Rise In CO2 Has 'Greened Planet Earth' (bbc.com) 345
schwit1 quotes a report from BBC: Carbon dioxide emissions from industrial society have driven a huge growth in trees and other plants. A new study says that if the extra green leaves prompted by rising CO2 levels were laid in a carpet, it would cover twice the continental USA. Climate skeptics argue the findings show that the extra CO2 is actually benefiting the planet. But the researchers say the fertilization effect diminishes over time. They warn the positives of CO2 are likely to be outweighed by the negatives. The lead author, Professor Ranga Myneni from Boston University, told BBC News the extra tree growth would not compensate for global warming, rising sea levels, melting glaciers, ocean acidification, the loss of Arctic sea ice, and the prediction of more severe tropical storms. The new study is published in the journal Nature Climate Change by a team of 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries. A new study has also shown that ever since Americans first heard the term global warming in the 1970's, the weather has actually improved for most people living in the U.S. The study published in the journal Nature found that 80% of the U.S. population lives in counties experiencing more pleasant weather than they did four decades ago.
More "pleasant" weather (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, if prefer mud and slush to nice powdery snow
Re:More "pleasant" weather (Score:5, Insightful)
Same. California used to be nice and warm, but some parts have become unbearably hot during the summer,
What part of California is now unbearably hot that wasn't unbearably hot before?
Re:More "pleasant" weather (Score:4, Insightful)
The part of California that he moved away from before it became unbearably hot. (which, thereby, means that he had no idea if it was unbearable or not, because he chose to vacate before it came to bear.)
Re: (Score:2)
In lowland Arizona when it's 40C, we call it "Thursday."
Re: (Score:2)
In Kansas if we don't like the weather we just wait ten minutes it'll change.
Re: (Score:3)
The part that is almost all of it before massive amounts of water were diverted there by man made projects, which had devastating ecological consequences for the places the water was redirected from.
Re:More "pleasant" weather (Score:5, Interesting)
You're confusing a cyclical drought with global warming. We had a drought in California like that in the 1970s. It happens every 40 years or so. The water planners drew up a plan for how to deal with it last time. The plan presupposed that people would actually do it. They half assed the project and as a result the shortages were painful though not fatal.
Look... you can't understand climate unless you make an effort to understand climate. To do that you have to look at the history of climates to see what the patterns are in the first place.
Saying "oh california didn't have bad droughts before" is ignorant. You'd have a hard time finding anything in Cali that has remarkably changed from a climate stand point.
Re: More "pleasant" weather (Score:3)
These are minor droughts. We know they have lasted well over a decade in the past.
Re: More "pleasant" weather (Score:5, Informative)
California suffers cyclical droughts roughly every 40 years. They tend to last about 5 years and to sustain the population, reserves of water must last through the drought.
There are two ways to make sure the reserves are enough.
1. Build reserves to match consumption for roughly 5 years.
2. Limit consumption to match 5 year reserve capacity.
If Cali does that, then its fine.
Our problem in the Golden State is that we didn't build reserves to keep pace with population growth... or we didn't limit development and zoning to what could be sustained through droughts.
To blame the whole thing on Global Warming when it was spelled out very clearly in the fucking 70s with blueprints, time tables, budget forecasts... Its fucking comical.
Re: (Score:2)
What kind of processes act on a 40 year timescale? Does this have something to do with sunspots?
Re: More "pleasant" weather (Score:5, Insightful)
Except it hasn't because in the case of California the cycle is entirely predictable.
We have droughts like this... they told us in the 70s we'd have another one in another forty years... and they gave us what they thought was the best solution so the next time it was no big deal.
People didn't do that so we got a shit show.
Number of people that died as a result of government incompetence in this case? Zero.
However, they did have to steal water from the agricultural sector to keep the cities going. Not cool. Not just crops failed but orchards died.
So I can't say this enough fucking times...
No. Wrong. Incorrect. The cycle has held. We have droughts like this... this is normal. Its unusual but so are tidal waves hitting little Japanese villages. However... it happens. You either prepare for it or you get surprised like a chump.
