6 ms·

I wonder if an expert could chime in on why this land (and carbon) would not be taken up by larger, more developed plant life, such as larger shrubs or trees. I

I wonder if an expert could chime in on why this land (and carbon) would not be taken up by larger, more developed plant life, such as larger shrubs or trees. It seems conditions would be ideal: fresh, bacteria rich soil, high CO_2 levels and plenty of water.

rch 9y ago
Extended periods of winter darkness maybe?
- jackmott 9y ago
  stuff grows huge in the summer though
quakeguy 9y ago
That´s sort of what´s already happening. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-events/trees-tundras-border-are-growing-faster-hotter-climate http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-events/trees-tundras-borde...
danieldk 9y ago
There was an article posted here two days ago [1], that states that Some scientists, however, held out hope that there would be a key offsetting process: As the Arctic warms, it might also stow away more carbon as it becomes greener and supports the additional plant life, particularly in tundra regions. This “Arctic greening” is indeed occurring, but the new research suggests that the permafrost losses in early winter are more than enough to offset that. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15083989 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15083989
yostrovs 9y ago
I find it odd that all the reported consequences of global warming are negative. Why wouldn't a modest rise in temperature do some good in at least some ways? I suspect that that would not advance the demanded panic, and is therefore ignored.
- yequalsx 9y ago
  Do you really believe there is a conspiracy amongst the experts who study these things? Are there other areas of science in which scientists conspire to withhold information? If not why would you think this is the unique area of science that withholds information?
  - BurningFrog 9y ago
    No, but there is a huge bias in reporting favoring bad news.
    - yequalsx 9y ago
      What evidence do you have that there is such a bias? Have you considered the possibility that the prevalence of bad news as you call it is indeed the truth? That the absence of good news might be because the positive effects are dwarfed by the negative?
      - BurningFrog 9y ago
        Let me rephrase, and maybe you'll agree. If one million people in a city don't get murdered, and one does get murdered, whose fate will be reported as news? The murdered one of course. And the reporting will be truthful. But that doesn't mean most people get murdered.
        yequalsx 9y ago
        This is not at all relevant to the discussion. The one getting murdered is newsworthy and noteworthy. The many that do not is not newsworthy. Rapidly increasing the temperature of the planet will have devastating consequences. Write news articles on its few benefits is not newsworthy in light of the impending devastation.
        BurningFrog 9y ago
        I note that now you're agreeing with yostrovs who originally asked "Why wouldn't a modest rise in temperature do some good in at least some ways?".
aktbc 9y ago
This is a good question that is being actively investigated. I think the idea is that the C stored in the permafrost has been accumulating for thousands of years, and yet could release in just 10s of years. So even if there is increased vegetation growth (which is predicted), there is unlikely to be enough rapid growth to offset the release of thousands of years of accumulated C. Full disclosure: I actually work for a modeling group with the University of Alaska Fairbanks/Institute of Arctic Biology that is investigating these sorts of questions.
- edejong 9y ago
  Thank you for your answer. My reason to come back to HN is to read these kind of expert insights.
- detritus 9y ago
  Are you also modelling outlier scenarios including mass planting (by hand or plane or drone or whatever) and if so.. do we have any hope?
ericd 9y ago
I'm not an expert, but my impression is that the problem with that is that these green house gasses are going from being long term sequestered to getting into the carbon cycle. When they get locked into plants, that's a very short term sequestration - when the plants die or are eaten, they decompose and the carbon goes right back into the atmosphere. Basically, plants aren't a great way to lower the average atmospheric CO2 levels. Which begs the question, how do we do long term sequestration? Could we, for example, split CO2 into pure carbon and O2, and then bury the C as graphite (which I believe is not digestible to any organism)?
fencepost 9y ago
Part of it is a question of time scale. Increased greening is happening to some extent and will likely increase, but that's a response that will take hundreds or thousands (or more) of years for enough changes to matter, and the intervening time period may be very inhospitable to most life that we're concerned about. In some ways it's almost like healing - if you're young(ish) and get severely burned, lingering scar tissue may be almost indistinguishable by the time you're 70 but that doesn't mean it has no effect on you in the years in between.

