11 ms·

Global Green Up Slows Warming

110 points by mrfusion 5y ago

darkstarsys 5y ago
One thing not noted in the article is how the albedo reduction from greening in the arctic affects warming, ice melt, etc. It is good that greening has a negative feedback effect, but albedo reduction likely reduces that benefit in those regions.
- datameta 5y ago
  Greenery vs snow, yes. But vs brown earth? No. Is it also possible that plants can effectively slow down the heat transfer to permafrost, at least when that shade is sorely needed during atypical heat waves?
- sampo 5y ago
  There is also a possibility of more vegetation in the arctic → more BVOC (biogenic volatile organic compounds) emissions from the vegetation → more aerosols → more clouds, which could increase the albedo (albedo as seen from space) and thus reduce warming. But these interactions are not very well know currently.
- marcus_holmes 5y ago
  Wasn't there a thing where more green cover = more clouds, because the greenery kept surface water from being absorbed into the soil (and therefore unavailable for evaporation and cloud formation)? I seem to remember reading about that. And, obviously, more clouds = higher albedo. Though water vapour itself is a very strong greenhouse gas, so the net effect is tricky to predict.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
Proven 5y ago
> “It is ironic that the very same carbon emissions responsible for harmful changes to climate are also fertilizing plant growth,” It's not "ironic" at all. It's only sad (maybe not for most of HN readership) that taxpayers are coerced into funding various government-led bullshit "research" - from climate to Covid-19 and more. "Skeptic" circles mentioned this effect of CO2 1-2 decades ago, but it was ignored so that globalist-climatist agenda can continue.
- rastapasta42 5y ago
  Don't forget government-led research is how Covid started in the first place - our tax money was used to fund the creation of the virus.
  - joeberon 5y ago
    Can you elaborate on this? That sounds insane.
    - rastapasta42 5y ago
      https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3154232/ecohealth-alliance-defends-us-funded-bat-coronavirus-research https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3154232/ecoh... Science creates more and more powerful tools, but scientific progress is not something innately good. The powerful tools can be used for good or bad (nukes, climate disruptions, synthesis of new viruses).
      - joeberon 5y ago
        Okay but can you prove that the tax money was used with the intent of creating the virus? That was your assertion
        rastapasta42 5y ago
        Stop putting words in my mouth, I never mentioned intent. My point is that when you play with fire, you're bound to get a burn. In this case, we gave money to someone playing with fire. I'm not going to go as far as implying a malicious intent - but neither I'm ruling out pyromaniacs.
- GuB-42 5y ago
  Isn't it part of the climate models? There are plenty of feedback mechanisms, some positive, some negative. It is just one of many. But one thing for sure, because it is just a negative feedback mechanism, it is not enough. It can only slow down atmospheric CO2 accumulation, not stop it, and if we become really good at carbon capture and manage to reverse our emissions, it will work against us.
boringg 5y ago
The key line for those who don't read the article: "Scientists say that global greening since the early 1980s may have reduced global warming by as much as 0.2° to 0.25° Celsius (0.36° to 0.45° Fahrenheit). In other words, the world would be even warmer than it is if not for the surge in plant growth." The surge in plant growth is a result of increased amount of CO2 in the air as a result of anthropogenic activity. Quirky systems we have on the planet. Other key piece of the pie - we need to reduce CO2e emissions to ensure habitability of the planet. I.e. our effects >> global greening effects.
- giantg2 5y ago
  They mention growing season. I wonder if growing seasons have been extended too.
  - sampo 5y ago
    > I wonder if growing seasons have been extended too. You are correct. This has been known already 24 years ago: https://www.nature.com/articles/386698a0 https://www.nature.com/articles/386698a0
    - giantg2 5y ago
      I should have worded it better. I mean in regards to this study. The graphic is for "more green" and I was wondering if they have another one for the "longer green" part.
- scarygliders 5y ago
  >increased amount of CO2 in the air as a result of anthropogenic activity Couple of questions because I'm curious... What percentage of the 0.04% CO2 in Earth's atmosphere do humans contribute? Has it yet been absolutely proven 100% that a gas comprising 0.04% of Earth's atmosphere is the main culprit/control knob which controls climate(s) around the Earth?
  - kragen 5y ago
dotancohen 5y ago
With the realities of science denial, publishing such a paper is borderline irresponsible. Those who have an interest in keeping up burning carbon will point to papers like this ("NASA says!") as "evidence" that we can continue on our current path.
- hnuser847 5y ago
  I find this comment to be the epitome of science denial.
- kcarter80 5y ago
  Yes, the plebs must be shielded from information we deem harmful.
- jjoonathan 5y ago
  No. It's far better to publish misinterpretable information than to lie/censor. Professional bullshit peddlers can still peddle bullshit without any help from misinterpretable facts. However, if you lie/censor and are discovered, the facts will be on their side. Tiny upside, large downside -- I plug those numbers into my calculator and it makes a frowny face.
