We’ve known about this effect for awhile. Tree growth has increased on volume but decreased in density since the industrial revolution[0]. A small bump in plant growth can not be seen as anything but the smallest of a silver lining.
It's more that it's an unspoken thing. Those of us who understand these issues aren't going out of our way to provide an excuse for dissonance to the masses or worse, easily misrepresented ammunition for the talking heads. The underlying systems are obviously complex but the end result is simple and society is currently having a hard time processing things that aren't simple.
The lack of openness is transparency is precisely what causes "the masses" to distrust experts about these issues. In my opinion, just saying that 'this is the effect that we found, the current consensus is that the effect is minor but more research is needed' is a more honest and a more effective way of getting "the masses" on the side of truth.
> The lack of openness is transparency is precisely what causes "the masses" to distrust experts about these issues.
That's complete bullshit. What's causing the distrust is lobbying by some of the largest industries in the world and major media companies making money hand over fist selling lies.
The fact that scientists disagree on details or some might hedge what they say so folks don't get the wrong idea I imagine has little to no ill effect in comparison.
> That's complete bullshit. What's causing the distrust is lobbying by some of the largest industries in the world and major media companies making money hand over fist selling lies.
No. Unless it was lobbyists that made my history books in school.
Still whenever I tried in the past to get an answer to why Greenland was so warm 1000 years ago I get labeled a shill.
It is somewhat maddening and absolutely not something that helps trust.
Same goes with how it is impossible to get raw numbers in any discussion.
> Still whenever I tried in the past to get an answer to why Greenland was so warm 1000 years ago I get labeled a shill.
probably a change in the strength of north atlantic thermohaline circulation.
that was a regional shift in local climate and not due to worldwide climate change. it isn't reflected in global proxies like antarctic ice cores.
hurricane activity in the atlantic basin increased, and its likely that la nina (cool) conditions persisted across the pacific.
it also may have caused draught that caused the collapse of the Maya civilization.
you probably get labelled a shill because you use it to cast doubt on anthropogenic causes of climate change and you argue that warmer temperatures benefited northern europe, while ignoring the drought and destruction of a civilization in central america.
This is true. I struggle with the branding iron myself.
For me a big part of it comes from frustration that I (we, science) know the answer to things, and someone refuses to accept it.
We don't know everything of course. And most of the time the excuses use are illogical, paradoxical, or easily disproven, and yet the person refuses to understand that theatre wrong. Hence frustration.
I never feel frustrated if my child doesn't understand something or refuses to, because she's a child. But treating adults like children is condescending, hence frustration.
> The other side welcomes everyone and presents their ideas politely.
This is a huge problem. It's just like how people selling snake oil are fantastic listeners and make people feel welcomed and understood, just to sell them literal water disguised as medicine.
We are hardwired to trust nice people over logic of facts :/
> And most of the time the excuses use are illogical, paradoxical, or easily disproven, and yet the person refuses to understand that theatre wrong. Hence frustration.
I see it.
Just remember that each time you brand someone asking questions to you, you almost definitely won't win that person and there is a fair chance you drive them away.
Edit: Also, sometimes, like with the lab leak theory it turns out the questions weren't crackpot after all. I've seen no apologies from anyone over that either so I guess a fair number of those have learned a lesson too about who to talk to.
In my household we very much agree we have no way of knowing wether it's a lab-leak or not.
Our newspapers tell us the same, as well as reporting different opinions during the whole thing. We recognize opinion as opinion, not propaganda or fact.
Why are everyone on the net seemingly living with insane politics and media? And what is so hard about saying the words: "I don't know, yet.."
To me that seems to be a core problem in public discourse today. People have been conditioned by modernity to receive instant gratification. In the realm of information they want to know what is factual and what is not even when it is too early to draw conclusions. One can also see this in the whole Trump Russia scandal and before that the Iraq WMD fiasco. There was no "there" there (a phrase I hate btw.) But never the less people were led to believe there was by the manufacturers of "facts."
