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

The Earth is getting greener

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 180 posts

Re: The Earth is getting greener

#141

Post by nuancebydefault »

logicprog wrote: post #54
silverquiet wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess that sort of response begs the question of if there is even anything greater to which humans owe some moral obligation; it sounds like you don't thing there is (though I apologize if this is reading more into your response than is actually there). But I suppose it really depends on what you mean by the Earth being "fine" in the end. Obviously, as a large chunk of iron, silicates, oxygen, carbon, et al, the Ea…

> I guess that sort of response begs the question of if there is even anything greater to which humans owe some moral obligation; it sounds like you don't thing there is (though I apologize if this is reading more into your response than is actually there). No worries, you did in fact read me correctly. I don't really think moral obligations exist at all, and I don't think anything has moral "authority" over anything…

> .......at least be truthful.

At least a tiny glimpse of morality, or would you name it differently?

Re: The Earth is getting greener

#142

Post by varelaseb »

dsizzle wrote: post #123
zdragnar wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"assuming no other limiting factors" is doing a lot of the heavy lifting there.

Seems that greenhouse experiments would allow us to get a pretty good estimate for the effect of CO2 on yields, so actually I wouldn't think we'd need to do that much assuming?

I think what they're getting at is the most common limiting factor for plant growth is almost never CO2. It's usually Nitrogen, or another two of the macro (P,K) or micronutrients.

Re: The Earth is getting greener

#143

Post by varelaseb »

tastyfreeze wrote: post #122
platz wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The objective data is the greenness of the earth measured by satellites. the article offers multiple possible explanations for this and what their effects might be. it acknowledges those derivative outcomes are speculative.

All of the offered explanations still paint humans as the perpetrators of a crime against the environment. Not once is a greening planet painted in a positive light in this article. Its as if the writer is afraid to say something positive about CO2 emissions.

Optimizing for "green" is not what we're trying to achieve here. Mountains get greener when the tree line climbs as a sign of it's ecological decline. Stable forest and weather systems, biodiversity, bioavailability of nutrients in the ground are things closer to the interest of ecological causes.

Re: The Earth is getting greener

#144

Post by varelaseb »

throwawaymaths wrote: post #115
gmuslera wrote: post #56

The Texas Sharpshooter fallacy is something we must be able to see. We get a lot of effects of a larger change, and pick the one that in a partial way, in a particular light, can be painted as positive. There are a lot of "greener" things, the article talks only about a few of them, and some particular consequences. For example, greening in northern regions because losing permafrost is not positive, and lowering albe…

But actually people predicted this positive effect of warming long ago. I believe the specific prediction was that global food production would increase as warming + co2 enrichment increased production in politically and economically stable and responsible nations (at the expense of... Less stable, less responsible nations). You can argue if the aggregate measure of production is more or less important than the distr…

Could you share some more info on that prediction? I'd love to read up

Re: The Earth is getting greener

#145

Post by logtempo »

api wrote: post #16
TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #13

England is very green at the moment. At least the areas that aren't flooded are. The issue for humans isn't the "amount of green", it's high quality crop yields. Increasing CO2 increases plant growth, but also lowers nutritional value. https://cupblog.org/2023/04/06/the-truth-about-rising-co2-an...

The whole environmental movement made a mistake framing things as a moralistic struggle to “save the Earth.” Like George Carlin famously said on this subject: “the Earth will be fine. We’re fucked. The Earth has been far warmer with higher CO2 concentrations in its past and it was fine, but there were no humans then. It’s also been in an ice age fairly recently, but there was little civilization as far as we know and…

> The whole environmental movement made a mistake framing things as a moralistic struggle to “save the Earth, pandas and pinguins.” Like George Carlin famously said on this subject: “the Earth will be fine. We’re fucked.

I think the whole environmental movement have/had no power against the whole industry movement, and the "save the earth" call was the only accepted by the dominant class (aka industry and its leaders). Also Mr. Nobody don't wanted to give up his car, his investments, and his overall lifestyle for some pessimist hippies that love trees or scientist that don't know the real world.

Things are changing because of a single reason: industry and economy is affected a little bit by the climate change.

Re: The Earth is getting greener

#146

Post by zdragnar »

varelaseb wrote: post #142
dsizzle wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems that greenhouse experiments would allow us to get a pretty good estimate for the effect of CO2 on yields, so actually I wouldn't think we'd need to do that much assuming?

I think what they're getting at is the most common limiting factor for plant growth is almost never CO2. It's usually Nitrogen, or another two of the macro (P,K) or micronutrients.

That, and weed management, and GPS assisted machinery.

Pretty much every agriculture advancement since the tractor and other machinery has been getting around the limiting factors of plant growth.

Re: The Earth is getting greener

#147

Post by Lammy »

varelaseb wrote: post #144
throwawaymaths wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But actually people predicted this positive effect of warming long ago. I believe the specific prediction was that global food production would increase as warming + co2 enrichment increased production in politically and economically stable and responsible nations (at the expense of... Less stable, less responsible nations). You can argue if the aggregate measure of production is more or less important than the distr…

Could you share some more info on that prediction? I'd love to read up

Probably not what you’re looking for but it always makes me think of Jeffrey Jones’ “Wholly Holy” (1972), the penultimate story in this 1983 collection: https://www.zipcomic.com/ravens-and-rainbows-issue-full (not sure how to deep link to the exact page)

Also check out “Explored” and “Spirit of ‘76” before it, just because they’re cool :)

Re: The Earth is getting greener

#148

Post by throw310822 »

pmayrgundter wrote: post #11

Related study that blew my mind.. DOE & USDA funded a 2021 NBER study of CO₂ fertilization on US agriculture: "we apply the CO₂ fertilization effect... backwards to 1940, and, assuming no other limiting factors, find that CO₂ was the dominant driver of yield growth https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w29320/w293...

So one of the climate feedback loops we forgot to consider is more CO₂ -> more food -> more people -> more energy consumption -> more CO₂?

Re: The Earth is getting greener

#149

Post by CatWChainsaw »

jraph wrote: post #78
exoverito wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But there's no way, all things considered, it's a net benefit overall. This seems like a very dogmatic statement to make. Especially when weighed with benefits of cheap energy and economic growth. A wealthier world can build the infrastructure to handle potentially negative effects of climate change. The more extreme environmentalists and marxists say we should be engaging in degrowth, which would just result in a k…

>> But there's no way, all things considered, it's a net benefit overall. > This seems like a very dogmatic statement to make Do you think climate change could have a net benefit? I don't think that thinking that's false is dogmatic. It's too late for "we'll manage". Time to go for "We need to manage now" because... > A wealthier world can build the infrastructure to handle potentially negative effects of climate cha…

Exactly to your point about wealthy civilizations needing to want to use their excesses for good... we had an agricultural revolution in the 70s and rather than feed the starving we just continued same old. Now we're losing topsoil, fertilizers derived from fossil fuels, stable climates to grow crops, pest/weather resistance, and nutrition. And we 4Xed the global population in the meantime.

Re: The Earth is getting greener

#150

Post by throw310822 »

bradley13 wrote: post #101

If the world were getting browner, they would panic. It's getting greener, so they have to try a bit harder, but they still manage to panic. Panic --> Clickbait --> Ads --> Money

You will be downvoted to death, but whatever one thinks of climate change, the one you outlined is a very real effect and deserves to be considered seriously. Media sell what people get excited about; people get excited about bad news; media publish bad news; bad news become part of the society's worldview; society becomes focused on the issue and digs for more bad news.
Post reply on HN