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

91–100 of 143 posts

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

#91

Post by eitland »

marricks wrote: post #79
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.

> 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…

> 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.

No. Unless it was lobbyists that made my history books in school.

Still whenever I tried in the past to get an answer to why Greenland was so warm 1000 years ago I get labeled a shill.

It is somewhat maddening and absolutely not something that helps trust.

Same goes with how it is impossible to get raw numbers in any discussion.

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

#92

Post by attemptfailed »

morpheos137 wrote: post #81
kortex wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Atmospheric CO2 has increased by roughly double since the industrial revolution. I.e. 100%. I don't find that mind boggling.

My attempt last week failed. Still trying to clean the pool out for you, morpheos137. Will try again this week.

Thanks for your inspiration!

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

#93

Post by darawk »

marricks wrote: post #79
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.

> 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…

> 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

This used to be true. In 1995 this was definitely true. But today it just isn't. Look at the primary promulgators of vaccine misinformation. They're not lobbyists for anyone, they're just amateurs who think they're smarter than they are.

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

#94

Post by idiotsecant »

morpheos137 wrote: post #81
kortex wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Atmospheric CO2 has increased by roughly double since the industrial revolution. I.e. 100%. I don't find that mind boggling.

First, the post you're replying to is referring to rate of change, you've chosen to refer to total concentration.

Second, doubling of gas concentration in a system as large as an entire planet should be mind boggling. The fact that it isn't means you aren't thinking about it hard enough. Imagine if the ocean suddenly had twice as much salt, or if there was suddenly twice as much water, or if there were suddenly twice as many cars on the road. These would all be pretty amazing events.

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

#95

Post by tuatoru »

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.

Yes, this is an extension of Liebig's Law of the Minimum[1]: growth is constrained by whatever nutrient is scarcest (relative to the needs of the growing organism), by extending "nutrient" to "environmental input" to include temperature, light and toxins.

1. https://earthwiseagriculture.net/grower-s-toolbox/law-of-min...

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

#96

Post by diordiderot »

eitland wrote: post #91
marricks wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. No. Unless it was lobbyists that made my history books in school. Still whenever I tried in the past to get an answer to why Greenland was so warm 1000 years ago I get labeled a shill. It is somewhat maddening and absolutely not somethin…

Well in many US states politicians write the curriculum. Like in Texas and Mississippi, you don't learn that slavery was the cause for the civil war, but states rights. Despite the existence of their succession documents

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

#97

Post by harry8 »

darawk wrote: post #93
marricks wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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 This used to be true. In 1995 this was definitely true. But today it just isn't. Look at the primary promulgators of vaccine misinformation. They're not lobbyists for anyone, they're just amateurs who think they're smarter than they are.

Like the now vice president of the USA who claimed she wouldn't get a "Trump" vaccine? Repeated ad-nausium on CNN, MSNBC.

You can point to plenty of similar stuff with republican partisans and Fox.

Both should be abhorrent equally to people who lean democrat as republican.

So who do you believe? For any sensible person the answer is obviously neither.

How about Fauci or the CDC?

The Street: So, why weren't we told to wear masks in the beginning?

Fauci: "Well, the reason for that is that we were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply. And we wanted to make sure that the people namely, the health care workers, who were brave enough to put themselves in a harm way, to take care of people who you know were infected with the coronavirus and the danger of them getting infected." [1]

If you believe Fauci, he lied, he said so himself. (For what he thought was the greater good, sure. It's very understandable and human error.) And in so doing undermined the trust there too pretty badly. Which comes at great cost.

Tell the truth people. Warts and all. Even if it provides some small amount of short term ammunition to liars, thieves, confidence tricksters and so on because the truth is the only weapon that works long-term. We see the consequences of not respecting that right now and its very worrying.

[1] https://www.thestreet.com/video/dr-fauci-masks-changing-dire...

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

#98

Post by AtlasBarfed »

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.

Ahhhh, and it brings back memories of the astroturfing of 20 years ago:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greening_Earth_Society

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

#99

Post by ncmncm »

raducu wrote: post #77
stupendousyappi wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

It is already "kicked in", and all figured in, is not saving us, and will not save us.

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

#100

Post by occamrazor »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #86
kibwen wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Saving people a click for the abstract: "Forest stand growth dynamics in Central Europe have accelerated since 1870 due to a rise in temperature, extended growing seasons, and other components of climate change. Based on wood samples from the oldest existing experimental plots in Central Europe, we show that the dominant tree species Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) H.Karst.), Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.), Europea…

Hmm, that doesn't shout "plants absorb 30% more CO2 than we thought" as discussed in this thread.

> 29–100% increase [in volume]reduces to 20–76% [increase in mass].

30% is a decent point estimate for 20-76%.

Post reply on HN