Maybe part of the problem is this: People read paper as paper, something somebody clearly has written. We know that it was printed in 1980 and full of flaws compared to today's knowledge, but maybe also some insights.
Online material we read like facts, even when it's opinion, we rarely check dates and don't think of the content as dated. Also anyone can publish anything, including deceptive texts, as the barrier to entry is much lower. The cost is next to free.
People also engage more actively with online material, internalizing anything, even when it's garbage and transitory.
As has been said here with social media, there's lack of quality controls, but also distrust in quality measures.
Somehow, I'm not convinced all the online material is worth reading, but the trick is how to make sure people engage in quality without reducing freedom and differing opinions.
Well in many US states politicians write the curriculum. Like in Texas and Mississippi, you don't learn that slavery was the cause for the civil war, but states rights. Despite the existence of their succession documents
> That's complete bullshit. What's causing the distrust is lobbying by some of the largest industries in the world and major media companies making money hand over fist selling lies
This used to be true. In 1995 this was definitely true. But today it just isn't. Look at the primary promulgators of vaccine misinformation. They're not lobbyists for anyone, they're just amateurs who think they're smarter than they are.
Like the now vice president of the USA who claimed she wouldn't get a "Trump" vaccine? Repeated ad-nausium on CNN, MSNBC.
You can point to plenty of similar stuff with republican partisans and Fox.
Both should be abhorrent equally to people who lean democrat as republican.
So who do you believe? For any sensible person the answer is obviously neither.
How about Fauci or the CDC?
The Street: So, why weren't we told to wear masks in the beginning?
Fauci: "Well, the reason for that is that we were concerned the public health community, and many people were saying this, were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment, including the N95 masks and the surgical masks, were in very short supply. And we wanted to make sure that the people namely, the health care workers, who were brave enough to put themselves in a harm way, to take care of people who you know were infected with the coronavirus and the danger of them getting infected." [1]
If you believe Fauci, he lied, he said so himself. (For what he thought was the greater good, sure. It's very understandable and human error.) And in so doing undermined the trust there too pretty badly. Which comes at great cost.
Tell the truth people. Warts and all. Even if it provides some small amount of short term ammunition to liars, thieves, confidence tricksters and so on because the truth is the only weapon that works long-term. We see the consequences of not respecting that right now and its very worrying.
Fauci is clearly on record lying about masks. But digging into Kamala Harris, it appears that she actually said she wouldn't trust Trump's word *alone* - wanted to see FDA review.
Oh stop it. Now. This was not a reasoned, sensible, measured approach to vaccine information. This was using vaccine hesitancy to score partisan points in a pandemic. Period.
Stop making excuses for it no matter who does it. It's wrong on Fox, on CNN, by Republican partisans, by Democrat partisans. It's equally wrong when done for ulterior motive by non-partisans.
> The lack of openness is transparency is precisely what causes "the masses" to distrust experts about these issues.
Considering that climate scientists have seen their emails hacked, quote-mined, and used to produce climate FUD (not to mention global harassment campaign), I have to say nah, not really.
It would have to be closer to 200-300% in order to solve our problem. You can easily Google search for these numbers. And this would just get us to neutral on CO2. We would still have to deal with methane and water vapor, both of which are more potent greenhouse gases.
My understanding is that on earth the two main carbon sinks are biomass and the oceans. I believe these sinks make up almost 100% of natural carbon sequestration. So it could be a big amount. I'd check the carbon cycle wiki article.
But is biomass a permanent sink or just a temporary buffer?
I mean every year we keep pumping more carbon into the atmosphere, but unless biomass turns into coal, it is just a temporary buffer for carbon, right?
It is temporary. The increase in biomass due to CO2 saturates when the area locally runs out of other constraints like water or nitrogen.
The IPCC predicts by 2100 the land is going to convert into a net source rather than sink of carbon -- so the positive feedback loops will exceed the negative feedback stabilizers.
The increase in biomass also comes at a decrease in nutrient density as well, so its not like this is magic sauce for croplands.
