecy of catastrophic anthropogenic global cooling… warming… change is a first-order forcing of green, which is a setback for Green collecting clean, renewable green[backs].

  6. I am proud of the many thousand tons of precious, life-giving, beneficial, trace gas CO2 that I have contributed to the atmosphere and hope to contribute many thousand tons more. People and animals are living better lives because Earth has been brought back from the brink of CO2 starvation.

      • Once again, Loydo sees only what it wants to see, not what was actually said.

        The only “powerful” affect that Shoki admitted to is the well known affect CO2 has on plant growth, as well as the fact that during the last glacial phase, CO2 levels dropped to a level dangerously close to plant starvation levels.

      • I willingly admit that my activities in releasing CO2 into the atmosphere is totally beneficial to all life on earth

        Come on Loy, do you have any evidence at all that there are any harmful effects from trace levels of atmospheric CO2?

        Or it just a mindless anti-science little fantasy of yours !

        • Let me guess, you’re of the “its an insignificant trace gas… unless its a powerful agent turning the world forests greener” school? lol

          • Yep Loy, even as a trace gas, it is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL for all life on Earth

            Even moronic cretins like you Loy.

            You are TOTALLY DEPENDENT on that atmospheric CO2…… Get over it

            And as you keep showing us, there is absolutely ZERO evidence that the enhanced CO2 is doing ANYTHING except enhancing the plant life that you HATE so much.

          • When you basically double the availability of the main gas contributing to ALL plant growth on the planet…..

            … of course everything grows better.

            Atmospheric CO2 has been on the very lower edge of plant survivability for such a long time.

          • Loydo,

            Warm forcing, yes it is insignificant, the reason WHY CO2 greening effect is so vivid is because there is so little of it, the plants want more of it than is available, thus as more is available the greening effect increases faster.

            When you drop the CO2 is a superman molecule nonsense, you will se its true role much better, dump the warmist/alarmist propaganda, is getting back on the road to reality.

          • Essentially, Loy-doh, your “logic” (I use the term extremely loosely) is that because one set of effects are real (the well documented plant growth effects) than every effect you can think of must also be real (such as the baseless “doom and gloom” nonsense of CAGW).

            Sorry to break it to you but that’s nonsense. So, yes it’s an insignificant trace gas when it comes to controlling the temperature/weather, despite whatever baseless assertions you may wish to believe – there is ZERO evidence for your baseless claims in that regard (models are not evidence, and it’s only in models that those effects exist). But what is well documents is that it does, have a powerful and very real and actually measurable effect in regards to plant growth, plant use of water, and plant photosynthesis (because it’s quite literally plant food). No models need apply. The one literally has nothing to do with the other.

      • “the powerful affect it can have.”

        Yep, the amazing enhancement of plant growth.

        VERY powerful and highly beneficial to all life on Earth, especially with a bit of NATURAL warming happening as well.

        NO evidence of any other effect is there, loopy-loy .

        Certainly no evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2….. as you well know.

      • Love my V8 Commodore. 🙂

        The expense.. well , I feel I am doing my bit to enhance plant life.. so I’ll put up with the extra cost. 🙂

        Actually, on the open road, mileage is pretty good.. around town… not so good.

  7. For the Left , bad news is always good news. The idea of global warming and increased CO2 levels were always good news as they have positive effects on plants, wild life, people’s health and the environment In order to disguise this fact, the Left has to continually pump out propaganda designed to distort the truth.

  8. I quickly read through the entire paper. Nowhere did I see any consideration of possible CO2 fertilization as a factor, even to reject it.

  9. Color me skeptical…

    Quote from the video:”38% of sites….”

    Which 38% How far North are these “sites” – are they close to places that are already green. What counts as a ‘site’ – patently not 38% of The Arctic

    Have temperatures *actually* risen, or that conclusion jumping?
    Hang on, didn’t NASA previously say the The Globe was greening because of “CO2 fertilisation”
    Is this Sputnik so clever it can tell the difference. Does NASA even know the difference?

    I assert that they are wrong both ways….
    quote:”plants growing more, becoming denser, and/or shrubs encroach…endquote

    Plants do this if you give them fertiliser.
    And lots if not all the things regarded nowadays as ‘pollution’ are epic sources of plant nutrition.

    Certainly and one of the earliest scientific frauds, Acid Rain = sulphur oxides dissolved in (rain) water.
    Also nitrogen oxides dissolved in rain – Nitrogen & sulphur are neck-&-neck contenders for Liebig Limiting plant nutrients almost globally and come from ‘burning stuff’ – fossil or other ‘stuff’

    Not only that but soot & smoke = Biochar effectively which often works as a plant growth enhancer.

