Sign in to follow this  
Yueya

The Earth is getting greener

Recommended Posts

Rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have significantly increased plant growth across the planet over the past three decades, a new study suggests.

 

The most comprehensive modelling of remote sensing data so far shows the area on Earth covered by plants in this time has increased by 18 million square kilometres — almost twice the size of the USA and about 2.5 times the size of the Australian continent — largely due to the fertilising effect of carbon dioxide (CO2).

 

Key points

 

A few areas on Earth have browned but the vast majority have greened.

Plant coverage has grown by 18 million square kilometres in a few decades.

The main cause is increase in atmospheric CO2.

Nitrogen from agricultural fertilisers has also contributed.

 


Edited by Yueya
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Climate change has helped too.

 

I have heard that the polar bear's fur is beginning to turn green to better blend in with its surroundings.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. The question is, is this good or bad?

 

At first sight, the title seems unarguably positive. But as they (leave a single paragraph to) point out in the conclusion, it's all a part of the warming, droughts, rising waters, severe weather, etc... And we might note that the increased greenery probably isn't making up for all the ecological / habitat destruction we've wreaked for so long..

Edited by dustybeijing
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this means that we can grow more food just by increasing the carbon dioxide ? That's brilliant. Why didn't the scientists know that. All we need to do is to increase carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and we can spend less time farming and feed more people. Could there be a way to accomplish this miracle by doing some kind of activity that would create the carbon dioxide as a by product. That woukd be sick if we could think of such a solution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So this means that we can grow more food just by increasing the carbon dioxide ? That's brilliant. Why didn't the scientists know that. All we need to do is to increase carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and we can spend less time farming and feed more people. Could there be a way to accomplish this miracle by doing some kind of activity that would create the carbon dioxide as a by product. That woukd be sick if we could think of such a solution.

^^^ They did/do. (And yes, I do realize your post is tongue-in-cheek! :))

 

One used to be able to read the original draft of the IPCC's global warming document along with the comments of the scientists who were asked to review it. This was available on the IPCC's website and I even had a copy of it saved once upon a time because I expected it to be taken down once the significance was recognized. Alas! That was nearly 20 years ago and I've long since lost that document -- and, as expected, the UN took it down after it got some negative attention on the Internet. The draft report was sent out to scientists for review on a chapter-by-chapter basis. The early comments were generally not very pretty, with lots of observations about how the conclusions weren't supported by the data, how the data seemed cherry-picked, and, basically, how this looked like rather bad "science." The replies to these comments typically took the form of either "thank you for your input but we are sticking with what we've written" or "this is intended to be a policy-shaping document rather than a formal scientific treatise." Soon, the flow of comments died down to a trickle and the later chapters had only sparse commentary by a handful of scientists who believed in the importance of this policy change. The IPCC counted the entire set of people to whom the document was sent as the panel of reviewers who vetted the research.

 

The historical record is quite clear. During periods of increased temperatures, the planet's biosphere thrives -- including the human component. During periods of decreased temperatures, the biosphere suffers -- including the human component. The ocean serves as both a heat sink and a CO2 sink, and the cycle of these two processes work in conjunction with each other.

 

Man does lots of bad things to the environment but global warming ain't one of them. In fact, if you really wanna worry about climate trends, worry about a coming ice age. What should be far more troubling, though, is the honeybee population...

Edited by Brian
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Tongue in cheek' why Sir, you surely mistake me ;-)

 

The whole Global warming scam was always a socialist pipe dream for smuggling communism in through the back door. Of course those that footed the bill to get it going have made a nice fat profit, and the research scientists get lots of tax payer grant funding.

 

It's obvious to anyone with an ounce of intelligence, that the Eco warriors commonly conflate pollution with global warming and construct a story around 'destroying the planet' in order to destroy capitalism and reduce everyone to living it mud huts and aurtarky. They must view Maos agrarian China of total labour and starvation as a minor miracle.

Edited by Karl
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 " Destroying the planet "  ?     :huh:

 

 

That would take a bit ! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8ca.gif

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'Tongue in cheek' why Sir, you surely mistake me ;-)

 

The whole Global warming scam was always a socialist pipe dream for smuggling communism in through the back door. Of course those that footed the bill to get it going have made a nice fat profit, and the research scientists get lots of tax payer grant funding.

 

It's obvious to anyone with an ounce of intelligence, that the Eco warriors commonly conflate pollution with global warming and construct a story around 'destroying the planet' in order to destroy capitalism and reduce everyone to living it mud huts and aurtarky. They must view Maos agrarian China of total labour and starvation as a minor miracle.

 

 

I don't know of any intelligent person that would respond to such drivel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know any intelligent person.

Oh, I bet you do...

 

 

:D

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't know of any intelligent person that would respond to such drivel.

