
Nasa Happily Reports the Earth Is Greener - ph0rque
https://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/nasa-says-earth-is-greener-than-ever-thanks-to-china-and-india/
======
FriedPickles
From what I understand, the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide will have a
massive greening effect on the Earth (plants love CO2). But it seems this fact
is usually omitted so as not to complicate the intended message. I always
found it ironic that the "eco" mode button in many cars is a leaf icon.

~~~
ajuc
> plants love CO2

In artifical conditions in laboratory there is a significant effect, up to 20%
when doubling pre-industrial CO2 concentration.

But, in practice for wild plants nitrogen quickly becomes the bottleneck, so
the real gains are much smaller.

And even for farming plants (which have fertilizer providing additional
nitrogen) the real gains diminish, and are more in 5-10% range. For some crops
CO2 has very little effect at all (for example corn).

Additionally - crops grew with raised CO2 levels have less proteins and useful
nutrients.

And then you have to factor in the harmful effects from global warming on
crops (heat damage, dry soil, less farmland available) and the overall effect
is likely negative.

[https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-
experts-d...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-
rising-co2-benefit-plants1/)

~~~
mrfusion
I believe in global warming with all my heart but just to be balanced the heat
also gives you a longer growing season and let’s plants thrive in higher
latitudes.

Edit funny the downvotes. I’m on your team guys! Just think we can’t ignore
counter facts.

~~~
NeedMoreTea
For crops that tolerate the extra heat. Those which don't will need to be
grown further toward the poles, which will reduce the length of growing
season.

~~~
BurningFrog
Reseeding a field with a new crop is technology known since thousands of
years.

I don't think there is any risk of areas reaching temperatures too hot for
_any_ plants?

> which will reduce the length of growing season

Why?

~~~
GlenTheMachine
...because plants that are overheated can't grow. Depending on how overheated
they get they may merely become stressed, or they can die. But plants also
need temperatures, particularly soil temperatures, that rise above some
minimum before they germinate. So you need a period when the soil temperature
is high enough, but the air temp is not too high. Figuring out the length of
that window is very complicated.

Corn, for instance, can't grow when the temp is over 104 or so (depending on
cultivar) and dies when exposed to temps over 110 or so. It maximizes its
growth rate at around 86 degrees.

So: if you have a summer month when temps are regularly over 104, that's not
really a growing season for corn. Thus you have to try to plant earlier and
harvest earlier, and the window when you can do that successfully may be
considerable shorter than it would if the temp stayed below 104 during the
summer.

So then you try to go closer to the poles. But -- depending on temperatures
and a lot of other factors -- that may not be a totally satisfying solution
either. Corn needs specific amounts of rain, which may or may not coincide
with periods when the temperatures are good. It also needs large amounts of
soil nitrogen, which may or may not be present in arctic soils, and if the
plant doesn't have it growth is slowed. Corn also needs the soil temperature
to be relatively high to germinate (above 50 degrees, again depending somewhat
on cultivar). In arctic soils, it may take a while for the soil to warm up
that much in the spring, and that may reduce your growing season. So how all
the factors play out, and whether those factors result in a longer or shorter
growing season, are intimately connected to exactly how the climate changes.

I've used corn as an example, but of course other crops and wild plants all
rely on complicated, interconnected conditions to thrive. The specifics are a
bit different for every plant.

It all depends. There are a lot of factors that we won't really know until
people start trying to do it.

------
b_tterc_p
The title says trees but I think it really means “greenness” from a satillite
view. Reading around the bottom, while India and China have done substantial
tree planting programs, it sounds like a large chunk of this may be driven by
unsustainable use of farm land. I’m not clear on how their increased farm
usage corresponds to greenness and whether that matters. Would be curious if
anyone can chime in.

~~~
wyattpeak
From the abstract of the study[1]:

> The greening in China is from forests (42%) and croplands (32%), but in
> India is mostly from croplands (82%) with minor contribution from forests
> (4.4%).

I can't comment on the sequestration effects of farms, though, beyond my ken.

[1]
[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0220-7](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0220-7)

~~~
pjc50
The Chinese forest expansion is the most amazing piece of news I'd never heard
of.
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S138993411...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389934118302594)

------
setgree
> “When the greening of the Earth was first observed, we thought it was due to
> a warmer, wetter climate and fertilization from the added carbon dioxide in
> the atmosphere, leading to more leaf growth in northern forests, for
> instance. Now, with the MODIS data that lets us understand the phenomenon at
> really small scales, we see that humans are also contributing.”

That global warming may induce more agriculture, and forest growth, in the
global North is something I'd like to learn more about. Anyone have any
further reading to recommend?

~~~
marcosdumay
I doubt anybody really knows.

It is well known that CO2 improves plants growth. It is also well known that
plants grow better within a narrow band of temperatures.

Increasing both the CO2 contents of the atmosphere and Earth's temperature
will have some complex results where on the places within that temperature
band, plants grow slightly faster, on places that cross from too cold into the
band plants grow much faster, and on places that cross from that band into too
hot plants will grow much slower.

Also, solar incidence has a much larger effect than CO2 concentration, so the
places with best growth rate can only cross into the too hot region, and polar
places crossing into the good temperatures can't really compensate (besides,
there isn't much area at the polar regions, unless you are talking about the
hole Antarctic getting green).

And, anyway, water availability has a much larger effect than solar incidence,
and this one is completely chaotic. So, good luck getting any conclusion.

~~~
Wowfunhappy
These all seem like variables a robust computer model could account for, no?