Choose.
Be prepared or be a chump.
I personally would like to be prepared. But all the people saying "oh there was nothing we could do about it"... they are chumps.
That is what you're saying. Don't be that guy.
Re: (Score:2)
Except it hasn't because in the case of California the cycle is entirely predictable.
It definitely is not.
Just because "you see a cycle" does not make it predictable. At least not in the sense you wrote above.
As soon as you know why you have a drought, in other words: know what recent weather/climate patterns are leading to it, then you can say: we have those patterns now, likely we get a drought again.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
http://www.sfgate.com/science/... [sfgate.com]
I'm sorry the burden of proof is on you people. You want to say this is all global warming? Have fun substantiating that.
This is my state. I know it and I know its history. Most of the chumps commenting on this are either out of state hacks that are just bandwagoning an issue they don't understand. And the rest are mostly millennial twinks that don't know what happened yesterday much less the historic climate patterns of anywhere... even the fucking state they reside within.
Re: (Score:3)
That is why we have a problem. There is plenty of water. The old city fathers of Los Angeles would have already taken care of this bullshit. They would have gone to any of the many places in the north that have loads of fucking water and they would have made a deal.
Yes. And that proves what stupid fuckheads they are. Guess how much rainfall falls on Los Angeles every year? Enough to meet over 90% of its needs. Guess what happens to that water? It runs off directly into the ocean, carrying surface litter with it. Instead of improving the area's ability to hold water, it has been diminished by overcrowding and the end result is that even though it gets enough water for free, it still has to buy almost 100% of its water from elsewhere because it can't hold on to it. What
Re: (Score:2)
I love how you Generation X and Baby Boomer monkeys always blame a lack of knowledge and motivation in millennial's for problems that are clearly a result of your generations unwillingness to pay for anything or care about anyone else. Your entire state has been on the verge of bankruptcy because for the past two generations your idea of financial planning has been to die before the bill is due. So now you fall back on this mantra about millennial's being useless and lazy because we won't bend over backward
Re: (Score:2)
I did not say it is global warming.
I said your idea that the droughts are "predictable" is wrong.
The AGW hissy fit has gotten old. Shouldn't we be getting MORE water if your chicken little bullshit were right? After all, more heat, more humidity, more precipitation? ... so no. Regardless how hot it gets, it can only be less water east of the Rocky Mountains. That is a no brainer. Try to figure why.
In some places yes, but why in general?
Central north america depends on the water that comes from the Rockies
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Which is why its a democrat city and state.
If the republicans run a place then you blame the republicans. If the republicans don't run the place then you blame them anyway.
It doesn't matter what anyone does. You've come to a tribal affiliation and you'll just hold to it indifferent to any external reality.
Re: (Score:3)
https://youtu.be/qeNCp6KhiTI?t... [youtu.be]
The NOAA maps show a general reduction in rainfall west of the rockies as well.
Cali has droughts and they are predictable in that they come in cycles. We can put them on a time line. You know that right after you have one you're unlikely to have another right away... right?
So... why is that if its unpredictable? If there is no pattern then you chances of getting a drought are the same every day. In fact, the droughts should end unpredictably as well. Just there one day and g
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why would I speak in a manner other than what gets your attention? What is the point if it won't get your fat neckbeard layers of cognitive dissonance?
As to speaking logically, I did. As to speaking about science? I did.
What I did on top of that was slap someone around for being wrong. And while you might think that is unscientific, science actually doesn't care if your feelings get hurt. Science isn't a moral, ethical, or ideological system. Science is a tool for ferreting out truth from bullshit. And ther
Re:More "pleasant" weather (Score:4, Insightful)
To do that you have to look at the history of climates to see what the patterns are in the first place.
I fully agree.
http://www.mercurynews.com/sci... [mercurynews.com]
And the last drought was due to a strong La Nina, as they often are. California has had horrendous droughts, some of which have lasted for centuries, over the last 2000 years. Climates always are changing, and California's has actually been comparatively benign (for California) for most of the last 160 years, with the exception of the Great Dust Bowl years and a few other minidroughts that are more or less identical to the one just ended, or at least paused, by the strong El Nino.
