Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nasa Happily Reports the Earth Is Greener

goodnewsnetwork.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 189 posts

Re: Nasa Happily Reports the Earth Is Greener

#81

Post by pjc50 »

taneq wrote: post #49
FriedPickles wrote: post #18

From what I understand, the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will have a massive greening effect on the Earth (plants love CO2). But it seems this fact is usually omitted so as not to complicate the intended message. I always found it ironic that the "eco" mode button in many cars is a leaf icon.

> it seems this fact is usually omitted so as not to complicate the intended message Any time a group starts altering the facts like this, it just shows that they value their 'message' above the truth, and they lose all credibility. Edit: Downvote = disagree, or people genuinely believe it's OK to lie to further your cause, I'm not sure what's more disturbing.

The fact is often omitted because people use it to erase the problem. Is it worth submerging a large area of Bangladesh for a very slight global increase in plant growth?

In particular there's a faction of people who use "CO2 is plant food" to argue that it cannot be harmful, that reduction efforts would be wrong, etc.

Re: Nasa Happily Reports the Earth Is Greener

#84

Post by manmal »

ajuc wrote: post #68
FriedPickles wrote: post #18

From what I understand, the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will have a massive greening effect on the Earth (plants love CO2). But it seems this fact is usually omitted so as not to complicate the intended message. I always found it ironic that the "eco" mode button in many cars is a leaf icon.

> plants love CO2 In artifical conditions in laboratory there is a significant effect, up to 20% when doubling pre-industrial CO2 concentration. But, in practice for wild plants nitrogen quickly becomes the bottleneck, so the real gains are much smaller. And even for farming plants (which have fertilizer providing additional nitrogen) the real gains diminish, and are more in 5-10% range. For some crops CO2 has very l…

In the movie Interstellar, mildew was the straw that broke the camel‘s back for agriculture. From what I‘ve read, this can be a possibility if CO2 rises too high.

Re: Nasa Happily Reports the Earth Is Greener

#85

Post by fooker »

imtringued wrote: post #55
FriedPickles wrote: post #18

From what I understand, the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will have a massive greening effect on the Earth (plants love CO2). But it seems this fact is usually omitted so as not to complicate the intended message. I always found it ironic that the "eco" mode button in many cars is a leaf icon.

The fundamental problem is that humans are not plants. In 100 million years all the CO2 might become coal or oil again but humans won't be there to witness it.

No, not again. Coal came from plants in an era where microbes could not yet decompose plants.

Re: Nasa Happily Reports the Earth Is Greener

#86

Post by swebs »

semi-extrinsic wrote: post #38
adnzzzzZ wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

80% of my country's (Brazil) energy generation is done through renewable means. This isn't even close to true for most first world countries, and certainly not the US. Maybe before worrying about countries you know nothing about (as well as carelessly calling our elected officials fascists) you should start looking at your own, wherever you're from. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electrici...

I've noticed a trend where Americans outright call Bolsonaro a fascist, even serious economists appearing on podcasts. I suspect they are compensating for not being "allowed" to call their own president what they really want to.

>Americans

>I suspect they are compensating for not being "allowed" to call their own president what they really want to.

If there's one country where you're free to say whatever you want about the president, it's the USA.

Re: Nasa Happily Reports the Earth Is Greener

#87

Post by Cthulhu_ »

andy_ppp wrote: post #47

Would it be possible to turn a desert region into a rain forest? For example if Nevada decided to plant trees in the dessert is it possible with enough irrigation or would all the trees just die?

Are there any useful nutrients in the desert floor? Or would it also require fertilization?

Re: Nasa Happily Reports the Earth Is Greener

#88

Post by scrollaway »

swebs wrote: post #86
semi-extrinsic wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've noticed a trend where Americans outright call Bolsonaro a fascist, even serious economists appearing on podcasts. I suspect they are compensating for not being "allowed" to call their own president what they really want to.

>Americans >I suspect they are compensating for not being "allowed" to call their own president what they really want to. If there's one country where you're free to say whatever you want about the president, it's the USA.

> whatever you want

(asterisk) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5bEwcJ8eCI

But the person you're replying to was clearly using quotes to put emphasis on the fact that they are in fact allowed to do that, but there are social/political consequences for it. (And they're right. Look no farther than HN: During the election and much after it, there was a clear movement to "treat both sides equally".)

Re: Nasa Happily Reports the Earth Is Greener

#89

Post by mattkrause »

ioulian wrote: post #41
Pxtl wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I don't know about temperature, but we do know that plants grow faster in the presence of excessive CO2. But that's a double-edged sword, because their nutritional value per unit mass goes down , in terms of trace nutrients - with abundant CO2, they can use more air to build more empty carbs, but that means the critical nutrients they pull from the soil are present in lower concentrations.

You can easily see this effect on Highways (in Europe where trees are planted just at the edge of the road). The trees there are the first ones that turn green (and get greener much faster) while the trees in the farmland are still without leaves.

I wonder if that’s due to CO2 levels, warmer temperatures (asphault captures a lot of heat) or human selection for “pretty” trees along the highway.

Re: Nasa Happily Reports the Earth Is Greener

#90

Post by darkpuma »

blotter_paper wrote: post #31
devmunchies wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IF we are taking about the end of the human race, which is in fact a possibility if we continue with the current trends, then anything that could curb human appetites and populations is free game IMO. People don’t realize what’s at stake. Interpret that how you like.

Okay, so we're talking about genocide not as an acceptable loss in exchange for sound environmental policy but rather as an environmental policy in its own right through its active reduction in the number of living humans. Glad we cleared that up. What do you think the chances of us having a lively planet in 200 years are without your proposed mass killings? What is your ideal target number for how many humans would…

It seems like the worst kind of optimism to think that your cozy way of life can be preserved while also saving the planet. Electric cars and trendy vegan diets aren't good enough. You should give the arguments of deep ecologists like Linkola serious consideration, not dismiss them out of hand as unsavory.

Another note: Anti-Malthusians (including a few prominent HN posters who might show up in this thread when they wake up this morning), are always quick to gleefully point out that we haven't run out of food in no small part thanks to the development of synthetic fertilizer. What they loath to mention is the ecological impact of massive population growth, and the fact that humanity has already surpassed ecosystem's carrying capacity when you consider ecological impact.

Post reply on HN