- winstonewert 5y ago
  So you advocated falsifying science in order to combat science denial?
- crisdux 5y ago
  It is astonishing to me that you are taking the position to censor scientific findings. Ironically, your attitude is science denial. You are fighting "science denial" with science denial of your own.
- rastapasta42 5y ago
  People can't be trusted with anything. Let's close down internet and burn all the books. Next step is we turn world population into slaves to build a Mars rocket, and kill everyone who's not actively working on the Mars rocket. Not sure if Global Warming will be enough to enslave world population, but we could also come up with new things like "Global Cooling" or maybe even engineer a new virus to keep the idiots scared.
petermcneeley 5y ago
Is the data for north Africa absent or is this the data?
- numbsafari 5y ago
  North Africa is mostly the Sahara desert (check a map). The article indicates that areas that are barren, built, covered in ice or mostly water (e.g. lakes and oceans) are displayed as white.
- jtbayly 5y ago
  Are you talking about the Sahara? They mention that white means barren.
nashashmi 5y ago
If the CO2 levels stay this high for the next 100 years (and no new excess emissions are generated) we will be having excess food growth and plant growth and wildlife growth for many decades. This is a win. It might counter the narrative for emissions control, but if also tells us that the medicine is in our system.
- ajnin 5y ago
  CO2 levels are not the only factor that is beneficial to plant growth, you also need sunlight and water, and nutrients, and other things, it's hard to predict what regions of the Earth will have favorable conditions in the future and if crops will profit or not from this.
- chriswarbo 5y ago
  Ha, no. Higher CO2 contentrations make food less nutritious (sibling comment has sources https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29067855 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29067855 )
drukenemo 5y ago
More CO2 in the atmosphere should result in a greening effect, right? Measurements of warming in these models are controversial. How can they establish that 0,25 increase in the average temperature of the Earth has occurred? How does an average even makes sense, in such discrepancy in temperatures observed worldwide. How can models properly reflect the reality of 0.25c degrees, or whatever low predicted increase, will have on the planet? Also, how do they account for urbanization effects (which in itself causes warming), and placement of thermometers around these areas. I have more questions than certainties about this issue.
- sampo 5y ago
  > How does an average even makes sense, in such discrepancy in temperatures observed worldwide. > Also, how do they account for urbanization effects (which in itself causes warming), and placement of thermometers around these areas. Related to your worries, 11 years ago a group of physicists from outside the meteorology and climate science community, had similar worries. Maybe meteorologists and climate scientists haven't done a good analysis of the existing land surface temperature measurements? What about the urban heat island effect, growing cities, and moving measurement locations? These physicists started the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project, went back to the original raw data, and reanalyzed everything, developing their own new statistical methods as needed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth The result? The same observed warming rate as in the previous studies. Maybe this kind of reanalysis needs to be done again every 10-20 years? Kind of like rewriting software from scratch.
  - kragen 5y ago
    It would be super awesome to have a fully reproducible version of the IPCC model so that anyone can download it and not only reproduce the original predictions but see what variations it's sensitive to.
- kragen 5y ago
  These models are controversial mostly because there are vested interests trying to create controversy around them; the actual scientific controversy is hard to find among all the random noise questions posted on marginally relevant discussion threads by people who evidently haven't read even the relevant Wikipedia articles, much less any papers on the actual models and predictions, even though there are entire journals full of them. In particular, your questions about how the increase is measured are answered in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Robustness_of_evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_recor..., your questions about the impact of land use changes are answered in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Changes_of_the_land_surface https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Changes_of_the_..., your question about how the models are calibrated to predict future effects is partly answered in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change#Warming_projections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change#Warm..., and your question about how it makes sense to measure a temperature as an average reveals that you don't know what a temperature is and is answered in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature#Microscopic_statistical_mechanical_scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature#Microscopic_statis.... You really need to rethink where you've been getting your information from and start practicing some minimal epistemic hygiene.