 

I submit the Green Party manifesto as evidence

https://www.greenparty.org.uk/policies-2010/2010manifesto-environment.html

 

Rich people need to consume less (than poor people) ostensibly to reduce their 'carbon footprint' because we all know that carbon is evil because climate priests have been telling us it is. They used to tell us sex was unnatural thoughts too.

 

Walking and cycling prioritised.

 

Small, local farms, allotment schemes and coops encouraged.

 

We have to do all this because it is 'destroying the environment'. Well, what precisely is the environment ? Isn't it all the features that are part of our environment ? Is it not the Rocky/metallic bulk of the planet, its constituent make up, atmosphere, oceans and life. Is not destroying our environment analogous to destroying the planet ? Greens do not make the distinction when the planet unwittingly pollutes itself. They talk big on protecting life, but they aren't too concerned about bugs, mosquitos, germs, virus, volcanoes, tidal waves, earthquakes, wild animals. These things are fine because they are 'natural' where as man is not. Man therefore must minimise his impact to that of an earthworm in order to save himself and his environment.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think messing with the climate is problematic. One of the issues being the melting down of the polar ice. But that doesn't mean that there is no upside to it. Few things are simply black and white in reality (except zebras, of course).

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More CO2, warmer > more plants > more food > more humans > more CO2, warmer > more plants > more food > more humans.... and aren't humans great? So! it must be a good thing...

 

 

Anyone can take a myopic view of a situation and make it fit with their long-decided opinion, make it seem either good or bad.

 

 

Once there was a farmer who worked his poor farm together with his son and their horse. When the horse ran off one day, neighbors came to say, “How unfortunate for you!” The farmer replied, “Maybe.”

 

When the horse returned, followed by a herd of wild horses, the neighbors gathered around and exclaimed, “What good luck for you!” The farmer stayed calm and replied, “Maybe.”


While trying to tame one of wild horses, the farmer’s son fell, and broke his leg. He had to rest up and couldn’t help with the farm chores. “How sad for you,” the neighbors cried. “Maybe,” said the farmer.


Shortly thereafter, officers came around drafting young men to fight in the war. Because of his broken leg, they left the farmer's son behind. People said to the farmer, “What a good thing your son couldn’t fight!”

 

“Maybe.”

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And then, over time, the horse that had run off returned with seven yearlings following and the son's leg healed completely and they all lived happily ever after.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Greens do not make the distinction when the planet unwittingly pollutes itself. They talk big on protecting life, but they aren't too concerned about bugs, mosquitos, germs, virus, volcanoes, tidal waves, earthquakes, wild animals. These things are fine because they are 'natural' where as man is not. Man therefore must minimise his impact to that of an earthworm in order to save himself and his environment.

 

On this point, I agree with you to an extent.

 

The Earth itself has no long-term plan for 'survival', and indeed Mother Nature often wreaks havoc with the surface environment causing destruction of life on a scale that humans, with all our modern technology, cannot match. Volcanoes, floods, earthquakes, great waves, droughts, ice ages, diseases... And some look at all that as 'natural', whereas what humans do is not. Natural is acceptable, human is not.

 

And these people should realize that the distinction is essentially meaningless, especially when death and suffering and extinction are concerned.

 

On the other hand, there's really nothing we can do about volcanoes, floods, earthquakes, etc -- and there is an argument to say that it is because of these things that life on Earth has reached the levels it has. Great disasters and periods of destruction are as necessary as periods of tranquility and prosperity. There is a balance to be found.

 

These things will happen whether we want them to or not. But we have some say over our own contribution to the damage. As you, Karl, so often point out, reason is our defining characteristic -- or, at least, we believe it should be. Can't we use reason, then, to note that we can't blame 'the planet' for being the planet, but we can blame ourselves for not using our own reason to see the damage we cause and work to minimize it before it causes more damage than we can recover from?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Rising carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have significantly increased plant growth across the planet over the past three decades, a new study suggests.
 
The most comprehensive modelling of remote sensing data so far shows the area on Earth covered by plants in this time has increased by 18 million square kilometres — almost twice the size of the USA and about 2.5 times the size of the Australian continent — largely due to the fertilising effect of carbon dioxide (CO2).
 
Key points
 
A few areas on Earth have browned but the vast majority have greened.
Plant coverage has grown by 18 million square kilometres in a few decades.
The main cause is increase in atmospheric CO2.
Nitrogen from agricultural fertilisers has also contributed.
 

 

I have extensively written regarding AGW on this site years ago and was the object of personal attacks and ridicule from deniers and persons who lack critical thinking skills. But, in the interest of disseminating research, here is a place to start if you are interested.

 

Regarding the premise of more CO2 being equal to to a greener plant ecosystem, plants have a limit as to the weight of CO2 absorption.

