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

Study: Global plant growth surging alongside carbon dioxide (2017)

noaa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 143 posts

Re: Study: Global plant growth surging alongside carbon dioxide (2017)

#41

Post by edrxty »

colechristensen wrote: post #37
Nbox9 wrote: post #18

We’ve known about this effect for awhile. Tree growth has increased on volume but decreased in density since the industrial revolution[0]. A small bump in plant growth can not be seen as anything but the smallest of a silver lining. [0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037811271...

A 30% bump in plant carbon sinking isn't a small bump, it's a major negative feedback control on atmospheric carbon. Some people seem to have the attitude that if you aren't saying something negative about an environmental topic, you shouldn't be saying anything.

It's more that it's an unspoken thing. Those of us who understand these issues aren't going out of our way to provide an excuse for dissonance to the masses or worse, easily misrepresented ammunition for the talking heads. The underlying systems are obviously complex but the end result is simple and society is currently having a hard time processing things that aren't simple.

Re: Study: Global plant growth surging alongside carbon dioxide (2017)

#42

Post by wumpus »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #25
nealabq wrote: post #15

I assume plant life is constrained by different things in different locations: - lack of water - too hot - too cold - not enough light (ground level of the rain forest?) - lack of soil nutrients (rain forest?) - too much salt I'll add CO2 levels to my mental list, a constraint that's independent of location.

> I assume plant life is constrained by different things in different locations: > - lack of water > - too hot > - too cold Hmm. There are lots of examples where plants do not grow in an area that (1) has a lot of water; and (2) is very cold. Are there any examples of a place that is too hot, as opposed to too dry? Even the cold examples might be driven more by a lack of liquid water than by temperature requirements.

The hottest day of the growing season can significantly damage wheat and corn yields, despite typical rainfall.

Google [corn yield too hot].

Re: Study: Global plant growth surging alongside carbon dioxide (2017)

#43

Post by coder-3 »

edrxty wrote: post #41
colechristensen wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A 30% bump in plant carbon sinking isn't a small bump, it's a major negative feedback control on atmospheric carbon. Some people seem to have the attitude that if you aren't saying something negative about an environmental topic, you shouldn't be saying anything.

It's more that it's an unspoken thing. Those of us who understand these issues aren't going out of our way to provide an excuse for dissonance to the masses or worse, easily misrepresented ammunition for the talking heads. The underlying systems are obviously complex but the end result is simple and society is currently having a hard time processing things that aren't simple.

The lack of openness is transparency is precisely what causes "the masses" to distrust experts about these issues. In my opinion, just saying that 'this is the effect that we found, the current consensus is that the effect is minor but more research is needed' is a more honest and a more effective way of getting "the masses" on the side of truth.

Re: Study: Global plant growth surging alongside carbon dioxide (2017)

#44

Post by dukeyukey »

toomim wrote: post #21
DJBunnies wrote: post #3

Did anybody else expect this? Plants love CO2, seems like excess will lead to crazy plant growth and a rebalance.

Yes, many scientists have predicted this, but unfortunately the act of articulating a positive effect of CO2 tends to get you labeled "climate denier" and censored from many parts of the media, and thus we aren't very aware of the bigger picture of climate change. Here's an articulation from one of the Greenpeace Cofounders: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDWEjSDYfxc He also notes that increased CO2 can help boost a…

My understanding is that this has been known for decades, it's not like it's been suppressed.

> He also notes that increased CO2 can help boost agriculture productivity, making it easier to feed the world's population.

In cooler countries, this is indeed the case. However, most of the world's population lives in warmer regions, meaning even if we have plenty of food, it's poorer countries that will lack it, so we'll still get climate refugees.

