Isn't this directly measuring "climate change" rather than "effects of climate change"?

Is a warmer planet a bad planet? Increased vegetation is good right?

Sure, it's bad for coastal cities but those are man-made intrusions upon nature.

Rapid change is bad. It is bad for all who live through it. Whenever conditions change faster than organisms can adapt it is generally bad for all, even those that can. We can adapt, nobody really doubts we can move things around and continue. But most all the other species cannot. Does anyone really want a world with seas filled only with jellyfish, with forests home only to raccoons and pigeons living off our scraps? Humans will survive, but they won't be happy. Our adaptation may require our civilization taking a few steps backwards. I'd like to avoid that world.

If you consider Nature in general, nothing is good or bad. Colder is better for organisms that prefer cold, warmer for those that prefer warm. No life at all might be best for the geological (or should I say areological) wonders on Mars.

Ethically speaking, I think most climate change "alarmists" (what is the equivalent word with positive connotation?) are either worried for the species that will go extinct, or the poorer humans that will suffer the most from it.

I think people are more worried about irregularities in the weather system we've come to rely upon. Our agriculture depends on it.

The majority of the population lives near the coast, and this percentage is increasing.

Those people (billions of them) will either be displaced, resulting in a huge humanitarian crisis, or spend enormous amounts of money and effort to create dykes and levies. Remember Hurricane Katrina's effect on New Orleans? If the world went the latter direction, such disasters would be a risk for every coastal city. And climate change will likely involve more frequent and intense storms...

There is a temperature range in which organic life flourishes the most. Too cold, chemical reactions slow down to a crawl or stop. Too hot, organic compounds break up. Somewhere in between is the sweet spot. So a warmer planet relative to now doesn’t have to be bad. Maybe Earth would even get closer to the sweet spot, from a global perspective.

The problem is the transition speed to the new global average temperature. 4°C increase over a million years: Organisms have time to evolve and to adapt to the new conditions. The same change in 100 to 200 years: Many species will suffer, especially ones occupying ecological niches.

Regarding humans: Generally speaking, existing infrastructure is not equipped to handle the extremes that occur more often when Earth is warmer, e.g. rains can cause more floods because warmer air transports more water.

Good and bad.

Setting aside the changing weather patterns (also good and bad), a warmer planet will likely be good for some kinds of life and bad for others.

It will be good, particularly, for vegetation (discussed in this article, the greening of the Siberian tundra). It will also be good for animals which depend on the now more plentiful vegetation and opened up territory. It will be bad for animals that are dependent on the old climate. For humans (ignoring ethics and other concerns over species becoming extinct), it's probably a net positive as this means more arable land and territory as well. Though this may only be temporary.

At sea, it's again a mixed bag. Cold-blooded animals, in particular, are very sensitive to changes in temperature. Most fish and sea creatures are also sensitive to levels of CO2, O2, and acidity. Increasing temperatures and CO2, even if still technically sufficient levels of O2, may render some species infertile or unable to thrive. Increased CO2 and reduced O2 will make large swaths of the ocean uninhabitable by fish and other creatures. The CO2 will help CO2 consuming ocean life, but until a new balance is reached O2 consuming life will likely be greatly harmed. This has major ramifications for people dependent on the ocean for their sustenance or livelihood.

Going back to the tundra and its recent browning described in the article, it's possible (note: totally my hypothesis, not based on any research, this is just a thought experiment based on systems thinking and modeling) that the initial greening was due to abundant local water (frozen in the ground) paired with increasing temperatures. The plants spread, temperatures rose more, creating a positive feedback cycle. However, this also results in less snowfall (or retained snow) meaning the water may not be replenishing at a sufficient rate to sustain the increased local demand by plants. In turn, plants die (the recent browning event). But a browning event doesn't imply that the temperatures will or are dropping. So it's not clear if this will be cyclical, or if it is at what period. Perhaps a new equilibrium will be reached, or new, less demanding, plants will take over. This also assumes something of a closed system, the real world is far more complex than this simple model.

This could be very similar to any other boom/bust cycle in nature or economics. Major initial change causes immediate significant positive results, followed by negative, followed by ??? (neutral, more cycles, who knows yet).

Absolutely, yes it is great for planet wide life and overall diversification, typically at the expense of the incumbents.

It's bad when modern society depends on the integrity of the biosphere.

Define "bad".

The question as regards to human habitation is: will a warmer planet be a planet that can support us as well, will it be a planet that we enjoy living on to the same degree?

There's more to it than "warmer".

Canada and Siberia will be great for wheat. Plan ahead :)

The problem is when it warms as fast as it has.

famine is bad for most species

From the increased vegetation?

is that presupposing that it is feasible to relocate farming operations from drought-stricken and desertified areas to tundra areas? I didn't see that analysis.

and conveniently ignoring the caveat “We’re starting to find a browning of the tundra in the last few years,” he said. “The progression of growth may be reversing."

