Deserts 'greening' from rising CO2
csiro.au
csiro.au
> 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/climat...
'Football pitch' of Amazon forest lost every minute
"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-green...
I'm not going to engage with it either. That kind of statement is just begging for a response because the goal moves in any number of directions - look, plants will sequester all our carbon! Solar minimum will counter human climate change! More food for people! It's all a conspiracy!
No.
There's a reason those climate change reports can be 100s of pages long. Scientists have done very thorough public research, accounting for all those variables - the conclusion is, we're fucked.
All the science is complicated but completely public. Trust the summary provided by the consensus of journalists covering the scientific consensus of raw research - that's called an educated opinion. Alternatively, roll up your own sleeves and probe the research yourself.
Never let some online rando's idle musings erode your opinions. If it sounds too good to be true, it is.
The fact is... we don’t really know what will happen. Our world will be different, some animals may be gone, some will be better off than ever, but humans will still be here. The inhabitants of Earth have survived far worse conditions and events in the past.
Yes, but how many, and who. It's still an existential threat to invididuals, when you don't know what conditions that will make up that survivability. Now that it is apparent that there is the distinct possibility of people dying within our lifetimes, even if not many, it's a concern. It's basically "Evolution has decided that the time has come to select the strongest, and I don't know if I or my loved ones are strong enough."
1) is limited in how much it is allowed to reduce economic activity (what point is there in saving humanity if you have to do it through famine ?)
2) is limited in how much global warming is allowed
Nobody has any such solutions, except for geoengineering, at which point humanity simply takes direct control of global climate. That means someone, probably in Washington or perhaps Brussels or Beijing, simply decides whether crops in the Sahara will work out this year or not. Are they responsible for the failed yields ? How about fuckups (which we can pretty much assume will happen) ? How about sacrificing one area to save another when they're at war ?
Also this tech is probably pretty easily weaponized.
Yeah, let's just wait and see what happens...
>Our world will be different, some animals may be gone, some will be better off than ever, but humans will still be here.
Yeah, just a couple billions or so less, and dying / living horribly... But who cares, you give some, you get some, right?
Things are going to change a lot, yes. It might require a lot of changes to the way we live, yes. It might have some really tragic consequences, yes.
But speaking about climate change as if the apocalypse were nigh and there were nothing that could be done about it is not only counter-productive, but has played an important part in guaranteeing the situation got as bad as it has (remember Al Gore saying that, by 2014, there would be no ice at the poles? Do you think people who heard that are more or less likely to pay attention to climate change, now that 2014 has come and gone and the ice caps are still there, even if smaller?)
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_C...
[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.
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-...
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_Go...
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_Australia
[3]: https://www.un.org/en/events/desertification_decade/whynow.s...
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_global_warming_on_A...
As for the findings themselves - they're interesting if not unexpected. They don't in themselves have any significant practical implications (positive or negative) as Australian deserts are in zones that the BAU scenario will make too hot for human habitation by the end of this century.
Sorry if this wasn't clear: I am (or was, see the following graf) suggesting a political bias (or at the very least a willingness to turn a blind eye).
I also just realized that this paper and summary were published in 2013, not this year. I don't know enough about Australian politics to know how independent CSIRO was then, but it's very possible that I'm wrong in impugning motives.
In any case, I think the hazard is still present: positive emphasis on the silver lining of what is otherwise an unmitigated disaster gives ammunition to denialists and (undeserved) psychological reprieve to the rest of us.
Anyway on the substance of the CSIRO issue you're right. The impression I get from the one person I half-know there, and what I read, is that it's in big trouble under a governmnent that is intent on politicising public services from top to bottom.
That said, all science is subject to bias according to its funding, particularly if not readily reproducible. The CSIRO is an org that garners public and private funding.
From the narrative :
> This study was published in the US Geophysical Research Letters journal and was funded by CSIRO's Sustainable Agriculture Flagship, Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, the Australian Research Council and Land & Water Australia.
So, self funded with a few other gov interests thrown in. Is this enough to invalidate findings? Only if not reproducible... But has anyone tried?
To call into question political bias because it's a result you disagree with, is, well.. bias.
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-green...
https://www.co2meter.com/blogs/news/41003521-co2-calculator-...
https://co2factor.blogspot.com/2012/04/athletic-advantage-of...
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).
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
China's Great Green Wall http://youtu.be/pSn6S-H7m-8
China's Sea Rice Research 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.