    Last and nowhere near least – simply good old dust.
    Dust as blown up off roads, quarries, building sites and farmland.
    Especially farmland as dust off farms will be bring large amounts of potash and phosphorus (epic plant nutrients) plus all the myriad micronutrients that plants need.

    Now then – if these plants macro and micro nutrients are being carried off to The Arctic,they are patently not available to farmland plants.
    And we eat farmland plants- we are increasingly TOLD to eat plants.
    But if the micro nutrients are now lying around in The Arctic(VAST amounts will have fallen into The Ocean before they got there, those micro nutrients will not be getting into us.
    And if they don’t any more. we will become increasingly sick, weakened, poorly and be prone to dying from a myriad of diseases – not just Covid but all the things we are now ‘used to’ = obesity, diabetes, depression, the 200+ autoimmune diseases, junk science/politics and cancer

    What we actually are witnessing here is farmland soil erosion.
    Maybe its been going on since forever (or since The Plough was invented)

    Is erosion good – or bad?
    Do you think its increasing or decreasing?
    Is our science and medicine able to make us immune to its effects
    How long can it go on for?

  10. Even if there is some warming in these areas there is no direct evidence it was a result of man’s activities. Any impact we have is miniscule compared to nature. Besides, this will probably be short lived if the upcoming solar cycle results in cooling.

  11. I have been searching and asking for the scientific evidence that supports the claim that a 1.5 part/10,000 part increase in total CO2 over the last 4 decades is the predominant driver of “climate change”. Anyone know where to find it?

  12. This is the first climate change paper that doesnt even mention CO2. That is a giant ‘tell’ that the fix is in on cancelling CO2 as a positive factor in greening. Big bad warming is going to drown us out by melting ice but nothing good will come from CO2!

    How’s this for a real scenario: the Great Greening of the planet (not just the Arctic) is going to use up so much water that sea level will actual be stabilized. Moreover it will become an exponential sink for CO2.

    Ya know, it’s all very well to be helpless sceptics in cyberspace deconstructing theory that no one even cares about on the other side. Is there no one out there that can write a paper for publication that shows carbon dioxide is the main player in the greening. The sahel in Africa didn’t have to warm up to turn green. It turned green because of CO2. Moreover, since in an atmosphere with higher CO2 plants need less water, it was automatic that there would be Greening around the world’s arid areas where the limiting factor before had been water

    This paper could be retracted if a compellingly logical case was made for the central importance of CO2 in the Greening. At least all the new growth is largely made of carbon! Sceptics who can get published in the science should be working to have over half the dross published retracted and the Heartland and others should find the work.

    • “While active plants will absorb more carbon from the atmosphere, the warming temperatures could also be thawing permafrost, thereby releasing greenhouse gasses.”

      Carbon = CO2+methane

      In that statement, the authors admit to both sinks (the “active plant”), and sources (the “thawing permafrost”). What they won’t say is that it is obvious that due to inevitable layering of top cover, the whole process is tilted towards carbon sinks sequestering CO2 by a large margin. The thawed permafrost is like a huge peatmoss fertile ground begging for more life to sequester carbon into the soil, and locked there when it gets cold again.

  13. ”When the tundra vegetation changes, it impacts not only the wildlife that depend on certain plants, but also the people who live in the region and depend on local ecosystems for food. ”

    Well welcome to life on Earth.

    Why do some (most? – all?) field researchers seem to believe that if something in a natural system changes it’s bad?

    Why do they seem to think that everything is supposed to remain as it is in this moment in time?

    Why do they not understand the simple mechanisms of life on this planet and it’s constant movement?

    Why don’t they understand that rapid changes in the environment can be met by equally rapid changes in it’s inhabitants?

    Could it possibly be that their better judgment is clouded by other more personal matters?

    • If I were in charge of science curriculum I would make 2 years of geology compulsory, at least these people might get some perspective on time scales.

    • Why do some (most? – all?) field researchers seem to believe that if something in a natural system changes it’s bad?

      Why do they seem to think that everything is supposed to remain as it is in this moment in time? – Mike, up above, the questioner

      OK, Mike, here goes: they’re afraid of things that change. They can’t control natural changes and it just TERRIFIES THEM!!!!
      It’s all about controlling something they can’t control. Scares the living duckweed out of them. It’s their worst nightmare, you see. They need therapy of some kind – maybe spring into fall, hoeing the weeds out of the rows on a vegetable farm, picking strawberries by hand, or better yet: all those fake soy-based foods removed from their possession, and making them eat real roast beef with mashed and gravy and ham sandwiches with pickles and mustard. That alone might spook them.

