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

Nasa Happily Reports the Earth Is Greener

goodnewsnetwork.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 189 posts

Re: Nasa Happily Reports the Earth Is Greener

#171

Post by taneq »

mturmon wrote: post #154
taneq wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it seems this fact is usually omitted so as not to complicate the intended message Any time a group starts altering the facts like this, it just shows that they value their 'message' above the truth, and they lose all credibility. Edit: Downvote = disagree, or people genuinely believe it's OK to lie to further your cause, I'm not sure what's more disturbing.

For me, the problem with your remark is that it's proposing some kind of alteration of message (lying, in essence) by "a group" which is not really identified, but might be "climate scientists" - but with no actual evidence. And also, the whole discussion branch nearby on the greening effect of small increases in CO2 is really missing the point, and is completely ungrounded in any science. There is a whole literature…

> For me, the problem with your remark is that it's proposing some kind of alteration of message (lying, in essence) by "a group" which is not really identified, but might be "climate scientists" - but with no actual evidence.

So you disagree with the grandparent post's statement that "But it seems this fact is usually omitted so as not to complicate the intended message."?

There are plenty of large, prominent climate activist groups making prominent public statements. I've never heard a single one of them discuss this aspect. (Contrast with scientific papers, many of which do mention it and which are not what we were talking about).

Re: Nasa Happily Reports the Earth Is Greener

#172

Post by ph0rque »

noetic_techy wrote: post #168

The dirty secret is that plant growth is most optimal around 1200 - 1500 ppm CO2. Likely because plants evolved in in epochs of much higher level. If levels were to drop below 120 ppm, I believe we would see mass plant die off. Pre-industrial levels were already around 180 to 200 ppm I believe (All these numbers are off the top of my head). So even if we can stabilize around 400 ppm now with renewable, AND start to s…

We could always go back to burning wood to increase the CO2, if your scenario were to happen.

Re: Nasa Happily Reports the Earth Is Greener

#173

Post by marcus_holmes »

acqq wrote: post #69
marcus_holmes wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kinda find it weird, though. Because we only know what prehistoric climate conditions were because of tree rings (and ice cores, but they're measuring different things). So predicting future tree ring growth based on climate changes, when we estimate the historical climate based on tree ring growth, means we can make up any relationship we want.

That shows lack of understanding in purpose and use of the tree rings and it is not relevant to the topic. What I read from your statements is just that you don't understand how the past climates are scientifically reconstructed, and want to express the doubt in the results of all the work of all the scientist that agree (which is effectively all of them, minus the ones directly or indirectly funded by fossil fuel co…

Past climates are scientifically reconstructed from data recovered from physical objects that were present during those climates. One of the main sources, if not the main source, for that data is tree rings from old wood.

If this statement is untrue, in any way, then please correct me, because yes, I've misunderstood how past climates are scientifically reconstructed. But I'm going to need you to explain what data is used during their reconstruction (and not some hand-wavy "it's very difficult and not for non-climate-scientists to understand").

Re: Nasa Happily Reports the Earth Is Greener

#174

Post by mturmon »

taneq wrote: post #171
mturmon wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me, the problem with your remark is that it's proposing some kind of alteration of message (lying, in essence) by "a group" which is not really identified, but might be "climate scientists" - but with no actual evidence. And also, the whole discussion branch nearby on the greening effect of small increases in CO2 is really missing the point, and is completely ungrounded in any science. There is a whole literature…

> For me, the problem with your remark is that it's proposing some kind of alteration of message (lying, in essence) by "a group" which is not really identified, but might be "climate scientists" - but with no actual evidence. So you disagree with the grandparent post's statement that "But it seems this fact is usually omitted so as not to complicate the intended message." ? There are plenty of large, prominent clima…

The place to start would be: https://science2017.globalchange.gov/chapter/10/

The key phrase you're looking for is: CO2 fertilization.

Re: Nasa Happily Reports the Earth Is Greener

#175

Post by topmonk »

acqq wrote: post #69
marcus_holmes wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I kinda find it weird, though. Because we only know what prehistoric climate conditions were because of tree rings (and ice cores, but they're measuring different things). So predicting future tree ring growth based on climate changes, when we estimate the historical climate based on tree ring growth, means we can make up any relationship we want.

That shows lack of understanding in purpose and use of the tree rings and it is not relevant to the topic. What I read from your statements is just that you don't understand how the past climates are scientifically reconstructed, and want to express the doubt in the results of all the work of all the scientist that agree (which is effectively all of them, minus the ones directly or indirectly funded by fossil fuel co…

> And the CO2, even if it's invisible for us, is actually "black" for something important: it's blocking the part of the spectrum that would allow the Earth surface to cool off. That's how small concentrations of it, compared to some other stuff in the air, produce such a big effect.

