12 ms·

Deserts 'greening' from rising CO2

55 points by novalis78 7y ago

QuickToBan 7y ago
Interesting, but the deforestation rate as a result of human activities, wildfires, and desertification is probably higher: 'Football pitch' of Amazon forest lost every minute https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48827490 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48827490
- briantakita 7y ago
  According to NASA, "A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide" "Studies have shown that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide increase photosynthesis, spurring plant growth." "Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect, said co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University. “The second most important driver is nitrogen, at 9 percent. So we see what an outsized role CO2 plays in this process.”" https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-green...
  - empath75 7y ago
    Great but CO2 levels are still rising. I could care less if the planet is covered with jungle from pole to pole if the heat makes it unlivable in large portions of it.
    - briantakita 7y ago
      It's actually a good thing that CO2 is rising. The climate is changing primarily due to the Sun. This is a big reason why we are seeing large amounts of hail in Guadalajara, Slovenia/Italy, & Africa this summer. Don't forget that this past winter was cold. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3 NASA predicts that Solar Cycle 25 will be the least active in over 200 years, largely due to Dr. Valentina Zharkova's work. We are in a cooling period, which means we need all the help we can get growing food. This is why higher CO2 is great for humans. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/solar-activity-forecast-for-next-decade-favorable-for-exploration https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/solar-activity-forecast-fo... Enjoy the Summer Snow & skiing in Colorado! https://gazette.com/multimedia/photos-summer-snow-brings-riders-to-arapahoe-basin/collection_f1345898-96a8-11e9-8385-d7a7078079b1.html https://gazette.com/multimedia/photos-summer-snow-brings-rid...
      - wongarsu 7y ago
        > It's actually a good thing that CO2 is rising Not really good for us or for a stable climate, but probably good for plants. Plants love CO2 > We are in a cooling period, which means we need all the help we can get growing food. We might have some cold winters, but global average temperatures are going up, a lot. Globally we are in no danger of not being able to grow food due to cold temperatures (though local effects from disrupting ocean currents are still very possible ofc).
      - p1necone 7y ago
        I thought the denialists had moved on from "it's not warming" to "it's not caused by humans" once the evidence for "it is infact warming" became undeniable even to the layman. Why do you seem to expect people to take you seriously? Edit: I dug through their comment history - seems that they think that there's a global conspiracy to fudge collected climate data. Would be nice if they mentioned that in their comments rather than just pretending that everyone must agree with them. To the person I'm responding to: You're doing the classic thing that everyone with extremist opinions seems to do - you're making the thing that everyone else is likely to disagree with your unspoken axiom (in your case it's that people are faking climate data), and then in the bit you actually type out for everyone to see you're following on fairly logically from that unspoken axiom. This results in you looking vaguely reasonable to the layperson that isn't paying much attention, and utterly baffling to anyone who has half a clue and reads your words carefully. If you genuinely believe what you're saying you need to state the aforementioned unspoken axiom clearly, and provide evidence for it before you can hope to engage in honest discussion with anyone.
      - dang 7y ago
        Please don't take HN threads into classic flamewars. Nothing good is going to come of it, only repetition. Repetition is the enemy of curiosity. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - sethammons 7y ago
    I don't get the down votes. You seem to have provided an interesting source that counters the parent's hunch. Must be that folks don't like the silver lining to a maybe-uninhabitable-by-humans environment.
    - mrfusion 7y ago
      There’s stuff like this out there but you just need to have faith in the experts.
      - briantakita 7y ago
        All hail the "experts", except for Dr. Valentina Zharkova, Dr. Heinrich Svensmark, Dr. John Casey, & Dr. Freeman Dyson; don't listen to these heretics of the faith.
        dang 7y ago
        Please don't do flamewars on HN.
        robotresearcher 7y ago
