
Deserts 'greening' from rising CO2 - novalis78
https://www.csiro.au/en/News/News-releases/2013/Deserts-greening-from-rising-CO2
======
chkaloon
Interesting. I live a couple hours northeast of Anchorage, Alaska. It is a
remote, mountainous area that is also in a rain shadow to some extent, thus
fairly dry. I was having dinner recently with a local who has lived here his
whole life of 60+ years. He said it is remarkable the increase in shrubs,
trees, and general greening of the area since when he was a teenager. Places
that were open tundra are now impassable. I'm sure some is increase in
temperature, but CO2 could also be a factor.

~~~
mullingitover
Alaska has seen the biggest changes in temperatures in the US. It's not a good
thing.

> Over the past 60 years, the average temperature across Alaska has increased
> by approximately 3°F. This increase is more than twice the warming seen in
> the rest of the United States.

[https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climate-
impacts/climat...](https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climate-
impacts/climate-impacts-alaska_.html)

------
QuickToBan
Interesting, but the deforestation rate as a result of human activities,
wildfires, and desertification is probably higher:

'Football pitch' of Amazon forest lost every minute

[https://www.bbc.com/news/science-
environment-48827490](https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48827490)

~~~
briantakita
According to NASA, "A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown
significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of
atmospheric carbon dioxide"

"Studies have shown that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide increase
photosynthesis, spurring plant growth."

"Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the
greening effect, said co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of
Earth and Environment at Boston University. “The second most important driver
is nitrogen, at 9 percent. So we see what an outsized role CO2 plays in this
process.”"

[https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-
green...](https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-
now/)

~~~
sethammons
I don't get the down votes. You seem to have provided an interesting source
that counters the parent's hunch. Must be that folks don't like the silver
lining to a maybe-uninhabitable-by-humans environment.

~~~
losteric
They are distorting the truth, either parroting that narrative out of genuine
ignorance or an attempt to start some goal-post-moving trolling. At this
point, informed people that would have typically countered are tired of seeing
the same behavior on every other social media site. Dunning-Kruger,
astroturfing, trolling - doesn't matter, just downvote the garbage.

I'm not going to engage with it either. That kind of statement is just begging
for a response because the goal moves in any number of directions - look,
plants will sequester all our carbon! Solar minimum will counter human climate
change! More food for people! It's all a conspiracy!

No.

There's a reason those climate change reports can be 100s of pages long.
Scientists have done very thorough public research, accounting for all those
variables - the conclusion is, we're fucked.

All the science is complicated but completely public. Trust the summary
provided by the consensus of journalists covering the scientific consensus of
raw research - that's called an educated opinion. Alternatively, roll up your
own sleeves and probe the research yourself.

 _Never_ let some online rando's idle musings erode your opinions. If it
sounds too good to be true, it is.

~~~
xwdv
We’re _not_ fucked. It’s just easier to believe that we are.

The fact is... we don’t really know what will happen. Our world will be
different, some animals may be gone, some will be better off than ever, but
humans will still be here. The inhabitants of Earth have survived far worse
conditions and events in the past.

~~~
Arbalest
> but humans will still be here

Yes, but how many, and who. It's still an existential threat to invididuals,
when you don't know what conditions that will make up that survivability. Now
that it is apparent that there is the distinct possibility of people dying
within our lifetimes, even if not many, it's a concern. It's basically
"Evolution has decided that the time has come to select the strongest, and I
don't know if I or my loved ones are strong enough."

~~~
candiodari
But nobody wants to have the discussion under the conditions you specify.
Because this means whatever solution is put forward

1) is limited in how much it is allowed to reduce economic activity (what
point is there in saving humanity if you have to do it through famine ?)

2) is limited in how much global warming is allowed

Nobody has any such solutions, except for geoengineering, at which point
humanity simply takes direct control of global climate. That means someone,
probably in Washington or perhaps Brussels or Beijing, simply decides whether
crops in the Sahara will work out this year or not. Are they responsible for
the failed yields ? How about fuckups (which we can pretty much assume will
happen) ? How about sacrificing one area to save another when they're at war ?

Also this tech is probably pretty easily weaponized.

------
martincollignon
Want to make a difference on climate change as a technologist? Feel free to
join these communities actively looking for support and with ongoing projects
(that are alive):

\- [https://climateaction.tech/](https://climateaction.tech/)

\- [https://techimpactmakers.com/](https://techimpactmakers.com/)

\- [https://www.tmrow.com/](https://www.tmrow.com/)

~~~
titojankowski
and check out this index of companies and projects mining carbon from the air:

[http://airminers.org](http://airminers.org)

------
zack_amoveo
The biggest threat to the environment today is the propaganda.

People with a financial interest in our environmentalist policies use
propaganda to manipulate us into passing laws to their benefit.

Futarchy can save the environment from these maniacs:
[https://github.com/zack-
bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/use-...](https://github.com/zack-
bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/use-cases-and-ideas/climate_maintenance.md)

------
woodruffw
Of note: CSIRO appears to have lost some of its independence under Australia's
current government[1], probably because "we're harming the planet" doesn't
help sell coal[2]. The UN (and virtually every national scientific body)
consider desertification (alongside water misuse and land degradation, both of
which precede desertification) to be a serious concern[3].

Edit: To be clear, that doesn't mean these results are fabricated or
incorrect. I'm calling into question the decision to emphasize them over the
overwhelmingly negative effects of climate change on Australia[4].

