8 ms·

The lack of openness is transparency is precisely what causes "the masses" to distrust experts about these issues. In my opinion, just saying that 'this is the

The lack of openness is transparency is precisely what causes "the masses" to distrust experts about these issues. In my opinion, just saying that 'this is the effect that we found, the current consensus is that the effect is minor but more research is needed' is a more honest and a more effective way of getting "the masses" on the side of truth.

morpheos137 5y ago
30% increase in carbon consumption by plants is not minor if true.
- Filligree 5y ago
  It could be. How large is that carbon consumption in the first place?
  - morpheos137 5y ago
    My understanding is that on earth the two main carbon sinks are biomass and the oceans. I believe these sinks make up almost 100% of natural carbon sequestration. So it could be a big amount. I'd check the carbon cycle wiki article.
    - raducu 5y ago
      But is biomass a permanent sink or just a temporary buffer? I mean every year we keep pumping more carbon into the atmosphere, but unless biomass turns into coal, it is just a temporary buffer for carbon, right?
      - morpheos137 5y ago
        Everything is temporary on a long enough time scale. If new plants grow to replace those that die it is potentially sustainable.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
      - lamontcg 5y ago
        It is temporary. The increase in biomass due to CO2 saturates when the area locally runs out of other constraints like water or nitrogen. The IPCC predicts by 2100 the land is going to convert into a net source rather than sink of carbon -- so the positive feedback loops will exceed the negative feedback stabilizers. The increase in biomass also comes at a decrease in nutrient density as well, so its not like this is magic sauce for croplands.
- qqqwerty 5y ago
  It would have to be closer to 200-300% in order to solve our problem. You can easily Google search for these numbers. And this would just get us to neutral on CO2. We would still have to deal with methane and water vapor, both of which are more potent greenhouse gases.
marricks 5y ago
> The lack of openness is transparency is precisely what causes "the masses" to distrust experts about these issues. That's complete bullshit. What's causing the distrust is lobbying by some of the largest industries in the world and major media companies making money hand over fist selling lies. The fact that scientists disagree on details or some might hedge what they say so folks don't get the wrong idea I imagine has little to no ill effect in comparison.
- eitland 5y ago
  > That's complete bullshit. What's causing the distrust is lobbying by some of the largest industries in the world and major media companies making money hand over fist selling lies. No. Unless it was lobbyists that made my history books in school. Still whenever I tried in the past to get an answer to why Greenland was so warm 1000 years ago I get labeled a shill. It is somewhat maddening and absolutely not something that helps trust. Same goes with how it is impossible to get raw numbers in any discussion.
  - diordiderot 5y ago
    Well in many US states politicians write the curriculum. Like in Texas and Mississippi, you don't learn that slavery was the cause for the civil war, but states rights. Despite the existence of their succession documents
  - lamontcg 5y ago
    > Still whenever I tried in the past to get an answer to why Greenland was so warm 1000 years ago I get labeled a shill. probably a change in the strength of north atlantic thermohaline circulation. that was a regional shift in local climate and not due to worldwide climate change. it isn't reflected in global proxies like antarctic ice cores. hurricane activity in the atlantic basin increased, and its likely that la nina (cool) conditions persisted across the pacific. it also may have caused draught that caused the collapse of the Maya civilization. you probably get labelled a shill because you use it to cast doubt on anthropogenic causes of climate change and you argue that warmer temperatures benefited northern europe, while ignoring the drought and destruction of a civilization in central america.
yongjik 5y ago
> The lack of openness is transparency is precisely what causes "the masses" to distrust experts about these issues. Considering that climate scientists have seen their emails hacked, quote-mined, and used to produce climate FUD (not to mention global harassment campaign), I have to say nah, not really. https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2019/nov/09/climategate-10-years-on-what-lessons-have-we-learned https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2019/nov/09/climateg...

morpheos137 5y ago

30% increase in carbon consumption by plants is not minor if true.

Filligree 5y ago
It could be. How large is that carbon consumption in the first place?
- morpheos137 5y ago
  My understanding is that on earth the two main carbon sinks are biomass and the oceans. I believe these sinks make up almost 100% of natural carbon sequestration. So it could be a big amount. I'd check the carbon cycle wiki article.
  - raducu 5y ago
    But is biomass a permanent sink or just a temporary buffer? I mean every year we keep pumping more carbon into the atmosphere, but unless biomass turns into coal, it is just a temporary buffer for carbon, right?
    - morpheos137 5y ago
      Everything is temporary on a long enough time scale. If new plants grow to replace those that die it is potentially sustainable.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - lamontcg 5y ago
      It is temporary. The increase in biomass due to CO2 saturates when the area locally runs out of other constraints like water or nitrogen. The IPCC predicts by 2100 the land is going to convert into a net source rather than sink of carbon -- so the positive feedback loops will exceed the negative feedback stabilizers. The increase in biomass also comes at a decrease in nutrient density as well, so its not like this is magic sauce for croplands.
qqqwerty 5y ago
It would have to be closer to 200-300% in order to solve our problem. You can easily Google search for these numbers. And this would just get us to neutral on CO2. We would still have to deal with methane and water vapor, both of which are more potent greenhouse gases.

marricks 5y ago

> The lack of openness is transparency is precisely what causes "the masses" to distrust experts about these issues. That's complete bullshit. What's causing the distrust is lobbying by some of the largest industries in the world and major media companies making money hand over fist selling lies. The fact that scientists disagree on details or some might hedge what they say so folks don't get the wrong idea I imagine has little to no ill effect in comparison.

eitland 5y ago
> That's complete bullshit. What's causing the distrust is lobbying by some of the largest industries in the world and major media companies making money hand over fist selling lies. No. Unless it was lobbyists that made my history books in school. Still whenever I tried in the past to get an answer to why Greenland was so warm 1000 years ago I get labeled a shill. It is somewhat maddening and absolutely not something that helps trust. Same goes with how it is impossible to get raw numbers in any discussion.
- diordiderot 5y ago
  Well in many US states politicians write the curriculum. Like in Texas and Mississippi, you don't learn that slavery was the cause for the civil war, but states rights. Despite the existence of their succession documents
- lamontcg 5y ago
  > Still whenever I tried in the past to get an answer to why Greenland was so warm 1000 years ago I get labeled a shill. probably a change in the strength of north atlantic thermohaline circulation. that was a regional shift in local climate and not due to worldwide climate change. it isn't reflected in global proxies like antarctic ice cores. hurricane activity in the atlantic basin increased, and its likely that la nina (cool) conditions persisted across the pacific. it also may have caused draught that caused the collapse of the Maya civilization. you probably get labelled a shill because you use it to cast doubt on anthropogenic causes of climate change and you argue that warmer temperatures benefited northern europe, while ignoring the drought and destruction of a civilization in central america.

yongjik 5y ago

> The lack of openness is transparency is precisely what causes "the masses" to distrust experts about these issues. Considering that climate scientists have seen their emails hacked, quote-mined, and used to produce climate FUD (not to mention global harassment campaign), I have to say nah, not really. https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2019/nov/09/climategate-10-years-on-what-lessons-have-we-learned https://www.theguardian.com/theobserver/2019/nov/09/climateg...