        I didn’t know some of these names so I looked all of them up. Cribbed from Wikipedia and their web pages: [Zharkova is] a Professor in Mathematics at Northumbria University. [She has a] BSc/MSc in Applied Mathematics and Astronomy, a Ph.D. in Astrophysics, certificate in project management. Henrik Svensmark (born 1958) is a physicist and professor in the Division of Solar System Physics at the Danish National Space Institute (DTU Space) in Copenhagen. He is known for his theory on the effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation as an indirect cause of global warming. Casey received his B.S in physics and math from Jacksonville State University and his MA in Management from Webster University. Freeman John Dyson FRS (born 15 December 1923) is a British theoretical physicist and mathematician known for his work in quantum electrodynamics, solid-state physics, astronomy and nuclear engineering.
      - tomrod 7y ago
        Whoa whoa whoa, wait a minute. Argument by credential is a logical fallacy. It may be used in defense of a true point, but we should be very hesitant to assume because most/some/many experts agree on a point that the thinking is done. Now, I agree with you that climate science and forecasting is complex. However, the reports are public and known for anyone doubting, and the organization is highly transparent[0]. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_C...
woodruffw 7y ago
Of note: CSIRO appears to have lost some of its independence under Australia's current government[1], probably because "we're harming the planet" doesn't help sell coal[2]. The UN (and virtually every national scientific body) consider desertification (alongside water misuse and land degradation, both of which precede desertification) to be a serious concern[3]. Edit: To be clear, that doesn't mean these results are fabricated or incorrect. I'm calling into question the decision to emphasize them over the overwhelmingly negative effects of climate change on Australia[4]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSIRO#CSIRO_and_the_Liberal_Government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSIRO#CSIRO_and_the_Liberal_Go... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_Australia [3]: https://www.un.org/en/events/desertification_decade/whynow.shtml https://www.un.org/en/events/desertification_decade/whynow.s... [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming_on_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming_on_A...
- briantakita 7y ago
  NASA & Greehouse Growers agree that CO2 increases plant growth. CO2 is even good for athletic performance (see citations). https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-green... https://www.co2meter.com/blogs/news/41003521-co2-calculator-for-grow-room-or-indoor-greenhouse https://www.co2meter.com/blogs/news/41003521-co2-calculator-... https://co2factor.blogspot.com/2012/04/athletic-advantage-of-co2.html https://co2factor.blogspot.com/2012/04/athletic-advantage-of...
  - woodruffw 7y ago
    The greenhouse that I built in preschool agrees as well. I don't think anybody disagrees that more CO2 means more plant growth. Please see the edit for why emphasizing this elementary fact is harmful (and worthy of suspiscion when coming from CSIRO).
    - briantakita 7y ago
      Regardless of CSIRO, NASA is also on board with increased plant growth. Mainstream science is warming up (no pun intended) to the fact that the Sun is the primary driver of climate change. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3 NASA predicts Solar Cycle 25 to be the least active in over 200 years. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/solar-activity-forecast-for-next-decade-favorable-for-exploration https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/solar-activity-forecast-fo... During grand solar minimums, plant growth decreases, with increases in cloud nucleation, volcanic eruptions & earthquakes. The CO2 boost in plant growth will be of great aid during this cooling period that we are now in. https://principia-scientific.org/strong-evidence-that-svensmark-s-solar-cosmic-ray-theory-of-climate-is-correct/ https://principia-scientific.org/strong-evidence-that-svensm...
mullingitover 7y ago
This is like cheering about your house warming up in the winter...because it's in the process of burning down.
aldoushuxley001 7y ago
It’s always amazing to me how much people hate seeing any facts that don’t overwhelmingly blame CO2 as some sort of pollutant. It’s beyond rational at this point and is almost certainly simply an emotional response now.
- ripdog 7y ago
  It's been well reported that climate change will mean different things for different people, and some of the effects will be beneficial in some way for some. That doesn't wipe away the fact that even with these factors considered, CO2 is the primary cause of catastrophic, runaway climate change which will make Earth significantly less livable over the next few decades.
droithomme 7y ago
So, good news. edit: downvoters, why is it not good news? Post with specific facts. Downvoting without thoughtful rebuttal is the mark of imbecilic and disingenuous shills. Thanks.
williesleg 7y ago
But why does the media hate Tesla and Elon musk? Just saying.
Graham67 7y ago