~~~
marcosdumay
Temperature is chaotic, but with a large predictable component. Except for
black swans, a computer model can get on the ballpark, and the climatology
people have many of them.

The specifics of how trees react to increase CO2 concentration varies from one
species to the other. AFAIK, only a few species have been measured, thus the
increase on rate of growth on that component is quite uncertain. That can be
improved by empirical tests, that many specializations of science are
currently working into. Of course, the big elephant in the room here is ocean
plankton, that has a two sided relation with CO2, because it both participates
on photosynthesis and increases ocean acidity. AFAIK, there is little known on
how those react.

Solar incidence is completely predictable, and doesn't tell a good story for
global warming.

And for humidity, I don't think there is any reliable model out there. None of
those are my specialization, so I may be wrong, but I don't think we have
anything nearly viable for predicting this one.

------
blocked_again
The map is kind of misleading. It shows Kerala one of the greenest States in
India as as the least green while states like Rajastan where you can find
hardly any greenary is marked as most green.

Edit: I know it shows the % increase in greenary. What I meant is the
"greenary" shown in the map actually has almost no correlation with the
greenery in the real world. Looking the map and expecting Rajastan to be a
green area would be a bad idea.

~~~
eskimobloood
Doesn't the map show the trend? So it's not about how green it is but how
mucher greener it's become over the last decade.

~~~
blocked_again
Yup. It shows the increase. But I think the way its portrayed is kind of
misleading. Most people looking at the map who is not aware of Indian
geography is going to think places like Rajastan now has a lot of greenery due
to significance increase in greenary which is far from reality. Would love to
know what all factors where taken into consideration for deciding the greenery
increase.

~~~
jessaustin
Yes this color choice is misleading. It would have been better to have chosen
blue to represent this increase.

------
lazyjones
The USA, EU and Mexico apparently also managed to increase leaf area
significantly without any extensive greening initiatives. The larger version
of the global map shows this clearly, even though it doesn't look noteworthy
in the (somewhat ambiguously labeled "... Greening Due To Human Activity") bar
chart:

[https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/gl...](https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/thumbnails/image/global_tamo_2017_full.png)

------
acqq
[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/science/climate-change-
pl...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/30/science/climate-change-plants-
global-greening.html)

"Despite global greening, carbon dioxide levels have climbed over the past two
centuries to levels not seen on Earth for millions of years. And the carbon
dioxide we’ve injected into the atmosphere is already having major impacts
across the planet."

The "global greening" effect, to the amount it can manifest itself, existed
since the CO2 started to increase but we still see that the problems from
higher CO2 increase and will get always bigger.

It won't save us from any problems made by global warming.

~~~
marcus_holmes
I kinda find it weird, though. Because we only know what prehistoric climate
conditions were because of tree rings (and ice cores, but they're measuring
different things).

So predicting future tree ring growth based on climate changes, when we
estimate the historical climate based on tree ring growth, means we can make
up any relationship we want.

~~~
acqq
That shows lack of understanding in purpose and use of the tree rings and it
is not relevant to the topic. What I read from your statements is just that
you don't understand how the past climates are scientifically reconstructed,
and want to express the doubt in the results of all the work of all the
scientist that agree (which is effectively all of them, minus the ones
directly or indirectly funded by fossil fuel companies or motivated by
political relations, if you have other impression, it's distorted by the
intentional activity of said companies and political groups).

But we don't configure the current modeling systems at all using the
"prehistoric" reconstructions, the models and the currently measured values
are much more precise. The "prehistoric" reconstructions only give you
something to compare the orders of magnitudes.

And comparing that, the warming is unprecedented. Which is not surprising
giving that the humanity managed to extract and burn more then the half of all
readily available oil from the Earth's crust in just 100 years.

That very oil in the crust is however a result of more than 4 billion of years
of the Earth's existence.

If you’re reading this in some country like US, given that the average US car
weights around 2 tonnes, your existence alone is probably responsible for the
CO2 mass equivalent to the weight of 7–10 cars every year, and to the volume
of CO2 which corresponds to the volume of more than 3000 cars.

And the CO2, even if it's invisible for us, is actually "black" for something
important: it's blocking the part of the spectrum that would allow the Earth
surface to cool off. That's how small concentrations of it, compared to some
other stuff in the air, produce such a big effect.

The physics is simple and undeniable, and it's known that there will be always
more problems caused by the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere which increases
the surface temperature of the Earth.

~~~
topmonk
> And the CO2, even if it's invisible for us, is actually "black" for
> something important: it's blocking the part of the spectrum that would allow
> the Earth surface to cool off. That's how small concentrations of it,
> compared to some other stuff in the air, produce such a big effect.

> The physics is simple and undeniable, and it's known that there will be
> always more problems caused by the growth of CO2 in the atmosphere which
> increases the surface temperature of the Earth.

