Slashdot Mirror


Rise In CO2 Has 'Greened Planet Earth' (bbc.com)

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.

20 of 345 comments (clear)

  1. More "pleasant" weather by fustakrakich · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Yeah, if prefer mud and slush to nice powdery snow

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:More "pleasant" weather by phantomfive · · 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?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:More "pleasant" weather by Karmashock · · 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.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    3. Re:More "pleasant" weather by adolf · · Score: 3, 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.)

    4. Re:More "pleasant" weather by Troed · · Score: 3, 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...

    5. Re: More "pleasant" weather by Karmashock · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    6. Re: More "pleasant" weather by Karmashock · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
    7. Re:More "pleasant" weather by rgbatduke · · Score: 3, 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...

      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

      --
      Even when the experts all agree, they may well be mistaken. --- Bertrand Russell.
  2. As long as the weather gets more pleasant in most by patrick.kursawe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    .... who cares if some island nations are wiped off the map or a few thousand people drown in Bangladesh?

  3. Why Are We Ignoring Some Greenhouse Gases? by mentil · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Why Are We Ignoring Some Greenhouse Gases? by religionofpeas · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Methane is barely mentioned because it's overall greenhouse effect is much smaller than CO2. Water vapor is a major greenhouse gas, but hard to control, except by reducing global temperature.

      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 ?

    2. Re:Why Are We Ignoring Some Greenhouse Gases? by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 3, Informative

      ...methane is barely mentioned except in reference to livestock emissions...

      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.

      Why isn't anyone suggesting interfering with the water cycle?

      Water vapor falls back to land very quickly. It can only cause local warming.

      ...since clouds cause global cooling...

      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.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    3. Re:Why Are We Ignoring Some Greenhouse Gases? by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 3, 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.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
  4. Environmentalism by monkeyxpress · · Score: 4, 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.

  5. Terraforming by mentil · · Score: 3, Funny

    Once you're finished terraforming Earth, it will become habitable for intelligent life.
    Sincerely, Your Neptunian Overlords

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Terraforming by AC-x · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sincerely, Your Venusian Overlords

  6. Re:At a few mm per year, they're rather slow to ru by Feral+Nerd · · Score: 4, 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.

  7. Re:As long as the weather gets more pleasant in mo by sg_oneill · · Score: 4, Informative

    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 work outdoors in the daytime.

    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.

    --
    Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
  8. "Greened" - gah by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Funny

    Rise In CO2 Has 'Greened Planet Earth'

    Gah. Stop verbing adjectives. It really infuriationates me.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  9. Re:Everything we do is right by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 3, 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...

    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.