The problem with the AGW assertions -- a problem so severe that they changed the entire assertion to ACC ("climate change", not "global warming") is that it is very, very difficult to separate anecdotes from statistically meaningful evidence. Indeed, the only other human discipline that seems to incorporate a worse rate of anecdotal assertion as statistical truth is -- maybe -- health care. Maybe not! A second, closely related problem is the near impossibility of separating out causal factors for any statistically meaningful change that is observed. Is the CA drought caused by or part of -- note the separate assertions:
a) Anthropogenic (specifically, caused by anthropogenic CO2, not other anthropogenic silliness like land use change or oversubscribing the water supply ten times over)
b) Global (not local -- part of a global, statistically discernible pattern and not a local anecdote)
c) Warming and/or Climate Change?
How can one even begin to answer this question? Is the drought different in magnitude, duration, timing, from any of the ten odd droughts that have occurred over the period of scientific records? Is it exceptional on the basis of e.g. tree ring data? Even if "exceptional", is it truly a statistical outlier or just at the level of statistical noise and the imperfection of records, truly indistinguishable from many of the past droughts? Is it part of a pattern of increasing drought? And even if it is exceptional, part of a pattern, an outlier, is it caused by anthropogenic carbon dioxide in the specific sense that if humans had done everything else that they did to California -- tap the available water to support far more people than the land should support, plant huge farms, cover vast stretches of countryside with roads and malls and houses -- but done it without burning anything so CO2 was still order of 300 ppm, there would be no La Nina associated droughts, or those droughts would not be so severe?
We have answers to some of these questions. The drought was not particularly exceptional, and its impact was greatly enhanced by non-CO2 (but anthropogenic) factors, specifically the fact that California is carrying far more people than it should given its history of being mostly desert for most of the last 2000 years. We have no possible way to answer others, specifically the attribution to anthropogenic CO2.
But that never stops the media, politicians, and even some scientists who should know better from doing it anyway. The study in the top article is remarkable in that it states something that most people have long since observed and noted even without the help of "Science". The climate today is far better than it was 60 years ago, or 100 years ago, or 150 years ago. It is much closer to a climate "optimum" that the Earth was during the Little Ice Age. It isn't just humans that have benefited, either. The entire biosphere is -- on average -- far better off. The planet was starved for CO2 in the middle of the Wisconsin glaciation -- levels dropped to the edge of mass extinction for certain classes of respiring plants.
Here's a thought for the day. Of the world's seven billion people, one billion will dine today courtesy of the additional plant growth d
Re: (Score:3)
There is this misconception that because many refer to it as "global warming" that the changes you should see in the weather are that it is hotter. The increases in temps are slight, it's how those changes impacts currents, winds, and
Re: (Score:2)
Florida Hurricane records:
2000–2009 55 - More than any recorded decade
2010s 3 - The lowest count since 1800-1809 and it's unlikely we actually recorded all the hurricanes accurate during that period as there was no radar and Florida was not densly populated.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Florida_hurricanes
Texas is a big state and it's a little more challenging but there have been many record settings lows and hail damage estimates, including this
Re: (Score:3)
Global warming can produce more extreme weather, due to more energy in the atmosphere.
Re: (Score:2)
70's PSA from California:
If it's yellow let it mellow.
If it's Brown, flush it down.
Re:More "pleasant" weather (Score:4, Informative)
But scientists say that in the more ancient past, California and the Southwest occasionally had even worse droughts — so-called megadroughts — that lasted decades. At least in parts of California, in two cases in the last 1,200 years, these dry spells lingered for up to two centuries.
The new normal, scientists say, may in fact be an old one.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04... [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"California used to be nice and warm, but some parts have become unbearably hot during the summer, and the drought devestated the area I lived in after I moved away. "
That is called weather not climate. I doubt that you can find any data that backs up your claim that parts of California have become unbearably hot hat have never been unbearably hot in the past.
