Oh, here's Coburg Tiger's post from way back when he points out "more CO2 is greening the planet" fallacy.
@LeeToRainesToRoach rolls out the same tired tropes year after year.
@LeeToRainesToRoach rolls out the same tired tropes year after year.
I normally don't comment too much on the science here because I'm not a climate scientist, and can't do much more than just point out what all the climate scientists are saying. But since you've shifted over to plant biology, which is more my wheelhouse, I thought I'd just clarify something here.
Seeing you've now jumped the narrative across to 'increased CO2 and temperatures is actually a good thing' and you're using the greening misconception as an example, it's worth noting the inaccuracies here.
Despite CO2 being a vital input into photosynthesis (acting as the source of carbon to create monosaccharides used in cellular respiration), an increased CO2 concentration doesn't always lead to increased plant growth on large scales. You will certainly find that trend in isolation, and on small scales and, critically, when no other factors are limiting, but it's not an ongoing linear relationship.
There are a number of other conditions, chemical inputs, enzymes and coenzymes that determine the efficiency of, not only photosynthesis, but also plant growth. Limit any of those and you can pump in as much CO2 as you want, it's not going to matter. It's possible that a slightly higher global CO2 concentration may result in more efficient photosynthesis, and more plant growth, but that trend does not continue ad infinitum, nor does it take into account the secondary changes to environmental conditions associated with CO2 increase that will be detrimental to crop production.
Humorously, as photosynthesis, respiration, and most other biochemical processes in plants are enzyme mediated, temperature is a really important condition for their efficiency. Also, any year 12 Biology student could tell you that increasing the substrate (CO2) of an enzyme mediated reaction will only increase efficiency up to a point.
What's also funny is that a lot of the current observed greening is attributed to the warming of the planet, associated with increased CO2 concentration (an association you dispute), not necessarily the CO2 increase itself, because areas that have previously been too cold for productive plant growth are suddenly warm enough to support more plant life. This sounds like a good thing until you realise that a) that's not necessarily crops we can use and b) that is not a trend that will continue. We are not quite at optimum, but we're going to overshoot it pretty quick.
But realistically, you would know this already if you had actually read the article you linked, which says “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”
This is due to both significant limiting factors in the availability of things like phosphorus, nitrogen, or even water in the soil, the enzymes facilitating metabolic processes, and temperature itself.
If you want, you can pick up a CO2 probe, some plants, a couple of plastic tubs and test a lot of these ideas yourself. I know I have. Nothing beats first hand data.
Though second hand stuff works too:
Global greening may soak up less carbon dioxide than projected
Earth could warm slightly faster than we thought because a lack of phosphorus will prevent many plants exploiting all the extra CO2www.google.com.au