More CO2 makes plants grow taller, but not with more grain. Being taller, grasses (like wheat) often snap and fall over, particularly in storms. Crop fail. We are at the shallow end of the changes that are coming. An exponential increase in CO2, means an exponential increase in temperature, slowed down by ocean cooling. The current +1'C is almost beneficial, the predicted +3'C..+8'C in 2100 will be devastating. The rain-forests will go brown and fail before +4'c. But currently it all seems so lovely.
- barney54 7y ago
  How did plants survive in the past when co2 levels were much higher than today?
  - benaadams 7y ago
    We've just passed 400 ppm, everything was pretty different when it was much higher https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-carbon-threshold-400ppm-and-why-it-matters https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-carbon... > To find a time when the planet’s air was consistently above 400 ppm you have to look much farther back to the warm part of the Miocene, some 16 million years ago, or the Early Oligocene, about 25 million years ago, when Earth was a very different place and its climate totally dissimilar from what we might expect today. Towards the end Miocene was when grasses began to emerge significantly > The higher organic content and water retention of the deeper and richer grassland soils, with long-term burial of carbon in sediments, produced a carbon and water vapor sink. This, combined with higher surface albedo and lower evapotranspiration of grassland, contributed to a cooler, drier climate. C4 grasses, which are able to assimilate carbon dioxide and water more efficiently than C3 grasses, expanded to become ecologically significant near the end of the Miocene between 6 and 7 million years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miocene#Flora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miocene#Flora
  - losteric 7y ago
    Those were different plants, adapted for their times. Thousands of generations of natural evolution and human domestication led to the crops of today.
chkaloon 7y ago
Interesting. I live a couple hours northeast of Anchorage, Alaska. It is a remote, mountainous area that is also in a rain shadow to some extent, thus fairly dry. I was having dinner recently with a local who has lived here his whole life of 60+ years. He said it is remarkable the increase in shrubs, trees, and general greening of the area since when he was a teenager. Places that were open tundra are now impassable. I'm sure some is increase in temperature, but CO2 could also be a factor.
- mullingitover 7y ago
  Alaska has seen the biggest changes in temperatures in the US. It's not a good thing. > Over the past 60 years, the average temperature across Alaska has increased by approximately 3°F. This increase is more than twice the warming seen in the rest of the United States. https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-alaska_.html https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climat...
ab_c 7y ago
Uhh... ok so does this research take into account both China and Africa has been spending $$$ billions on reversing desertification? They've been using new technology to make desert sand retain water, thus allowing certain types of trees & vegetation to grow in areas that previously couldn't sustain plant life. Then there's the fact that China has spent over 30 years investigating how to use desalinated sea water to grow rice. Now they're able to grow rice fields in places that couldn't before. Africa's Great Green Wall http://youtu.be/4xls7K_xFBQ http://youtu.be/4xls7K_xFBQ China's Great Green Wall http://youtu.be/pSn6S-H7m-8 http://youtu.be/pSn6S-H7m-8 China's Sea Rice Research http://youtu.be/yN_YnM9OFh8 http://youtu.be/yN_YnM9OFh8 I'm not trying to dismiss the research but to simply say that rising C02 levels have made desert land fertile seems grossly misleading.
- droithomme 7y ago
  The article makes clear that areas that aren't under the massive undesertification programs you bring up have shown the same results. Kind of like how towns that got fluoride in the water and towns that didn't both experienced an increase in dental health during a period in which there were massive advances in dentistry and fluoride toothpaste became a thing.
martincollignon 7y ago
Want to make a difference on climate change as a technologist? Feel free to join these communities actively looking for support and with ongoing projects (that are alive): - https://climateaction.tech/ https://climateaction.tech/ - https://techimpactmakers.com/ https://techimpactmakers.com/ - https://www.tmrow.com/ https://www.tmrow.com/
- titojankowski 7y ago
  and check out this index of companies and projects mining carbon from the air: http://airminers.org http://airminers.org
zack_amoveo 7y ago
The biggest threat to the environment today is the propaganda. People with a financial interest in our environmentalist policies use propaganda to manipulate us into passing laws to their benefit. Futarchy can save the environment from these maniacs: https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/use-cases-and-ideas/climate_maintenance.md https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/use-...