 

Rising temperatures due to atmospheric CO2 are not necessarily a positive due to the fact that food crops in general, have adapted to a narrow range of climatic conditions, which may shorten the growing cycle and can be a contributing factor to crop failure. One thing to keep in mind is that local weather conditions are not the same as the biosphere's climate, but are part of a greater complex dynamic system. The models have predicted extremes in local weather events which can appear as extreme heat/cold and so forth.

 

I read the link and here is a further reference from the link.

 

http://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate3004.epdf?referrer_access_token=AQRtqCGmEK6dh46XR4-OjNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OYJHZxvEebXSMq9zMi6Q2vWe61M7QFieokWQcY1PQbxTvLXPi0zyz-gqYvIoqJK0u-dOZ-dhFHhzdA2qIYojefJyoSzZSQeu4iPHvIelLEHMpLmAVz7G7GPBOQfpPgnyFuj_8xvGJSTjEaMwat5kctNoPfrP-UOP5MBMLEWiTggZSTLVWIwP01MuKAQUhSaoxm3hzUuSkijdk_QgpAe8Nx&tracking_referrer=www.abc.net.au

 

Just a few short notes to ponder on.

 

 

http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/Ocean+Acidification

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/rising-acidity-in-the-ocean/

 

 

limate change caused by rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is now widely recognized. But the other side of the equation—the massive absorption of CO2 by the ocean—has received far less attention. The planet’s seas quickly absorb 25 to 30 percent of humankind’s CO2 emissions and about 85 percent in the long run, as water and air mix at the ocean’s surface. We have “disposed” of 530 billion tons of the gas in this way, and the rate worldwide is now one million tons per hour, faster than experienced on earth for tens of millions of years. We are acidifying the ocean and fundamentally changing its remarkably delicate geochemical balance. Scientists are only beginning to investigate the consequences, but comparable natural changes in our geologic history have caused several mass extinctions throughout the earth’s waters.

Edited by ralis
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On this point, I agree with you to an extent.

 

The Earth itself has no long-term plan for 'survival', and indeed Mother Nature often wreaks havoc with the surface environment causing destruction of life on a scale that humans, with all our modern technology, cannot match. Volcanoes, floods, earthquakes, great waves, droughts, ice ages, diseases... And some look at all that as 'natural', whereas what humans do is not. Natural is acceptable, human is not.

 

And these people should realize that the distinction is essentially meaningless, especially when death and suffering and extinction are concerned.

 

On the other hand, there's really nothing we can do about volcanoes, floods, earthquakes, etc -- and there is an argument to say that it is because of these things that life on Earth has reached the levels it has. Great disasters and periods of destruction are as necessary as periods of tranquility and prosperity. There is a balance to be found.

 

These things will happen whether we want them to or not. But we have some say over our own contribution to the damage. As you, Karl, so often point out, reason is our defining characteristic -- or, at least, we believe it should be. Can't we use reason, then, to note that we can't blame 'the planet' for being the planet, but we can blame ourselves for not using our own reason to see the damage we cause and work to minimize it before it causes more damage than we can recover from?

 

The damage to what ? In order to survive we have to reap from the land, the sea and the sky. We cannot sustain our life by sitting on our backsides and refusing to damage anything. Nature is out to kill us, the planet is a ball of rock like a stone on which moss grows. The stone does not know or care about the moss, the planet is the same, it has no consciousness, it doesn't require any kind of any action but is it isn't alive.

 

It's impossible to know whether we It is harmful in some way to kill a wasp, dig a hole to extract copper, drive a car, or explode atomic bombs. There is no way of knowing if we are harming our long term future or not. When you get up in the morning you perhaps switch on a kettle, or make some toast, the spread one some butter from the refrigerator. Do you need to weigh up every single item you have in terms of the harm it might have done to make it or use it ? How could several billion people decide what is in their long term interests of the the future of humanity when they live a maximum of 100 years and even successive generation only take them to 300 years. All we can care about is the present time, not some scary future of several millennia.

 

Would you take all the cars off the roads, ban all ships and aircraft, stop power generation, ore extraction, oil extraction and refining, chemical use, fertiliser manufacture, close all hospitals, switch off the internet, stop sewage and water purification ? Everything is connected to everything else, it doesn't exist in a bubble. Every item in a hospital, or on a drug store shelf is the result of drilling, mining, blasting, pollution, energy generation, manufacture, oil, chemical production. Every industry that supplies the raw and finished materials has millions of employees and loads of plant. All the plant and equipment is interconnected with more people and more manufacturing and, everyone of those people require the products in that hospital and on the drug store shelf.