Re: (Score:2)
That is called weather not climate.
Actually, if a specific part of the world has a specific weather pattern: it is called climate.
And when those weather patterns change: it is safe to say, the climate has changed in that area.
E.g. most of Germany was used to be covered in snow during January and February, now we barely have snow on the middle high mountains. That is not weather: that is climate.
As long as the weather gets more pleasant in most (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
But now I've moved to the Philippines. We recently had a high of 37 degrees in the shade - the temperature when fans stop cooling you and start warming you up. And the thing is, most people in this town can't afford air conditioning. Many of them don't have electricity. And among those with AC and electricity, some of them have to
Re:As long as the weather gets more pleasant in mo (Score:5, Informative)
Try a month of 40c+ like we had a few years back in west australia. That was hellish.
And the fun part is some of the areas in the north of australia had regular 50c days. Thats the point where people start dying without some sort of cooling.
I should note the article states "Since we started talking about global warning in the 1970s" or something to that effect. No, we've been talking about it since the late 1800s when the greenhouse effect was first discovered and worried scientist started wondering if all the coal being sooted into the air from the industrial revolution might have unintended consequences. The science was always fairly solid. CO2 (and other gases like methane) absorb gases at various spectra, which then becomes either heat (warming) or disipates into kinetic energy (storms and general chaos). There has never really been any proposed new physics that would prevent this happening, nor reliable observations that it isn't, yet unfortunately a large population still thinks its this whacky idea invented by environmentalists in the 70s and then adopted by some spooky lizard people cartel looking to lie about physics for some reason nobody seems to be able to explain.So I still call it the greenhouse effect, because thats what it is.
Re: (Score:3)
What's more, the idea was not controversial until it was revealed that some powerful industries might need to change their ways and that the money trough of coal and oil extraction would have to be fenced off.
When I was a child (in the 70s) I was fascinated by discoveries in the solar system and our neighbouring planets. Why was Venus hotter than Mercury, despite the latter being closer to the Sun? Well, it turns out the Venusian atmosphere has large concentrations of CO2, a known greenhouse gas, and this
Re: (Score:2)
Why does everyone forget that regardless of man made global warming we are still exiting a glacial period, the the earth will warm up on it's own, and we will eventually have to deal with that change even if we reduce our emissions to 0.
Now on the other hand cheaper, cleaner, renewable resources should be our goal anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Quick point of clarification...
35 degrees in the shade is considered the temperature beyond which humans are likely to die from hyperthermia if exposed to the heat for several hours.
However, this is 35C of wet-bulb temperature. This depends on dry-bulb temperature (what we normally use), relative humidity and air pressure.
So it's not that 37C is the threshold. That'd require almost 90% relative humidity in the Phillipines where the norm seems to be between 60 and 80. At 80%, a dry temp of 38.5C would yie
Re:At a few mm per year, they're rather slow to ru (Score:5, Interesting)
Since when was the sea level predicted to rise so fast people would drown from it?
Sea levels rise, storm floods now start flooding areas that were previously farther from the coast and relatively safe, people cannot afford to just abandon their property and buy new land and build a new hose/farm in a safer place elsewhere because they are so poor they can hardly afford food, the government is to corrupt/apathetic/incompetent or just plain too poor to build flood defences which in many cases may even be a futile effort... result? Lots of people drown in storm floods in places like Bangladesh.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Did shamans of those days blame the sins of the humans — such as burning too many fires — for it? Probably...
Oh, I get it. Climate scientists are the same as "shamans" because you, on an emotional level, do not like their conclusions. How intellectually brave of you.
It's gotta hurt when you're literally stealing tactics of creationists.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they are the same as shamans, because they seem unable to make a successful scientific predictions. Try to find and cite any — you'll see for yourself.
Here are the rules:
Re: (Score:3)
Did shamans of those days blame the sins of the humans â" such as burning too many fires â" for it? Probably...
The idea that humans could affect the global climate was one of the most difficult concepts to accept. The default position was that the Earth was too large for human activity to have any effect. That shift in scientific thinking happened about a century ago. Presumably you are late to the party.