rch 9y ago

Extended periods of winter darkness maybe?

jackmott 9y ago
stuff grows huge in the summer though

quakeguy 9y ago

That´s sort of what´s already happening. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-events/trees-tundras-border-are-growing-faster-hotter-climate http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/news-events/trees-tundras-borde...

danieldk 9y ago

There was an article posted here two days ago [1], that states that Some scientists, however, held out hope that there would be a key offsetting process: As the Arctic warms, it might also stow away more carbon as it becomes greener and supports the additional plant life, particularly in tundra regions. This “Arctic greening” is indeed occurring, but the new research suggests that the permafrost losses in early winter are more than enough to offset that. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15083989 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15083989

yostrovs 9y ago

I find it odd that all the reported consequences of global warming are negative. Why wouldn't a modest rise in temperature do some good in at least some ways? I suspect that that would not advance the demanded panic, and is therefore ignored.

yequalsx 9y ago
Do you really believe there is a conspiracy amongst the experts who study these things? Are there other areas of science in which scientists conspire to withhold information? If not why would you think this is the unique area of science that withholds information?
- BurningFrog 9y ago
  No, but there is a huge bias in reporting favoring bad news.
  - yequalsx 9y ago
    What evidence do you have that there is such a bias? Have you considered the possibility that the prevalence of bad news as you call it is indeed the truth? That the absence of good news might be because the positive effects are dwarfed by the negative?
    - BurningFrog 9y ago
      Let me rephrase, and maybe you'll agree. If one million people in a city don't get murdered, and one does get murdered, whose fate will be reported as news? The murdered one of course. And the reporting will be truthful. But that doesn't mean most people get murdered.
      - yequalsx 9y ago
        This is not at all relevant to the discussion. The one getting murdered is newsworthy and noteworthy. The many that do not is not newsworthy. Rapidly increasing the temperature of the planet will have devastating consequences. Write news articles on its few benefits is not newsworthy in light of the impending devastation.
        BurningFrog 9y ago
        I note that now you're agreeing with yostrovs who originally asked "Why wouldn't a modest rise in temperature do some good in at least some ways?".

aktbc 9y ago

This is a good question that is being actively investigated. I think the idea is that the C stored in the permafrost has been accumulating for thousands of years, and yet could release in just 10s of years. So even if there is increased vegetation growth (which is predicted), there is unlikely to be enough rapid growth to offset the release of thousands of years of accumulated C. Full disclosure: I actually work for a modeling group with the University of Alaska Fairbanks/Institute of Arctic Biology that is investigating these sorts of questions.

edejong 9y ago
Thank you for your answer. My reason to come back to HN is to read these kind of expert insights.
detritus 9y ago
Are you also modelling outlier scenarios including mass planting (by hand or plane or drone or whatever) and if so.. do we have any hope?

ericd 9y ago

I'm not an expert, but my impression is that the problem with that is that these green house gasses are going from being long term sequestered to getting into the carbon cycle. When they get locked into plants, that's a very short term sequestration - when the plants die or are eaten, they decompose and the carbon goes right back into the atmosphere. Basically, plants aren't a great way to lower the average atmospheric CO2 levels. Which begs the question, how do we do long term sequestration? Could we, for example, split CO2 into pure carbon and O2, and then bury the C as graphite (which I believe is not digestible to any organism)?

fencepost 9y ago

Part of it is a question of time scale. Increased greening is happening to some extent and will likely increase, but that's a response that will take hundreds or thousands (or more) of years for enough changes to matter, and the intervening time period may be very inhospitable to most life that we're concerned about. In some ways it's almost like healing - if you're young(ish) and get severely burned, lingering scar tissue may be almost indistinguishable by the time you're 70 but that doesn't mean it has no effect on you in the years in between.