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

71–80 of 98 posts

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#71

Post by marcus_holmes »

darkstarsys wrote: post #5

One thing not noted in the article is how the albedo reduction from greening in the arctic affects warming, ice melt, etc. It is good that greening has a negative feedback effect, but albedo reduction likely reduces that benefit in those regions.

Wasn't there a thing where more green cover = more clouds, because the greenery kept surface water from being absorbed into the soil (and therefore unavailable for evaporation and cloud formation)? I seem to remember reading about that. And, obviously, more clouds = higher albedo. Though water vapour itself is a very strong greenhouse gas, so the net effect is tricky to predict.

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#72

Post by chriswarbo »

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?

> What's heretical about asking honest straightforward questions?

This is a loaded question ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question ), since it implies that this question-asking is honest and straightforward.

On the contrary, it seems like OP is "jaqing off" ( https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions ); unless, of course, they can absolutely prove 100% that they're acting in good faith.

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#73

Post by chriswarbo »

useragent86 wrote: post #64
HelloMcFly wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 cov…

> Your true fear is that they are wrong

Ah yes, the crippling terror that everything will be fine. How foolish we would appear, to have spent trillions on mitigation efforts, with nothing to show for it except sustainable jobs, technological research and development, cleaner air, quieter streets, reduced dependence on unsavoury oil-producing nations, less incentive to wage war in the middle east. What a catastrophe that would be...

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#74

Post by chriswarbo »

nashashmi wrote: post #21

If the CO2 levels stay this high for the next 100 years (and no new excess emissions are generated) we will be having excess food growth and plant growth and wildlife growth for many decades. This is a win. It might counter the narrative for emissions control, but if also tells us that the medicine is in our system.

Ha, no. Higher CO2 contentrations make food less nutritious (sibling comment has sources https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29067855 )

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#75

Post by scotty79 »

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?

> What percentage of the 0.04% CO2 in Earth's atmosphere do humans contribute?

Since CO2 ppm nearly doubled since pre-industrial times then humans are responsible for nearly half of the CO2 in the atmosphere.

> 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?

Yes, for reasonable definitions of "proven 100%".

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#76

Post by rastapasta42 »

joeberon wrote: post #49
rastapasta42 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't forget government-led research is how Covid started in the first place - our tax money was used to fund the creation of the virus.

Can you elaborate on this? That sounds insane.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3154232/ecoh...

Science creates more and more powerful tools, but scientific progress is not something innately good. The powerful tools can be used for good or bad (nukes, climate disruptions, synthesis of new viruses).

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#77

Post by useragent86 »

chriswarbo wrote: post #72
scarygliders wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's heretical about asking honest straightforward questions?

> What's heretical about asking honest straightforward questions? This is a loaded question ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question ), since it implies that this question-asking is honest and straightforward. On the contrary, it seems like OP is "jaqing off" ( https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions ); unless, of course, they can absolutely prove 100% that they're acting in good faith.

Can you absolutely prove 100% that you're acting in good faith?

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#78

Post by joeberon »

rastapasta42 wrote: post #76
joeberon wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you elaborate on this? That sounds insane.

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3154232/ecoh... Science creates more and more powerful tools, but scientific progress is not something innately good. The powerful tools can be used for good or bad (nukes, climate disruptions, synthesis of new viruses).

Okay but can you prove that the tax money was used with the intent of creating the virus? That was your assertion

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#79

Post by tombert »

dotancohen wrote: post #9

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.

If they didn't publish this, I suspect some goofball like Tucker Carlson or one of his ilk could find out and say something like "See, this is the information they didn't want you to hear!" and would just add fuel to the fire with their narrative.

As it is right now, if they're upfront with their research, they can preemptively address a lot of the potential BS that would follow.

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#80

Post by s1artibartfast »

mckeed wrote: post #48
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…

The fact that a small proportion of the atmosphere causes the greenhouse effect makes it more likely that the amount of CO2 we are adding is affecting the planet. It's easier to make a significant change in a smaller quantity. If you have doubts about the scientific understanding of the greenhouse effect, study up on that. But continually bringing up that 0.04% makes it sound like you are clinging to that fact as a "…

>If you have doubts about the scientific understanding of the greenhouse effect, study up on that. But continually bringing up that 0.04% makes it sound like you are clinging to that fact as a "gotcha" and avoiding learning anything more.

After having spent decades debating "climate change deniers", I came to to the realization that the greenhouse effect as thought in schools is vastly oversimplified, and essentially no lay person understands it.

This is not to say that climate change isn't real, but most people don't have the technical background to educate each other, and attempt to do so based on inaccurate models.

Having read hundreds of articles, I still don't understand how to reconcile the greenhouse model with the fact that infrared radiation only travels ~10m in the atmosphere in the bandwidth absorbed by CO2.

Post reply on HN