What is simple is a lot of people can tell they're being lied to by people driven more by belief than reason (i.e. people like you and those who "understand", I'm disgusted by your attitude)
It is very easy to generate an opposition movement by turning a reason-driven effort into moral drum beating nonsense.
"Trust the science, and by the way, 'the science' won't ever publish real evidence that contradicts its beliefs" is why you get deniers that have very legitimate reasons to doubt people who tell them what's real and what isn't.
> The underlying systems are obviously complex but the end result is simple and society is currently having a hard time processing things that aren't simple.
How do we fix this? Why is society having such a hard time processing things that aren't simple?
You simply have to stop optimizing for the lowest common denominator and push things out that you think some people won't understand.
Small children are perfectly capable of understanding very complex things, just ask a kid about pokemon or whatever kids are into these days and you'll be able to find huge pockets of complexity all over the place.
Treat people like they're dumb and can't understand anything that doesn't fit into a headline though... and they'll get accustomed to that.
The biggest targets should be news room editors trying to sell ads.
These are reports based on peer-reviewed scientific papers, that yes sometimes have to discount and dispute eachother. The presence of conflicting information does not change the overall picture of greenhouse gases like CO2 which can be tested in any simple lab. It does not change how solar input has increased over millions of years, making the planet much more sensitive to warming due to greenhouse effects.
That's quite an accusation though. Have you even looked for the information you seek yourself, or do you expect to be spoonfed the information that you currently feel you are missing?
"Those of us who understand these issues aren't going out of our way to provide an excuse for dissonance to the masses or worse, easily misrepresented ammunition for the talking heads."
They clearly stated they are involved in research and are actively not sharing information.
I wouldn't take an online post as credible source of anything. Whatever people say in posts may often be bragging or arrogance, or at least exhaggeration or situational. For example the point about understanding all of this, when you really need monte-carlo simulations of multiple complex mathematical models playing out to make meaningful findings. Not to mention the needed complexity of the models themselves exceed the bandwidth of typical online postings.
Anyways, no poster or researcher ever owed you anything. If you want information, you have the responsibility to seek it out yourself. What the poster thinks about could very well be false and unverified information, so may not be the gold you seek.
When seeking knowledge about this, dismissing peer-reviewed research and experts would lean heavily over to Dunning-Kruger effect. Why would so many researchers be so stupid as to overlook simple effects, or collaborate in some elaborate scheme. After so many decades of verified results, I would rather ask who are feeding people misinformation and discounting credible research without substantial proof and debunked claims [1]? I would be very sceptical of those who seek to distract for personal gain. People are also inclined to take in information that is somehow reassuring, moreso than factual.
There are research I've been following for many years, ie. Henrik Svensmark's papers looked promising. But the research don't explain the added accumulating warming after 1930's and the funding and reasoning is looking suspect and fail to be leading. It would be nice though, if some of the results can be shown to dampen effects of CO2.
But I'm no expert either, so will have to trust the consensus of those who work with this deeply in the field, though also read other sources. Both with pinches of salt.
Anyways, my main point is, please don't take random online posts too seriously as to think they represent the scope of credible researcher work.
Biospheric carbon is miniscule compared to atmospheric carbon. Not only that, the biosphere is not a permanent carbon-sink. The extra 30% plant growth in spring becomes 30% extra carbon from plant decay in fall.
And regardless, any effect that increased plant growth rates provide is already factored into our runaway atmospheric carbon rate.
Plant growth by itself is not a carbon sink. It just adds to the "buffer size" for the short-term carbon cycle. For some of that carbon to be "sunk" it has to either be removed and used/stored in a way that doesn't put that carbon back into the atmosphere, or transformed into long-term stable humic and vulvic substances, or buried in an anaerobic environment under pressure so it'll eventually turn into petroleum.
Also the CO2 fertilization effect also has negative consequences... enough so that it's really far from clear whether it's a net postive, even a small one. For one thing it's one of the reasons why modern food has significantly lower nutrient density (plants, including crop plants are growing faster, but the additional mass is almost pure carbohydrates, very little additional proteins, minerals, etc.). And in the tropical rainforests, the plants that are most benefiting from CO2 fertilization are fast-growing vines, and they are literally choking off tree growth (there have been papers published about this).