Take a look at this graph of co2 vs temperature over a geological timescale:
[http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale_op_712x534.jpg](http://www.biocab.org/Geological_Timescale_op_712x534.jpg)
(from
[http://www.biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_geological_timescale.ht...](http://www.biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_geological_timescale.html))

From this, there doesn't seem to be any relationship at all and the co2 has
been much higher during much of the history of earth. At the very least, you
can't say that the relationship is simple.

~~~
acqq
Take a look at who constructed the graph you quoted:

[http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2012/10/nasif-s-
nahle-...](http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.com/2012/10/nasif-s-nahle-google-
scholar-and.html)

Not a scientist.

Now... anybody who is really interested in the real geological history knows
that even the continents "weren't there" where they are now, when we look long
enough in the past. Not to mention that, for the old enough times, not even
_plants_ existed on the land!

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geological_history_of_Earth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geological_history_of_Earth)

In that context:

[https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-
intermed...](https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past-
intermediate.htm)

"However, until recently, CO2 levels during the late Ordovician were thought
to be much greater than 3000 ppm which was problematic as the Earth
experienced glacial conditions at this time. The CO2 data covering the late
Ordovician is sparse with one data point in the CO2 proxy record close to this
period - it has a value of 5600 ppm. Given that solar output was around 4%
lower than current levels, CO2 would need to fall to 3000 ppm to permit
glacial conditions."

"(Young 2009). Rock weathering removes CO2 from the atmosphere. The process
also produces a particular isotope of strontium, washed down to the oceans via
rivers. The ratio of strontium isotopes in sediment layers can be used to
construct a proxy record of continental weathering activity. The strontium
record shows that around the middle Ordovician, weatherability increased
leading to an increased consumption of CO2. However, this was balanced by
increased volcanic outgassing adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Around 446 million
years ago, volcanic activity dropped while rock weathering remained high. This
caused CO2 levels to fall below 3000 ppm, initiating cooling. It turns out
falling CO2 levels was the cause of late Ordovician glaciation."

"So we see that comparisons of present day climate to periods 500 million
years ago need to take into account that the sun was less active than now.
What about times closer to home? The last time CO2 was similar to current
levels was around 3 million years ago, during the Pliocene. Back then, CO2
levels remained at around 365 to 410 ppm for thousands of years. Arctic
temperatures were 11 to 16°C warmer (Csank 2011). Global temperatures over
this period is estimated to be 3 to 4°C warmer than pre-industrial
temperatures. Sea levels were around 25 metres higher than current sea level
(Dwyer 2008)."

You have to understand geology to be able to compare. If you don't, people
with agenda will easily sell you worthless graphs. Worthless as in "CO2 was
higher when there were no plants and animals on the land at all, just the
naked rocks." Nice target you have.

~~~
topmonk
Thanks for the info. I'm sorry, you were right, that was a bad source.

However, the rebuttal surprisingly leaves out a graph that directly shows
temperature against glaciation, solar output and co2, but rather just talks
about the comparison, without showing it. I don't find that particularly
convincing of anything. Just because

> _" Around 446 million years ago, volcanic activity dropped while rock
> weathering remained high."_

it doesn't follow that

> _" This caused CO2 levels to fall below 3000 ppm, initiating cooling. It
> turns out falling CO2 levels was the cause of late Ordovician glaciation."_,

especially given that this simple graph of all 3 influences mentioned (sun
output, glaciation, and co2 levels) against temperature isn't included. Do you
know of a source that shows this?

> _" So we see that comparisons of present day climate to periods 500 million
> years ago need to take into account that the sun was less active than now.
> What about times closer to home? The last time CO2 was similar to current
> levels was around 3 million years ago, during the Pliocene. Back then, CO2
> levels remained at around 365 to 410 ppm for thousands of years. Arctic
> temperatures were 11 to 16°C warmer (Csank 2011). Global temperatures over
> this period is estimated to be 3 to 4°C warmer than pre-industrial
> temperatures. Sea levels were around 25 metres higher than current sea level
> (Dwyer 2008)."_

Again, it's hard for me to take this seriously without seeing the comparison
between the different forces that are identified against each other and
temperature. It's like someone was peering at something through binoculars and
said they saw an elephant. They offer as proof by stating, "I see a trunk, and
a tail, and its tusks..", but they won't let you look through the binoculars
yourself. (Also the Csank 2011 link gives a 404)

The best I could find was
[https://www.co2levels.org/](https://www.co2levels.org/), which if you click
the buttons in the top left, can be massaged in displaying co2 vs temperature
for the last 800k years. And even in this period there are a few the
temperature decouples from the co2 levels and mostly the temperature rise
precedes the rise in co2, which makes one think that co2 entering the
atmosphere is a effect of climate rather than a cause.

> You have to understand geology to be able to compare. If you don't, people
> with agenda will easily sell you worthless graphs. Worthless as in "CO2 was
> higher when there were no plants and animals on the land at all, just the
> naked rocks." Nice target you have.

I'm not saying the earth was the same as before. Just that the idea is that
co2 is causing irreversible warming and that's that, isn't supported very well
by the evidence I've seen. At best what you have given me shows that the co2
causing warming isn't entirely disprovable.

I guess what I'm worried about is that the news often simplifies complex
topics to, "it's a disaster!", or alternatively, "it's a hoax!" I don't think
things are that simple, yet I haven't heard from anyone, scientist or no, that
things are not either a "disaster" or a "hoax".

~~~
acqq
> Just that the idea is that co2 is causing irreversible warming and that's
> that, isn't supported very well by the evidence

But it is, it’s the topic of physics, not history. The historical remains are
by nature very incomplete and geology is extremely relevant when you try to
interpret the historical proxies, but all that doesn’t matter if you want to
understand how warming works: physics is undeniable, and all effects are known
and are part of the models:

[https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-
wo...](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/)

Once again: it doesn’t help to say “it was warmer n millions years ago” if the
continents weren’t the same and there were no humans. Our civilisation depends
on many very fine tuned balances.

~~~
topmonk
> But it is, it’s the topic of physics, not history. The historical remains
> are by nature very incomplete and geology is extremely relevant when you try
> to interpret the historical proxies, but all that doesn’t matter if you want
> to understand how warming works: physics is undeniable, and all effects are
> known and are part of the models:

> [https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-
> wo...](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/)

There are no sources in this link. There is nothing about physics in this
link. It simply describes a bunch of other forces and declares they are not
applicable, therefore co2 is the only thing left and it must be the culprit.
Forgive me, but science isn't a game of "Clue". Putting up a bunch of straw
men and tearing them down doesn't mean that "the butler must have done it with
the wrench", or in this case, co2 must have increased the temperature.