 

All we can do is to allocate resources rationally to limit waste and unnecessary environmental damage. Only one option is available to do that and that is laissez faire capitalism and strong laws to discourage the initiation of force (which includes theft, pollution damage to property/health). Only the market can calculate what is needed, what is valuable and how to allocate those resources. No single man, no group of men, no committee of geniuses can do it, only the entire market working through price discovery has that ability.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, anyone who buys into the meme 'climate change' which is a term coined by Dr. Frank Lunzt, chief propagandist for the right wing, must understand where that meme originated. 'Global warming' was changed by him via one of his so called focus groups.

 

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=326

Edited by ralis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once again, you write as if I haven't already agreed upon much of what you say (I have and I will point it all out), and then manage to bring capitalism into it when the discussion does not merit it at all.

 

The damage to what ?

 

Quite a lot. Here's a very, very small sample (an image I made a while back in response to another thread)

 

overpop_by_dustybeijing-da0jnye.png

 

 

 

In order to survive we have to reap from the land, the sea and the sky. We cannot sustain our life by sitting on our backsides and refusing to damage anything.

 

Here we go again with the survival thing. Yes, we all want to survive. Yes, we have to eat things and make houses, etc. We need to cut down some trees, mine some stone, pick fruit, etc -- fine.

 

There's a lot that we do that we absolutely do not need to do.

 

 

Nature is out to kill us,

 

I'm pretty sure it was 'nature' which gave us life.

 

the planet is a ball of rock like a stone on which moss grows.

 

Without which we would not be here.

 

The stone does not know or care about the moss, the planet is the same, it has no consciousness, it doesn't require any kind of any action but is it isn't alive.

 

I already said this. You act as if I don't agree so as to drive your argument forward, but I already agreed to this.

 

It's impossible to know whether we It is harmful in some way to kill a wasp, dig a hole to extract copper, drive a car, or explode atomic bombs. There is no way of knowing if we are harming our long term future or not.

 

Again, I already said this.

 

When you get up in the morning you perhaps switch on a kettle, or make some toast, the spread one some butter from the refrigerator. Do you need to weigh up every single item you have in terms of the harm it might have done to make it or use it ?

 

I do do this with a lot of things. More people would benefit from actually considering the impact of their actions on themselves and others and the environment (the environment that was damaged in its production, for example, or the environment that will be damaged after its use..).

 

How could several billion people decide what is in their long term interests of the the future of humanity when they live a maximum of 100 years and even successive generation only take them to 300 years. All we can care about is the present time, not some scary future of several millennia.

 

Yet you claim to believe that the future of humankind is important, do you not? We had a long argument about whether or not the spread of humanity throughout the galaxy would be like a plague -- as I remember, you think it is the way forward, and I said that I do not really care, but that it is not my favorite idea of all.

 

You do care about the future of humanity, and you do believe that we should consider it, do you not? You do not believe that all we can or should care about is the present. That's me, I'm the one who doesn't look into the future very well!

 

Would you take all the cars off the roads, ban all ships and aircraft, stop power generation, ore extraction, oil extraction and refining, chemical use, fertiliser manufacture, close all hospitals, switch off the internet, stop sewage and water purification ?

 

I didn't say any of that, did I? Or even imply it. I don't think I implied it.

 

What I said was:

 

Great disasters and periods of destruction are as necessary as periods of tranquility and prosperity

...

These things will happen whether we want them to or not. But we have some say over our own contribution to the damage.

 

And you seem to want to disagree that we do have any say over our own contribution..? Or that we just shouldn't give the slightest fuck, even over the short-term? The oil spills, the landfills, the billions of caged animals, the forests being destroyed (yes, much is still being destroyed)...?

 

 

 

I'm going to leave it there for now because (in my experience) you're unlikely to respond to 90% of what I've said anyway, so less is probably easier.

Edited by dustybeijing
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, anyone who buys into the meme 'climate change' which is a term coined by Dr. Frank Lunzt, chief propagandist for the right wing, must understand where that meme originated. 'Global warming' was changed by him via one of his so called focus groups.

 

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/print.php?r=326

I was not aware of the person nor his origin of the term.

 

I have learned a little about climate change and it is happening all the time because of the Earth's tilt, which varies, and other stuff.  I like the term "climate change" because it is consistent with all other aspects of the universe.  Change is a given.  Climate is not an exception.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Dusty, we are ruining the planet for future generations.  If humanity dies off the Earth will recover.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was not aware of the person nor his origin of the term.

 

I have learned a little about climate change and it is happening all the time because of the Earth's tilt, which varies, and other stuff.  I like the term "climate change" because it is consistent with all other aspects of the universe.  Change is a given.  Climate is not an exception.

 

Luntz framed that in such a way as to have one see that climate is always changing as opposed to the real issue of AGW i.e, 'global warming' as caused by humans, which many have bought into this dangerous meme. Further, this has led to confusion of the difference between local weather and global climate.

Edited by ralis
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this