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

111–120 of 143 posts

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

#111

Post by obedm »

eitland wrote: post #110
lamontcg wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 y…

This is true. I struggle with the branding iron myself.

For me a big part of it comes from frustration that I (we, science) know the answer to things, and someone refuses to accept it.

We don't know everything of course. And most of the time the excuses use are illogical, paradoxical, or easily disproven, and yet the person refuses to understand that theatre wrong. Hence frustration.

I never feel frustrated if my child doesn't understand something or refuses to, because she's a child. But treating adults like children is condescending, hence frustration.

> The other side welcomes everyone and presents their ideas politely.

This is a huge problem. It's just like how people selling snake oil are fantastic listeners and make people feel welcomed and understood, just to sell them literal water disguised as medicine.

We are hardwired to trust nice people over logic of facts :/

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

#112

Post by eitland »

obedm wrote: post #111
eitland wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 y…

This is true. I struggle with the branding iron myself. For me a big part of it comes from frustration that I (we, science) know the answer to things, and someone refuses to accept it. We don't know everything of course. And most of the time the excuses use are illogical, paradoxical, or easily disproven, and yet the person refuses to understand that theatre wrong. Hence frustration. I never feel frustrated if my chi…

> And most of the time the excuses use are illogical, paradoxical, or easily disproven, and yet the person refuses to understand that theatre wrong. Hence frustration.

I see it.

Just remember that each time you brand someone asking questions to you, you almost definitely won't win that person and there is a fair chance you drive them away.

Edit: Also, sometimes, like with the lab leak theory it turns out the questions weren't crackpot after all. I've seen no apologies from anyone over that either so I guess a fair number of those have learned a lesson too about who to talk to.

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

#113

Post by jbotz »

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.

> A 30% bump in plant carbon sinking

Plant growth by itself is not a carbon sink. It just adds to the "buffer size" for the short-term carbon cycle. For some of that carbon to be "sunk" it has to either be removed and used/stored in a way that doesn't put that carbon back into the atmosphere, or transformed into long-term stable humic and vulvic substances, or buried in an anaerobic environment under pressure so it'll eventually turn into petroleum.

Also the CO2 fertilization effect also has negative consequences... enough so that it's really far from clear whether it's a net postive, even a small one. For one thing it's one of the reasons why modern food has significantly lower nutrient density (plants, including crop plants are growing faster, but the additional mass is almost pure carbohydrates, very little additional proteins, minerals, etc.). And in the tropical rainforests, the plants that are most benefiting from CO2 fertilization are fast-growing vines, and they are literally choking off tree growth (there have been papers published about this).

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

#114

Post by harry8 »

asah wrote: post #104
harry8 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Oh stop it. Now. This was not a reasoned, sensible, measured approach to vaccine information. This was using vaccine hesitancy to score partisan points in a pandemic. Period.

Stop making excuses for it no matter who does it. It's wrong on Fox, on CNN, by Republican partisans, by Democrat partisans. It's equally wrong when done for ulterior motive by non-partisans.

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

#115

Post by jbotz »

jbotz wrote: post #113
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.

> A 30% bump in plant carbon sinking Plant growth by itself is not a carbon sink. It just adds to the "buffer size" for the short-term carbon cycle. For some of that carbon to be "sunk" it has to either be removed and used/stored in a way that doesn't put that carbon back into the atmosphere, or transformed into long-term stable humic and vulvic substances, or buried in an anaerobic environment under pressure so it'l…

Some references for reinforest vines benefiting more from CO2 fertilization leading to reduced tree growth...

- https://www.nature.com/articles/nature00926

- https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/j.1461-0248...

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

#116

Post by Robotbeat »

morpheos137 wrote: post #90
Robotbeat wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm not confusing CO for CO2. Yes, I do have sources that human mental performance suffers at elevated CO2 levels (800-1000ppm, not uncommon in buildings... but could be the CO2 level outdoors and even if it's not quite that high, it'll be harder and harder to keep building CO2 levels below that as external CO2 levels increase). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-018-0055-8 https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.12…

It would be interesting if the study could be duplicated. More importantly it does not seem to distinguish between the acute effect of a sudden increase in CO2 in an experimental setting and the chronic effect of gradually rising ambient rates over the span of years. It stands to reason that the body would adapt to higher CO2 levels over longer time ranges vs. just injecting a sudden pulse of 2500 ppm into a closed c…

Well, good news! We’re conducting a planetwide, n = 8 billion, study on this topic right now! We don’t have a control group, though, except maybe a handful of rich folk who can afford to scrub CO2 from their penthouses.

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

#117

Post by elif »

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.

Biospheric carbon is miniscule compared to atmospheric carbon. Not only that, the biosphere is not a permanent carbon-sink. The extra 30% plant growth in spring becomes 30% extra carbon from plant decay in fall.

And regardless, any effect that increased plant growth rates provide is already factored into our runaway atmospheric carbon rate.

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

#118

Post by obedm »

eitland wrote: post #112
obedm wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true. I struggle with the branding iron myself. For me a big part of it comes from frustration that I (we, science) know the answer to things, and someone refuses to accept it. We don't know everything of course. And most of the time the excuses use are illogical, paradoxical, or easily disproven, and yet the person refuses to understand that theatre wrong. Hence frustration. I never feel frustrated if my chi…

> And most of the time the excuses use are illogical, paradoxical, or easily disproven, and yet the person refuses to understand that theatre wrong. Hence frustration. I see it. Just remember that each time you brand someone asking questions to you, you almost definitely won't win that person and there is a fair chance you drive them away. Edit: Also, sometimes, like with the lab leak theory it turns out the question…

Yup I've tried to deal better with me frustration in these cases.

Hah my wife has been shoving off the lab leak thing at me, she said it was like that and I said nah at the beginning of the pandemic.

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

#119

Post by flavius29663 »

raducu wrote: post #75
flavius29663 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's reassuring in the sense that I believe there is a very slim chance of runaway warming based on positive feedback loop.

These levels of CO2 are pretty low on a geological scale, increases to 400-800ppm CO2 have not caused a runaway global warming a la Venus ever before. More of the Earh's life as a living planet was spent above 1000 ppm than under.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Henning-Haeupler/public...

In fact, there was a period in the past when the Earth warmed 10 degree Celsius (18 F) in 10 years, and there was no runaway global warming.

There will be warming, there will be positive and negative feedbacks, we don't know for sure how big each will be.

The true pity is that we're in the midst of a mass extinction event. Between pollution, loss of habitat and rapid warming - we're killing off species like we're a killer meteor...and there's no coming back for the Amazon rain-forest and countless species. Once they're gone they're gone.

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

#120

Post by _y5hn »

obedm wrote: post #118
eitland wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And most of the time the excuses use are illogical, paradoxical, or easily disproven, and yet the person refuses to understand that theatre wrong. Hence frustration. I see it. Just remember that each time you brand someone asking questions to you, you almost definitely won't win that person and there is a fair chance you drive them away. Edit: Also, sometimes, like with the lab leak theory it turns out the question…

Yup I've tried to deal better with me frustration in these cases. Hah my wife has been shoving off the lab leak thing at me, she said it was like that and I said nah at the beginning of the pandemic.

In my household we very much agree we have no way of knowing wether it's a lab-leak or not.

Our newspapers tell us the same, as well as reporting different opinions during the whole thing. We recognize opinion as opinion, not propaganda or fact.

Why are everyone on the net seemingly living with insane politics and media? And what is so hard about saying the words: "I don't know, yet.."

Post reply on HN