And wasn't your link from the your last post primarily referring to the
history of the earth as evidence of co2 production? So which is it? The case
for undeniable physics, which you have not provided a link for, or from the
evidence from geologic history, which you have abandoned.

In the same spirit as your link, here is Leonard Nimoy talking about Global
Cooling from the 1970's: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ei-
_SXLMMfo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ei-_SXLMMfo) . It has about the same
amount of evidence. You can also check out
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling)
to see the history of this.

> Once again: it doesn’t help to say “it was warmer n millions years ago” if
> the continents weren’t the same and there were no humans. Our civilisation
> depends on many very fine tuned balances.

Where did I say that "it was warmer n millions years ago" proves that
increased co2 is not going to increase the temperature? I'm just saying you
haven't shown it will. You are vehemently asserting, times were different
then, so all I can conjecture is that you mean that we can throw that data
out. I don't necessarily think so, but I also don't think that doing so proves
your point. I can't prove co2 hasn't increased the temperature, but it's
difficult to prove a negative. To wit, maybe an extreme example, but I can't
prove the earth wasn't created 4000 years ago as per the Christian Bible, yet
that doesn't mean it's true.

I'm am saying that what you've shown doesn't prove that increased co2 is going
to warm the earth to a significant degree, and the current situation isn't
caused by other factors.

To that point, it shares all the hallmarks of mass hysteria. A single central
idea is put into the public consciousness, and each and every event is then
linked to that event.

I also ask you to respond point to point to what I've written rather than
simply try and attack a single statement. I wish you'd have responded to what
I wrote concerning the lack of transparency of your link from
skepticalscience.com or the graph from co2levels.org. Why won't you address
this?

~~~
acqq
> There are no sources in this link

Of course there is, in the very page:

“Researchers who study the Earth's climate create models to test their
assumptions about the causes and trajectory of global warming. Around the
world there are 28 or so research groups in more than a dozen countries who
have written 61 climate models. Each takes a slightly different approach to
the elements of the climate system, such as ice, oceans, or atmospheric
chemistry.

The computer model that generated the results for this graphic is called
"ModelE2," and was created by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies
(GISS), which has been a leader in climate projections for a generation.
ModelE2 contains something on the order of 500,000 lines of code, and is run
on a supercomputer at the NASA Center for Climate Simulation in Greenbelt,
Maryland.”

“GISS produced the results shown here in 2012, as part of its contribution to
an international climate-science research initiative called the Coupled Model
Intercomparison Project Phase Five. Let's just call it "Phase-5." Phase-5 is
designed both to see how well models replicate known climate history and to
make projections about where the world’s temperature is headed. Initial
results from Phase-5 were used in the 2013 scientific tome published by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

> The case for undeniable physics, which you have not provided a link for, or
> from the evidence from geologic history, which you have abandoned.

The link is the summary of what calculating which physical formulas gives, as
I've quoted. It's you who "doubt" in the "tree rings" and I've given you the
context: tree rings are just a small piece of he whole picture, and what we
know, including the levels of confidence from that part of science is still
good enough to have a good picture of what is happening and what has happened
before. But once again: not any single historical proxy is directly used when
the physical formulas are applied.

> In the same spirit as your link, here is Leonard Nimoy talking about Global
> Cooling

That's a joke, right? I'm presenting you the results of the NASA's best
computer models, and you are giving me a link to... what actually? Since when
are TV shows a proof for anything?

> I'm am saying that what you've shown doesn't prove that increased co2 is
> going to warm the earth to a significant degree, and the current situation
> isn't caused by other factors.

And what you are saying is simply untrue. What I've given you is the result of
a lot of precise calculations using the physical formulas and the values
obtained by all the scientific work we have. And nobody ever has found any
meaningful error in the physics we use.

If you don't understand physics, I can imagine that it's hard to you to
believe in something you simply don't understand, and I don't know your
background to help you. What I can give you is a personal page maintained by
one English PhD in Chemistry, Dr Jack Barrett, which was known as the "global
warming skeptic" in the 90ties (you can Google his name, at the time the other
person mentioned on his page was also active in "denying", this other guy was
a reasonably famous face in Britain, but also uninformed at then). But then
Barrett tried to learn the physical processes, relevant for climate, which he
missed while pursuing his career in chemistry. And if you read his newer
material, he is now completely convinced that the physics is absolutely valid
and confirming the warming:

[http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com](http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com)

Everybody who has enough knowledge to be able to check the formulas and who
has enough integrity to admit what he didn't know, and who doesn't have some
hidden agenda would have to come to the same conclusion. Read the pages on his
site. It's the most honest outcome of a former "doubter" I know of. There are
still some "old" page from the time when he "was not convinced" but if you are
really interested in the formulas and science behind all this, you will find
enough there, I believe he updated most of his site to that what he knows and
understands now (edit: I've checked, he still just updates the "news" pages,
i.e:
[http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page4.htm](http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page4.htm)
and
[http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page5.htm](http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page5.htm)
)

It's about the formulas and measurements. Note: I'm not saying "take that guy
as a reference." I'm saying: he's the guy who didn't know enough but was
willing to learn and made enough notes, so if you are actually interested in
some formulas "for beginners" you can find them there. If you'd want something
even "more serious"... you'd need at last university level material, which of
course exists too...

