Did anybody else expect this? Plants love CO2, seems like excess will lead to crazy plant growth and a rebalance.
1. https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/climatesci...
By contrast, when I lived in Texas (no fires), June and July would be in the low 100s, and the first two weeks of August would be 107 - 112.
I traveled from Ontario to British Columbia two years ago when the forest fires out west were really peaking.
I noticed smoke in the air as far as Winnipeg, and it only got thicker as I approached Vancouver.
Surely all of those white/reflective particles in the upper atmosphere are reflecting the sun's rays.
Also, weather predictions that year where WAY off. Predictions were always much higher than the actual high of the day. I assume this is resultant from historical weather data being a poor source for an altered state weather season.
The smoke covered almost all of north america at some points and it really got much cooler than seasonal averages.
Unlike volcanoes, any temporary cold effect from clouds would be negated by the permanent destruction of the forest.
Another negative feedback is the increased intake of CO2 by oceans, through difussion. Also the plankton consumes more CO2.
It makes sense, think about it: if the planet didn't have negative feedbacks, absolutely any event would potentially cause a runoff through positive feedback in warmings and throw the climate out of balance. Even something like a vulcanic eruption or forest fire in the middle ages: without the negative feedback, CO2 would cause warming, which causes more water, which causes warming...there must be some serious negative feedback loops, which is why we've almost doubled the warming effect of CO2 with (so far) very small influences on the climate.
But is that statement reasurring in any way?
No, because in between the limits of those feedback loops there's enormous potential for devastation and human suffering.
These levels of CO2 are pretty low on a geological scale, increases to 400-800ppm CO2 have not caused a runaway global warming a la Venus ever before. More of the Earh's life as a living planet was spent above 1000 ppm than under.
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Henning-Haeupler/public...
In fact, there was a period in the past when the Earth warmed 10 degree Celsius (18 F) in 10 years, and there was no runaway global warming.
There will be warming, there will be positive and negative feedbacks, we don't know for sure how big each will be.
The true pity is that we're in the midst of a mass extinction event. Between pollution, loss of habitat and rapid warming - we're killing off species like we're a killer meteor...and there's no coming back for the Amazon rain-forest and countless species. Once they're gone they're gone.
I am saying there have been swings in CO2 levels and we haven't seen runaway warming from them. The temperature stabilizes after a while. Do you have sources that contradict that? The updated temperature graph is shown very briefly at 5.57, what do they mean by that? why not put it side by side with the CO2 graph? The new temp graph is basically the same, just with a higher resolution.
The updated graph is probably just to show there's more nuance to the graph than the old version. It doesn't make sense to use very old graphs outdated by the author.
CO2 emissions are accellerating over time:
https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gl_gr.html
The runaway effects will be from thresholds being broken, like acification of the ocean, burning of the tundra, deglacification and other events that humanity cannot influence or stop directly.
https://www.quora.com/When-will-the-world-s-oceans-lose-thei...
https://www.noaa.gov/education/resource-collections/ocean-co...
https://knowledge.insead.edu/blog/insead-blog/the-ocean-cann...
While we do have negative feedback loops, lately, temperature looks to be accellerating as well:
https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...
Netflix has this documentary that explains further, ie. why biodiversity is needed.
David Attenborough: A Life On Our Planet - "vision for the future" on 'how to fix' climate change :
I have the feeling you didn't read what I wrote in the thread, I specifically decried the loos of biodiversity in my first comment.
My question and point of view was: is there evidence of previous runaway global warming caused by CO2. There were enough CO2 induced global warming events, but not runaway. My point being that at some point it will stabilize, we're not going to end up like Venus.
If you're not going to talk specifically about what I'm saying, what's the point of flooding me with links? I am aware and agree with what's in there.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20151130-how-hot-could-the-ea...
Since Earth is not like Venus now, this wouldn't have happened as Earth would've lost most of its atmosphere. But Earth have been a fireball very early on, and cooled down from that since solar output was much lower then.
As the solar output continue to increase, Earth will become like Venus or a fireball, before it's engulfed.
As solar output "only" increased 4% over some hundred of million years it would seem unlikely to occur from greenhouse gases alone.
He also notes that increased CO2 can help boost agriculture productivity, making it easier to feed the world's population.
Patrick Moore is proof that with enough money, you can buy whatever you want, including an "ecologist" who says that climate change is a good thing and not caused by humans.
Climate change deniers love stuff like this though, you can bring it up in a bullet point list of "why climate change isn't a big deal" or whatever and push your false narrative without any of the individual points being false. People who bring this fact up and are subsequently labelled climate change deniers are being labelled that because of the context and content of their whole argument, not because one specific true fact was mentioned.
It's also a bit disingenuous to talk about Patrick Moore as a Greenpeace Co-founder without any context about what he's been up to since 1986 when he left the organization. This is just an appeal to authority that's only tenuously linked to reality.
Stop being disingenuous just so you can feed your persecution complex with strangers on the internet.
Hey mate, please remember the guidelines[0] when you comment.
[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
But to your point about Patrick Moore, he really isn't a credible authority on this matter at all. The positive effects of carbon dioxide are true for the most part. However, this does nothing to invalidate the mountain of negative effects that destabilising the climate currently has and will continue to worsen.
> He also notes that increased CO2 can help boost agriculture productivity, making it easier to feed the world's population.
In cooler countries, this is indeed the case. However, most of the world's population lives in warmer regions, meaning even if we have plenty of food, it's poorer countries that will lack it, so we'll still get climate refugees.
His 33-page "Ravens & Rainbows" collection has this and several other great short sci-fi stories in that old "Heavy Metal" comic style that's rarely seen these days, but same NSFW disclaimer applies: https://imgur.com/a/M0JUTSx
Crazy plant growth does not matter if we have unprecedented megafires each year and in several continents at the same time.
I can assure you that Google earth still show trees that were chopped some years ago; and sadly both wildfires and megafires are very real currently.
As for the net loss or gain, you'd have to subtract how many trees died in the fires from how many new saplings there are annually. The world is a big place. It's perfectly possible for a billion trees lost in one region to be offset by a billion new trees elsewhere.