First, the post you're replying to is referring to rate of change, you've chosen to refer to total concentration.
Second, doubling of gas concentration in a system as large as an entire planet should be mind boggling. The fact that it isn't means you aren't thinking about it hard enough. Imagine if the ocean suddenly had twice as much salt, or if there was suddenly twice as much water, or if there were suddenly twice as many cars on the road. These would all be pretty amazing events.
"Forest stand growth dynamics in Central Europe have accelerated since 1870 due to a rise in temperature, extended growing seasons, and other components of climate change. Based on wood samples from the oldest existing experimental plots in Central Europe, we show that the dominant tree species Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) H.Karst.), Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.), European beech (Fagus sylvatica L.), and sessile oak (Quercus petraea (Mattuschka) Liebl.) exhibit a significant decrease in wood density since more than 100 years. While stand and trees grow faster with respect to wood volume, we can show that wood density decreased by 8–12% since 1900. These results object a naïve direct transformation of volume growth trends into an accelerated biomass production. Since 1900, stand biomass increment increased 9–24 percentage points less compared to volume increment (29–100% increase reduces to 20–76%). For a given stem diameter and annual ring width, tree stability against windthrow, wood strength, energy content and C sequestration are even reduced under recent conditions. The generally decreased late wood density, partly going along with an increased early wood fraction, suggests the observed extension of the growing season and fertilization effect of dry deposition as the main causes. Our results indicate that current increased wood volume growth rates must not be straightforwardly converted into sequestrated C and biomass harvest potentials assuming historic values for wood density. This should be taken into account in monitoring, modeling, and utilization of carbon and biomass in forests under global change."
I read that abstract twice and still can't parse it, but the 30% number comes from the noaa.gov website quote:
"A new study published in the April 6 edition of the journal Nature concludes that as emissions of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels have increased since the start of the 20th century, plants around the world are utilizing 30 percent more carbon dioxide (CO2), spurring plant growth."
...by the way perhaps not more than we thought (dunno?), but more than the 19th century.
It can also have some negative consequences for imperilled ecosystems. African savannahs are becoming more shrubby for example, which will favour some species at the expense of others.
> A small bump in plant growth can not be seen as anything but the smallest of a silver lining.
It could also be seen as a bad thing. Forest fire season in the PNW is a lot worse in years with a wetter spring followed by a dry summer. This is because the extra moisture encourages thicker brush growth, which then dries up and serves as tinder and fuel for the fires later in the season.
I would think extra plant growth in dry areas combined with any sort of warming trend, would end up acting similarly.
How do climate change models currently account for increase in plants? Are these plant growth numbers in line with expectations? Is this a large change or a rounding error in those models?
Any global climate model worth its salt will have a comprehensive carbon cycle submodel, tracking the sources and sinks of carbon in all its forms, between ocean, soil, land, and atmosphere. Some models evolve the amount and type of plants e.g. C1 to project future biome distribution [0]
I heard John Baez call this "CO2 fertilization". And it's been talked about for a while. Hard to predict the effect, but the consensus seems to range from "could help, sorta" to "not really important".
> The details of CO2 fertilization matter a lot. It could make the difference between their original plan being roughly good enough… and being nowhere near good enough!
Check the page for more info on young vs old trees, nitrogen limits, etc.
There's also this page, which has an even more pessimistic take.
Wow thanks for this link. I’m familiar with John baez’s writings on physics and category theory, I didn’t realize how deep he went into climate change though.
Anyway after reading this I think I can answer my original questions a bit: Yes increased plant growth is a critical and part of climate change models. IPCC is predicting an increase of 6G tons of carbon consumed by plants by 2050 and without this we could not hit our carbon goals. Hopefully this research shows that our models are not overestimating here.
Yes, this is an extension of Liebig's Law of the Minimum[1]: growth is constrained by whatever nutrient is scarcest (relative to the needs of the growing organism), by extending "nutrient" to "environmental input" to include temperature, light and toxins.