~~~
topmonk
> Of course there is, in the very page:

Those aren't sources.

>“Researchers who study the Earth's climate create models to test their
assumptions about the causes and trajectory of global warming. Around the
world there are 28 or so research groups in more than a dozen countries who
have written 61 climate models. Each takes a slightly different approach to
the elements of the climate system, such as ice, oceans, or atmospheric
chemistry.

This isn't a source. You need to provide the actual studies, and point out
where it proves that global warming is caused by co2, and have a coherent
argument. Right now seem to be throwing everything but the kitchen sink at me
in an attempt to win the argument.

> The computer model that generated the results for this graphic is called
> "ModelE2," and was created by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies
> (GISS), which has been a leader in climate projections for a generation.
> ModelE2 contains something on the order of 500,000 lines of code, and is run
> on a supercomputer at the NASA Center for Climate Simulation in Greenbelt,
> Maryland.”

500,000 lines of code? Oh wow, then, must be accurate! NASA did it, must be
correct, right? That's how you prove things, you get NASA to sign off on them.

> The link is the summary of what calculating which physical formulas gives,
> as I've quoted. It's you who "doubt" in the "tree rings" and I've given you
> the context: tree rings are just a small piece of he whole picture, and what
> we know, including the levels of confidence from that part of science is
> still good enough to have a good picture of what is happening and what has
> happened before. But once again: not any single historical proxy is directly
> used when the physical formulas are applied.

When did I ever say I doubted tree rings? All I'm saying is that I'm not sure
that co2 is a significant cause of global warming.

> > In the same spirit as your link, here is Leonard Nimoy talking about
> Global Cooling

> That's a joke, right? I'm presenting you the results of the NASA's best
> computer models, and you are giving me a link to... what actually? Since
> when are TV shows a proof for anything?

Actually, you're right, it was a joke, but you missed the punchline. You give
me a link of a news reporter trying to interpret and regurgitate what
scientists say now, and I give you an actor doing the same for what scientists
said in the 1970's. You don't see the similarities?

> If you don't understand physics, I can imagine that it's hard to you to
> believe in something you simply don't understand, and I don't know your
> background to help you.

I do understand some physics. And what I don't I'm willing to learn. Do you?
Why is it that all you do is regurgitate quotes from websites, or give
arguments of authority?

> It's about the formulas and measurements. Note: I'm not saying "take that
> guy as a reference." I'm saying: he's the guy who didn't know enough but was
> willing to learn and made enough notes, so if you are actually interested in
> some formulas "for beginners" you can find them there. If you'd want
> something even "more serious"... you'd need at last university level
> material, which of course exists too...

You still haven't addressed my concerns the lack of transparency of your link
from skepticalscience.com. You also didn't address the graph from
co2levels.org. I was hoping you knew or would be able to say why temperature
increase precedes co2 rising in the graph from co2levels.org. I was hoping
you'd be able to show the sun output, the glaciation, the co2 levels against
temperature, so I can see the relationship between them. At this point,
though, it seems you're not interested.

I thought I was talking to someone who knew what they were saying. You're
telling me to read this guys entire website, but I know all I'll be left with
a bunch of conflicting data and further questions, and probably still not have
my questions answered.

The reason I was talking to you in the first place was that I thought _you_
had some understanding. But by now, I'm pretty convinced, you don't.

Believe it or not, I'm on the fence about whether co2 is the primary cause of
global warming or not. I simply was refuting the original poster's assertion
that co2 being the primary cause of warming was basic physics and the
relationship is undeniable. Talking to you, it seems that you don't know much
about the topic, but instead believe that arguments from authority are good
enough. You can't find information that directly answers my questions, but
instead point to just reams and reams of data that has nothing to do with what
I asked, along with snide comments (ex. me "doubting tree rings", although I
never brought this up).

