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

61–70 of 143 posts

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

#61

Post by reedjosh »

jacobwilliamroy wrote: post #24
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…

I have no idea what happened to Patrick Moore. He's not actually an environmentalist anymore. He just uses his past affiliation with Greenpeace to make money being a spokesman for companies like Exxon and Monsanto. He doesn't actually care if you live or die. He just wants you to spend more money on fossil fuels.

I heard him on a podcast recently. He didn't seem to be pushing Monsanto. Can you please point me to where he does this? I would be rather put off. I hate mono cropping and pretty much everything Monsanto.

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

#62

Post by kuhewa »

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.

> Are there any examples of a place that is too hot, as opposed to too dry?

For a given species of plant, yes.

For cold-adapted plants, like those in the arctic, too warm of a winter could mean carbohydrate exhaustion due the increased metabolism, which would mean spring starvation. With climate change we see such species retreating to higher elevation or toward the poles.

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

#63

Post by kortex »

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.

Sure, it's better than nothing. But carbon output has increased X% compared to pre-industrial times, where X is some mind-boggling number.

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

#65

Post by flavius29663 »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #10
DJBunnies wrote: post #3

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

So far it's the first confirmed case of negative feedback from global warming that I've seen, and that makes me hopeful.

Global warming means more water in the air. This is both a positive feedback (water is an excellent heat trap) and negative in the form of clouds. White clouds increase the albedo of the planet, rejecting heat.

Another negative feedback is the increased intake of CO2 by oceans, through difussion. Also the plankton consumes more CO2.

It makes sense, think about it: if the planet didn't have negative feedbacks, absolutely any event would potentially cause a runoff through positive feedback in warmings and throw the climate out of balance. Even something like a vulcanic eruption or forest fire in the middle ages: without the negative feedback, CO2 would cause warming, which causes more water, which causes warming...there must be some serious negative feedback loops, which is why we've almost doubled the warming effect of CO2 with (so far) very small influences on the climate.

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

#66

Post by blondie9x »

People never ever forget that all of this is not in anyway what so ever has slowed down the exponential increase in greenhouse gases. SF6 CH4 CO2 N2O all growing year over year near record levels.

Human consumption and population growth needs to level flatline. Now.

https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/

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

#67

Post by code_duck »

jmclnx wrote: post #6

I have been noticing were I live, it has been getting greener and greener for many years 30+. First time I saw conformation on this.

Where I lived in northern Minnesota has been getting greener, but mainly, I think, because the winter is shorter by 2-3 weeks on both sides versus 80 years ago.

Certainly green in Denver this year but it’s because we have received 50% more rain than usual.

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

#68

Post by premium-lizard »

blondie9x wrote: post #66

People never ever forget that all of this is not in anyway what so ever has slowed down the exponential increase in greenhouse gases. SF6 CH4 CO2 N2O all growing year over year near record levels. Human consumption and population growth needs to level flatline. Now. https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/

CO2 near its record level? What do you figure the record is?

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

#69

Post by thaumasiotes »

klyrs wrote: post #48
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.

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.

I might look at the Nile and the oases to its west as examples. They are areas with plenty of water in the middle of what is otherwise a hot, barren desert. Plants grow there just fine. We can rule out the Sahara as a place that's too hot for plants.

So do we have an example of a place that is?

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

#70

Post by qqqwerty »

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 would have to be closer to 200-300% in order to solve our problem. You can easily Google search for these numbers. And this would just get us to neutral on CO2. We would still have to deal with methane and water vapor, both of which are more potent greenhouse gases.
Post reply on HN