110 points by mrfusion 5y ago

One thing not noted in the article is how the albedo reduction from greening in the arctic affects warming, ice melt, etc. It is good that greening has a negative feedback effect, but albedo reduction likely reduces that benefit in those regions.

datameta 5y ago
Greenery vs snow, yes. But vs brown earth? No. Is it also possible that plants can effectively slow down the heat transfer to permafrost, at least when that shade is sorely needed during atypical heat waves?
sampo 5y ago
There is also a possibility of more vegetation in the arctic → more BVOC (biogenic volatile organic compounds) emissions from the vegetation → more aerosols → more clouds, which could increase the albedo (albedo as seen from space) and thus reduce warming. But these interactions are not very well know currently.
marcus_holmes 5y ago
Wasn't there a thing where more green cover = more clouds, because the greenery kept surface water from being absorbed into the soil (and therefore unavailable for evaporation and cloud formation)? I seem to remember reading about that. And, obviously, more clouds = higher albedo. Though water vapour itself is a very strong greenhouse gas, so the net effect is tricky to predict.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

Proven 5y ago

> “It is ironic that the very same carbon emissions responsible for harmful changes to climate are also fertilizing plant growth,” It's not "ironic" at all. It's only sad (maybe not for most of HN readership) that taxpayers are coerced into funding various government-led bullshit "research" - from climate to Covid-19 and more. "Skeptic" circles mentioned this effect of CO2 1-2 decades ago, but it was ignored so that globalist-climatist agenda can continue.

rastapasta42 5y ago
Don't forget government-led research is how Covid started in the first place - our tax money was used to fund the creation of the virus.
- joeberon 5y ago
  Can you elaborate on this? That sounds insane.
  - rastapasta42 5y ago
    https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3154232/ecohealth-alliance-defends-us-funded-bat-coronavirus-research https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3154232/ecoh... Science creates more and more powerful tools, but scientific progress is not something innately good. The powerful tools can be used for good or bad (nukes, climate disruptions, synthesis of new viruses).
    - joeberon 5y ago
      Okay but can you prove that the tax money was used with the intent of creating the virus? That was your assertion
      - rastapasta42 5y ago
        Stop putting words in my mouth, I never mentioned intent. My point is that when you play with fire, you're bound to get a burn. In this case, we gave money to someone playing with fire. I'm not going to go as far as implying a malicious intent - but neither I'm ruling out pyromaniacs.
GuB-42 5y ago
Isn't it part of the climate models? There are plenty of feedback mechanisms, some positive, some negative. It is just one of many. But one thing for sure, because it is just a negative feedback mechanism, it is not enough. It can only slow down atmospheric CO2 accumulation, not stop it, and if we become really good at carbon capture and manage to reverse our emissions, it will work against us.

boringg 5y ago

The key line for those who don't read the article: "Scientists say that global greening since the early 1980s may have reduced global warming by as much as 0.2° to 0.25° Celsius (0.36° to 0.45° Fahrenheit). In other words, the world would be even warmer than it is if not for the surge in plant growth." The surge in plant growth is a result of increased amount of CO2 in the air as a result of anthropogenic activity. Quirky systems we have on the planet. Other key piece of the pie - we need to reduce CO2e emissions to ensure habitability of the planet. I.e. our effects >> global greening effects.

giantg2 5y ago
They mention growing season. I wonder if growing seasons have been extended too.
- sampo 5y ago
  > I wonder if growing seasons have been extended too. You are correct. This has been known already 24 years ago: https://www.nature.com/articles/386698a0 https://www.nature.com/articles/386698a0
  - giantg2 5y ago
    I should have worded it better. I mean in regards to this study. The graphic is for "more green" and I was wondering if they have another one for the "longer green" part.
scarygliders 5y ago
>increased amount of CO2 in the air as a result of anthropogenic activity Couple of questions because I'm curious... What percentage of the 0.04% CO2 in Earth's atmosphere do humans contribute? Has it yet been absolutely proven 100% that a gas comprising 0.04% of Earth's atmosphere is the main culprit/control knob which controls climate(s) around the Earth?
- kragen 5y ago

dotancohen 5y ago

With the realities of science denial, publishing such a paper is borderline irresponsible. Those who have an interest in keeping up burning carbon will point to papers like this ("NASA says!") as "evidence" that we can continue on our current path.