I'm on the side of "Question authority" and you seem to be on the side of
"Accept authority". That's fine, but I'm not interested in taking conclusions
as gospel simply because NASA says so, no matter how many models nor lines of
code were used.

~~~
acqq
> I'm on the side of "Question authority" and you seem to be on the side of
> "Accept authority". That's fine, but I'm not interested in taking
> conclusions as gospel simply because NASA says so, no matter how many models
> nor lines of code were used.

I never said that. What I've said was:

> Everybody who has enough knowledge to be able to check the formulas and who
> has enough integrity to admit what he didn't know, and who doesn't have some
> hidden agenda would have to come to the same conclusion. Read the pages on
> his site.

So no, it's not easy. If you are able to check the formulas, you can see they
are right. If you aren't, you can claim that "it's not enough" and it will of
course never be enough because it demands certain capabilities of the reader.
You have to go slowly, formula after formula, and do simplified calculations,
for which you don't need a supercomputer.

Once you understand formulas, and you understand that they are right, you
could say "OK but I'd like to know what the more precise calculations would
bring, if I'd apply these formulas separately on every small point of the
earth, and then see how the parameters dynamically change through the time."
Note: You don't need that to verify the validity of the warming physics, you
need that "only" to know how your part of the Earth would typically behave
through the time, including all the oscillations, ups and downs.

Then you would have either to write one another model, just like 63 models
written by the scientists worldwide. Or you'd simply understand "from the
inside" how the existing models work, and be able to accept that what is
presented on the Bloomberg page I've linked is real (because once you have
enough knowledge of what is in the program you don't have to repeat every step
to see that the results do follow from the calculations).

The scientific paper about the computing model used on the Bloomberg page was
also linked on that same page:

[https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/mi08910y.html](https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/mi08910y.html)

as well as the measurements:

[https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/](https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/)

So you surely had enough references even before.

Like I've said, the physics is real and there are no errors. If you can't
understand the physics, then you are unable to be able to "check" anybody. And
the physics is not simple as pre-school math:

If you can't understand this:

[http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page20.htm](http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page20.htm)
[http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page21.htm](http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page21.htm)

and this:

[http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page8.htm](http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page8.htm)

just don't ask me anymore for the proofs, because you are either incapable or
unwilling to work it through. You have to do a lot of work, if you haven't
before, and based on what you answered up to now, it's effectively sure you
haven't, otherwise you'd ask about some detail in some formula, if you missed
only that.

That is if you want to work through the formulas. If you don't but you want to
see everything worked through, the shortest version is the Bloomberg article
I've given you, and the longest the IPCC (The Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change) report:

[http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FI...](http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf)

[https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR...](https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-PartA_FINAL.pdf)

[https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR...](https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar5/wg2/WGIIAR5-PartB_FINAL.pdf)

[https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_w...](https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar5/wg3/ipcc_wg3_ar5_full.pdf)

[https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR...](https://archive.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-
report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full_wcover.pdf)

(all from:
[https://archive.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/](https://archive.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/) )

In the IPCC is effectively the summary of everything all the world scientists
know about the topics, together, the result of the consensus of all the world
scientists qualified enough to be able to work on the topics. It's long and
complex, and long exactly because it addresses many different details.

And all that is full of references (which aren't lacking on the pages of the
former skeptic too). So you can work through it as much as you want. Don't
trust, check the formulas, really go through them yourself. The former skeptic
did it too (he had the background in spectroscopy, luckily for him) . I've
done it, I've did go through the points for which I didn't accept "it is said
it's so" (and I, luckily for me, have enough background in physics). Every
student of these sciences does it, every year the new ones. It is doable.

~~~
topmonk
>> I'm on the side of "Question authority" and you seem to be on the side of
"Accept authority". That's fine, but I'm not interested in taking conclusions
as gospel simply because NASA says so, no matter how many models nor lines of
code were used.

> I never said that.

You did quote bloomberg "ModelE2 contains something on the order of 500,000
lines of code, and is run on a supercomputer at the NASA Center for Climate
Simulation in Greenbelt, Maryland." that line. If you don't think it was
important, why quote it to me? Maybe I was misinterpreting you, but..

> What I've said was:

>> Everybody who has enough knowledge to be able to check the formulas and who
has enough integrity to admit what he didn't know, and who doesn't have some
hidden agenda would have to come to the same conclusion. Read the pages on his
site.

Everybody with enough knowledge has to come to the same conclusion, huh?
That's a lot of hubris.

> If you can't understand this:

>
> [http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page20.htm](http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page20.htm)
> [http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page21.htm](http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page21.htm)

> and this:

>
> [http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page8.htm](http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page8.htm)

> just don't ask me anymore for the proofs,

I read through these, and I do understand them.

Basically
"[http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page8.htm"](http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page8.htm")
is modeling a outside radiation source penetrating an outer atmosphere layer
which allows 100% of it go through it. Then the earth radiates back to the
layer which absorbs and reemits it, half back to earth, and half into space.
The forces have to be in balance for the temperature average to stay in
equilibrium. The conclusion is that the absorption/emission of the atmosphere
at 0% would mean the earth would be a lot cooler 253K, and at 100% would be a
lot hotter, 302K, so it must be somewhere inbetween. Therefore there is a
greenhouse effect.

I never argued against the fact that there is a greenhouse effect, so although
interesting, I don't see how it affects anything at all.

I looked at the other two links from that site, and see that co2 blocks a
certain wavenumber band. Fine.

Lets take a look at page 28, however:
[http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page28.htm](http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page28.htm)

"The intention is to show the logarithmic nature of the relationship between
CO2 and surface temperature, i.e., the temperature rises non-linearly with
every successive addition of CO2 causing smaller effects. "

So here is the answer to something I suspected. The amount of co2 in the air
becomes saturated at greater amounts. If you look at the graph, from 400ppm
today, it will take up to 1000 ppm of co2 to increase the temperature effect
as from 200ppm to 400ppm. So for we're only talking about a degree or two.

I think that scientists have made a lot of progress modeling the atmosphere
because its so simple but the rest of the earth is much more complex and their
models are, to put it bluntly, crap. The author agrees with me:

From
[http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page48.htm](http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page48.htm)
:

"There is an absence of nits to pick in the physics of the greenhouse effect,
but there are many incorporated in the various models. The fact that the
twenty or so models all claiming to incorporate the same physics produce
different results for temperature changes, cloud cover and rainfall indicates
that something is wrong. These are early days in the development of climate
models and it is expected that they will become more believable in the future.
"

So what seems to be happening is that because they have this small effect from
co2 modeled pretty well, and since it's not enough to explain the larger
fluctuations of temperature through earths history, they try and find a way to
make it seem as a lever to affect a larger change. I think they are
subconsciously doing this... since it is the path of least resistance to
finding an interesting, measurable formula by incorporating another rock solid
one into it.

