21–30 of 43 posts
Trees have nothing to do with global warming. It is entirely caused by coal and oil. The only meaningful carbon storage would be pumping it back into the ground. Let's not personify and demonize vines as a casus belli to destroy the environment in the name of saving it, please.
Misleading headline again (this is a pattern), they are not visible from space, they can be estimated based on satellite images using a complex model. That's not at all what common people understand by "visible".
> He attributes this to rising atmospheric CO₂ levels. "All plants grow faster with more CO₂, but lianas benefit even more And yet this extra growth all around because of co2 means that the will be more co2? This seems incoherent. Pet peeve - if the article hooks you with a line like 'visible from space' they should provide the imagery so I can see for myself. But there's no picture.
There is no picture because they are not visible from space. They are refering to a model that estimate their presence from satellite images. Which is not what people understand by "visible".
> it's visible from space (phys.org) Misleading headline again (this is a pattern), they are not visible from space, they can be estimated based on satellite images using a complex model. That's not at all what common people understand by "visible".
> it's visible from space (phys.org) Misleading headline again (this is a pattern), they are not visible from space, they can be estimated based on satellite images using a complex model. That's not at all what common people understand by "visible".
I have read other articles (by climate scientists) that say that the increase on CO₂ is not sufficient for this to be significant.
> "We shouldn't intervene until we fully understand their ecological role"
Given the dramatic damage he says it is doing in some areas, surely cutting them in at least those areas would make sense?
> "All plants grow faster with more CO₂, but lianas benefit even more." I have read other articles (by climate scientists) that say that the increase on CO₂ is not sufficient for this to be significant. > "We shouldn't intervene until we fully understand their ecological role" Given the dramatic damage he says it is doing in some areas, surely cutting them in at least those areas would make sense?
You being personally convinced about something doesn't mean you can't be aware of your own limitations and want to be careful about implementing solutions too early to limit their impact of you're wrong.
The difference is clear when you give an opinion about someone else's problems and how they should proceed vs when you have to decide about your own life. It's harder to implement change when you have to live with the consequences.
> "All plants grow faster with more CO₂, but lianas benefit even more." I have read other articles (by climate scientists) that say that the increase on CO₂ is not sufficient for this to be significant. > "We shouldn't intervene until we fully understand their ecological role" Given the dramatic damage he says it is doing in some areas, surely cutting them in at least those areas would make sense?
> Given the dramatic damage he says it is doing in some areas, surely cutting them in at least those areas would make sense? You being personally convinced about something doesn't mean you can't be aware of your own limitations and want to be careful about implementing solutions too early to limit their impact of you're wrong. The difference is clear when you give an opinion about someone else's problems and how they…
There seems to be a bias to do nothing rather than do something even if there are known benefits to doing something.
There are definitely lots of consequences to lots of things we have done with regard to climate change and pollution. If we avoided everything with consequences the only action is do nothing.
> The difference is clear when you give an opinion about someone else's problems
The global environment is everyone's problem, surely?
> He attributes this to rising atmospheric CO₂ levels. "All plants grow faster with more CO₂, but lianas benefit even more And yet this extra growth all around because of co2 means that the will be more co2? This seems incoherent. Pet peeve - if the article hooks you with a line like 'visible from space' they should provide the imagery so I can see for myself. But there's no picture.
I agree, wanted a pic. But for CO2. Guess they didn't spell it out. If the Lianas kill the tree, and the Lianas absorb less CO2 than a tree, then even though there is an increase in Liana growth, there is also less tree growth, so net less CO2 absorbed.