Climate Realism - The Greening Effect

[martins name]

The rise in CO2 is obviously great for plants. The rise in CO2 has made the planet greener. 

Also for the apocalypts out there: during the Jurassic era the CO2 levels were 20 times higher than they are today. Life still thrived.

In the long run, we are saving life from the slow sequestration of all CO2 which would make the earth uninhabitable for plants. In the long run, we are restoring balance.

In the long run, CO2 is great for life but releasing great amounts in such a short period of time creates violent changes that many lifeforms aren't ready for. Rising sea levels are particularly hard for humans due to us living near coasts.

I think it's wise to lean hard into green tech but the end-of-life talk is straight nonsense.

Thoughts?

 

Edited August 21, 2023 by martins name

[Sucuk Ekmek]

CO2 cycle happens in daily basis meanwhile lithium cycle happens in thousands of years. We should promote an economy based on diverse biological growth. 

During the jurasical period we had very deep top soil. Now we have aprox 60 harvest left.

 

[Guest Tobia]

At this point, it is incredibly hard to differentiate between propaganda and reality.

What I do know, and RFK talked about this, is that Exxon scientists (they had the absolute best ones) already in 60s were warning senior executives that we would warm the planet by burning fossil fuels.

They openly talked about how that would bad for humanity but it be great for shareholders because the artic would melt and new oil could be found there ?

I'm pretty sure they weren't woke green activists, precisely the opposite of that, so I think what they said is accurate.

[Sucuk Ekmek]

1 hour ago, Tobia said:

At this point, it is incredibly hard to differentiate between propaganda and reality.

 It always been, we love to believe. Few look for understanding.

[something_else]

Quote

The rise in CO2 is obviously great for plants. The rise in CO2 has made the planet greener. 

We are also chopping down a significant portion of the trees and plants that would actually make use of the rising CO2 levels, so the planet isn't really becoming greener as a whole. The Amazon Rainforest is the best example of that.

Quote

end-of-life talk is straight nonsense.

Yea life on earth would survive the rising CO2 levels, the question isn't really whether life will survive. I don't think many people are seriously suggesting rising CO2 will kill everything on earth. The question is just whether humanity can survive in any meaningful way.

[Jodistrict]

2 hours ago, Sucuk Ekmek said:

 It always been, we love to believe. Few look for understanding.

Coursera has several free courses on global warming, for those who want to learn the science.

https://www.coursera.org/learn/global-warming

[Sucuk Ekmek]

9 minutes ago, Jodistrict said:

Coursera has several free courses on global warming, for those who want to learn the science.

https://www.coursera.org/learn/global-warming

Thanks, unfortunately I don't have time to explore this science.

[sholomar]

Desertification is a larger problem than carbon emissions.... clear cutting forests to grow Palm, graze cattle, or simply develop the land. The greatest problem is the expanding modernization of South America, Africa, and nations like India, etc... they are going to start pumping out ever increasing amounts of carbon and clearcutting their forests as their populations continue to remain high and increase in many of these developing countries.

Us already developed nations have peaked and are likely to stagnate like Japan (which is fine, there's no universal law that says an economy and population must keep perpetually growing FOREVER, that is not sustainable for the planet)

It's true that you never know what to believe though. You almost have to visit every country and experience every situation for yourself to know what the real truth is, since every media outlet in every country is going to be biased by their respective ruling classes who want to control the narrative.

Edited August 21, 2023 by sholomar

[martins name]

@Tobia It warms the planet at the same time as plants become better at handling heat by reducing the number of pores they need to get their needed CO2, thus making them not lose as much water. Just look at the satellite images in the vid, the hottest places have gotten greener.

1 hour ago, something_else said:

We are also chopping down a significant portion of the trees and plants that would actually make use of the rising CO2 levels, so the planet isn't really becoming greener as a whole. The Amazon Rainforest is the best example of that.

Looking at the satellite images in the video it seems that just isn't true.

1 hour ago, something_else said:

The question is just whether humanity can survive in any meaningful way.

Radical changes will happen. Some radically bad, some radically good. Like, crop yields have increased in recent times through the greening effect. Also just more nature on land. My point is the calculation isn't as simple as it's often made up to be. If life can survive in a meaningful way in 20 times higher CO2 than today in the Jurassic era we should be able to do the same.

[Leo Gura]

The planet can certainly handle massively higher levels of CO2 and temperature. The Earth was thriving at temperates 10 degrees above today and CO2 levels 3x higher. That was the dinosaur era.

The only problem is that the transitions are very distruptive and cause lots of short-term death. And not ideal for humans. What's good for the Earth vs what's good for humans are very different things. Also the problem is that humans operate on too short of a timeframe relative to the Earth.

There is no danger of humans destroying life on Earth. The only danger is temporary suffering, largely to ourselves.

Edited August 21, 2023 by Leo Gura

[martins name]

@Leo Gura The good effects of the greening effect are immediate as the satellite images show, so it's not clear how bad the tradeoff is even in the short term. I'm not making a case that it's worth it, just saying it's not obvious like it's made out to be. And again, it seems prudent to choose the conservative, safe option.

