Arctic Greening - a negative feedback cycle?

https://weather.com/news/climate/news/new-nasa-graphic-details-extensive-arctic-greening

Vast stretches of Canada have a new face due to climate change, according to a study recently released by NASA.

Scientists at the agency’s Goddard Space Flight Center combined data from 87,000 Landsat satellite images taken over nearly three decades to produce a portrait of a much greener Arctic. Temperatures are warming faster in the Arctic than elsewhere, says a NASA release, and scientists have observed grassy tundras changing to shrublands, as well as shrubs growing bigger and denser – a greening trend the study calls “unmistakable.”

Will more greening cause more CO2 to be absorbed and therefore mitigate the effect of global CO2 production?

Originally posted by sh76
Will more greening cause more CO2 to be absorbed and therefore mitigate the effect of global CO2 production?

It will go both ways depending on the area.
1. Less snow cover means less sunlight is reflected - hence warming.
2. Where there is more plant activity, more CO2 may be absorbed, but the question is what happens to the plants when they die. Is the carbon put in the soil or back into the atmosphere. This will vary by location.
3. Much of the north is swampy and the warming may speed up the decay of plants releasing CO2 and other global warming gasses such as methane.

The fact that the arctic has warmed faster than the antarctic is interesting but it is hard to say that it is all due to feedback, there may be many other factors.

Soil carbon is a very big, often forgotten player in the whole carbon cycle. Clearing land and poor farming practices are responsible for a large proportion of global warming. Better farming practices could make a significant dent in atmospheric CO2 by putting it in the soil. The problem is that politics tends to focus only on fossil fuels and nothing else.

Originally posted by sh76
https://weather.com/news/climate/news/new-nasa-graphic-details-extensive-arctic-greening

[quote]Vast stretches of Canada have a new face due to climate change, according to a study recently released by NASA.

Scientists at the agency’s Goddard Space Flight Center combined data from 87,000 Landsat satellite images taken over nearly three decades to produce ...[text shortened]... eening cause more CO2 to be absorbed and therefore mitigate the effect of global CO2 production?

No, we are all going to die!!!

No, really.

Originally posted by sh76


Will more greening cause more CO2 to be absorbed and therefore mitigate the effect of global CO2 production?

The role plants and forests play in the carbon cycle is often misunderstood. It is true that through photosynthesis, a plant takes away CO2 from the atmosphere. However, when the plant dies, its matter usually decomposes, and when this happens all of the carbon that was taken from the atmosphere is released again. Of course, if this weren't the case, all of the carbon would have been taken out of the atmosphere long ago and we wouldn't be here.

A typical stretch of forest can be a so-called carbon sink but also a carbon source depending on whether the forest, as a whole, grows or shrinks, as well as depending on various other criteria (e.g. relating to the soil). The issue is much more complex than "plants take CO2 out of the atmosphere."

In this case, we have some stretches of very northern parts of the Earth with possibly increasing plant density, which should reduce CO2 in the atmosphere. However, the vegetation density this far north is so low that it's probably negligible on a global scale.

Originally posted by sh76
https://weather.com/news/climate/news/new-nasa-graphic-details-extensive-arctic-greening

[quote]Vast stretches of Canada have a new face due to climate change, according to a study recently released by NASA.

Scientists at the agency’s Goddard Space Flight Center combined data from 87,000 Landsat satellite images taken over nearly three decades to produce ...[text shortened]... eening cause more CO2 to be absorbed and therefore mitigate the effect of global CO2 production?

Nothing in that link implies that global warming (notice I do not use the term climate change because it is not specific enough) is anthropogenic. That makes your article irrelevant. The term climate change does not imply anthropogenic causes, although people have been conditioned to assume it does. This is a major flaw. If it does not say anthropogenic at all NOBODY should assume it is. The earth has been in a warming trend for over 300 years. Nobody in their right mind would claim it was not started by natural causes so do not assume anthropogenic causes are anything but negligible at this time unless you can prove it. STOP ASSUMING!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Nothing in that link implies that global warming (notice I do not use the term climate change because it is not specific enough) is anthropogenic. That makes your article irrelevant. The term climate change does not imply anthropogenic causes, although people have been conditioned to assume it does. This is a major flaw. If it does not say anthropogenic ...[text shortened]... opogenic causes are anything but negligible at this time unless you can prove it. STOP ASSUMING!

Here is a guy talking about weather patterns over the last 4500 years, he says we have been in a warming cycle since around 1800, about 200 years and we are maybe going into a colder cycle in a few years. We will see if he is right:

http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

Originally posted by sonhouse
Here is a guy talking about weather patterns over the last 4500 years, he says we have been in a warming cycle since around 1800, about 200 years and we are maybe going into a colder cycle in a few years. We will see if he is right:

http://www.longrangeweather.com/global_temperatures.htm

Fred Singer said since the little ice age which would be over 300 years I think.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Nothing in that link implies that global warming (notice I do not use the term climate change because it is not specific enough) is anthropogenic. That makes your article irrelevant. The term climate change does not imply anthropogenic causes, although people have been conditioned to assume it does. This is a major flaw. If it does not say anthropogenic ...[text shortened]... opogenic causes are anything but negligible at this time unless you can prove it. STOP ASSUMING!

Stop assuming you understand the climate better than climate scientists do.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Stop assuming you understand the climate better than climate scientists do.

here you are touching on the crux of the matter; his delusional arrogance thinking he knows better than the experts. Not even I think I understand the climate better than climate scientists and I am not an expert on climate and yet, compared to him, just like with any other science, I am an expert on it, but that isn't saying much!

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Stop assuming you understand the climate better than climate scientists do.

I am assuming Fred Singer knows more.....because he is a well respected climate scientist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by humy
here you are touching on the crux of the matter; his delusional arrogance thinking he knows better than the experts. Not even I think I understand the climate better than climate scientists and I am not an expert on climate and yet, compared to him, just like with any other science, I am an expert on it, but that isn't saying much!

Once again you are showing your psychological projection. You are the one with delusional arrogance. I was quoting a climate scientist you arrogant and delusional fool!

Look back at the youtube video with Fred Singer debating another climate scientist I posted for wildgrass. Notice that when Fred Singer stated the climate has been warming since the little ice age the other climate scientist didn't challenge that statement.

Are you done embarrassing yourself just because kazetnagorra (arrogant jerk in reverse) did so first?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I am assuming Fred Singer knows more.....because he is a well respected climate scientist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Umm, no, he isn't. And the vast majority of well-respected climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is real.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I am assuming Fred Singer knows more.....because he is a well respected climate scientist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

he isn't a respected climate scientists but a discredited scientist who is proven wrong. In fact, he isn't even technically a 'climate scientist' but rather what is called an 'atmospheric physicist' (look it up yourself) , which isn't exactly the same thing and doesn't necessarily or directly require an understanding of climate in particular. This means all the actual climate scientists are much better qualified than him on the subject of climate than he is.

In addition, in every profession you will get someone who goes against all the fundamental principles of his profession and sadly science is no exception.
How about for a change listening to a real climate scientist that hasn't been discredited? Why ignore all the other climate scientists that disagree with him and cherry pick one of the very few scientists, who isn't even a real climate scientist because he isn't qualified specifically in climate, that just happens to agree with your non-expert opinion on climate? We all know why.
I just listen to all the vast majority of real climate scientists that haven't been discredited as they would know a lot more about climate than me let alone you.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Umm, no, he isn't. And the vast majority of well-respected climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is real.

Yes, he is. Fred Singer NEVER said anthropogenic climate science was not real. You stated a lie.