I totally regard global warming and that it is caused by man as true from evidence presented by scientific research.

But trying to give single images as proof is actually a disservice to the all thing. It just helps science deniers to actually nitpick their way out of this.

EDIT: Grammar in single images.

How is this "give a single image as proof"? It's not a single image, nor is it given as proof. The study involved lots of images tracking nearly a dozen different sites, and the changes observed are attributed to climate change (and even then only with the caveat of "possibly and likely"), not presented as proof of climate change.

Sorry, I was directly translating from my language to english and it could mean a different thing in english.

I mean that in the way as giving just an image (as in no other data like temperatures, CO2 levels, etc), makes it easier for science deniers to nitpick out of it.

You're right that the image is just one source of data. But... that's true of any one source of data. This data doesn't prove anything, it just contributes a bit more evidence (to an already enormous pile...).

It's not "an image". I gather that they've analyzed many images, and are extracting information about vegetation from them. The result is data.

It's really hard to see how it matters at this point. Just as the debate is really getting started we've ensured another 4+ years of not only stasis, but reversal. This, when we already have permafrost melting and releasing methane, and a system with 20+ year delays on inputs. The deniers have "won" in a broadly suicidal sense, barring some kind of technological or literal miracle.

There's always the unlikely but nonetheless possible political miracle, where people deem the system of governance to be failing and set about changing it. Admittedly the predictable conflicts that would result would themselves come with a significant environmental bill, but you can't make an omelette without breaking eggs.

Makes me sad to think about it.

Take heart, the world is larger than America and much of the good we've already done will continue to ripple forward.

Adopting the attitude that we've already lost gives a sense of closure to a topic that still requires effort and attention.

For sure, "never say die" is great advice, and all.

But arguably, it really is too late, to avoid major disruptions for human civilization. So hey, now we can all agree that anthropogenic warming is happening. And dispute about how bad it will be. What we'll find, I suspect, is that exponentials are full of surprises.

I find it impossible to muster even a false sense of hope at this stage, and frankly if enthusiasm solved problems they'd all be solved. Throw some realistic hope my way that doesn't include, "First human nature needs to change" or something like that though, and I'll be there. I'm bad at faith, but I'm willing to pin hopes on analytically sound long shots, if they're all I have.

TL;DR: A couple dudes at UVA want grant money after looking at a some pictures from 1966.

“We’re starting to find a browning of the tundra in the last few years,” [Epstein] said. “The progression of growth may be reversing. We’re not sure yet why, but it’s clear that vegetation dynamics are more complex across tundra than previously thought. We still have a lot of work to do to understand Arctic changes and how this affects and is affected by changes to the global climate.”

Also, there's this strange statement:

As the shrubbery increases its distribution, it creates its own warming effect by absorbing heat, rather than reflecting heat as snow does, leading to additional warming and perpetuating the effect.

What am I supposed to take away from this? Start a campaign for tundra deforestation? That can't be right. It must be that more research is needed.

ETA:

Well, from the replies, it looks like I communicated my point poorly. I wasn't arguing the merits of the case for (or against) AGW, rather I was saying these researchers are really stretching it, it my opinion. They don't have much more (at least as reported here) than "look, these pictures show very different vegetation patterns", and from there we (they) need more research (dollars). I think this is just an academic form of a submarine article: VERY preliminary speculation reported as news by a university with a vested interest in securing funding.

> What am I supposed to take away from this? Start a campaign for tundra deforestation?

They're just calling out the positive feedback loop where "things that aren't white like snow absorb more heat than white snow would."

The obvious solution is to cover the entire world in powdered soap or talcum powder, since we're pretty much out of snow and glaciers.

Would something reflective on the Earth's surface even help cool the planet when the reflected energy just gets trapped anyways by CO2 in the atmosphere? I can understand localized albedo effects, but not their overall effect on climate.

All that heat wouldn't be trapped by CO2. You'd also experience reduced energy load in the developed world, as buildings with black roofs are objectively harder to keep cool than those with white roofs. Which would have a positive impact on CO2 levels (positive from our perspective, meaning reduced).

Perhaps I am reading into your tone in a way you don't intend, but why reduce these climate scientists to "a couple dudes" looking at "some pictures"?

> What am I supposed to take away from this?

- New historical satellite imagery is available

- The general trend in Siberian tundra has been greening

- Not monotonically

> Start a campaign for tundra deforestation? That can't be right.

They are not talking about deforestation, but growth on previously barren ground: "We now know that a lot of greening has been going on there, too, with tall shrubs and woody vegetation. The vegetation has been getting both taller and expanding in space and range."

TL;DR: an ideolog expresses their willfully ignorant opinion about climate change with weasel words and irrelevant "questioning".

Deforestation wouldn't help, you'd need something reflecting, like snow. Like long winters and short summers.