55 points by novalis78 7y ago

Interesting, but the deforestation rate as a result of human activities, wildfires, and desertification is probably higher: 'Football pitch' of Amazon forest lost every minute https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48827490 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-48827490

briantakita 7y ago
According to NASA, "A quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide" "Studies have shown that increased concentrations of carbon dioxide increase photosynthesis, spurring plant growth." "Results showed that carbon dioxide fertilization explains 70 percent of the greening effect, said co-author Ranga Myneni, a professor in the Department of Earth and Environment at Boston University. “The second most important driver is nitrogen, at 9 percent. So we see what an outsized role CO2 plays in this process.”" https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-green...
- empath75 7y ago
  Great but CO2 levels are still rising. I could care less if the planet is covered with jungle from pole to pole if the heat makes it unlivable in large portions of it.
  - briantakita 7y ago
    It's actually a good thing that CO2 is rising. The climate is changing primarily due to the Sun. This is a big reason why we are seeing large amounts of hail in Guadalajara, Slovenia/Italy, & Africa this summer. Don't forget that this past winter was cold. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3 NASA predicts that Solar Cycle 25 will be the least active in over 200 years, largely due to Dr. Valentina Zharkova's work. We are in a cooling period, which means we need all the help we can get growing food. This is why higher CO2 is great for humans. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/solar-activity-forecast-for-next-decade-favorable-for-exploration https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/solar-activity-forecast-fo... Enjoy the Summer Snow & skiing in Colorado! https://gazette.com/multimedia/photos-summer-snow-brings-riders-to-arapahoe-basin/collection_f1345898-96a8-11e9-8385-d7a7078079b1.html https://gazette.com/multimedia/photos-summer-snow-brings-rid...
    - wongarsu 7y ago
      > It's actually a good thing that CO2 is rising Not really good for us or for a stable climate, but probably good for plants. Plants love CO2 > We are in a cooling period, which means we need all the help we can get growing food. We might have some cold winters, but global average temperatures are going up, a lot. Globally we are in no danger of not being able to grow food due to cold temperatures (though local effects from disrupting ocean currents are still very possible ofc).
    - p1necone 7y ago
      I thought the denialists had moved on from "it's not warming" to "it's not caused by humans" once the evidence for "it is infact warming" became undeniable even to the layman. Why do you seem to expect people to take you seriously? Edit: I dug through their comment history - seems that they think that there's a global conspiracy to fudge collected climate data. Would be nice if they mentioned that in their comments rather than just pretending that everyone must agree with them. To the person I'm responding to: You're doing the classic thing that everyone with extremist opinions seems to do - you're making the thing that everyone else is likely to disagree with your unspoken axiom (in your case it's that people are faking climate data), and then in the bit you actually type out for everyone to see you're following on fairly logically from that unspoken axiom. This results in you looking vaguely reasonable to the layperson that isn't paying much attention, and utterly baffling to anyone who has half a clue and reads your words carefully. If you genuinely believe what you're saying you need to state the aforementioned unspoken axiom clearly, and provide evidence for it before you can hope to engage in honest discussion with anyone.
    - dang 7y ago
      Please don't take HN threads into classic flamewars. Nothing good is going to come of it, only repetition. Repetition is the enemy of curiosity. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- sethammons 7y ago
  I don't get the down votes. You seem to have provided an interesting source that counters the parent's hunch. Must be that folks don't like the silver lining to a maybe-uninhabitable-by-humans environment.
  - mrfusion 7y ago
    There’s stuff like this out there but you just need to have faith in the experts.
    - briantakita 7y ago
      All hail the "experts", except for Dr. Valentina Zharkova, Dr. Heinrich Svensmark, Dr. John Casey, & Dr. Freeman Dyson; don't listen to these heretics of the faith.
      - dang 7y ago
        Please don't do flamewars on HN.
      - robotresearcher 7y ago
        I didn’t know some of these names so I looked all of them up. Cribbed from Wikipedia and their web pages: [Zharkova is] a Professor in Mathematics at Northumbria University. [She has a] BSc/MSc in Applied Mathematics and Astronomy, a Ph.D. in Astrophysics, certificate in project management. Henrik Svensmark (born 1958) is a physicist and professor in the Division of Solar System Physics at the Danish National Space Institute (DTU Space) in Copenhagen. He is known for his theory on the effects of cosmic rays on cloud formation as an indirect cause of global warming. Casey received his B.S in physics and math from Jacksonville State University and his MA in Management from Webster University. Freeman John Dyson FRS (born 15 December 1923) is a British theoretical physicist and mathematician known for his work in quantum electrodynamics, solid-state physics, astronomy and nuclear engineering.
    - tomrod 7y ago
      Whoa whoa whoa, wait a minute. Argument by credential is a logical fallacy. It may be used in defense of a true point, but we should be very hesitant to assume because most/some/many experts agree on a point that the thinking is done. Now, I agree with you that climate science and forecasting is complex. However, the reports are public and known for anyone doubting, and the organization is highly transparent[0]. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_C...