[1]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSIRO#CSIRO_and_the_Liberal_Go...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSIRO#CSIRO_and_the_Liberal_Government)

[2]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_Australia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_Australia)

[3]:
[https://www.un.org/en/events/desertification_decade/whynow.s...](https://www.un.org/en/events/desertification_decade/whynow.shtml)

[4]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming_on_A...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming_on_Australia)

~~~
crispinb
I agree with your questioning, but find it a bit odd to do so in response to
this particular paper if you're really not suggesting some sort of political
bias. CSIRO is not 'emphasizing' this paper - it's just one of many news
releases.

As for the findings themselves - they're interesting if not unexpected. They
don't in themselves have any significant practical implications (positive or
negative) as Australian deserts are in zones that the BAU scenario will make
too hot for human habitation by the end of this century.

~~~
woodruffw
> I agree with your questioning, but find it a bit odd to do so in response to
> this particular paper if you're really not suggesting some sort of political
> bias.

Sorry if this wasn't clear: I _am_ (or was, see the following graf) suggesting
a political bias (or at the very least a willingness to turn a blind eye).

I also just realized that this paper and summary were published in 2013, not
this year. I don't know enough about Australian politics to know how
independent CSIRO was then, but it's very possible that I'm wrong in impugning
motives.

In any case, I think the hazard is still present: positive emphasis on the
silver lining of what is otherwise an unmitigated disaster gives ammunition to
denialists and (undeserved) psychological reprieve to the rest of us.

~~~
cmroanirgo
Having met a few at CSIRO, I'd tend to accept that they're real science-y
scientists, meaning that they've never really had cause to be labelled as
having strong political bias... But that's just my subjective word.

That said, all science is subject to bias according to its funding,
particularly if not readily reproducible. The CSIRO is an org that garners
public and private funding.

From the narrative :

> _This study was published in the US Geophysical Research Letters journal and
> was funded by CSIRO 's Sustainable Agriculture Flagship, Water for a Healthy
> Country Flagship, the Australian Research Council and Land & Water
> Australia._

So, self funded with a few other gov interests thrown in. Is this enough to
invalidate findings? Only if not reproducible... But has anyone tried?

~~~
crispinb
Possible problems sometimes cited re CSIRO aren't so much to do with bias, as
political pressure from above - similarly to the way the Aus Treasury has been
corrupted by the present federal gov. A recent example from the media IIRC was
them being given a single afternoon to sign off on the Adani groundwater
management plan. It's a matter of what they are allowed to do (and report on)
& under what conditions.

------
ab_c
Uhh... ok so does this research take into account both China and Africa has
been spending $$$ billions on reversing desertification? They've been using
new technology to make desert sand retain water, thus allowing certain types
of trees & vegetation to grow in areas that previously couldn't sustain plant
life.

Then there's the fact that China has spent over 30 years investigating how to
use desalinated sea water to grow rice. Now they're able to grow rice fields
in places that couldn't before.

Africa's Great Green Wall
[http://youtu.be/4xls7K_xFBQ](http://youtu.be/4xls7K_xFBQ)

China's Great Green Wall
[http://youtu.be/pSn6S-H7m-8](http://youtu.be/pSn6S-H7m-8)

China's Sea Rice Research
[http://youtu.be/yN_YnM9OFh8](http://youtu.be/yN_YnM9OFh8)

I'm not trying to dismiss the research but to simply say that rising C02
levels have made desert land fertile seems grossly misleading.

~~~
droithomme
The article makes clear that areas that aren't under the massive
undesertification programs you bring up have shown the same results.

Kind of like how towns that got fluoride in the water and towns that didn't
_both_ experienced an increase in dental health during a period in which there
were massive advances in dentistry and fluoride toothpaste became a thing.

------
Graham67
More CO2 makes plants grow taller, but not with more grain. Being taller,
grasses (like wheat) often snap and fall over, particularly in storms. Crop
fail.

We are at the shallow end of the changes that are coming. An exponential
increase in CO2, means an exponential increase in temperature, slowed down by
ocean cooling. The current +1'C is almost beneficial, the predicted +3'C..+8'C
in 2100 will be devastating. The rain-forests will go brown and fail before
+4'c. But currently it all seems so lovely.

~~~
barney54
How did plants survive in the past when co2 levels were much higher than
today?

~~~
benaadams
We've just passed 400 ppm, everything was pretty different when it was much
higher [https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-
carbon...](https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-carbon-
threshold-400ppm-and-why-it-matters)

> To find a time when the planet’s air was consistently above 400 ppm you have
> to look much farther back to the warm part of the Miocene, some 16 million
> years ago, or the Early Oligocene, about 25 million years ago, when Earth
> was a very different place and its climate totally dissimilar from what we
> might expect today.

Towards the end Miocene was when grasses began to emerge significantly

> The higher organic content and water retention of the deeper and richer
> grassland soils, with long-term burial of carbon in sediments, produced a
> carbon and water vapor sink. This, combined with higher surface albedo and
> lower evapotranspiration of grassland, contributed to a cooler, drier
> climate. C4 grasses, which are able to assimilate carbon dioxide and water
> more efficiently than C3 grasses, expanded to become ecologically
> significant near the end of the Miocene between 6 and 7 million years ago.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miocene#Flora](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miocene#Flora)

------
mullingitover
This is like cheering about your house warming up in the winter...because it's
in the process of burning down.

------
aldoushuxley001
It’s always amazing to me how much people hate seeing any facts that don’t
overwhelmingly blame CO2 as some sort of pollutant. It’s beyond rational at
this point and is almost certainly simply an emotional response now.

~~~
ripdog
It's been well reported that climate change will mean different things for
different people, and some of the effects will be beneficial in some way for
some.

That doesn't wipe away the fact that even with these factors considered, CO2
is the primary cause of catastrophic, runaway climate change which will make
Earth significantly less livable over the next few decades.

