8 ms·

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°

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
  Being 100% certain of anything is insanity; it implies that literally no amount of evidence could change your mind, while a rational mind is always open to revising its beliefs when new evidence becomes available. Religious faith and psychosis can "absolutely prove 100%". Science and reason can't.
- scotty79 5y ago
  > What percentage of the 0.04% CO2 in Earth's atmosphere do humans contribute? Since CO2 ppm nearly doubled since pre-industrial times then humans are responsible for nearly half of the CO2 in the atmosphere. > 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? Yes, for reasonable definitions of "proven 100%".
- padobson 5y ago
  Uh oh, these questions smell like climate heresy Edit: for those struggling with the irony, my comment is pro-questions and pro-heresy. Let's not attack people for asking questions
  - scarygliders 5y ago
    What's heretical about asking honest straightforward questions?
    - MauranKilom 5y ago
      The phrasing of the question is odd and hints at rhetoric instead of curiosity as intention. What if it's only 99.99% sure that CO2 is the reason for climate change? What about 90%? No need to act until we bring that up to 100%? What's with the fixation on 0.04% as a number? Things can't have huge impact unless numbers are also big? I don't want to offend, but that's honestly third grade mentality. There's surprise about small things having little impact, and then there's denial hidden as feigned curiosity. Especially when the answers are directly available from much more credible sources than random internet posters. Compare with: "Has it yet been absolutely proven 100% that the lead comprising 0.03% [hypothetically - for reference, this is 100000x the FDA limit] of our food intake is the main culprit/control knob which controls brain development?" No, it actually isn't the "main" control knob. And our bodies are also complex with many feedback loops. And no study will ever reach p = 0. And it's a really small number. And yet we have made "extremely huge decisions" regarding what fuels we allow, what tests food have to undergo etc...
citilife 5y ago
> 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. That's not quirky, it's why global warming is less of a risk than people care to admit. If CO2 is the primary cause of global warming then organisms that need / utilize CO2 will flourish. A byproduct of this is often oxygen, so it'll likely stabilize itself given enough time.
- TeMPOraL 5y ago
  This is like saying "my car burns gasoline, so more gasoline in the engine is better". There's only so much CO2 organisms can absorb, and they all buffer it - not consume it. Meanwhile, we're still adding CO2 at an exponential rate.
  - Consultant32452 5y ago
    I'm looking forward to the return of megaflora. Too bad I won't be here to see it.
  - bostonsre 5y ago
    I don't think your car engine can grow to consume gas at a faster rate or spawn other engines that consume gas. I don't think the OP or this article is saying it will completely eliminate global warming, but a new equilibrium where co2 consumption by plants pushes back and holds the line at some point seems plausible (hopefully before we reach something like this before we turn into a venus).
  - mjfl 5y ago
    Plant life grows exponentially and can catch up to our additions of carbon.
    - ben_w 5y ago
      If it was that easy, we would never have switched from charcoal to coal. Every exponential has a limit, and in the case of plants the old limit might the pre-industrial or possibly pre-agricultural equilibrium. How much can grow now depends on not just the atmospheric CO2, but also plants and animals we have selectively bread, the canals we’ve built, the the phosphate we’ve mined, the mountain tops we’ve removed to make mining easier, the glaciers we’ve melted, the storms whose frequency we’ve changed, the aquifers we’ve emptied, the lowlands which have become salty from the sea level rises, and almost certainly a lot more besides. (Edit: and if the zooplankton which human activities ultimately encourage produce waste which floats or sinks, the latter being a way to remove carbon from the system, the former puts it back in the air). Some of that pushes the equilibrium up, some down.

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
Being 100% certain of anything is insanity; it implies that literally no amount of evidence could change your mind, while a rational mind is always open to revising its beliefs when new evidence becomes available. Religious faith and psychosis can "absolutely prove 100%". Science and reason can't.
scotty79 5y ago
> What percentage of the 0.04% CO2 in Earth's atmosphere do humans contribute? Since CO2 ppm nearly doubled since pre-industrial times then humans are responsible for nearly half of the CO2 in the atmosphere. > 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? Yes, for reasonable definitions of "proven 100%".
padobson 5y ago
Uh oh, these questions smell like climate heresy Edit: for those struggling with the irony, my comment is pro-questions and pro-heresy. Let's not attack people for asking questions
- scarygliders 5y ago
  What's heretical about asking honest straightforward questions?
  - MauranKilom 5y ago
    The phrasing of the question is odd and hints at rhetoric instead of curiosity as intention. What if it's only 99.99% sure that CO2 is the reason for climate change? What about 90%? No need to act until we bring that up to 100%? What's with the fixation on 0.04% as a number? Things can't have huge impact unless numbers are also big? I don't want to offend, but that's honestly third grade mentality. There's surprise about small things having little impact, and then there's denial hidden as feigned curiosity. Especially when the answers are directly available from much more credible sources than random internet posters. Compare with: "Has it yet been absolutely proven 100% that the lead comprising 0.03% [hypothetically - for reference, this is 100000x the FDA limit] of our food intake is the main culprit/control knob which controls brain development?" No, it actually isn't the "main" control knob. And our bodies are also complex with many feedback loops. And no study will ever reach p = 0. And it's a really small number. And yet we have made "extremely huge decisions" regarding what fuels we allow, what tests food have to undergo etc...

citilife 5y ago

> 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. That's not quirky, it's why global warming is less of a risk than people care to admit. If CO2 is the primary cause of global warming then organisms that need / utilize CO2 will flourish. A byproduct of this is often oxygen, so it'll likely stabilize itself given enough time.

TeMPOraL 5y ago
This is like saying "my car burns gasoline, so more gasoline in the engine is better". There's only so much CO2 organisms can absorb, and they all buffer it - not consume it. Meanwhile, we're still adding CO2 at an exponential rate.
- Consultant32452 5y ago
  I'm looking forward to the return of megaflora. Too bad I won't be here to see it.
- bostonsre 5y ago
  I don't think your car engine can grow to consume gas at a faster rate or spawn other engines that consume gas. I don't think the OP or this article is saying it will completely eliminate global warming, but a new equilibrium where co2 consumption by plants pushes back and holds the line at some point seems plausible (hopefully before we reach something like this before we turn into a venus).
- mjfl 5y ago
  Plant life grows exponentially and can catch up to our additions of carbon.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    If it was that easy, we would never have switched from charcoal to coal. Every exponential has a limit, and in the case of plants the old limit might the pre-industrial or possibly pre-agricultural equilibrium. How much can grow now depends on not just the atmospheric CO2, but also plants and animals we have selectively bread, the canals we’ve built, the the phosphate we’ve mined, the mountain tops we’ve removed to make mining easier, the glaciers we’ve melted, the storms whose frequency we’ve changed, the aquifers we’ve emptied, the lowlands which have become salty from the sea level rises, and almost certainly a lot more besides. (Edit: and if the zooplankton which human activities ultimately encourage produce waste which floats or sinks, the latter being a way to remove carbon from the system, the former puts it back in the air). Some of that pushes the equilibrium up, some down.