[something_else]

2 minutes ago, martins name said:

Looking at the satellite images in the video it seems that just isn't true.

The statistic I have seen commonly referenced is that around 1/3 of the world's forests have been cut down in the past few hundred years. And about 1/5 of the amazon has been cut down over the past 50 years.

Quote

If life can survive in a meaningful way in 20 times higher CO2 than today in the Jurassic era we should be able to do the same.

I believe the sun was also significantly dimmer when this was the case.

Quote

My point is the calculation isn't as simple as it's often made up to be

No probably not. Though the calculation of: 'more CO2' => 'more heat' => 'bad for human life in a variety of ways' is simple. It's worsened if it happens quickly because we (and all life) don't have time to adapt to sudden changes very well.

[martins name]

1 minute ago, something_else said:

The statistic I have seen commonly referenced is that around 1/3 of the world's forests have been cut down in the past few hundred years. And about 1/5 of the amazon has been cut down over the past 50 years.

We didn't have satellite images back then so the images we do have from more recent times might not paint the full picture even if in recent decades it has gotten greener.

6 minutes ago, something_else said:

I believe the sun was also significantly dimmer when this was the case

That's interesting.

6 minutes ago, something_else said:

No probably not. Though the calculation of: 'more CO2' => 'more heat' => 'bad for human life in a variety of ways' is simple. It's worsened if it happens quickly because we (and all life) don't have time to adapt to sudden changes very well.

But also more CO2 => plants become more heat resistant due to decreasing number of pores which decreases water loss. The results are in on this, as shown in the video the warmest places on earth have increased the most in greenness. => Good for human life in many ways.

[Leo Gura]

The biggest problem is that higher temp causes water levels to rise which then dislocates millions of people. Desertification also dislocates millions of people. This then causes mass immigration which leads to geopolitical problems and wars. That's the biggest danger with climate change. It's a geopolitical problem more than an envirnomental problem.

Edited August 21, 2023 by Leo Gura

[Scholar]

7 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The only danger is temporary suffering, largely to ourselves.

 Have have you been smoking lately, lol.

 

16 hours ago, martins name said:

The rise in CO2 is obviously great for plants. The rise in CO2 has made the planet greener.

Except that we are literally destroying the all forests of the planet to grow crops for animal feed.

 

We aren't restoring any balance, life can balance itself just fine.

 

5 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The biggest problem is that higher temp causes water levels to rise which then dislocates millions of people. Desertification also dislocates millions of people. This then causes mass immigration which leads to geopolitical problems and wars. That's the biggest danger with climate change. It's a geopolitical problem more than an envirnomental problem.

The problem is that higher temperatures are far from the only problem we are facing. It makes no sense to just analyse how bad things will be through the lense of temperature rise alone. We have soil erosion, we have ecosystem degradation and collapse, we have pollution and so forth. You are familiar with the concept of network effects, so apply this logic here.

It's not an environmental problem to you because you are not the one suffering from the consequences, as you still have a contracted ego that does not actually view much outside of himself as the self. If that wasn't the case, you would already see that this is a problem even now, and that indeed humans are the least affected by the consequences of these problems.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/mar/26/land-degradation-is-undermining-human-wellbeing-un-report-warns

 

I really don't know when that idea of "Humanity will prevail because the Divine ordained it so!" has taken hold in your head, but it is toxic as hell. God doesn't give a shit if mankind, or infact all life on this planet perishes. That is a miniscule sacrifice for the greater picture of evolution. We are not guaranteed a future just because evolution says so, it's quite the opposite.

Edited August 21, 2023 by Scholar

[Leo Gura]

3 hours ago, Scholar said:

We have soil erosion, we have ecosystem degradation and collapse, we have pollution and so forth.

Of course we have many environmental issues that require tackling.

[martins name]

6 hours ago, Scholar said:

We aren't restoring any balance, life can balance itself just fine.

Nature can't balance out carbon sequestration.

CO2 emissions is the only thing I'm talking about.

[Scholar]

9 hours ago, martins name said:

Nature can't balance out carbon sequestration.

CO2 emissions is the only thing I'm talking about.

Nature did just fine for hundreds of millions of years. This is like saying, war is healthy for humans because they have to run away from bombs all the time which is good for their cardiovascular health.

[martins name]

@Scholar CO2 has been on a steady decline for 100s of millions of years. If that trend continues, which uninterrupted it would, it would result in the end of carbon based life on earth.

[Scholar]

10 minutes ago, martins name said:

@Scholar CO2 has been on a steady decline for 100s of millions of years. If that trend continues, which uninterrupted it would, it would result in the end of carbon based life on earth.

Life will end either way at some point, that is inevitable. But like I said, that's like saying bombing people is healthy for them because it gets overweight people to do more cardio. Life won't have to worry about whether or not it will go extinct in a hundred million years or more if we destroy it far before then.

To pretend what we do now is helping is just silly.