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

61–70 of 98 posts

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#61

Post by 09bjb »

citilife wrote: post #57
DennisP wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Here's a to-scale visual timeline of the earth's temperature change over the last 20,000 years. See if you can find anything anomalous ;)

https://xkcd.com/1732/

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#62

Post by 09bjb »

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.

Correct, but if we never came up with better hypotheses based on the accumulated results of previous studies then science would have no utility and it would be pointless to perform in the first place. Is that your argument?

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#63

Post by mrfusion »

09bjb wrote: post #62
mrfusion wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Settled science is an oxymoron.

Correct, but if we never came up with better hypotheses based on the accumulated results of previous studies then science would have no utility and it would be pointless to perform in the first place. Is that your argument?

All models are wrong. Some are useful.

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#64

Post by useragent86 »

HelloMcFly wrote: post #50
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…

> That's not quirky, it's why global warming is less of a risk than people care to admit. The consensus of climate scientists is wrong, everyone! The consensus of economists is wrong, everyone! We all just overlooked this one simple fact. A few more plants will grow... and then we'll still see the ecological collapse that is the true fear. And those plants are going to de-acidify the ocean anytime soon.

Your true fear is that they are wrong (just like the contemporary authorities have been wrong about major things throughout history, like heliocentrism and hand-washing). Because if they are, then we don't know as much as we think we do, and we aren't as powerful as we'd like to be, and we really are helplessly spinning through the universe on this tiny blue ball. It's too much to handle, so we close our eyes and cover our ears and hope that the people in the lab coats are right this time. But in the end, they're still human beings, just like the rest of us, just like the robed figures of old.

For some things we have a process now that helps us discover truth about tangible things. But since we don't have a control planet, we abstract that problem to man-made oracles (i.e. black-box models), which is not much better than ancients who sacrificed to the rain gods--it might even be worse, because we think the models are accurate, whereas no one today would believe in rain gods.

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#65

Post by giantg2 »

sampo wrote: post #17
giantg2 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They mention growing season. I wonder if growing seasons have been extended too.

> I wonder if growing seasons have been extended too. You are correct. This has been known already 24 years ago: https://www.nature.com/articles/386698a0

I should have worded it better. I mean in regards to this study. The graphic is for "more green" and I was wondering if they have another one for the "longer green" part.

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#66

Post by mr_mitm »

MauranKilom wrote: post #53
scarygliders wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

The fixation on the 0.04% is particularly confusing, as the other 99.96% of the atmosphere is mostly completely transparent to the relevant frequencies. Going by volume or ppm is wrong when all we care about is the absorption factor. Greenhouse gases don't absorb less infrared radiation by adding transparent nitrogen, even though it would reduce the greenhouse gas concentration.

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#67

Post by merpnderp »

orangeoxidation wrote: post #39
scarygliders wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does the IPCC conclusively prove with 100% certainty that the fraction of the 0.04% of CO2 comprising Earth's atmosphere humans contribute is the main thing which affects the Earth's climate(s)?

> is the main thing which affects the Earth's climate Yes. Though that sounds like weasel words, the word change is missing. It was 100% proven that human contribution is the main and most important culprit of (the current) climate change. Also that human released CO2 is the most important mechanism.

The IPCC only claims that to be 95-100%.

Literally the only thing the IPCC is virtually certain of is that the upper oceans warmed since 1970.

If you are pointing at studies that haven't been incorporated by the IPCC, then they are definitely subject to doubt. This isn't some deterministic problem you can repeat in a lab and science the shit out of. This is heuristics, fudges, and elbow grease type science where we do our best and then compare against the same type of work of others.

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#68

Post by mjfl »

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.

Plant life grows exponentially and can catch up to our additions of carbon.

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#69

Post by merpnderp »

scarygliders wrote: post #12
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…

>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 papers accepted by the IPCC put the confidence between 95-100%, or what they label was "Extremely likely", for Humanity's contribution to CO2 being the dominate driver of climate change.

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#70

Post by useragent86 »

09bjb wrote: post #61
citilife wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Here's a to-scale visual timeline of the earth's temperature change over the last 20,000 years. See if you can find anything anomalous ;) https://xkcd.com/1732/

Classic XKCD: an incredibly tall image that ends in the Hockey Stick. The winky face is what really settles it, though. QED. ;)
Post reply on HN