Re: Study: Global plant growth surging alongside carbon dioxide (2017)

#46

Post by coder-3 »

p1necone wrote: post #28
toomim wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, many scientists have predicted this, but unfortunately the act of articulating a positive effect of CO2 tends to get you labeled "climate denier" and censored from many parts of the media, and thus we aren't very aware of the bigger picture of climate change. Here's an articulation from one of the Greenpeace Cofounders: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDWEjSDYfxc He also notes that increased CO2 can help boost a…

This is nonsense. More CO2 === faster plant growth is not some suppressed secret, this is basic science that people have known about for ages, and nobody is going to get labelled anything unless they're mentioning it as part of some bad faith argument. Climate change deniers love stuff like this though, you can bring it up in a bullet point list of "why climate change isn't a big deal" or whatever and push your false…

>Stop being disingenuous just so you can feed your persecution complex with strangers on the internet.

Hey mate, please remember the guidelines[0] when you comment.

[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

But to your point about Patrick Moore, he really isn't a credible authority on this matter at all. The positive effects of carbon dioxide are true for the most part. However, this does nothing to invalidate the mountain of negative effects that destabilising the climate currently has and will continue to worsen.

Re: Study: Global plant growth surging alongside carbon dioxide (2017)

#47

Post by alecst »

bryan0 wrote: post #11

How do climate change models currently account for increase in plants? Are these plant growth numbers in line with expectations? Is this a large change or a rounding error in those models?

I heard John Baez call this "CO2 fertilization". And it's been talked about for a while. Hard to predict the effect, but the consensus seems to range from "could help, sorta" to "not really important".

https://www.azimuthproject.org/azimuth/show/Carbon+dioxide+f...

> The details of CO2 fertilization matter a lot. It could make the difference between their original plan being roughly good enough… and being nowhere near good enough!

Check the page for more info on young vs old trees, nitrogen limits, etc.

There's also this page, which has an even more pessimistic take.

https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/co_2-...

Re: Study: Global plant growth surging alongside carbon dioxide (2017)

#48

Post by klyrs »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #25
nealabq wrote: post #15

I assume plant life is constrained by different things in different locations: - lack of water - too hot - too cold - not enough light (ground level of the rain forest?) - lack of soil nutrients (rain forest?) - too much salt I'll add CO2 levels to my mental list, a constraint that's independent of location.

> I assume plant life is constrained by different things in different locations: > - lack of water > - too hot > - too cold Hmm. There are lots of examples where plants do not grow in an area that (1) has a lot of water; and (2) is very cold. Are there any examples of a place that is too hot, as opposed to too dry? Even the cold examples might be driven more by a lack of liquid water than by temperature requirements.

I'm not sure how you'd separate 'too hot' from 'too dry' -- problem being that places that are too hot to support plant life will rapidly undergo desertification, and then they'll be too dry.

Re: Study: Global plant growth surging alongside carbon dioxide (2017)

#49

Post by morpheos137 »

coder-3 wrote: post #43
edrxty wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more that it's an unspoken thing. Those of us who understand these issues aren't going out of our way to provide an excuse for dissonance to the masses or worse, easily misrepresented ammunition for the talking heads. The underlying systems are obviously complex but the end result is simple and society is currently having a hard time processing things that aren't simple.

The lack of openness is transparency is precisely what causes "the masses" to distrust experts about these issues. In my opinion, just saying that 'this is the effect that we found, the current consensus is that the effect is minor but more research is needed' is a more honest and a more effective way of getting "the masses" on the side of truth.

30% increase in carbon consumption by plants is not minor if true.

Re: Study: Global plant growth surging alongside carbon dioxide (2017)

#50

Post by morpheos137 »

pvaldes wrote: post #14
DJBunnies wrote: post #3

Did anybody else expect this? Plants love CO2, seems like excess will lead to crazy plant growth and a rebalance.

The problem is that humans love to destroy plants. Crazy plant growth does not matter if we have unprecedented megafires each year and in several continents at the same time.

Have a look at google earth some time. What franction of temperate and tropical land mass outside of deserts is some shade of green? Probably in excess of 95%. There are a lot of plants on Earth.
Post reply on HN