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

121–130 of 143 posts

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

#121

Post by _y5hn »

refurb wrote: post #102
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.

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.

Why not investigate starting with IPCC reports:

https://www.ipcc.ch/reports/

These are reports based on peer-reviewed scientific papers, that yes sometimes have to discount and dispute eachother. The presence of conflicting information does not change the overall picture of greenhouse gases like CO2 which can be tested in any simple lab. It does not change how solar input has increased over millions of years, making the planet much more sensitive to warming due to greenhouse effects.

Demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kwtt51gvaJQ

If you put water on the stove and max the temperature, it is not hard to predict you don't want to keep your hand in that water for too long.

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

#122

Post by _y5hn »

flavius29663 wrote: post #119
raducu wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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... I…

About higher CO2 in the past, this is covered in video about top 10 climate change myths, myth #3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBF6F4Bi6Sg

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

#123

Post by _y5hn »

stupendousyappi wrote: post #20
gmuslera wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Plants get more carbon, but not more minerals or elements that are only in the soil. And that may mean more volume, maybe more calories, but less food. That, even if we assume that we get to an stable and livable weather plateau, and not an ever increasing global warming, extreme weather, and livable conditions for every animal and plant. And even in that plateau, if the ecosystem that make that plants to live (I don…

Over the very long term, I see no reason to think that higher CO2 levels are fundamentally worse for life than pre-industrial levels. In general, plants are the foundation of the food chain, and higher CO2 levels are better for them. In addition, life depends on liquid water, and given that surface temperatures are generally closer to the freezing point of water than the boiling point, I could see how higher temperat…

CO2 levels from hundrer million years ago busted in myth #3:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBF6F4Bi6Sg

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

#124

Post by flavius29663 »

_y5hn wrote: post #122
flavius29663 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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... I…

About higher CO2 in the past, this is covered in video about top 10 climate change myths, myth #3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBF6F4Bi6Sg

I am not sure what you're trying to tell me here. I am not doubting that CO2 drives some global warming events, which is what the video is debunking.

I am saying there have been swings in CO2 levels and we haven't seen runaway warming from them. The temperature stabilizes after a while. Do you have sources that contradict that? The updated temperature graph is shown very briefly at 5.57, what do they mean by that? why not put it side by side with the CO2 graph? The new temp graph is basically the same, just with a higher resolution.

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

#125

Post by seattle_spring »

occamrazor wrote: post #101
seattle_spring wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Is there some reason one should believe that a mechanism that increases tree growth wouldn't also increase underbrush growth?

Also, the article itself doesn't mention trees even a single time. Only the study it references does.

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

#126

Post by morpheos137 »

_y5hn wrote: post #120
obedm wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.."

>"I don't know yet"

To me that seems to be a core problem in public discourse today. People have been conditioned by modernity to receive instant gratification. In the realm of information they want to know what is factual and what is not even when it is too early to draw conclusions. One can also see this in the whole Trump Russia scandal and before that the Iraq WMD fiasco. There was no "there" there (a phrase I hate btw.) But never the less people were led to believe there was by the manufacturers of "facts."

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

#127

Post by _y5hn »

flavius29663 wrote: post #124
_y5hn wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

About higher CO2 in the past, this is covered in video about top 10 climate change myths, myth #3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBF6F4Bi6Sg

I am not sure what you're trying to tell me here. I am not doubting that CO2 drives some global warming events, which is what the video is debunking. I am saying there have been swings in CO2 levels and we haven't seen runaway warming from them. The temperature stabilizes after a while. Do you have sources that contradict that? The updated temperature graph is shown very briefly at 5.57, what do they mean by that? wh…

Myth #3 is about comparing CO2-levels from hundreds of million years ago. In about 4:03 it is showing solar output superimposed on top of the graph of CO2+temp etc. The meaning is that with higher solar output today, greenhouse gases will have more effect, than they did hundred million years ago.

The updated graph is probably just to show there's more nuance to the graph than the old version. It doesn't make sense to use very old graphs outdated by the author.

CO2 emissions are accellerating over time:

https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gl_gr.html

The runaway effects will be from thresholds being broken, like acification of the ocean, burning of the tundra, deglacification and other events that humanity cannot influence or stop directly.

https://www.quora.com/When-will-the-world-s-oceans-lose-thei...

https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-co...

https://knowledge.insead.edu/blog/insead-blog/the-ocean-cann...

While we do have negative feedback loops, lately, temperature looks to be accellerating as well:

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...

Netflix has this documentary that explains further, ie. why biodiversity is needed.

David Attenborough: A Life On Our Planet - "vision for the future" on 'how to fix' climate change :

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KglanVLBVrc

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

#128

Post by flavius29663 »

_y5hn wrote: post #127
flavius29663 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not sure what you're trying to tell me here. I am not doubting that CO2 drives some global warming events, which is what the video is debunking. I am saying there have been swings in CO2 levels and we haven't seen runaway warming from them. The temperature stabilizes after a while. Do you have sources that contradict that? The updated temperature graph is shown very briefly at 5.57, what do they mean by that? wh…

Myth #3 is about comparing CO2-levels from hundreds of million years ago. In about 4:03 it is showing solar output superimposed on top of the graph of CO2+temp etc. The meaning is that with higher solar output today, greenhouse gases will have more effect, than they did hundred million years ago. The updated graph is probably just to show there's more nuance to the graph than the old version. It doesn't make sense to…

I feel like we're speaking 2 different languages here. I am talking about runaway global warming. You're posting links about global warming. The difference is in "runaway".

I have the feeling you didn't read what I wrote in the thread, I specifically decried the loos of biodiversity in my first comment.

My question and point of view was: is there evidence of previous runaway global warming caused by CO2. There were enough CO2 induced global warming events, but not runaway. My point being that at some point it will stabilize, we're not going to end up like Venus.

If you're not going to talk specifically about what I'm saying, what's the point of flooding me with links? I am aware and agree with what's in there.

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

#129

Post by logicfiction »

johnnyApplePRNG wrote: post #12
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.

Another one is smoke from forest fires; actively cooling the planet.

Is it really a negative feedback and not just transient though? Sure it may cool things during the fire, but it also just destroyed some carbon sinks and worsened the overall emissions effect. Then the fire ends and it no longer has any cooling effect so its not feeding back.

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

#130

Post by _y5hn »

flavius29663 wrote: post #128
_y5hn wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Myth #3 is about comparing CO2-levels from hundreds of million years ago. In about 4:03 it is showing solar output superimposed on top of the graph of CO2+temp etc. The meaning is that with higher solar output today, greenhouse gases will have more effect, than they did hundred million years ago. The updated graph is probably just to show there's more nuance to the graph than the old version. It doesn't make sense to…

I feel like we're speaking 2 different languages here. I am talking about runaway global warming. You're posting links about global warming. The difference is in "runaway". I have the feeling you didn't read what I wrote in the thread, I specifically decried the loos of biodiversity in my first comment. My question and point of view was: is there evidence of previous runaway global warming caused by CO2. There were e…

Sorry, I misunderstood the question then. This article goes a bit into it, so might be an interesting lead:

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151130-how-hot-could-the-ea...

Since Earth is not like Venus now, this wouldn't have happened as Earth would've lost most of its atmosphere. But Earth have been a fireball very early on, and cooled down from that since solar output was much lower then.

As the solar output continue to increase, Earth will become like Venus or a fireball, before it's engulfed.

As solar output "only" increased 4% over some hundred of million years it would seem unlikely to occur from greenhouse gases alone.

Post reply on HN