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

131–140 of 143 posts

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

#131

Post by _y5hn »

morpheos137 wrote: post #126
_y5hn wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ha…

Maybe part of the problem is this: People read paper as paper, something somebody clearly has written. We know that it was printed in 1980 and full of flaws compared to today's knowledge, but maybe also some insights.

Online material we read like facts, even when it's opinion, we rarely check dates and don't think of the content as dated. Also anyone can publish anything, including deceptive texts, as the barrier to entry is much lower. The cost is next to free.

People also engage more actively with online material, internalizing anything, even when it's garbage and transitory.

As has been said here with social media, there's lack of quality controls, but also distrust in quality measures.

Somehow, I'm not convinced all the online material is worth reading, but the trick is how to make sure people engage in quality without reducing freedom and differing opinions.

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

#132

Post by maxerickson »

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…

You think lobbyists keep their fingers out of school curricula?

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

#133

Post by eitland »

maxerickson wrote: post #132
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…

You think lobbyists keep their fingers out of school curricula?

Fairly certain back when I was a kid back in last millenium in a country with just above four million inhabitants, yes.

Edit: unless of course if they have a time machine, but in that case we have a bigger problem.

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

#134

Post by maxerickson »

eitland wrote: post #133
maxerickson wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think lobbyists keep their fingers out of school curricula?

Fairly certain back when I was a kid back in last millenium in a country with just above four million inhabitants, yes. Edit: unless of course if they have a time machine, but in that case we have a bigger problem.

Well that's a rather tightly qualified answer.

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

#135

Post by eitland »

maxerickson wrote: post #134
eitland wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fairly certain back when I was a kid back in last millenium in a country with just above four million inhabitants, yes. Edit: unless of course if they have a time machine, but in that case we have a bigger problem.

Well that's a rather tightly qualified answer.

Yep, as was my original statement.

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

#136

Post by goatlover »

pvaldes wrote: post #108
goatlover wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Google is getting their count from a Nature or Scientific American article which mentions that the number of trees is calculated from "421,529 measurements from 50 countries on six continents". Fires also clear away old growth so new trees can have a chance, and trees native to fire-prone areas have evolved fire resistance. In addition, some pine cone seeds are released by fire.

As for the net loss or gain, you'd have to subtract how many trees died in the fires from how many new saplings there are annually. The world is a big place. It's perfectly possible for a billion trees lost in one region to be offset by a billion new trees elsewhere.

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

#137

Post by refurb »

_y5hn wrote: post #121
refurb wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This doesn’t answer my question at all.

This is not about discounting or disputing information, this is about intentionally hiding it.

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

#139

Post by lamontcg »

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…

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

This is the side with the "attack helicopter" joke all the way back to "feminazis" and "fuck your feelings" with the former president flat-out supporting "second amendment remedies".

And given you went straight to tone policing, I guess I hit the nail on the head.

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

#140

Post by _y5hn »

refurb wrote: post #137
_y5hn wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This doesn’t answer my question at all. This is not about discounting or disputing information, this is about intentionally hiding it.

That's quite an accusation though. Have you even looked for the information you seek yourself, or do you expect to be spoonfed the information that you currently feel you are missing?
Post reply on HN