Incidentally, while I note speculation that Kodiak may have been connected by glaciation to the mainland during the last ice age, I'm not finding any information about the last time there was a land bridge. Perhaps
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe â" and first they thought, we are dangerously cooling the Earth.
No, Arrhenius was pretty clear about the warming effects. Frankly I don't know why you would mention these cooling papers, they were a minority view at the time they were published, and have been refuted since then. We can find relatively recent papers denying plate tectonics as well.
...because the ancient disappearance of the ice would've been blamed on human sins by the same shamans just as well.
I understand it's useful to some argument of yours that this would be the case, but natural forces have consistently been depicted as being unreasoning and not subject to human influence across all cultures. Catastrophe was "t
Re: (Score:3)
You appear to be under the impression there is only ever one possible reason for peninsulas to become full islands. Either that or you are trying to make a point, and failing massively. You really need to go back to school.
Re: (Score:3)
Should we be all upset that some storm wipes out a bunch of people we don't know on the other side of the planet, probably not. We should care for the planet because we need it, we should want to leave a rich fertile world for our children, but we should look out for our own. If Nature acts to reduce massively over populated regions of the world we should probably just be thankful it was not us.
Generally I agree with that except the part about not giving a shit when people I don't know are drowning. "Thou shalt do unto others as thou would have others do unto you.... etc..." I'm an atheist but I will still freely acknowledge that the Christians have some words to live by in their ancient scrolls.
Re: (Score:2)
Since when was it possible for 156 million mostly penniless people to move elsewhere?
Why Are We Ignoring Some Greenhouse Gases? (Score:5, Interesting)
I get that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it seems like nearly all of the "society ought to do X" suggestions for combating climate change equate to "reduce CO2 emissions." However, CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas; methane is barely mentioned except in reference to livestock emissions, particularly from ruminants; and water vapor is practically ignored. Why isn't anyone suggesting interfering with the water cycle? Water vapor is a major greenhouse gas. Alternatively, since clouds cause global cooling, why not a plan to increase cloud formation? It's known that decreased albedo in the poles will lead to them getting warmer, why not a plan to artificially increase albedo? White paint or whatever. When it comes to "plans that require decades, cooperation between most of the world, and trillions of dollars", why are we so laser-focused on this one plan to decrease CO2 emissions?* It seems to me that big problems tend to be solved with dozens of smaller solutions, rather than one big "hurray, it worked!" solution; true, there are many ways of producing energy aside from burning carbonaceous materials, but as I've mentioned above that's just attacking the issue from one angle.
*I imagine a big part of the reason is "don't spend $billions on that, spend $billions on this (which I have a stake in) instead." But that doesn't fully explain the issue either, I think the 'call to arms' to rally scientists to consensus has caused a little too much groupthink, and bluesky ideas which should be seriously considered are being dismissed out of hand.
Re:Why Are We Ignoring Some Greenhouse Gases? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's known that decreased albedo in the poles will lead to them getting warmer, why not a plan to artificially increase albedo? White paint or whatever
Maybe, but it requires a credible plan. How do you intend for the paint to stick on the Arctic ocean ?
Re:Why Are We Ignoring Some Greenhouse Gases? (Score:4, Informative)
Methane is causing much less warming than carbon dioxide. It is a big worry for the future, though, and much attentions is being paid to it.
Water vapor falls back to land very quickly. It can only cause local warming.
Clouds cause cooling by day but warming by night. The net effect varies by type of cloud. Too many clouds can interfere with growing crops.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying we need moisture farmers to harvest humidity from the air? Preferably over the ocean where it won't affect crop growth?
Re:Why Are We Ignoring Some Greenhouse Gases? (Score:4, Informative)
No. The amount of water in the atmosphere is mostly independent of what we put there. It goes away on its own in a few days.
The main reason for the increase in the water in the air is the warming of the Earth, which is mostly caused by carbon dioxide. If we want less moisture in the air we need to reduce long lived greenhouse gases.
