[lukeschaefer]

Leading to a new equilibrium. That equilibrium will not necessarily be one favorable to human life. In the same way that eating an extra 5 donuts a day might lead to a new equilibrium of your weight, but that doesn't necessarily imply one is healthy.

[michael9423]

The global greening does show that from the perspective of a healthy, fully greened planet, the CO2 concentrations are actually too low still. Plants favor a CO2 concentration of at least 1000 ppm. That's why in agriculture, extra CO2 is used to stimulate plant growth.

I think this should be noted, since the slogan by alarmists is usually "save the planet".

[dralley]

>a healthy, fully greened planet

You're making a lot of very strong assumptions, notably

* That a healthy planet is a "fully green" one

* That a "fully green" planet is healthy to the organisms that currently live on that planet, particularly humans

The Jurassic Era, for example, was much more "green". Humans wouldn't have fared very well in the Jurassic Era.

[ben_w]

Humans are not vegetables, despite what some may think.

1000 ppm is at the level where us apes have measurable reduction in reaction time and other cognitive impairments.

[margalabargala]

You are correct that there will be plenty of life on the much warmer, greener planet we are heading towards.

Well, probably. There won't be many humans around to verify.

When people say "Save the planet" they generally mean "save the planet as it currently exists", since taking 100 years to make environmental changes that usually take 3000 will have negative effects that outweigh the increase in plant life from a human perspective.