woodruffw 7y ago

Of note: CSIRO appears to have lost some of its independence under Australia's current government[1], probably because "we're harming the planet" doesn't help sell coal[2]. The UN (and virtually every national scientific body) consider desertification (alongside water misuse and land degradation, both of which precede desertification) to be a serious concern[3]. Edit: To be clear, that doesn't mean these results are fabricated or incorrect. I'm calling into question the decision to emphasize them over the overwhelmingly negative effects of climate change on Australia[4]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSIRO#CSIRO_and_the_Liberal_Government https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CSIRO#CSIRO_and_the_Liberal_Go... [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_Australia [3]: https://www.un.org/en/events/desertification_decade/whynow.shtml https://www.un.org/en/events/desertification_decade/whynow.s... [4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming_on_Australia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming_on_A...

briantakita 7y ago
NASA & Greehouse Growers agree that CO2 increases plant growth. CO2 is even good for athletic performance (see citations). https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/ https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-green... https://www.co2meter.com/blogs/news/41003521-co2-calculator-for-grow-room-or-indoor-greenhouse https://www.co2meter.com/blogs/news/41003521-co2-calculator-... https://co2factor.blogspot.com/2012/04/athletic-advantage-of-co2.html https://co2factor.blogspot.com/2012/04/athletic-advantage-of...
- woodruffw 7y ago
  The greenhouse that I built in preschool agrees as well. I don't think anybody disagrees that more CO2 means more plant growth. Please see the edit for why emphasizing this elementary fact is harmful (and worthy of suspiscion when coming from CSIRO).
  - briantakita 7y ago
    Regardless of CSIRO, NASA is also on board with increased plant growth. Mainstream science is warming up (no pun intended) to the fact that the Sun is the primary driver of climate change. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3 NASA predicts Solar Cycle 25 to be the least active in over 200 years. https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/solar-activity-forecast-for-next-decade-favorable-for-exploration https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/solar-activity-forecast-fo... During grand solar minimums, plant growth decreases, with increases in cloud nucleation, volcanic eruptions & earthquakes. The CO2 boost in plant growth will be of great aid during this cooling period that we are now in. https://principia-scientific.org/strong-evidence-that-svensmark-s-solar-cosmic-ray-theory-of-climate-is-correct/ https://principia-scientific.org/strong-evidence-that-svensm...

mullingitover 7y ago

This is like cheering about your house warming up in the winter...because it's in the process of burning down.

aldoushuxley001 7y ago

It’s always amazing to me how much people hate seeing any facts that don’t overwhelmingly blame CO2 as some sort of pollutant. It’s beyond rational at this point and is almost certainly simply an emotional response now.

ripdog 7y ago
It's been well reported that climate change will mean different things for different people, and some of the effects will be beneficial in some way for some. That doesn't wipe away the fact that even with these factors considered, CO2 is the primary cause of catastrophic, runaway climate change which will make Earth significantly less livable over the next few decades.

droithomme 7y ago

So, good news. edit: downvoters, why is it not good news? Post with specific facts. Downvoting without thoughtful rebuttal is the mark of imbecilic and disingenuous shills. Thanks.

williesleg 7y ago

But why does the media hate Tesla and Elon musk? Just saying.