Re: (Score:3)
Methane also breaks down quickly in the atmosphere. CO2 is highly stable.
Environmentalism (Score:5, Interesting)
The reason is that there are really two issues rolled into the climate change debate. The first is man-made warming itself. The second is environmental conservatism in general. What many climate campaigners would like is for humans to stop destroying our natural environment - cutting down forests, polluting rivers and lakes, that sort of thing. Many of the same people/organisations who were drumming on about environmental conservatism since before the climate change debate, simply used climate change as their latest vehicle to get their message out. Nothing wrong with that.
However, the reason they don't want to talk about geo-engineering, is that if this is seen as a viable option, then the two issues separate again. In other words many people will see a much simpler third way which involves technology preventing global warming, while they continue burning oil and buying endless junk they don't really need.
Sadly, humans being humans, it is likely that this third way will be the one we take. However, the biggest risk I see is that while us rich westerners just buy a few more air conditioners and argue about whether climate change is a thing or not, some country that is bearing the brunt of the problem decides to setup an aerosol plant and begin feeding something into the atmosphere that they think might fix the problem for them. I mean, if your country is starving due to drought, or sea level rise threatens to wipe you out, and the rich western countries are busy arguing about whether they should be able to have enormous cars or giant cars, you might just get desperate and do something risky for the planet.
Re: (Score:2)
Geo-engineeing is vastly more expensive then almost any proposed level of emissions reduction. No one talks about it because of that.
Re: (Score:3)
Geo-engineering also has substantially more unknowns -- a risk of unintended consequences which could be worse than global warming.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You talk about geo-engineering like we *haven't* already been doing it for a hundred years. Climate change itself is geo-engineering, by humans. It wasn't intentional, but it happened.
It is certainly do-able, and there are many ways to approach it. It doesn't have to be a sci-fi CO2 sucking machine that flies in the clouds.
Re: (Score:2)
Water vapor stays in the atmosphere on average for 9 days. The CO2 cycle is decades to centuries. CO2 by itself doesn't create heat, rather CO2 increases water vapor which increases heat. Vapor is the effect not the cause.
Re: (Score:2)
CO2 by itself doesn't create heat, rather CO2 increases water vapor which increases heat
CO2 by itself does increase heat, which then increases water vapor, which amplifies it.
What could possibly go wrong? (Score:2)
Yes. Let us play God with a system we barely comprehend. What we're doing now isn't bad enough so let's screw with the system deliberately.
Re: (Score:2)
I get that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but it seems like nearly all of the "society ought to do X" suggestions for combating climate change equate to "reduce CO2 emissions." However, CO2 isn't the only greenhouse gas; methane is barely mentioned except in reference to livestock emissions, particularly from ruminants; and water vapor is practically ignored. Why isn't anyone suggesting interfering with the water cycle? Water vapor is a major greenhouse gas. Alternatively, since clouds cause global cooling, why not a plan to increase cloud formation? It's known that decreased albedo in the poles will lead to them getting warmer, why not a plan to artificially increase albedo? White paint or whatever. When it comes to "plans that require decades, cooperation between most of the world, and trillions of dollars", why are we so laser-focused on this one plan to decrease CO2 emissions?* It seems to me that big problems tend to be solved with dozens of smaller solutions, rather than one big "hurray, it worked!" solution; true, there are many ways of producing energy aside from burning carbonaceous materials, but as I've mentioned above that's just attacking the issue from one angle.
*I imagine a big part of the reason is "don't spend $billions on that, spend $billions on this (which I have a stake in) instead." But that doesn't fully explain the issue either, I think the 'call to arms' to rally scientists to consensus has caused a little too much groupthink, and bluesky ideas which should be seriously considered are being dismissed out of hand.
There are a lot of legitimate reasons that CO2 is more important to climate change over time than your alternatives. Water vapor stays in the air a short time, so taking it out of the atmosphere costs a lot of energy forever on. Clouds performance for climate change is still very nuanced and our modelling on it still isn't even entirely in agreement on whether they are a net positive of negative feedback. Albedo changes are easy to go overboard on.