It's little more subtle, but yes overall true. Higher CO2 makes it easier for plants to photosynthesize using less water, so they can grow in previously-too-dry locations.
Soil/water pH is very important. When pH is off, some nutrients are unavailable to plants even when present in otherwise adequate quantities.
You also have to account for insects and microbes, which can either totally destroy a plant or help, in the case of soil fungi, earthworms or pollinators.
Too much light can be a problem, too. Not only from heat, but simply overexposure.
> I assume plant life is constrained by different things in different locations:
> - lack of water
> - too hot
> - too cold
Hmm. There are lots of examples where plants do not grow in an area that (1) has a lot of water; and (2) is very cold. Are there any examples of a place that is too hot, as opposed to too dry?
Even the cold examples might be driven more by a lack of liquid water than by temperature requirements.
Too hot and plants can't properly regulate water loss, shrivel, and die. Too cold, even well above freezing, and they can have problems moving their liquids due to increased viscosity. In both extremes you can have temps too far from optimal that inhibit enzyme reactions, killing the plants.
I'm not sure how you'd separate 'too hot' from 'too dry' -- problem being that places that are too hot to support plant life will rapidly undergo desertification, and then they'll be too dry.
I might look at the Nile and the oases to its west as examples. They are areas with plenty of water in the middle of what is otherwise a hot, barren desert. Plants grow there just fine. We can rule out the Sahara as a place that's too hot for plants.
> Are there any examples of a place that is too hot, as opposed to too dry?
For a given species of plant, yes.
For cold-adapted plants, like those in the arctic, too warm of a winter could mean carbohydrate exhaustion due the increased metabolism, which would mean spring starvation. With climate change we see such species retreating to higher elevation or toward the poles.
Or more helpfully, it's a problem with a plant experiencing temperatures outside its natural range. There's a huge difference between "the temperature here is too hot for plants to grow" and "the temperature here is too hot for cold-weather plants to grow".
Where I lived in northern Minnesota has been getting greener, but mainly, I think, because the winter is shorter by 2-3 weeks on both sides versus 80 years ago.
Certainly green in Denver this year but it’s because we have received 50% more rain than usual.
Depends on what happens with the vegetative growth. If it is cut down or otherwise dies, decomposition will release CO2. Systems like that can often be carbon neutral if they regrow again. Human development is destroying what could be longterm carbon sinks, though, and so is climate change.
Yes, as oceans warm, more water vapor is being released into the atmosphere. Water vapor is far more effective than CO2 at trapping heat, and is therefore driving one of global warming’s most extreme positive feedback loops [1].
There are several others. I'm not a climate scientist, but my understanding is that the most significant potential negative feedback loop by far is the potential for increased cloud cover from increased humidity. It's evidently the most difficult aspect of global warming to model, although climate scientists are making continuous progress. In addition, the marginal radiative forcing of CO2 decreases with its concentration, which means both that increases in emissions do less harm as things get worse, and that reductions in emissions do less good.
Global warming means more water in the air. This is both a positive feedback (water is an excellent heat trap) and negative in the form of clouds. White clouds increase the albedo of the planet, rejecting heat.
Another negative feedback is the increased intake of CO2 by oceans, through difussion. Also the plankton consumes more CO2.
It makes sense, think about it: if the planet didn't have negative feedbacks, absolutely any event would potentially cause a runoff through positive feedback in warmings and throw the climate out of balance. Even something like a vulcanic eruption or forest fire in the middle ages: without the negative feedback, CO2 would cause warming, which causes more water, which causes warming...there must be some serious negative feedback loops, which is why we've almost doubled the warming effect of CO2 with (so far) very small influences on the climate.
It's reassuring in the sense that I believe there is a very slim chance of runaway warming based on positive feedback loop.
These levels of CO2 are pretty low on a geological scale, increases to 400-800ppm CO2 have not caused a runaway global warming a la Venus ever before. More of the Earh's life as a living planet was spent above 1000 ppm than under.
In fact, there was a period in the past when the Earth warmed 10 degree Celsius (18 F) in 10 years, and there was no runaway global warming.
