6 ms·

Interesting, but the deforestation rate as a result of human activities, wildfires, and desertification is probably higher: 'Football pitch' of Amazon forest l

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...

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...