21–30 of 98 posts
This is a win. It might counter the narrative for emissions control, but if also tells us that the medicine is in our system.
With the realities of science denial, publishing such a paper is borderline irresponsible. Those who have an interest in keeping up burning carbon will point to papers like this ("NASA says!") as "evidence" that we can continue on our current path.
Next step is we turn world population into slaves to build a Mars rocket, and kill everyone who's not actively working on the Mars rocket.
Not sure if Global Warming will be enough to enslave world population, but we could also come up with new things like "Global Cooling" or maybe even engineer a new virus to keep the idiots scared.
> “It is ironic that the very same carbon emissions responsible for harmful changes to climate are also fertilizing plant growth,” It's not "ironic" at all. It's only sad (maybe not for most of HN readership) that taxpayers are coerced into funding various government-led bullshit "research" - from climate to Covid-19 and more. "Skeptic" circles mentioned this effect of CO2 1-2 decades ago, but it was ignored so that…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>increased amount of CO2 in the air as a result of anthropogenic activity Couple of questions because I'm curious... What percentage of the 0.04% CO2 in Earth's atmosphere do humans contribute? Has it yet been absolutely proven 100% that a gas comprising 0.04% of Earth's atmosphere is the main culprit/control knob which controls climate(s) around the Earth?
The IPCC reports describe the answers to those questions very thoroughly, no point in rehashing that here.
> “It is ironic that the very same carbon emissions responsible for harmful changes to climate are also fertilizing plant growth,” It's not "ironic" at all. It's only sad (maybe not for most of HN readership) that taxpayers are coerced into funding various government-led bullshit "research" - from climate to Covid-19 and more. "Skeptic" circles mentioned this effect of CO2 1-2 decades ago, but it was ignored so that…
There are plenty of feedback mechanisms, some positive, some negative. It is just one of many.
But one thing for sure, because it is just a negative feedback mechanism, it is not enough. It can only slow down atmospheric CO2 accumulation, not stop it, and if we become really good at carbon capture and manage to reverse our emissions, it will work against us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>increased amount of CO2 in the air as a result of anthropogenic activity Couple of questions because I'm curious... What percentage of the 0.04% CO2 in Earth's atmosphere do humans contribute? Has it yet been absolutely proven 100% that a gas comprising 0.04% of Earth's atmosphere is the main culprit/control knob which controls climate(s) around the Earth?
Uh oh, these questions smell like climate heresy Edit: for those struggling with the irony, my comment is pro-questions and pro-heresy. Let's not attack people for asking questions
Is the data for north Africa absent or is this the data?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>increased amount of CO2 in the air as a result of anthropogenic activity Couple of questions because I'm curious... What percentage of the 0.04% CO2 in Earth's atmosphere do humans contribute? Has it yet been absolutely proven 100% that a gas comprising 0.04% of Earth's atmosphere is the main culprit/control knob which controls climate(s) around the Earth?
Uh oh, these questions smell like climate heresy Edit: for those struggling with the irony, my comment is pro-questions and pro-heresy. Let's not attack people for asking questions
The key line for those who don't read the article: "Scientists say that global greening since the early 1980s may have reduced global warming by as much as 0.2° to 0.25° Celsius (0.36° to 0.45° Fahrenheit). In other words, the world would be even warmer than it is if not for the surge in plant growth." The surge in plant growth is a result of increased amount of CO2 in the air as a result of anthropogenic activity. Q…
That's not quirky, it's why global warming is less of a risk than people care to admit. If CO2 is the primary cause of global warming then organisms that need / utilize CO2 will flourish. A byproduct of this is often oxygen, so it'll likely stabilize itself given enough time.
Is the data for north Africa absent or is this the data?