> The physics is simple and undeniable, and it's known that there will be always more problems caused by the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere which increases the surface temperature of the Earth.

Take a look at this graph of co2 vs temperature over a geological timescale: http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale_op_712x534.jpg (from http://www.biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_geological_timescale.ht...)

From this, there doesn't seem to be any relationship at all and the co2 has been much higher during much of the history of earth. At the very least, you can't say that the relationship is simple.

Re: Nasa Happily Reports the Earth Is Greener

#177

Post by acqq »

topmonk wrote: post #175
acqq wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That shows lack of understanding in purpose and use of the tree rings and it is not relevant to the topic. What I read from your statements is just that you don't understand how the past climates are scientifically reconstructed, and want to express the doubt in the results of all the work of all the scientist that agree (which is effectively all of them, minus the ones directly or indirectly funded by fossil fuel co…

> And the CO2, even if it's invisible for us, is actually "black" for something important: it's blocking the part of the spectrum that would allow the Earth surface to cool off. That's how small concentrations of it, compared to some other stuff in the air, produce such a big effect. > The physics is simple and undeniable, and it's known that there will be always more problems caused by the growth of CO2 in the atmos…

Take a look at who constructed the graph you quoted:

http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2012/10/nasif-s-nahle-...

Not a scientist.

Now... anybody who is really interested in the real geological history knows that even the continents "weren't there" where they are now, when we look long enough in the past. Not to mention that, for the old enough times, not even plants existed on the land!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geological_history_of_Earth

In that context:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-intermed...

"However, until recently, CO2 levels during the late Ordovician were thought to be much greater than 3000 ppm which was problematic as the Earth experienced glacial conditions at this time. The CO2 data covering the late Ordovician is sparse with one data point in the CO2 proxy record close to this period - it has a value of 5600 ppm. Given that solar output was around 4% lower than current levels, CO2 would need to fall to 3000 ppm to permit glacial conditions."

"(Young 2009). Rock weathering removes CO2 from the atmosphere. The process also produces a particular isotope of strontium, washed down to the oceans via rivers. The ratio of strontium isotopes in sediment layers can be used to construct a proxy record of continental weathering activity. The strontium record shows that around the middle Ordovician, weatherability increased leading to an increased consumption of CO2. However, this was balanced by increased volcanic outgassing adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Around 446 million years ago, volcanic activity dropped while rock weathering remained high. This caused CO2 levels to fall below 3000 ppm, initiating cooling. It turns out falling CO2 levels was the cause of late Ordovician glaciation."

"So we see that comparisons of present day climate to periods 500 million years ago need to take into account that the sun was less active than now. What about times closer to home? The last time CO2 was similar to current levels was around 3 million years ago, during the Pliocene. Back then, CO2 levels remained at around 365 to 410 ppm for thousands of years. Arctic temperatures were 11 to 16°C warmer (Csank 2011). Global temperatures over this period is estimated to be 3 to 4°C warmer than pre-industrial temperatures. Sea levels were around 25 metres higher than current sea level (Dwyer 2008)."

You have to understand geology to be able to compare. If you don't, people with agenda will easily sell you worthless graphs. Worthless as in "CO2 was higher when there were no plants and animals on the land at all, just the naked rocks." Nice target you have.

Re: Nasa Happily Reports the Earth Is Greener

#178

Post by acqq »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #173
acqq wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That shows lack of understanding in purpose and use of the tree rings and it is not relevant to the topic. What I read from your statements is just that you don't understand how the past climates are scientifically reconstructed, and want to express the doubt in the results of all the work of all the scientist that agree (which is effectively all of them, minus the ones directly or indirectly funded by fossil fuel co…

Past climates are scientifically reconstructed from data recovered from physical objects that were present during those climates. One of the main sources, if not the main source, for that data is tree rings from old wood. If this statement is untrue, in any way, then please correct me, because yes, I've misunderstood how past climates are scientifically reconstructed. But I'm going to need you to explain what data is…

Tree rings are absolutely used as a proxy to infer the past, the science is called dendrochronology, and the application of it is called

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendroclimatology

The limitations of it are known, and you won't find that the results of it are used for false claims by the real scientists:

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapt...

What I'm posting above is the real report by the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. If you look in the context, tree rings are just one piece of the big and complex picture. See my other comment for an example how those who just try to confuse simply ignore (and don't even care for) geological facts when they try to push their agenda. The same happens with those who try to sell you the doubt and false claims about the state of climate research. The scientifically known uncertainties in using the tree rings as proxies aren't changing any facts about the reality of global warming.

