I can understand being concerned about the permafrost issues, but to say that more vegetation negatively impacts carbon in the air? Seems backwards. All my life I've been fed the notion that we need more vegetation to convert CO2 into Oxygen, so we need to save the rain forest. I think more vegetation in the savannas would be a good thing. Yes, it's a sign of a warmer climate overall. But, they shade the ground, which retains heat better, and then the plants will emit the heat back out at night better than the ground.

What a strangely pessimistic article. I thought trees were a good thing to have.

The notion that expanded grow of trees and shrubs is "bad news for the environment" just reveals a certain mind-set: "all change is bad." Maybe it's "all change that can be traced to humans"? I don't agree; tree growth is good until proved otherwise. As for the conclusion that growth of trees and shrubs will make soil temperatures rise, there must be some really contorted logic there.

Interesting. Yes, carbon is good, trees, shrubs, and bushes are good. Converting CO2 into O2 is good. To the extent that environmental monitors like universities can help us see what is happening is good. But then, government steps in and screws up the whole environment. Let's get government to stop the chemtrail sprays and the weather controls and let nature take over once again. We control freak humans don't have to control everything. Leave nature the hell alone.

"A massive study has now revealed global warming is also prompting the spread of wooded plant coverage on the world's savannas and tundras, which spells bad news for the environment."

"bad news"!? Nonsense! It was climate change that cleared forests in the first place and even resulted in homo sapiens evolving to walk on two legs. Without climate change we wouldn't be around to complain about it!

This is supposed to be a bad thing? https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

HighlanderJuan...well said! Control freaks...OUT!

Whilst the article states that the study accounted for wildfire, it has been shown that expansion of woody cover has more to do with the interruption to regular, low intensity indigenous burning regimes, the resultant impacts of infrequent, high intensity megafires, the subsequent impact on soil Nitrogen and resultant forest decline, eg in Australia (Jurskis, 2015) and North America.

I am confused by people who don't understand that humans are a part of nature. We, humans, are 'control freaks' because it's what allows our species to survive.

New Atlas readers would do well to read the scholarly articles on grassland and forests from UC Davis. Here's one such article https://climatechange.ucdavis.edu/news/grasslands-more-reliable-carbon-sink-than-trees/ The research there states that grasslands are better carbon sinks because (summarizing) 'most of the sequestered carbon is stored underground whereas with trees the carbon is stored as wood bulk above ground' . And 'in fire events, the above ground carbon is more readily available to burn'. This 'has the effect of turning forests in to atmospheric carbon sources rather than sinks' Therefore 'grasslands are a better store because the sequestered carbon is less likely to burn under ground'.

In Siberia (via TV documentary) there is an active effort to clone and reintroduce woolly mammoths(!) to counter the spread of forests replacing the tundra. Mammoths will make short work of woody trees is the thinking. I guess they are worried there, just like California, that trees will encourage fires - even in chilly Siberia.