I also found an answer to my same question on that page about why temperature
seems to precede co2 increases, not the other way around for the last 800k
years at least, from co2levels.org . You've been ignoring me on this point for
3 replies now, so I doubt you'll respond, but just to let you know:

"Our comment: There is considerable misunderstanding of the ice-core records
that do show that ~800 years after a temperature rise following an ice-age the
concentration of CO2 increases. Not even the possibly exaggerated general
circulation models can explain the ending of an ice-age by the appearance of
large amounts of CO2. They end by various possible mechanisms. A change in the
Earth’s orbital characteristics might increase the value of solar input to the
Earth. Volcanic activity could deposit material on the snow/ice coverage that
alters the planet’s albedo; the fraction of solar radiation reflected by the
system. If this is the case the planet would warm up and this would have the
consequence of releasing CO2 from the oceans and increasing the amount of
water vapour in the lower atmosphere. This would, in consequence warm the
system by the greenhouse effect and release more CO2 and water vapour… "

So the author explains it away with volcanos, sun spots and earths distance
from the sun. Hmm... sounds a little vague for such large fluctuations, don't
you think? Could it possibly be, that even with their complex and conflicting
models, scientists don't actually know what caused these fluctuations back
then? And further, that a small change in temperature due to co2 does not have
a lever effect causing the larger change needed for these disastrous
predictions? I suppose it so.

Now, couple that with all the "adjustments" to historical temperature data.
Yes, they have excuses, measurements being taken at different times of day
from before, older inaccurate equipment, change of environment, etc. I'd
accept that if they changed it a couple of times, but they seem to have done
it a lot. And there are a lot of other suspicious stuff going on. Why is there
a temperature station now between the runways of a heavy trafficked airport
(see the first link)?

[https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/01/25/new...](https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/01/25/new-
yorks-temperature-record-massively-altered-by-noaa/)
[https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-
hollingsworth/g...](https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-
hollingsworth/german-scientist-accuses-nasa-massive-alteration-temperature)
[https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/23/australian-met-
office...](https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/23/australian-met-office-
accused-of-manipulating-temperature-records/)
[https://realclimatescience.com/2017/01/systematic-
destructio...](https://realclimatescience.com/2017/01/systematic-destruction-
of-the-temperature-record-since-2000/)

Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like, but the temptation is there. Along
with the general attitude of trying to suppress skeptics by the liberal media,
liberal college bias and liberal institutions.

Anyway, barretbellamyclimate.com is a lot better than I first thought. So
thank you for that.

I don't know why you think I need to understand the models that are not
predictive in order to form an opinion. I will go through the rest of that
site, but I don't think I need to delve deeper into theory that creates models
that conflict with each other in order to form opinion on the predictions of
the scientists who use those models as their basis.

~~~
acqq
> Anyway, barretbellamyclimate.com is a lot better than I first thought.

So you do understand some physics at least. Then...

Buy his book, and try to find any error: he confirms there that IPCC is right:

[https://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming-Contribution-Jack-
Barr...](https://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming-Contribution-Jack-Barrett-
ebook/dp/B0083IOWPU)

It's less than 200 pages, much less than IPCC report, and also concluded
without the use of the supercomputers. Human released CO2 is what is warming
the Earth right now, at least at the speed as calculated by Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Exactly what I've told you that anybody who honestly
approaches the topic should do.

Prove yourself that you don't listen to authority, especially not Watts
authority who is effectively a liar and the authority only to those who want
to delude themselves or the others and who you obviously read.

You saw yourself what was Barrett's starting point on the pages that you like.
You delightfully quote what he wrote _before_ he checked everything himself.
Then see how he was able to come to the conclusion that IPCC is actually
right. There's no error: he was just able to repeat what the whole world can
repeat and repeats everywhere every day... except the people who read Watts
and such, which blocks them to see for themselves that IPCC is indeed right.

I already understood it is against your political sympathies to say that IPCC
calculations is right. Well... it's time to prove that you don't listen to
"authorities." You can confirm yourself and still have the political
sympathies that you have. I definitely do not consider any of the two big
parties or their voters even behaving consistently sane, but believe that in
some topics one are right, in some topic another, and in some topics even
neither. You are allowed to do that too. That can be a better chance for a
real change, different than the pre-election slogan pseudo-change.

Don't support scientific illiteracy.

And most important: don't run searching for the false instant excuses by watts
et al, search for the real sources yourself, check yourself what is real. Then
once you are yourself sure compare what you've learned with what watts
writes... and it will finally click how he distorts the truth. I don't care
what his motivation is, his goals don't justify his means.

------
cjohansson
Thanks for the good newss, didn’t know about that. News tend to be biased
towards the bad and the good is left it. Bookmarking that site

~~~
dbtqgoat
I wouldn’t bookmark this site. The writers of this article did not do their
due diligence in their research or in their presentation of this article.
Check our the other comments here, which do a good job of explaining the
nuances of the “greening”.

~~~
emiliobumachar
Skepticism is always good, but so is a modicum of good news bias, especially
if announced, to counter the predominance of bad news bias.

If the world was in fact getting less green, and this was presented as bad
news, would you hold the reporters to the same high standard of including all
relevant silver linings?

------
jkroso
Apparently the earth was super green when the atmosphere had double the
current CO2 content
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdfWFDcXut4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdfWFDcXut4)

~~~
manmal
And why not, photosynthesis requires CO2.

------
wakenmeng
The China government has been working on tree planting project for decades,
which contributes 42% forest greening.

------
keiferski
Serious question from a non-climate scientist: would an increase in global
temperatures due to climate change ultimately cause more greenery, due to new
growth in previously too-cold areas?

~~~
Pxtl
Well, I don't know about temperature, but we do know that plants grow faster
in the presence of excessive CO2. But that's a double-edged sword, because
their nutritional value per unit mass goes _down_ , in terms of trace
nutrients - with abundant CO2, they can use more air to build more empty
carbs, but that means the critical nutrients they pull from the soil are
present in lower concentrations.

