Joanne Nova seems to be a regular reader of Science Daily, and can Copy and Paste their entire article to create her own one.
Whilst the knowledge that observations are closing matching models, I suspect Nova wants you to ignore that message and instead jump to the conclusion that “More CO2 is good”.
Sadly, that isn’t the conclusion of the authors, they wanted to isolate the effect that CO2 is having.
To tease out the actual CO2 fertilization effect from other environmental factors in these regions, the researchers first averaged the greenness of each location across 3-year periods to account for changes in soil wetness and then grouped that greenness data from the different locations according to their amounts of precipitation. The team then identified the maximum amount of foliage each group could attain for a given precipitation, and tracked variations in maximum foliage over the course of 20 years. This allowed the scientists to remove the influence of precipitation and other climatic variations and recognize the long-term greening trend.
But in real life, all kinds of climatic changes are occurring, temperature, rainfall species migration. This study set out specifically to find the effect of CO2 alone, by filtering/modelling out other effects.
All Growth is Good?!?
For someone that is supposed to know Microbiology, Joanne Nova surprisingly neglected to comment on this aspect. The authors state …
In addition to greening dry regions, the CO2 fertilization effect could switch the types of vegetation that dominate in those regions. “Trees are re-invading grass lands, and this could quite possibly be related to the CO2 effect,” Donohue said. “Long lived woody plants are deep rooted and are likely to benefit more than grasses from an increase in CO2.”
I guess that’s too bad for the animals that find shelter or feed upon the grasses. The growth of one species and the decline of another is NOT automatically a good thing.
Nova once again has no problem countering her own arguments, so long as it for a “merchant of doubt” cause. The research on CO2’s effects on arid regions was conducted by government scientists, yep, the same government agency she suggests is corrupt and untrustworthy. Oh, except when they says something that vaguely agrees with her biased view.
Joanne Nova of course wont Copy and Paste all of Science Daily’s articles, just the ones she can use to suggest CO2 isn’t all nasty. Here’s a few headlines of recent weeks that Joanne neglects …
We found out that the positive effect of extreme rainy events is localized and can be offset in certain conditions, as in Australia, by negative effects of extreme dry years
Any impact on the corals is going to have major knock on effects on the organisms that live on coral reefs, such as the fish, and if climatic events become more frequent, as is suggested, it is likely corals will never be able to fully recover.
The researchers found that, of 121 native fish species, 82 percent are likely to be driven to extinction or very low numbers as climate change speeds the decline of already depleted populations.
Leading world climate change experts have thrown cold water on the idea that planting trees can offset carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels. … “While protecting and restoring natural forests is part of the solution, the reality is that for all practical purposes fossil fuel CO2 emissions are irreversible,” Professor Mackey said.
For some reason, Nova didn’t Copy/paste these articles.
Tags: Plant Food