Congratulations mhaze!

For a while there I thought you were too entranced in the denier camp that factual data would not be enough to shift your viewpoint but I see that's changed.

This greening due to increases in carbon dioxide levels and the extent of the greening over the past 35 years “has the ability to fundamentally change the cycling of water and carbon in the climate system,” said lead author Zaichun Zhu.

Perhaps you can weigh in here on OLO when other posters make denialist comments and try to set them straight about these "fundamental changes" due to increasing carbon dioxide.

The journal Nature Climate Change is reporting with data sourced from NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
Analysis of NASA data has allowed them to write numerous articles about climate change.

As NASA clearly states under their banner "Evidence": There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.

Welcome mhaze

Well spotted, mhaze.

It’s refreshing to see you finally acknowledge that rising CO2 levels do have measurable effects on the climate system - like the “significant greening” observed via satellite data. That very study (Zhu et al. 2016) notes, as you quoted, that 70% of the greening trend is attributable to rising CO2 levels.

But since we’re now accepting peer-reviewed science from Nature Climate Change and institutions like NASA and NOAA, I’m sure you’ll also be happy to accept their other conclusions, such as:

“There is unequivocal evidence that Earth is warming at an unprecedented rate. Human activity is the principal cause.” - NASA

And:

“The greening is not necessarily a good thing. It doesn’t negate climate change. It may sound like an overall positive, but it’s not.” - Ranga Myneni, study co-author

After all, the same dataset that shows the greening also shows where and why climate patterns are shifting - and that increased greening in some areas comes at the cost of ecosystem disruption, water depletion, and increased vulnerability to drought and fire.

It’s not the “gotcha” you seem to think it is, mhaze, it’s part of the same science you’ve spent years rejecting.

Still, glad to have you aboard.

The next step is simply following the evidence all the way through instead of cherry-picking the bits that feel nice.

Oh good. We've gone from greening not happening to its happening and its bad, to its happening therefore all the other things claimed about climate is happening.

Logic takes a holiday.

No mhaze, let’s not pretend this is some wild reversal.

What I said was:

“As for ‘plant fertilisation,’ that’s another red herring. Yes, CO2 can enhance photosynthesis under controlled conditions - but in the real world, benefits are limited by water, nutrient availability, and heat stress.”
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10656#371964

WTF then brought up the Zhu et al. study which confirms that greening is occurring, but also explains (as does NASA, NOAA, and the study’s authors themselves) that this doesn’t contradict climate change. It’s one of the many effects of rising CO2, and comes with trade-offs and risks.

That’s not “logic taking a holiday.” That’s what we call nuance. You should try it sometime.

Also, since you now accept Zhu et al. (Nature Climate Change, 2016) as credible, will you also be accepting their broader conclusions about the climate system?

Or are we still cherry-picking?

Because rejecting a Nobel laureate while embracing one line from a paper you clearly didn’t finish reading... well, that is what logic on holiday looks like.

Burning stubble from the previous harvest puts enough carbon in the ground for the next generation of cropping. Climate change is well and truly out of hand for something that could have been avoided by folowing the early science we are now 45 years of denial to late.
With a gigantic ice shelf drifting towards AU we could be in big strife this sheet of ice has the mass to create its own climate.
That alone can make it very dificult to keep up the supply of grain to make our daily bread.

"WTF then brought up the Zhu et al. study which confirms that greening is occurring"

No. I bought up the Zhu study to demonstrate your errors. So is greening of the planet a red herring or not? JD now sys its not but don't ever suggest he's reversed course!!

And not just greening but also fertilisation of edible crops which is helping fed a growing population.

The greening of the planet neither proves nor disproves warming. But what it does show is that CO2 emissions aren't always the bogey-man that the alarmists claim. Its always been said by realists that warming is potentially good for mankind, recognising that previous warm periods have coincided with periods of enhanced civilisation growth. The greening of the planet is merely an example of how warming and emissions aren't all doom and gloom.