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

91–98 of 98 posts

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#91

Post by kragen »

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?

Being 100% certain of anything is insanity; it implies that literally no amount of evidence could change your mind, while a rational mind is always open to revising its beliefs when new evidence becomes available. Religious faith and psychosis can "absolutely prove 100%". Science and reason can't.

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#92

Post by lamontcg »

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?

> 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?

Aside from the hyperbole, pretty much yeah.

Oxygen and Nitrogen aren't important when considering the greenhouse effect since they're diatomic molecules with tighter absorption bands and don't have the broad bands in the IR so that 99.96% of the atmosphere just doesn't matter (Argon is monoatomic which is even more dismissable. H2O matters but gas-vs-droplets is complicated and took decades to sort out).

It is all the rest of it that matters. And for example, satellite measurements of the absorption bands in the atmosphere show that CO2 absorption has been widening which explains the satellite observed reduction in IR emission from the Earth which explains warming as an imbalance in the heat budget of the entire planet.

The increase in CO2 coming from humans is also established via analysing the isotopes of carbon in the CO2 in the atmosphere and we can see that it is coming from carbon that we dig up out of the ground (protected from cosmic ray radiation) vs. the CO2 that was in the atmosphere. We can also measure that only about half the carbon we emit stays in the atmosphere, while the other half does get captured by the natural carbon cycle. But that's enough to disturb the balance. Small deviations in the budget add up over time.

And these questions are very, very basic. We wouldn't be discussing climate change if scientists didn't have the answers more or less nailed down.

More information and a massive amount of references can be found at skepticalscience.com

I'd also recommend Ruddiman's undergraduate text on climate:

https://www.amazon.com/William-F-Ruddiman-Earths-Climate/dp/...

Although for $287 for the paperback, maybe rip it off on libgen. I think back when I bought the first edition it was $80 which seemed steep. Fuck science publishers, seriously.

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#93

Post by woah »

Proven wrote: post #3

> “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…

What is the goal of this massive conspiracy?

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#94

Post by dsizzle »

theroqwpeo wrote: post #41
scarygliders wrote: post #12

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?

> 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? Could you share some scientific facts that you believe to be 100% proven? Would help to determine what your yard stick is here...

I somehow don't think this person is a Popperian!

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#95

Post by dotancohen »

tombert wrote: post #79
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.

Interesting perspective, thank you. I suppose that you are correct.

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#96

Post by ben_w »

mjfl wrote: post #68
TeMPOraL wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If it was that easy, we would never have switched from charcoal to coal.

Every exponential has a limit, and in the case of plants the old limit might the pre-industrial or possibly pre-agricultural equilibrium. How much can grow now depends on not just the atmospheric CO2, but also plants and animals we have selectively bread, the canals we’ve built, the the phosphate we’ve mined, the mountain tops we’ve removed to make mining easier, the glaciers we’ve melted, the storms whose frequency we’ve changed, the aquifers we’ve emptied, the lowlands which have become salty from the sea level rises, and almost certainly a lot more besides. (Edit: and if the zooplankton which human activities ultimately encourage produce waste which floats or sinks, the latter being a way to remove carbon from the system, the former puts it back in the air).

Some of that pushes the equilibrium up, some down.

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#97

Post by TeMPOraL »

mjfl wrote: post #68
TeMPOraL wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not if it runs out of nitrogen in the soil - and we're already supplementing that for our crops. Then there are also limits on water, sunlight and space.

Sure, life will adapt and overcome - over time. But evolution won't save us here, as we're altering the climate orders of magnitude faster than natural selection runs its OODA loop.

Re: Global Green Up Slows Warming

#98

Post by HelloMcFly »

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

Your certainty belies your arrogance. Nothing would make me happier than the doomsday predictions being wrong.

Post reply on HN