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

101–110 of 143 posts

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

#101

Post by occamrazor »

seattle_spring wrote: post #32
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 small bump in plant growth can not be seen as anything but the smallest of a silver lining. It could also be seen as a bad thing. Forest fire season in the PNW is a lot worse in years with a wetter spring followed by a dry summer. This is because the extra moisture encourages thicker brush growth, which then dries up and serves as tinder and fuel for the fires later in the season. I would think extra plant growth…

The article is mostly discussing trees, not bushes.

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

#102

Post by refurb »

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.

So basically you're intentionally not sharing "silver linings" about global warming because you feel like people won't understand.

Is there anything else you're intentionally keeping quiet about?

That is going to backfire terribly on you. The only thing worse than sharing information that you deem "unhelpful" is being caught hiding it.

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

#103

Post by goatlover »

morpheos137 wrote: post #50
pvaldes wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Google says there's 3+ trillion trees. Half as many as when humans came on the scene, but more than 100 years ago, so that's a positive trend on the environmental front.

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

#104

Post by asah »

harry8 wrote: post #97
darawk wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Fauci is clearly on record lying about masks. But digging into Kamala Harris, it appears that she actually said she wouldn't trust Trump's word *alone* - wanted to see FDA review.

https://www.google.com/search?q=kamala+%22trump+vaccine%22

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

#105

Post by morpheos137 »

idiotsecant wrote: post #94
morpheos137 wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Starting from a smaller base is always a larger percentage increase for comparable absolute magnitude changes.

From 1 to 2 is a 100% increase while from 20 to 21 is a 5% increase.

The concentration of salt in the Ocean is roughly 4% while the concentration of CO2 in air is about 0.4% (400 ppm)...

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

#106

Post by lamontcg »

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…

> 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.

probably a change in the strength of north atlantic thermohaline circulation.

that was a regional shift in local climate and not due to worldwide climate change. it isn't reflected in global proxies like antarctic ice cores.

hurricane activity in the atlantic basin increased, and its likely that la nina (cool) conditions persisted across the pacific.

it also may have caused draught that caused the collapse of the Maya civilization.

you probably get labelled a shill because you use it to cast doubt on anthropogenic causes of climate change and you argue that warmer temperatures benefited northern europe, while ignoring the drought and destruction of a civilization in central america.

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

#107

Post by lamontcg »

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?

It is temporary. The increase in biomass due to CO2 saturates when the area locally runs out of other constraints like water or nitrogen.

The IPCC predicts by 2100 the land is going to convert into a net source rather than sink of carbon -- so the positive feedback loops will exceed the negative feedback stabilizers.

The increase in biomass also comes at a decrease in nutrient density as well, so its not like this is magic sauce for croplands.

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

#108

Post by pvaldes »

goatlover wrote: post #103
morpheos137 wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Google says there's 3+ trillion trees. Half as many as when humans came on the scene, but more than 100 years ago, so that's a positive trend on the environmental front.

Biomass is not number of individuals. I could have 10.000 trees at home if I would want it.

I can assure you that Google earth still show trees that were chopped some years ago; and sadly both wildfires and megafires are very real currently.

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

#109

Post by pvaldes »

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?

Is public knowledge than most smoke in wildfires is water. If we see white smoke, is water vapor (mostly).

Unlike volcanoes, any temporary cold effect from clouds would be negated by the permanent destruction of the forest.

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

#110

Post by eitland »

lamontcg wrote: post #106
eitland wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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. probably a change in the strength of north atlantic thermohaline circulation. that was a regional shift in local climate and not due to worldwide climate change. it isn't reflected in global proxies like antarctic ice cores. hurricane activity in the atlantic basin increased, and its likely that la…

You started well, but even you just couldn't resist the temptation to reach for the branding iron.

Ironically you perfectly prove my point: it is impossible to seek information in progressive circles without getting to know the branding iron.

The other side welcomes everyone and presents their ideas politely.

And you wonder why people listen to them?

I'll spell it out: one side is possibly right but rather nasty if you don't agree immediately, the other is nice and patient even if they are wrong.

Post reply on HN