~~~
ioulian
You can easily see this effect on Highways (in Europe where trees are planted
just at the edge of the road). The trees there are the first ones that turn
green (and get greener much faster) while the trees in the farmland are still
without leaves.

~~~
mattkrause
I wonder if that’s due to CO2 levels, warmer temperatures (asphault captures a
lot of heat) or human selection for “pretty” trees along the highway.

------
twic
> It’s called the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer, or MODIS, and
> its high-resolution data provides very accurate information

So is the resolution high or moderate?

~~~
mturmon
This is a fun question, and as an occasional user of MODIS products, I've
asked it (to myself) also. Although I've never asked anyone on the MODIS team,
who I see from time to time.

I have always supposed that they wanted to leave the door open for actual high
(spatial) resolution observations in the future. The driving design
requirement was for global coverage every two days, so this meant a wide field
of view of the downward-looking optics (2200 km wide FOV) which in turn meant
"moderate" spatial resolution.

It was designed in the early 1990s. If you look at the original MODIS design
papers (e.g., The Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectrometer (MODIS) Science and
Data System Requirements, IEEE TGARS, Jan. 1991), you read the design was
inspired by instruments like AVHRR and HIRS. The "VHR" in AVHRR stands for
"Very High Resolution" and it was 1km! And the H in HIRS stands for High-
resolution and it was > 1km, as much as 10km (!!). So calling it "Moderate"
seems like a corrective message to the community.

Why would you need more? Many of the MODIS products are 1000m X 1000m, which
is too coarse for many "field-scale" applications, where you want to get down
to the health of individual fields of crops, or mixed suburban/rural areas, or
biomes where vegetation types are mixed at local scales.

For instance, transpiration from broad-leafed trees is very different from
grasses, and "mixed pixels" of these two types can confuse models. Or
scattered parking lots at the fringe of suburban areas impinging on
vegetation.

------
noetic_techy
The dirty secret is that plant growth is most optimal around 1200 - 1500 ppm
CO2. Likely because plants evolved in in epochs of much higher level. If
levels were to drop below 120 ppm, I believe we would see mass plant die off.
Pre-industrial levels were already around 180 to 200 ppm I believe (All these
numbers are off the top of my head). So even if we can stabilize around 400
ppm now with renewable, AND start to sequester back to pre-industrial levels,
we would need to also make sure we can turn that sequestration OFF at some
point. It bugs me to see future nascent industrial applications that want to
pull CO2 out of the air for products. We could very well get into a situation
in the future where we are begging industry to STOP pulling CO2 out of the
atmosphere for fear or crop failure, instead of pumping it out. It may take
1000 years, but levels will come down a bit naturally if we can stabilize.
That stability will only come from technological advances like electric cars,
planes, trucks and lab grown meats. No amount tax or cap and trade is going to
make any sense unless India and China are also on-board.

~~~
ph0rque
We could always go back to burning wood to increase the CO2, if your scenario
were to happen.

------
denisvlr
On a related note, here is a discussion about how many trees it would take to
solve climate change:
[https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/2639/how-
ma...](https://earthscience.stackexchange.com/questions/2639/how-many-trees-
would-i-have-to-plant-to-solve-global-warming)

~~~
ph0rque
Here's an up-to-date study and discussion of that question:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19248716](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19248716)

The number of trees needed (1.2T) is pretty close to the estimation of the
accepted answer in your link (1.5T). The difference is, the up-to-date study
has found that there _is_ enough space for the trees. Now we just need to
plant them :)

------
exegete
>The researchers point out that the gain in greenness seen around the world,
which is dominated by India and China, does not offset the damage from loss of
natural vegetation in tropical regions, such as Brazil and Indonesia.

So is it a net gain or not?

~~~
badosu
It is, although replacing forests with pastures should not be indicative of
CO2 sequestration, but the opposite.

In Brazil there's a biome called cerrado[0], characterized by low trees and
shrubs, from the sky might seem brown but there's a lot of biodiversity and
flora. Replacing it with soy fields should not be a net gain in my book.

0 -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerrado](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerrado)

------
andy_ppp
Would it be possible to turn a desert region into a rain forest? For example
if Nevada decided to plant trees in the dessert is it possible with enough
irrigation or would all the trees just die?

~~~
keithnz
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI)
I watched this talk a while back, TL;DW Yes, you can.

~~~
onefuncman
it was a little mystifying that he answered the question about how they
bootstrap the process with "we've never had to supplement feed" alongside "no
grass in sight for 100 miles"... does anyone have a longer answer?

------
RIMR
Don't let anyone twist this news into an excuse for climate-apathy. First,
making the Earth greener will require human cooperation, specifically towards
the goal of reversing human-created changes as much as possible.

And second, the Earth might get greener as a result of climate change, and
that those changes might not necessarily be what is best for Humanity.

------
yzh
Nothing brings me more joy than seeing a greener Earth, especially the greener
part is taking place in China!

------
kimusan
It was actually identified that most of the green areas are now farming
land/cropland and NOT forests.

------
skilled
I don't see how this addresses the issue of deforestation in places like the
Amazon.

The effect that this "practice" has had on the environment is irreversible at
this point.

But to each his own. Any positive news regarding the environment are always
welcome.

------
lota-putty
LPG/LNG have made their impact on cooking fuel sources in these two massively
populated countries; this was a positive consequence?

------
HAck4Lifes
I need help learning this stuff, i am new to this, and i want to help the
community

------
adventist
I like how America didn't spend billions of dollars for them to do this.
Kudos.

------
ic4l
Or maybe just the resolution of the satellite images have just improved
resulting in what appears to be a more greener earth.

