Losses of soil carbon under global warming might equal U.S. emissions

Re:Losses of soil carbon under global warming might equal U.... by Shivetya on Thursday December 01, 2016 @01:38PM (#13082087)

Let us be a bit more honest here. Current numbers are near four hundred ppm and not even most exaggerated places them past eight hundred. Commercial greenhouses can hit 1k and even that isn't hazardous exposure levels. Man made levels are dropping but in the end, we are actually very close the lowest levels in our planet's history and may be too low.

Plants prefer higher numbers and being below 500 is actually been shown to be bad for them while double that is beneficial to greenery.

So there are issues with the climate we will face but CO2 levels are probably the least of them

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Losses of soil carbon under global warming might equal U.... by Silfen on Thursday December 01, 2016 @01:49PM (#13082214)

This is a strange non-sequitur. The concern is about the warming effect of the atmospheric CO2, not about whether it's safe to breathe. The particular concern of this article is about the potential for positive feedback in warming.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Losses of soil carbon under global warming might equal U.... by mikeash on Thursday December 01, 2016 @01:46PM (#13082176)

Problems directly arising from CO2 concentration are not a big concern. But higher CO2 concentrations cause further problems, such as ocean acidification and climate change. That's what people are worried about right now, not outright suffocating due to excessive CO2.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Losses of soil carbon under global warming might equal U.... by soVeryTired on Thursday December 01, 2016 @02:14PM (#13082466)

I just wanted to point out the downvote button isn't a "disagree" button. One can make the case that arguing over climate science is flamebait, so if you want to downvote on those grounds then go ahead. But people shouldn't be punished for making specious arguments.

Unless someone is deliberately trolling, it's better to engage with them than to negate them by downvoting. Such engagement is what makes hackernews more highbrow and interesting than, say, reddit.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Losses of soil carbon under global warming might equal U.... by adevine on Thursday December 01, 2016 @04:02PM (#13083479)

Huh? IMO, the parent's comment is a perfect example of something deserving of downvotes: "Why are you arguing something that has absolutely nothing to do with the article, or really even global warming in general, and displays a complete lack of understanding about what the discussion is even about."

In other words, I can't imagine that engaging with someone whose argument is basically "CO2 isn't a problem because plants love CO2" is going to lead to any sort of insightful discussion.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Losses of soil carbon under global warming might equal U.... by soVeryTired on Friday December 02, 2016 @04:05AM (#13087182)

I don't think it will lead to particularly insightful discussion either. But my point is that on the assumption the OP is acting in good faith, it's better to try to persuade them than to silence them. You don't convert people by taking away their voice.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Losses of soil carbon under global warming might equal U.... by tdb7893 on Thursday December 01, 2016 @01:50PM (#13082221)

I'm not sure that this is the whole picture, though. There were really high levels of CO2 millions of years ago but the life at that time was adapted to it. Rising CO2 and temperatures will cause ecological damage to life currently unsuitable for it (e.g. corral reefs) and also economic damage from things including rising sea levels.

[ Parent | on HN ]