There will be warming, there will be positive and negative feedbacks, we don't know for sure how big each will be.
The true pity is that we're in the midst of a mass extinction event. Between pollution, loss of habitat and rapid warming - we're killing off species like we're a killer meteor...and there's no coming back for the Amazon rain-forest and countless species. Once they're gone they're gone.
I am not sure what you're trying to tell me here. I am not doubting that CO2 drives some global warming events, which is what the video is debunking.
I am saying there have been swings in CO2 levels and we haven't seen runaway warming from them. The temperature stabilizes after a while.
Do you have sources that contradict that? The updated temperature graph is shown very briefly at 5.57, what do they mean by that? why not put it side by side with the CO2 graph? The new temp graph is basically the same, just with a higher resolution.
Myth #3 is about comparing CO2-levels from hundreds of million years ago. In about 4:03 it is showing solar output superimposed on top of the graph of CO2+temp etc. The meaning is that with higher solar output today, greenhouse gases will have more effect, than they did hundred million years ago.
The updated graph is probably just to show there's more nuance to the graph than the old version. It doesn't make sense to use very old graphs outdated by the author.
The runaway effects will be from thresholds being broken, like acification of the ocean, burning of the tundra, deglacification and other events that humanity cannot influence or stop directly.
I feel like we're speaking 2 different languages here. I am talking about runaway global warming. You're posting links about global warming. The difference is in "runaway".
I have the feeling you didn't read what I wrote in the thread, I specifically decried the loos of biodiversity in my first comment.
My question and point of view was: is there evidence of previous runaway global warming caused by CO2. There were enough CO2 induced global warming events, but not runaway. My point being that at some point it will stabilize, we're not going to end up like Venus.
If you're not going to talk specifically about what I'm saying, what's the point of flooding me with links? I am aware and agree with what's in there.
Since Earth is not like Venus now, this wouldn't have happened as Earth would've lost most of its atmosphere. But Earth have been a fireball very early on, and cooled down from that since solar output was much lower then.
As the solar output continue to increase, Earth will become like Venus or a fireball, before it's engulfed.
As solar output "only" increased 4% over some hundred of million years it would seem unlikely to occur from greenhouse gases alone.
Great question. We know that a large enough volcano eruption can cause a year long winter so I'm curious how much large scale forest fires can compare. Also, assuming regrowth is allowed, the CO2 impact from the burned wood is neutral in the long run.
I traveled from Ontario to British Columbia two years ago when the forest fires out west were really peaking.
I noticed smoke in the air as far as Winnipeg, and it only got thicker as I approached Vancouver.
Surely all of those white/reflective particles in the upper atmosphere are reflecting the sun's rays.
Also, weather predictions that year where WAY off. Predictions were always much higher than the actual high of the day. I assume this is resultant from historical weather data being a poor source for an altered state weather season.
The smoke covered almost all of north america at some points and it really got much cooler than seasonal averages.
This is anecdotal quantification, but I lived in northern California for a few years and late June would usually be in the 100s or 110s. By August when California catches on fire, it cools down to 90s (when the smoke was blowing our way).
By contrast, when I lived in Texas (no fires), June and July would be in the low 100s, and the first two weeks of August would be 107 - 112.
Back in the early 90s a volcano erupted in the Philippines. In Canada where I grew up, late that summer in August, it was below freezing in the mornings. I had never encountered that before and was a direct result of the volcano.
Is it really a negative feedback and not just transient though? Sure it may cool things during the fire, but it also just destroyed some carbon sinks and worsened the overall emissions effect. Then the fire ends and it no longer has any cooling effect so its not feeding back.
Yes, many scientists have predicted this, but unfortunately the act of articulating a positive effect of CO2 tends to get you labeled "climate denier" and censored from many parts of the media, and thus we aren't very aware of the bigger picture of climate change. Here's an articulation from one of the Greenpeace Cofounders: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDWEjSDYfxc
He also notes that increased CO2 can help boost agriculture productivity, making it easier to feed the world's population.