However, the truth is NOT that global leaders and policy adv
Water Vapor (Score:2)
Water vapor is not ignored; if it were not for the water vapor feedback cycle CO2 would be a non-issue. The issue with water vapor is that there are vast reservoirs of it all around the planet, which we are not able to do much about. Also, your statement that clouds cause cooling is not quite correct: clouds contribute to both warming and cooling. [skepticalscience.com]
Right now we are engaging in a massive uncontrolled geoengineering experiment: using CO2 to add energy to the Earth's atmosphere. Modeling the effects of this are
yeah, it is beneficial (Score:2)
First it didn't exist. Now, it is benefitting the planet.
We are slowly getting there.
Some plant growth won't stop the global warming, though.
Plants don't reflect the sunlight, and the growth is likely balanced by increased forest burnings, ice is still melting, sea level still rising. Obviously, it will be beneficial to the planet as a whole if shore cities are washed away.
Re: (Score:2)
To your comment that the growth is balanced by increased forest burning, you're aware that's not likely, right? You're aware that most plant life on earth isn't land based but ocean based, right? You're aware that likely if plants are doing better on ground, then they're probably doing much better in water (there's evidence of this as well because of problems we've been having with algae blooms).
Alas, you are wrong. Too bad, because it would be convenient if you were right. But the algaes are being driven subsurface (by UV exposure) where they do less respiration.
How does it go again? First they laugh at you (Score:2)
Terraforming (Score:4, Funny)
Once you're finished terraforming Earth, it will become habitable for intelligent life.
Sincerely, Your Neptunian Overlords
Re:Terraforming (Score:4, Insightful)
Sincerely, Your Venusian Overlords
Thus solving the problem once and for all! (Score:2)
Fortunately plants are a cheap way to combat global warming, they simply absorb more CO2 to grow bigger!
Of course, since the greenhouse gasses are still building up, it takes more and more plant growth to keep up...
Thus solving the problem once and for all! ...
ONCE AND FOR ALL!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Fortunately plants are a cheap way to combat global warming, they simply absorb more CO2 to grow bigger!
...
And then they rot or get eaten and the same amount of CO2 is released that they used in growing
all a plot to bring back the dinosaurs (Score:2)
Does Obama have a Mini-Me?
LoB
Climate skeptics?? (Score:2)
Climate skeptics argue the findings show that the extra CO2 is actually benefiting the planet. ... so they admit an increase but argue it is good? Confused ...
I thought if they were "skeptics" they would argue there is no CO2 increase or there is no temperature increase
Oh FFS (Score:3)
Yeah, the homeless guy wakes to notice that it is suddenly comfortably warm in the shelter he built from cartons just before he realises that it actually on fire from a discarded fag end...
"Greened" - gah (Score:4, Funny)
Rise In CO2 Has 'Greened Planet Earth'
Gah. Stop verbing adjectives. It really infuriationates me.
Re: (Score:2)
In plenty of languages that is an allowed "construction" :D
Re: (Score:3)
Stop verbing nouns. It weirds the language.
Re: (Score:2)
"twice the continental USA" (Score:2)
"twice the continental USA" doesn't say anything beyond lots and lots.
Could we have that in standard units, please?
Such as american football fields or Rhode Islands. Or leaves per tree.
It's good for the planet (Score:2)
And In An Unrelated News Story (Score:2)
Likely? (Score:3)
Like the negatives of CO2 are permanent. The increased green will mean more CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere.
I never understood this panic about CO2, it's harmless, there are so many pollutants that are obviously harmful.
Re: (Score:3)
The increased green will mean more CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere.
Yet, CO2 concentration is showing no signs of slowing down. http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/sit... [ucsd.edu]
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
As will be anyone who questions if the moon landings actually happened.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
No, I'm not okay with anyone being modded down with a good argument one way or the other, whether it's about climate change or moon landings.
Re: (Score:2)
"So you're okay with censorship when it silences views you don't like? "
Today this is called 'academia'.