It's undeniable basic physics. CO2 makes the Earth surface warmer because it blocks the part of the spectrum that would otherwise allow it to cool off. The part of the spectrum of the Sun that warms the surface up is however not blocked by the CO2. So the Earth gets the same effect that you have when you cover yourself with a blanket. It's warmer under it. It's undeniable and we are observing the effects every day:

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/techrpt83_Glo...

If we don't do anything the expected sea rise on US shores is estimated up to 2.5 m higher (8 feet) in 2100. The non-red lines in the graphs are for the scenarios if the humanity actually stops pushing CO2 in the atmosphere very soon. We're already not following the "blue" strategies.

Re: Nasa Happily Reports the Earth Is Greener

#179

Post by krageon »

mrfusion wrote: post #103
ajuc wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> plants love CO2 In artifical conditions in laboratory there is a significant effect, up to 20% when doubling pre-industrial CO2 concentration. But, in practice for wild plants nitrogen quickly becomes the bottleneck, so the real gains are much smaller. And even for farming plants (which have fertilizer providing additional nitrogen) the real gains diminish, and are more in 5-10% range. For some crops CO2 has very l…

I believe in global warming with all my heart but just to be balanced the heat also gives you a longer growing season and let’s plants thrive in higher latitudes. Edit funny the downvotes. I’m on your team guys! Just think we can’t ignore counter facts.

There are no teams. I have to say even the statement "I believe in global warming" is kind of problematic, because your faith isn't required for it to be real. It is a thing that is, not a thing that only exists in your head.

Re: Nasa Happily Reports the Earth Is Greener

#180

Post by topmonk »

acqq wrote: post #177
topmonk wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And the CO2, even if it's invisible for us, is actually "black" for something important: it's blocking the part of the spectrum that would allow the Earth surface to cool off. That's how small concentrations of it, compared to some other stuff in the air, produce such a big effect. > The physics is simple and undeniable, and it's known that there will be always more problems caused by the growth of CO2 in the atmos…

Take a look at who constructed the graph you quoted: http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2012/10/nasif-s-nahle-... Not a scientist. Now... anybody who is really interested in the real geological history knows that even the continents "weren't there" where they are now, when we look long enough in the past. Not to mention that, for the old enough times, not even plants existed on the land! https://en.wikipedia.org/w…

Thanks for the info. I'm sorry, you were right, that was a bad source.

However, the rebuttal surprisingly leaves out a graph that directly shows temperature against glaciation, solar output and co2, but rather just talks about the comparison, without showing it. I don't find that particularly convincing of anything. Just because

> "Around 446 million years ago, volcanic activity dropped while rock weathering remained high."

it doesn't follow that

> "This caused CO2 levels to fall below 3000 ppm, initiating cooling. It turns out falling CO2 levels was the cause of late Ordovician glaciation.",

especially given that this simple graph of all 3 influences mentioned (sun output, glaciation, and co2 levels) against temperature isn't included. Do you know of a source that shows this?

> "So we see that comparisons of present day climate to periods 500 million years ago need to take into account that the sun was less active than now. What about times closer to home? The last time CO2 was similar to current levels was around 3 million years ago, during the Pliocene. Back then, CO2 levels remained at around 365 to 410 ppm for thousands of years. Arctic temperatures were 11 to 16°C warmer (Csank 2011). Global temperatures over this period is estimated to be 3 to 4°C warmer than pre-industrial temperatures. Sea levels were around 25 metres higher than current sea level (Dwyer 2008)."

Again, it's hard for me to take this seriously without seeing the comparison between the different forces that are identified against each other and temperature. It's like someone was peering at something through binoculars and said they saw an elephant. They offer as proof by stating, "I see a trunk, and a tail, and its tusks..", but they won't let you look through the binoculars yourself. (Also the Csank 2011 link gives a 404)

The best I could find was https://www.co2levels.org/, which if you click the buttons in the top left, can be massaged in displaying co2 vs temperature for the last 800k years. And even in this period there are a few the temperature decouples from the co2 levels and mostly the temperature rise precedes the rise in co2, which makes one think that co2 entering the atmosphere is a effect of climate rather than a cause.

> You have to understand geology to be able to compare. If you don't, people with agenda will easily sell you worthless graphs. Worthless as in "CO2 was higher when there were no plants and animals on the land at all, just the naked rocks." Nice target you have.

I'm not saying the earth was the same as before. Just that the idea is that co2 is causing irreversible warming and that's that, isn't supported very well by the evidence I've seen. At best what you have given me shows that the co2 causing warming isn't entirely disprovable.

I guess what I'm worried about is that the news often simplifies complex topics to, "it's a disaster!", or alternatively, "it's a hoax!" I don't think things are that simple, yet I haven't heard from anyone, scientist or no, that things are not either a "disaster" or a "hoax".

Post reply on HN