This is nonsense. More CO2 === faster plant growth is not some suppressed secret, this is basic science that people have known about for ages, and nobody is going to get labelled anything unless they're mentioning it as part of some bad faith argument.
Climate change deniers love stuff like this though, you can bring it up in a bullet point list of "why climate change isn't a big deal" or whatever and push your false narrative without any of the individual points being false. People who bring this fact up and are subsequently labelled climate change deniers are being labelled that because of the context and content of their whole argument, not because one specific true fact was mentioned.
It's also a bit disingenuous to talk about Patrick Moore as a Greenpeace Co-founder without any context about what he's been up to since 1986 when he left the organization. This is just an appeal to authority that's only tenuously linked to reality.
Stop being disingenuous just so you can feed your persecution complex with strangers on the internet.
But to your point about Patrick Moore, he really isn't a credible authority on this matter at all. The positive effects of carbon dioxide are true for the most part. However, this does nothing to invalidate the mountain of negative effects that destabilising the climate currently has and will continue to worsen.
My understanding is that this has been known for decades, it's not like it's been suppressed.
> He also notes that increased CO2 can help boost agriculture productivity, making it easier to feed the world's population.
In cooler countries, this is indeed the case. However, most of the world's population lives in warmer regions, meaning even if we have plenty of food, it's poorer countries that will lack it, so we'll still get climate refugees.
Faster growth = less nutritious plants bc they are slow to take up minerals from the soil. But they do produce more sugar. On the other hand the heat may make some plants shrivel, there was an article about the impact of heat on grapes. Tropical pests may persist in cooler climates bc the seasons won't kill then off and the ecosystem doesnt have enough predators yet.
Do you know of any examples of a climate scientist or biologist predicting this and being labeled a climate denier for stating this prediction? I would be very much surprised if it wasn't common knowledge amongst climate scientists that this is one result of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.
I have no idea what happened to Patrick Moore. He's not actually an environmentalist anymore. He just uses his past affiliation with Greenpeace to make money being a spokesman for companies like Exxon and Monsanto. He doesn't actually care if you live or die. He just wants you to spend more money on fossil fuels.
I heard him on a podcast recently. He didn't seem to be pushing Monsanto. Can you please point me to where he does this? I would be rather put off. I hate mono cropping and pretty much everything Monsanto.
It was back in 2015, he made a comment on TV about how glyphosate is safe enough to drink, and then when the interviewer offered him a glass he refused to drink it and said "I'm not stupid." Monsanto denies ever retaining him to make these comments and it's probably true that Patrick Moore has never received money directly from Monsanto.
Patrick Moore is proof that with enough money, you can buy whatever you want, including an "ecologist" who says that climate change is a good thing and not caused by humans.
If science-fiction counts then Jeffrey Jones expected it in 1972's "Wholly Holy": https://i.imgur.com/DmbQANH.jpg (mildly NSFW art)
His 33-page "Ravens & Rainbows" collection has this and several other great short sci-fi stories in that old "Heavy Metal" comic style that's rarely seen these days, but same NSFW disclaimer applies: https://imgur.com/a/M0JUTSx
Have a look at google earth some time. What franction of temperate and tropical land mass outside of deserts is some shade of green? Probably in excess of 95%. There are a lot of plants on Earth.
Google says there's 3+ trillion trees. Half as many as when humans came on the scene, but more than 100 years ago, so that's a positive trend on the environmental front.
Google is getting their count from a Nature or Scientific American article which mentions that the number of trees is calculated from "421,529 measurements from 50 countries on six continents". Fires also clear away old growth so new trees can have a chance, and trees native to fire-prone areas have evolved fire resistance. In addition, some pine cone seeds are released by fire.
As for the net loss or gain, you'd have to subtract how many trees died in the fires from how many new saplings there are annually. The world is a big place. It's perfectly possible for a billion trees lost in one region to be offset by a billion new trees elsewhere.
Not a scientist or otherwise expert, but this seems like a silver lining in the climate change that will eventually lead to humans not being able to inhabit the planet and the impact people are having on the planet: plants get more food and grow more. Am I wrong in that thought?