hnuser847 5y ago
I find this comment to be the epitome of science denial.
kcarter80 5y ago
Yes, the plebs must be shielded from information we deem harmful.
jjoonathan 5y ago
No. It's far better to publish misinterpretable information than to lie/censor. Professional bullshit peddlers can still peddle bullshit without any help from misinterpretable facts. However, if you lie/censor and are discovered, the facts will be on their side. Tiny upside, large downside -- I plug those numbers into my calculator and it makes a frowny face.
winstonewert 5y ago
So you advocated falsifying science in order to combat science denial?
crisdux 5y ago
It is astonishing to me that you are taking the position to censor scientific findings. Ironically, your attitude is science denial. You are fighting "science denial" with science denial of your own.
rastapasta42 5y ago
People can't be trusted with anything. Let's close down internet and burn all the books. Next step is we turn world population into slaves to build a Mars rocket, and kill everyone who's not actively working on the Mars rocket. Not sure if Global Warming will be enough to enslave world population, but we could also come up with new things like "Global Cooling" or maybe even engineer a new virus to keep the idiots scared.

petermcneeley 5y ago

Is the data for north Africa absent or is this the data?

numbsafari 5y ago
North Africa is mostly the Sahara desert (check a map). The article indicates that areas that are barren, built, covered in ice or mostly water (e.g. lakes and oceans) are displayed as white.
jtbayly 5y ago
Are you talking about the Sahara? They mention that white means barren.

nashashmi 5y ago

If the CO2 levels stay this high for the next 100 years (and no new excess emissions are generated) we will be having excess food growth and plant growth and wildlife growth for many decades. This is a win. It might counter the narrative for emissions control, but if also tells us that the medicine is in our system.

ajnin 5y ago
CO2 levels are not the only factor that is beneficial to plant growth, you also need sunlight and water, and nutrients, and other things, it's hard to predict what regions of the Earth will have favorable conditions in the future and if crops will profit or not from this.
chriswarbo 5y ago
Ha, no. Higher CO2 contentrations make food less nutritious (sibling comment has sources https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29067855 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29067855 )

drukenemo 5y ago

More CO2 in the atmosphere should result in a greening effect, right? Measurements of warming in these models are controversial. How can they establish that 0,25 increase in the average temperature of the Earth has occurred? How does an average even makes sense, in such discrepancy in temperatures observed worldwide. How can models properly reflect the reality of 0.25c degrees, or whatever low predicted increase, will have on the planet? Also, how do they account for urbanization effects (which in itself causes warming), and placement of thermometers around these areas. I have more questions than certainties about this issue.

sampo 5y ago
> How does an average even makes sense, in such discrepancy in temperatures observed worldwide. > Also, how do they account for urbanization effects (which in itself causes warming), and placement of thermometers around these areas. Related to your worries, 11 years ago a group of physicists from outside the meteorology and climate science community, had similar worries. Maybe meteorologists and climate scientists haven't done a good analysis of the existing land surface temperature measurements? What about the urban heat island effect, growing cities, and moving measurement locations? These physicists started the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project, went back to the original raw data, and reanalyzed everything, developing their own new statistical methods as needed. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Earth The result? The same observed warming rate as in the previous studies. Maybe this kind of reanalysis needs to be done again every 10-20 years? Kind of like rewriting software from scratch.
- kragen 5y ago
  It would be super awesome to have a fully reproducible version of the IPCC model so that anyone can download it and not only reproduce the original predictions but see what variations it's sensitive to.
kragen 5y ago
These models are controversial mostly because there are vested interests trying to create controversy around them; the actual scientific controversy is hard to find among all the random noise questions posted on marginally relevant discussion threads by people who evidently haven't read even the relevant Wikipedia articles, much less any papers on the actual models and predictions, even though there are entire journals full of them. In particular, your questions about how the increase is measured are answered in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record#Robustness_of_evidence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_recor..., your questions about the impact of land use changes are answered in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Changes_of_the_land_surface https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change#Changes_of_the_..., your question about how the models are calibrated to predict future effects is partly answered in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change#Warming_projections https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_climate_change#Warm..., and your question about how it makes sense to measure a temperature as an average reveals that you don't know what a temperature is and is answered in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature#Microscopic_statistical_mechanical_scale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature#Microscopic_statis.... You really need to rethink where you've been getting your information from and start practicing some minimal epistemic hygiene.