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

71–80 of 143 posts

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

#71

Post by raducu »

morpheos137 wrote: post #54
Filligree wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But is biomass a permanent sink or just a temporary buffer?

I mean every year we keep pumping more carbon into the atmosphere, but unless biomass turns into coal, it is just a temporary buffer for carbon, right?

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

#72

Post by haram_masala »

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.

Same here. Weeding and trimming my small yard now fills my weekly compost bin, that never used to happen in the past couple of decades.

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

#73

Post by jacobwilliamroy »

reedjosh wrote: post #61
jacobwilliamroy wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It was back in 2015, he made a comment on TV about how glyphosate is safe enough to drink, and then when the interviewer offered him a glass he refused to drink it and said "I'm not stupid." Monsanto denies ever retaining him to make these comments and it's probably true that Patrick Moore has never received money directly from Monsanto.

Patrick Moore is proof that with enough money, you can buy whatever you want, including an "ecologist" who says that climate change is a good thing and not caused by humans.

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

#74

Post by morpheos137 »

raducu wrote: post #71
morpheos137 wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But is biomass a permanent sink or just a temporary buffer? I mean every year we keep pumping more carbon into the atmosphere, but unless biomass turns into coal, it is just a temporary buffer for carbon, right?

Everything is temporary on a long enough time scale. If new plants grow to replace those that die it is potentially sustainable.

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

#75

Post by raducu »

flavius29663 wrote: post #65
dreamcompiler wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, absolut…

Well, everything has negative feedback loops, otherwise the universe would exoerience a second Big Bang, right?

But is that statement reasurring in any way?

No, because in between the limits of those feedback loops there's enormous potential for devastation and human suffering.

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

#76

Post by reedjosh »

jacobwilliamroy wrote: post #73
reedjosh wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It was back in 2015, he made a comment on TV about how glyphosate is safe enough to drink, and then when the interviewer offered him a glass he refused to drink it and said "I'm not stupid." Monsanto denies ever retaining him to make these comments and it's probably true that Patrick Moore has never received money directly from Monsanto. Patrick Moore is proof that with enough money, you can buy whatever you want, in…

Very interesting, thank you.

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

#77

Post by raducu »

stupendousyappi wrote: post #17
dreamcompiler wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

There are several others. I'm not a climate scientist, but my understanding is that the most significant potential negative feedback loop by far is the potential for increased cloud cover from increased humidity. It's evidently the most difficult aspect of global warming to model, although climate scientists are making continuous progress. In addition, the marginal radiative forcing of CO2 decreases with its concentr…

So, when is this negative feedback loop supposed to kick in and save us from global warming and climate change?

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

#78

Post by ilkan »

dukeyukey wrote: post #44
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…

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…

Faster growth = less nutritious plants bc they are slow to take up minerals from the soil. But they do produce more sugar. On the other hand the heat may make some plants shrivel, there was an article about the impact of heat on grapes. Tropical pests may persist in cooler climates bc the seasons won't kill then off and the ecosystem doesnt have enough predators yet.

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

#79

Post by marricks »

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.

> The lack of openness is transparency is precisely what causes "the masses" to distrust experts about these issues.

That's complete bullshit. What's causing the distrust is lobbying by some of the largest industries in the world and major media companies making money hand over fist selling lies.

The fact that scientists disagree on details or some might hedge what they say so folks don't get the wrong idea I imagine has little to no ill effect in comparison.

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

#80

Post by colechristensen »

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.

What is simple is a lot of people can tell they're being lied to by people driven more by belief than reason (i.e. people like you and those who "understand", I'm disgusted by your attitude)

It is very easy to generate an opposition movement by turning a reason-driven effort into moral drum beating nonsense.

"Trust the science, and by the way, 'the science' won't ever publish real evidence that contradicts its beliefs" is why you get deniers that have very legitimate reasons to doubt people who tell them what's real and what isn't.

Post reply on HN