Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Global Green Up Slows Warming

earthobservatory.nasa.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 98 posts

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#51

Post by bilkow »

citilife wrote: post #29
boringg wrote: post #4

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…

> The surge in plant growth is a result of increased amount of CO2 in the air as a result of anthropogenic activity. Quirky systems we have on the planet. 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 e…

There are actually indications that even though some plants may grow faster, their evapotranspiration is decreased[1] and the plants grow fewer valuable nutrients[2].

[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S13695... [2] https://cfaes.osu.edu/news/articles/higher-carbon-dioxide-le...

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#52

Post by guerrilla »

mrfusion wrote: post #45
3pt14159 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. It's settled science. CO2 is not the only gas that matters, but it's the major one and most of the feedback loops are not in our favour. Read some of the technical reports, they're not that hard to understand.

Settled science is an oxymoron.

You don't think it's settled science that water is H2O?

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#53

Post by MauranKilom »

scarygliders wrote: post #26
padobson wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What's heretical about asking honest straightforward questions?

The phrasing of the question is odd and hints at rhetoric instead of curiosity as intention.

What if it's only 99.99% sure that CO2 is the reason for climate change? What about 90%? No need to act until we bring that up to 100%?

What's with the fixation on 0.04% as a number? Things can't have huge impact unless numbers are also big? I don't want to offend, but that's honestly third grade mentality.

There's surprise about small things having little impact, and then there's denial hidden as feigned curiosity. Especially when the answers are directly available from much more credible sources than random internet posters.

Compare with:

"Has it yet been absolutely proven 100% that the lead comprising 0.03% [hypothetically - for reference, this is 100000x the FDA limit] of our food intake is the main culprit/control knob which controls brain development?"

No, it actually isn't the "main" control knob. And our bodies are also complex with many feedback loops. And no study will ever reach p = 0. And it's a really small number. And yet we have made "extremely huge decisions" regarding what fuels we allow, what tests food have to undergo etc...

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#54

Post by petermcneeley »

ForHackernews wrote: post #42
ysavir wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't matter which side of the fence you fall on, it's good practice to validate the conclusions--and to continue doing so regularly. Please don't discourage people from asking for the data and the facts, no matter what your perspective is.

Just curious, could somebody explain to me quickly here how computers work, starting from transistors? It seems implausible to me that tiny electrical circuits could be used to produce logical operations. I'm really just asking an honest question, and it's always healthy to revisit the evidence especially when you're making a big claim like "sand does maths".

https://www.tindie.com/products/codecorrect/basic-logic-gate...

And then

https://www.nand2tetris.org/

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#55

Post by DennisP »

citilife wrote: post #29
boringg wrote: post #4

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…

> The surge in plant growth is a result of increased amount of CO2 in the air as a result of anthropogenic activity. Quirky systems we have on the planet. 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 e…

If that were the only factor, sure. But there's also drought, heat stress, invasive insects migrating to higher latitudes, and topsoil loss. Forests in the western US, for example, are not benefiting from climate change.

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#56

Post by magicalhippo »

scarygliders wrote: post #31
jiggyjace wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it was around 1 gigaton of CO2 caused by humans for every 40 gigatons of CO2 caused naturally, which is about 2.5% of total CO2 emissions every year.

Thanks, so that's 2.5% of 0.04%, right? Has it been proven that a gas comprising 0.04% of Earth's atmosphere is the main factor which affects Earth's climate(s)? I'm asking, because 0.04% of something seems like a particularly small fraction to have such a dramatic effect on a whole planet's weather and climate. Especially in a non-linear dynamic and chaotic - hence very difficult to predict - system like Earth's wea…

> Especially in a non-linear dynamic and chaotic - hence very difficult to predict - system like Earth's weather and climate system.

It's because it's a highly non-linear and chaotic system.

If earth's climate was a linear system, then indeed your gut feeling that 0.04% change is small would be warranted.

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#57

Post by citilife »

DennisP wrote: post #55
citilife wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The surge in plant growth is a result of increased amount of CO2 in the air as a result of anthropogenic activity. Quirky systems we have on the planet. 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 e…

If that were the only factor, sure. But there's also drought, heat stress, invasive insects migrating to higher latitudes, and topsoil loss. Forests in the western US, for example, are not benefiting from climate change.

Prior to humans industrializing the Sahara desert was green, 11,000 - 5,000 years ago.

https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/green-saha...

The world regularly adjusts, California has had more fires historically (and less).

https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/02/09/1112839109

I agree things are changing, but it's not clear who or what is causing it. That's really my only thoughts on the subject. Seems CO2 has a smaller impact than what ever has caused the Sahara to turn into a desert.

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#58

Post by Consultant32452 »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #37
citilife wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The surge in plant growth is a result of increased amount of CO2 in the air as a result of anthropogenic activity. Quirky systems we have on the planet. 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 e…

This is like saying "my car burns gasoline, so more gasoline in the engine is better". There's only so much CO2 organisms can absorb, and they all buffer it - not consume it. Meanwhile, we're still adding CO2 at an exponential rate.

I'm looking forward to the return of megaflora. Too bad I won't be here to see it.

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#59

Post by bostonsre »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #37
citilife wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The surge in plant growth is a result of increased amount of CO2 in the air as a result of anthropogenic activity. Quirky systems we have on the planet. 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 e…

This is like saying "my car burns gasoline, so more gasoline in the engine is better". There's only so much CO2 organisms can absorb, and they all buffer it - not consume it. Meanwhile, we're still adding CO2 at an exponential rate.

I don't think your car engine can grow to consume gas at a faster rate or spawn other engines that consume gas. I don't think the OP or this article is saying it will completely eliminate global warming, but a new equilibrium where co2 consumption by plants pushes back and holds the line at some point seems plausible (hopefully before we reach something like this before we turn into a venus).

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#60

Post by usefulcat »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #36
scarygliders wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks, so that's 2.5% of 0.04%, right? Has it been proven that a gas comprising 0.04% of Earth's atmosphere is the main factor which affects Earth's climate(s)? I'm asking, because 0.04% of something seems like a particularly small fraction to have such a dramatic effect on a whole planet's weather and climate. Especially in a non-linear dynamic and chaotic - hence very difficult to predict - system like Earth's wea…

Water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas but that is a closed system. We aren’t making (much) more water. Now, we could potentially make many more clouds. For instance, container ships could be required to have fuel additives or “salt lofters”that promote cloud seeding and marine cloud brightening.

We aren't directly putting more water vapor into the atmosphere, but a warmer atmosphere can hold more water and (I would think) would also increase the overall rate of evaporation.

Regarding the greenhouse effect of water vapor, I don't know whether what matters is the average relative humidity or the total amount of water vapor in the atmosphere. For our sake I hope it's the former.

Post reply on HN