That paper doesn't say what you try to make it say.
The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”
That's a fair comment. I"m glad you brought it up. However, that's one "
may happen" from an article that concluded from
actual NASA satellite
data the additional greening has occurred over the last 35 years. This one guy said that maybe it will be reversed if plants adapt. But there is NO data in their report and study that it has adapted. There's still more green as of the 2016 date of the report.
What's also interesting in the article is the following :
"“While the detection of greening is based on data, the attribution to various drivers is based on models,” ". So, while the extra greening is factual based on satellite data, the driver, CO2, is an assumption based on models. In effect the extra greeing may be caused by something else. Interesting that we don't similarly hear that CO2 is a driver of warming based on models. In warming case, it's assumed as fact. The scientists in the greening case are being more honest. It would be nice if we got that same honesty about warming and climate change. That'[size=78%]s all I've been asking for. [/size]