Your headline makes it seem like a fact when in fact this is a unproven theory ... none of this was based on observations but on running models ... all of which ignore the oceans ...

It sounds like the increase has stopped but that is not the case. The rate of INCREASE has not INCREASED. It is still increasing at an insane rate but that rate is not increasing. Not really a good thing.

It couldn't hurt to do major reforestation projects, along with the other efforts to curb CO2.

This was predicted years ago but got lost in the noise... Plants respond to changes in the environment like any other organisms would. Insufficient food, water or shelter, or contamination due to overpopulation negatively impact any living organism from amoeba right up to us. An increase in food supply, for instance, will support a population growth pattern until one of the above requirements is used up. Plants need CO2, water and sunlight, as long as sufficient supplies of the latter are available, an increase in CO2 will cause plant life to flourish, thereby absorbing it.

The ultimate reliance on unverified computer models is a symptom of a dying pseudoscience. Real science is based on observation and measurement, both of which contradict the models. CO2 reached thermal saturation a decade ago. The effect of particulates, water vapor, cloud formation and the solar wind are ignored or incomplete in those models. All we seem to get is dire warnings that need more tax money.

See "Land Use and Climate Change", Physics Today, Nov. This shows the very large role of arid lands agriculture.

And all of this while apparently we are destroying natural habitats and forest the world over!!! So. There are LESS natural forests and plants. And they absorb MORE CO2!! But models are always wrong because they never capture all the inputs.

The science of AGW will go down in history as the political agenda that set the trust in scientific method back for decades. All these stores about ice sheets, ocean rise, etc delegitimize the science behind it as they commented to be caused by AGW.
There simply is no actual scientific proof that human released CO2 is the driving force behind modern climate. CO2 is a GH gas, it simply is not a very strong one and what humans have added is a percent of a percent of the air. Water vapor it the over all driver in that it is the most abundant and most dynamic. In fact a lot of climate models require a strong positive feedback with water vapor and CO2 and that feedback simply does not occur. The Sun has more to do with water vapor and its indirect with decreasing solar wind allowing more cosmic rays in that cause cloud formation.
My point being is that I can see this study with CO2 absorption being correct. But this study is not about AGW, why mention it, let the study stand on its own.

This effect has been known since the 1850's, but the world wide greening has not been noted until this century. Fewer stoma in the leaves, less water lost during photosynthesis, more growth, more yield, faster tree growth up to maturity, over all, more CO2 is a win win proposition with no negative effects noted within geological time.

Human induced CO2 is a farce. IPCC neglect Henry's Law and the biosphere. They have tried to fudge the data, starting with Bolin's "buffer", going on to multiply the well-known CO2 atmospheric lifetime by a factor of 10 or so, then to partition off our emissions from the natural CO2 when needed to get the right isotope figures, and to mix it all up when otherwise needed. http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Scientific/CO2-flux.htm