      Basically, they can’t control anything, including their own digestive systems, and it scares the living quackers out of them, so they make a “thing” out of it and try to scare other people to go along with them.

  14. I’ve spent some time over the past 10 years in the Hudson Bay region of Northern Quebec. The Native people have noted considerable growth in the girth and height of pine and spruce. You can see new growth that’s more robust than the skinnier spruce snags of a large 20 year plus old forest fire area. This is a short space of time to be noticing a difference.

    I believe the CO2 sequestration in the Canadian taiga is already enormous. The only palpable climate change caused in part by human activity is the CO2 increase and yet it seems to be largely ignored by consensus science. The reason the above study concentrated on the Arctic tundra is that yes you do require some warming there so they could disregard CO2.

    I take your point re my other comment which was later than this one that water from shifting climate would be a factor in the sahel (which I wasn’t aware of). In any case, it seems most of the world’s arid areas have experienced greening which they would to some degree just from the drought resistance imparted by elevated CO2. (I also spent 3 years with the Geological Survey of Nigeria in the sahel near Lake Chad and in the Upper Niger region in the mid 1960s and yes it was pretty dry although they could get some heavy downpours in the rainy season).

  15. Not only is the lad surface GREENING, but the seas are also springing BACK to life after being TOO COLD to and frozen over for much of the last 500 or so years (coldest period of the Holocene by far)

    The drop in sea ice slightly toward the pre-LIA levels has opened up the food supply for the nearly extinct Bowhead Whale, and they are returning to the waters around Svalbard.

    https://partner.sciencenorway.no/arctic-ocean-forskningno-fram-centre/the-ice-retreats–whale-food-returns/1401824

    The Blue Mussel is also making a return, having been absent for a few thousand years, apart from a brief stint during the MWP.

    https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0959683617715701?journalCode=hola

    Many other species of whale are also returning now that the sea ice extent has dropped from the extreme highs of the LIA. Whales cannot swim on ice. !

    https://blog.poseidonexpeditions.com/whales-of-svalbard/

    Great thing is, that because of fossil fuels and plastics, they will no longer be hunted for whale blubber for lamps and for whale bone.

    Hopefully the Arctic doesn’t re-freeze too much in the next AMO cycle, and these glorious creatures get a chance to survive and multiply.

  16. I am interested in how (or not) they eliminate increased CO2 levels affecting plants without any change in temperature. Clearly they assume greener = warmer, but this is simply untrue. Plants grown indoors respond strongly to increased CO2 without ANY temperature change being required. This so called study is simply green tosh!

    • How many studies have we seen that say higher temps are bad for plants when there is no science done to actually determine quantifiable changes based on temperature alone?

      I can think of three confounding variables that should have been addressed, moisture, temperature, and CO2 concentration. There are probably others. A proper scientific investigation should have included a way to best isolate these variables and determine their effects.

  17. “showed a 38% increase in greenness”, the vid said 38% of sites were greening.

    A very different thing. Come on, dont put any spin o this.

  18. I guess that this will mean a major explosion of migrant bird species and indigenous animals. What could be bad about that?

  19. Will southern Greenland at last become green again as it was 1000 years ago? Will the Vikings return to the green land? Keep an eye on the horizon for those Viking sails.

  20. Khmer Vert types like to worm their way out of CO2 greening by asserting that the substantial greening observed by satellite and other means is just a consequence of warming. (And this somehow, bizarrely, makes it bad.) This needless to say is untrue. The literature confirms this. Taub (2010) reviewed experiments of CO2 enrichment of mixed plant ecosystems and showed significant gains especially for C3 plants and legumes, while acknowledging compositional changes in mixed plant communities:

    https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/effects-of-rising-atmospheric-concentrations-of-carbon-13254108/

    This year – 2020 – Vanessa Haverd and colleagues clearly demonstrated that increased CO2 in air, not warming, is the “dominant driver” of the plant growth enhancement that is happening worldwide, to the tune of 30% since 1900, and 47% per doubling of CO2. Now that’s a carbon sensitivity that can be believed:

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/gcb.14950

    McElwain et al looked at the plant 🌱 palaeo record and showed that plant speciation rates were higher when CO2 was higher – not too surprising of course if one’s science isn’t politically compromised:

    https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jennifer_Mcelwain/publication/262057001_Climate_Change_Long-term_fl_uctuations_in_atmospheric_CO_2_concentration_infl_uence_plant_speciation_rates/links/0deec536894866d6be000000.pdf

Comments are closed.