Re: (Score:2)
Questioning the evidence with other equally credible evidence isn't lying.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/ [wattsupwiththat.com]
https://wattsupwiththat.com/gl... [wattsupwiththat.com]
https://wattsupwiththat.com/gl... [wattsupwiththat.com]
https://wattsupwiththat.com/cl... [wattsupwiththat.com]
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20... [wattsupwiththat.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Ca we trust Slashdot to remain objective
I hope the recent change of ownership of slasdot.org does not mean we will now see pro fossil ideas fed to its fans.
HAHAHAHA , that's me really laughing.
The lack of self examination. Yes lets hope slashdot remains objective and doesn't promote any views you disagree with.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't worry... everything is still not going to be alright.
deja vu
deja vu
deja vu
Re: (Score:2)
How dare people suggest that there may be some positive effects of AGW! Let's make sure to only talk about doom and gloom so people will agree to our massive plans for wealth redistribution!
What plans for wealth redistribution?
Seriously - details. Put up or shut up.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not this time according to reports compiled since before Nixon was President.
In geological time we are of course utterly screwed, but this is about speeding up the problems.
Obviously you've not heard of plate tectonics (Score:2)
The oil and gas under the artic probably formed at or near the equator and got taken north as the plates moved around.
Try again...
Re: (Score:2)
Change happens, but that doesn't mean we can't make more change happen faster.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, some of us caught that, too.
pretty sly approach, and I bet they have pulled the wool over many eyes with this.
Re: (Score:2)
It's fun to watch my "politically sensitive" posts move up and down as the earth rotates. As the east coast of the US wakes up, my posts are moderated up, then when the sun shines on the bible belt, they generally move downward again, and finally there is some more upward potential as the west coast starts to wake up, if my god-fearing friends have not already modded it into oblivion. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Even if the plant growth bonus were to be true, we are destroying hundreds of football fields worth of forests every day for palm oil production and other crops. So if the extra plant growth will help grow palms and crops faster it will be great for the businesses involved, but I don't see that solving our climate problems while we are actively destroying the enviroments where that extra plant growth could take place.
Re: (Score:3)
What would be the real long-term downside of global warming?
There are a lot of guesses, but aside from sea level rise there are few certainties.
Re: (Score:2)
Massive extinctions, in oceans and on land.
Re: (Score:3)
When the elites start leading by example I'll get on board not before. Until then it reeks of "some animals are a little more equal." I am solidly convinced that reducing carbon emissions globally would be a good thing. You don't even need to buy into climate change to accept that, after all it can't be good manipulate the carbon cycle in closed system upon which we all depend that we barely understand.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]
Its a simple fact that flying first or business class has a terribly h
Re:Everything we do is right (Score:4, Informative)
When the elites start leading by example I'll get on board not before. Until then it reeks of "some animals are a little more equal." I am solidly convinced that reducing carbon emissions globally would be a good thing. You don't even need to buy into climate change to accept that, after all it can't be good manipulate the carbon cycle in closed system upon which we all depend that we barely understand.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new... [dailymail.co.uk]
Its a simple fact that flying first or business class has a terribly higher carbon foot print. If Obama cares so much about climate change he would set an example the new airforce one would have been a 737ER with all coach seats! Set up that way there would be plenty of room for his entourage and the press core, it would just be way less comfortable. Ah but you see sacrifices are for the rest of us to make.
The elites don't need to lead by example. They can simply pick up and move to wherever things are pleasant, while all the "little people" die off. What, you actually thought they give a damn about you? If billions of us "little people" died off, all they would do is move somewhere until the bodies were done decomposing, so they wouldn't have to deal with all that annoying stench.
Rising CO2 (Score:2, Funny)
Increased concentrations of CO2 has lead to an increase in duplicate stories and comments on slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Hint if they don't melt that is really, really bad. Both for run off that feeds our waterways and the fact that if they are growing continuously means we are entering an other ice age, which means that most everyone north of the equator is going to starve/freeze to death.
You forgot the third option: they stay about the same. Same for sea ice. The Arctic has lost 75% of its ice, and it has not come back. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]