Graham67 7y ago

More CO2 makes plants grow taller, but not with more grain. Being taller, grasses (like wheat) often snap and fall over, particularly in storms. Crop fail. We are at the shallow end of the changes that are coming. An exponential increase in CO2, means an exponential increase in temperature, slowed down by ocean cooling. The current +1'C is almost beneficial, the predicted +3'C..+8'C in 2100 will be devastating. The rain-forests will go brown and fail before +4'c. But currently it all seems so lovely.

barney54 7y ago
How did plants survive in the past when co2 levels were much higher than today?
- benaadams 7y ago
  We've just passed 400 ppm, everything was pretty different when it was much higher https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-carbon-threshold-400ppm-and-why-it-matters https://e360.yale.edu/features/how-the-world-passed-a-carbon... > To find a time when the planet’s air was consistently above 400 ppm you have to look much farther back to the warm part of the Miocene, some 16 million years ago, or the Early Oligocene, about 25 million years ago, when Earth was a very different place and its climate totally dissimilar from what we might expect today. Towards the end Miocene was when grasses began to emerge significantly > The higher organic content and water retention of the deeper and richer grassland soils, with long-term burial of carbon in sediments, produced a carbon and water vapor sink. This, combined with higher surface albedo and lower evapotranspiration of grassland, contributed to a cooler, drier climate. C4 grasses, which are able to assimilate carbon dioxide and water more efficiently than C3 grasses, expanded to become ecologically significant near the end of the Miocene between 6 and 7 million years ago. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miocene#Flora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miocene#Flora
- losteric 7y ago
  Those were different plants, adapted for their times. Thousands of generations of natural evolution and human domestication led to the crops of today.

chkaloon 7y ago

Interesting. I live a couple hours northeast of Anchorage, Alaska. It is a remote, mountainous area that is also in a rain shadow to some extent, thus fairly dry. I was having dinner recently with a local who has lived here his whole life of 60+ years. He said it is remarkable the increase in shrubs, trees, and general greening of the area since when he was a teenager. Places that were open tundra are now impassable. I'm sure some is increase in temperature, but CO2 could also be a factor.

mullingitover 7y ago
Alaska has seen the biggest changes in temperatures in the US. It's not a good thing. > Over the past 60 years, the average temperature across Alaska has increased by approximately 3°F. This increase is more than twice the warming seen in the rest of the United States. https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climate-impacts-alaska_.html https://19january2017snapshot.epa.gov/climate-impacts/climat...

ab_c 7y ago

Uhh... ok so does this research take into account both China and Africa has been spending $$$ billions on reversing desertification? They've been using new technology to make desert sand retain water, thus allowing certain types of trees & vegetation to grow in areas that previously couldn't sustain plant life. Then there's the fact that China has spent over 30 years investigating how to use desalinated sea water to grow rice. Now they're able to grow rice fields in places that couldn't before. Africa's Great Green Wall http://youtu.be/4xls7K_xFBQ http://youtu.be/4xls7K_xFBQ China's Great Green Wall http://youtu.be/pSn6S-H7m-8 http://youtu.be/pSn6S-H7m-8 China's Sea Rice Research http://youtu.be/yN_YnM9OFh8 http://youtu.be/yN_YnM9OFh8 I'm not trying to dismiss the research but to simply say that rising C02 levels have made desert land fertile seems grossly misleading.

droithomme 7y ago
The article makes clear that areas that aren't under the massive undesertification programs you bring up have shown the same results. Kind of like how towns that got fluoride in the water and towns that didn't both experienced an increase in dental health during a period in which there were massive advances in dentistry and fluoride toothpaste became a thing.

martincollignon 7y ago

Want to make a difference on climate change as a technologist? Feel free to join these communities actively looking for support and with ongoing projects (that are alive): - https://climateaction.tech/ https://climateaction.tech/ - https://techimpactmakers.com/ https://techimpactmakers.com/ - https://www.tmrow.com/ https://www.tmrow.com/

titojankowski 7y ago
and check out this index of companies and projects mining carbon from the air: http://airminers.org http://airminers.org

zack_amoveo 7y ago

The biggest threat to the environment today is the propaganda. People with a financial interest in our environmentalist policies use propaganda to manipulate us into passing laws to their benefit. Futarchy can save the environment from these maniacs: https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/use-cases-and-ideas/climate_maintenance.md https://github.com/zack-bitcoin/amoveo/blob/master/docs/use-...