Plants get more carbon, but not more minerals or elements that are only in the soil. And that may mean more volume, maybe more calories, but less food.
That, even if we assume that we get to an stable and livable weather plateau, and not an ever increasing global warming, extreme weather, and livable conditions for every animal and plant.
And even in that plateau, if the ecosystem that make that plants to live (I don't know, bees, worms, bacteria and so on) don't make it the plants won't be good for long neither.
Over the very long term, I see no reason to think that higher CO2 levels are fundamentally worse for life than pre-industrial levels. In general, plants are the foundation of the food chain, and higher CO2 levels are better for them. In addition, life depends on liquid water, and given that surface temperatures are generally closer to the freezing point of water than the boiling point, I could see how higher temperatures might increase the amount of land and ocean surface hospitable to life. The problem is the transition period, during which most things go extinct until evolution can slowly regenerate the lost diversity over 10+ million years.
Good for plants, but not necessarily for humans. Human mental performance seems to reduce at higher CO2 levels, which makes sense as humans (by any definition... behaviorally modern humans ~50,000 years ago, anatomically modern humans 300,000 years ago, the overall genus homo within about 2 million years) have never experienced CO2 levels near the current level, let alone what they may be by the end of the century. Perhaps CO2 levels will be higher than ever experienced by great apes since we first evolved 14 million years ago: https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/
Do you got a source for the idea that human mental preformance suffers in the the hundred ppm CO2 range? I don't see how it would since the body has homeostatic mechanisms. CO2 has only increased by several hundred ppm since the industrial revolution. Maybe you are confusing CO2 with CO which has completely different biochemistry (it binds more efficiently with hemoglobin than oxygen and or does not release as easily once bound).
Yes, I do have sources that human mental performance suffers at elevated CO2 levels (800-1000ppm, not uncommon in buildings... but could be the CO2 level outdoors and even if it's not quite that high, it'll be harder and harder to keep building CO2 levels below that as external CO2 levels increase). https://www.nature.com/articles/s41370-018-0055-8
Current levels aren't really problematic except in stuffy buildings. But if we don't stop changing the chemistry of the atmosphere, it becomes a problem.
It would be interesting if the study could be duplicated. More importantly it does not seem to distinguish between the acute effect of a sudden increase in CO2 in an experimental setting and the chronic effect of gradually rising ambient rates over the span of years. It stands to reason that the body would adapt to higher CO2 levels over longer time ranges vs. just injecting a sudden pulse of 2500 ppm into a closed chamber.
Well, good news! We’re conducting a planetwide, n = 8 billion, study on this topic right now! We don’t have a control group, though, except maybe a handful of rich folk who can afford to scrub CO2 from their penthouses.
You have as hypothesis that the current process will stop in very short time leaving things like today, more or less. I don't know when it will stop, but before it does, it will have to deal with the excess of greenhouse gases on the atmosphere until reaching an equilibrium point, and the positive feedback mechanisms that are being triggered already (and that they are emitting their own quota of GHG).
It not may stop till the yearly global average temperature is several degrees over what is it now, CO2 in the air or not, and that will not bring nice living conditions. And as a difference of the other times in Earth's history that it happened without massive extinctions, it is happening too damn fast at geological/evolution times. If species doesn't adapt fast enough, they get extinct.
Yes, at the other side of that process, some millions of years after, they could be a new age for life. But we won't be there.
From the article, the study assumes that COS is released primarily from plants. Are there any industrial processes that could be releasing this as a byproduct? The claim seems like it could be better tested by measuring COS in a controlled atmosphere.
Do not have science but over 20 years driving around one can see the bare mountain covered with more and more trees … crazily green these days. Question is thus negative feedback loop does not help enough unfortunately.
People never ever forget that all of this is not in anyway what so ever has slowed down the exponential increase in greenhouse gases. SF6 CH4 CO2 N2O all growing year over year near record levels.
Human consumption and population growth needs to level flatline. Now.
[0] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S037811271...