This is like saying "my car burns gasoline, so more gasoline in the engine is better".

There's only so much CO2 organisms can absorb, and they all buffer it - not consume it. Meanwhile, we're still adding CO2 at an exponential rate.

I don't think your car engine can grow to consume gas at a faster rate or spawn other engines that consume gas. I don't think the OP or this article is saying it will completely eliminate global warming, but a new equilibrium where co2 consumption by plants pushes back and holds the line at some point seems plausible (hopefully before we reach something like this before we turn into a venus).

I'm looking forward to the return of megaflora. Too bad I won't be here to see it.

Plant life grows exponentially and can catch up to our additions of carbon.

If it was that easy, we would never have switched from charcoal to coal.

Every exponential has a limit, and in the case of plants the old limit might the pre-industrial or possibly pre-agricultural equilibrium. How much can grow now depends on not just the atmospheric CO2, but also plants and animals we have selectively bread, the canals we’ve built, the the phosphate we’ve mined, the mountain tops we’ve removed to make mining easier, the glaciers we’ve melted, the storms whose frequency we’ve changed, the aquifers we’ve emptied, the lowlands which have become salty from the sea level rises, and almost certainly a lot more besides. (Edit: and if the zooplankton which human activities ultimately encourage produce waste which floats or sinks, the latter being a way to remove carbon from the system, the former puts it back in the air).

Some of that pushes the equilibrium up, some down.

Not if it runs out of nitrogen in the soil - and we're already supplementing that for our crops. Then there are also limits on water, sunlight and space.

Sure, life will adapt and overcome - over time. But evolution won't save us here, as we're altering the climate orders of magnitude faster than natural selection runs its OODA loop.

> it'll likely stabilize itself given enough time.

Is there more to this argument? Because it could well stabilize at "palm trees at the poles". Or it might never stabilize because of ever-increasing CO2 production (compared to sequestration).

"There could be an equilibrium" really isn't an argument imo.

If that were the only factor, sure. But there's also drought, heat stress, invasive insects migrating to higher latitudes, and topsoil loss. Forests in the western US, for example, are not benefiting from climate change.

Prior to humans industrializing the Sahara desert was green, 11,000 - 5,000 years ago.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/green-saha...

The world regularly adjusts, California has had more fires historically (and less).

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/09/1112839109

I agree things are changing, but it's not clear who or what is causing it. That's really my only thoughts on the subject. Seems CO2 has a smaller impact than what ever has caused the Sahara to turn into a desert.

Here's a to-scale visual timeline of the earth's temperature change over the last 20,000 years. See if you can find anything anomalous ;)

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Classic XKCD: an incredibly tall image that ends in the Hockey Stick. The winky face is what really settles it, though. QED. ;)

As far as I know this is calculated into climate change models.

So I'm curious based on what study you assume plants will flourish unlimited to compensate all additional CO2.

The IPCC report analysis increase risks with more CO2. Shouldn't the risk go down if plants would just compensate it?

And apparently the Amazonas as a whole org is now no longer consuming CO2 and is a net negative.

You seem to have a lot of confidence that you are the only person to think of this.

There are actually indications that even though some plants may grow faster, their evapotranspiration is decreased[1] and the plants grow fewer valuable nutrients[2].

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13695... [2] https://cfaes.osu.edu/news/articles/higher-carbon-dioxide-le...

> That's not quirky, it's why global warming is less of a risk than people care to admit.

The consensus of climate scientists is wrong, everyone! The consensus of economists is wrong, everyone! We all just overlooked this one simple fact.

A few more plants will grow... and then we'll still see the ecological collapse that is the true fear. And those plants are going to de-acidify the ocean anytime soon.

Your true fear is that they are wrong (just like the contemporary authorities have been wrong about major things throughout history, like heliocentrism and hand-washing). Because if they are, then we don't know as much as we think we do, and we aren't as powerful as we'd like to be, and we really are helplessly spinning through the universe on this tiny blue ball. It's too much to handle, so we close our eyes and cover our ears and hope that the people in the lab coats are right this time. But in the end, they're still human beings, just like the rest of us, just like the robed figures of old.

For some things we have a process now that helps us discover truth about tangible things. But since we don't have a control planet, we abstract that problem to man-made oracles (i.e. black-box models), which is not much better than ancients who sacrificed to the rain gods--it might even be worse, because we think the models are accurate, whereas no one today would believe in rain gods.

> Your true fear is that they are wrong

Ah yes, the crippling terror that everything will be fine. How foolish we would appear, to have spent trillions on mitigation efforts, with nothing to show for it except sustainable jobs, technological research and development, cleaner air, quieter streets, reduced dependence on unsavoury oil-producing nations, less incentive to wage war in the middle east. What a catastrophe that would be...

> Your true fear is that they are wrong

Your certainty belies your arrogance. Nothing would make me happier than the doomsday predictions being wrong.