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

51–60 of 143 posts

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

#51

Post by morpheos137 »

Robotbeat wrote: post #29
stupendousyappi wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Over the very long term, I see no reason to think that higher CO2 levels are fundamentally worse for life than pre-industrial levels. In general, plants are the foundation of the food chain, and higher CO2 levels are better for them. In addition, life depends on liquid water, and given that surface temperatures are generally closer to the freezing point of water than the boiling point, I could see how higher temperat…

Good for plants, but not necessarily for humans. Human mental performance seems to reduce at higher CO2 levels, which makes sense as humans (by any definition... behaviorally modern humans ~50,000 years ago, anatomically modern humans 300,000 years ago, the overall genus homo within about 2 million years) have never experienced CO2 levels near the current level, let alone what they may be by the end of the century. P…

Do you got a source for the idea that human mental preformance suffers in the the hundred ppm CO2 range? I don't see how it would since the body has homeostatic mechanisms. CO2 has only increased by several hundred ppm since the industrial revolution. Maybe you are confusing CO2 with CO which has completely different biochemistry (it binds more efficiently with hemoglobin than oxygen and or does not release as easily once bound).

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

#52

Post by johnnyApplePRNG »

voisin wrote: post #13
johnnyApplePRNG wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another one is smoke from forest fires; actively cooling the planet.

Have you come across any quantification of this?

No. Entirely anecdotal and of my own observance.

I traveled from Ontario to British Columbia two years ago when the forest fires out west were really peaking.

I noticed smoke in the air as far as Winnipeg, and it only got thicker as I approached Vancouver.

Surely all of those white/reflective particles in the upper atmosphere are reflecting the sun's rays.

Also, weather predictions that year where WAY off. Predictions were always much higher than the actual high of the day. I assume this is resultant from historical weather data being a poor source for an altered state weather season.

The smoke covered almost all of north america at some points and it really got much cooler than seasonal averages.

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

#53

Post by Filligree »

morpheos137 wrote: post #49
coder-3 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It could be. How large is that carbon consumption in the first place?

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

#54

Post by morpheos137 »

Filligree wrote: post #53
morpheos137 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It could be. How large is that carbon consumption in the first place?

My understanding is that on earth the two main carbon sinks are biomass and the oceans. I believe these sinks make up almost 100% of natural carbon sequestration. So it could be a big amount. I'd check the carbon cycle wiki article.

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

#55

Post by kuhewa »

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...

It can also have some negative consequences for imperilled ecosystems. African savannahs are becoming more shrubby for example, which will favour some species at the expense of others.

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

#56

Post by thaumasiotes »

wumpus wrote: post #42
thaumasiotes wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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].

That's a problem with corn, not with plants.

Or more helpfully, it's a problem with a plant experiencing temperatures outside its natural range. There's a huge difference between "the temperature here is too hot for plants to grow" and "the temperature here is too hot for cold-weather plants to grow".

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

#57

Post by plank_time »

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.

This is the perfect way to cause complete mistrust in a movement. Look at what happened with covid and masks.

Thinking that controlling the narrative and lying for the “greater good” is corruption.

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

#58

Post by plank_time »

voisin wrote: post #13
johnnyApplePRNG wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Another one is smoke from forest fires; actively cooling the planet.

Have you come across any quantification of this?

Back in the early 90s a volcano erupted in the Philippines. In Canada where I grew up, late that summer in August, it was below freezing in the mornings. I had never encountered that before and was a direct result of the volcano.

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

#59

Post by gmuslera »

stupendousyappi wrote: post #20
gmuslera wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plants get more carbon, but not more minerals or elements that are only in the soil. And that may mean more volume, maybe more calories, but less food. That, even if we assume that we get to an stable and livable weather plateau, and not an ever increasing global warming, extreme weather, and livable conditions for every animal and plant. And even in that plateau, if the ecosystem that make that plants to live (I don…

Over the very long term, I see no reason to think that higher CO2 levels are fundamentally worse for life than pre-industrial levels. In general, plants are the foundation of the food chain, and higher CO2 levels are better for them. In addition, life depends on liquid water, and given that surface temperatures are generally closer to the freezing point of water than the boiling point, I could see how higher temperat…

You have as hypothesis that the current process will stop in very short time leaving things like today, more or less. I don't know when it will stop, but before it does, it will have to deal with the excess of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere until reaching an equilibrium point, and the positive feedback mechanisms that are being triggered already (and that they are emitting their own quota of GHG).

It not may stop till the yearly global average temperature is several degrees over what is it now, CO2 in the air or not, and that will not bring nice living conditions. And as a difference of the other times in Earth's history that it happened without massive extinctions, it is happening too damn fast at geological/evolution times. If species doesn't adapt fast enough, they get extinct.

Yes, at the other side of that process, some millions of years after, they could be a new age for life. But we won't be there.

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

#60

Post by code_duck »

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.

Soil/water pH is very important. When pH is off, some nutrients are unavailable to plants even when present in otherwise adequate quantities.

You also have to account for insects and microbes, which can either totally destroy a plant or help, in the case of soil fungi, earthworms or pollinators.

Too much light can be a problem, too. Not only from heat, but simply overexposure.

Post reply on HN