• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

NASA: The world is literally a greener place than it was 20 years ago

Chittagong

Gold Member
The world is literally a greener place than it was 20 years ago, and data from NASA satellites has revealed a counterintuitive source for much of this new foliage: China and India. A new study shows that the two emerging countries with the world’s biggest populations are leading the increase in greening on land. The effect stems mainly from ambitious tree planting programs in China and intensive agriculture in both countries.

The greening phenomenon was first detected using satellite data in the mid-1990s by Ranga Myneni of Boston University and colleagues, but they did not know whether human activity was one of its chief, direct causes. This new insight was made possible by a nearly 20-year-long data record from a NASA instrument orbiting the Earth on two satellites. It’s called the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer, or MODIS, and its high-resolution data provides very accurate information, helping researchers work out details of what’s happening with Earth’s vegetation, down to the level of 500 meters, or about 1,600 feet, on the ground.

The world is a greener place than it was 20 years ago, as shown on this map, where areas with the greatest increase in foliage are indicated in dark green. Data from a NASA instrument orbiting Earth aboard two satellites show that human activity in China and India dominate this greening of the planet.

Taken all together, the greening of the planet over the last two decades represents an increase in leaf area on plants and trees equivalent to the area covered by all the Amazon rainforests. There are now more than two million square miles of extra green leaf area per year, compared to the early 2000s – a 5% increase.


Greta how dare me if you’re ok
 
S

SLoWMoTIoN

Unconfirmed Member
Trees aren't going to offset how fast we are going thru our resources though. Good luck getting bacon for less than 60 bucks by 2043 (per pound/lbs).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not surprised. The popular moral compass of the left is all skewed and based on corrupt people and organizations. Reminds me of this video I just watched from one of the founders of Greenpeace:



According to his wiki... "Moore has earned his living since the early 1990s primarily by consulting for, and publicly speaking for, a wide variety of corporations and lobby groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute."

Definitely no conflict of interest there. /s

FYI, greening occurs from higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It in no way indicates that cLiMaTe ChAnGe iS a Ho@X.
 
Last edited:
natural map of the americas

detailed-human-impact-map-of-north-america.jpg


our landscapes are beautiful

but our cities GAT DAMN

i love fishing but but i cant fish because these NYC waters are some radioactive SHIT

there's probably mutants living in that bitch
 

Yoshi

Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt

Greta how dare me if you’re ok
Greta is protesting western countries, this is about initiatives of China and India. Also, this effort has not been sufficient to counter balance the insane amount of CO2 humans put into the atmosphere, so contrary to what you are saying, this is not indication of the issue Thunberg is protesting against is void.
 

Papa

Banned
How are we gonna grow things in a lab without electricity?

1) There are forms of electricity generation that don't produce significant emissions.

2) You don't think that lab grown meat will be much more efficient in terms of carbon production?
 
S

SLoWMoTIoN

Unconfirmed Member
1) There are forms of electricity generation that don't produce significant emissions.

2) You don't think that lab grown meat will be much more efficient in terms of carbon production?
1) Emissions aren't the problem but resources will be.

2)See above
 

Papa

Banned
1) Emissions aren't the problem but resources will be.

2)See above

What? You haven’t answered my questions. Feels like you’re just fumbling around trying to misdirect. You can admit you didn’t think it through and we can end it here if you like.
 

Ornlu

Banned
According to his wiki... "Moore has earned his living since the early 1990s primarily by consulting for, and publicly speaking for, a wide variety of corporations and lobby groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute."

Definitely no conflict of interest there. /s

FYI, greening occurs from higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It in no way indicates that cLiMaTe ChAnGe iS a Ho@X.
According to his wiki... "Moore has earned his living since the early 1990s primarily by consulting for, and publicly speaking for, a wide variety of corporations and lobby groups such as the Nuclear Energy Institute."

Definitely no conflict of interest there. /s

FYI, greening occurs from higher levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It in no way indicates that cLiMaTe ChAnGe iS a Ho@X.

Ironic
 

Ar¢tos

Member
???

How efficient are these again? Can this really power America in the future?
You would be surprised how much power solar farms + wind farms +wave farms can produce (+ individuals with their own solar/wind equipment can give back power to the grid and get discounted prices).
A tiny country like Portugal gets about 73% of its energy from renewable sources.
America has no shortage of land and shore, if resources are well used, you can produce more power than you can consume.
 

Kenpachii

Member
I'm all bout dat carbon sequestration.

China and India are definitely spearheading a lot of this stuff, but don't forget Australia. They were among the first nations to really invest time and attention into "regenerative" agriculture and restoring large tracts of land destroyed by modern ag and desertification.
 
aparently China started this growing program to combat landslides on hillsides in the north not as a eco warrior program. But then I heard that from the BBC so who knows whos propoganda to believe
 
Planting trees is the go-to for companies who want to "compensate" for their polution. All they have to do is pay some poor country to plant trees on its soil and done.

Would probably be better to maintain the forests we currently have, and reduce or stop the polution instead.
 

Croatoan

They/Them A-10 Warthog
???

How efficient are these again? Can this really power America in the future?

I work in the energy field. The answer is "In the near feature yes, but it wont be the only thing", and you are a moron spouting this alarmist bullshit.

Nuclear should be what we are doing though. Unfortunately leftists are fucking idiots that believe pseudo-science about nuclear energy and shit all over it. Its really bizarre.
 
Last edited:

Ornlu

Banned
Nuclear power is the safest and most power efficient source of energy we have right now.
Even when you factor in every nuclear disaster that ever happened, the handling of radioactive waste, the ecological impact on the land, and the human cost they're still a fraction of that from fossil fuels.
FACT.

Yeah, I agree.

I just thought the comic was pretty relevant to this thread. :)
 
We could use clusters of molten salt reactors to reduce the hanging risk of meltdown. The idea is you use several smaller, safer cores instead of large reactor cores that generate a lot of output.

Sure, the output of each core is less, but so is their footprint and engineering difficulty. You can put a bunch of cores together in the same building for equal (and even greater) output than one large reactor.
 

V4skunk

Banned
Greta is protesting western countries, this is about initiatives of China and India. Also, this effort has not been sufficient to counter balance the insane amount of CO2 humans put into the atmosphere, so contrary to what you are saying, this is not indication of the issue Thunberg is protesting against is void.
Did you even read the article? Try harder comrade.
You deny basic science / biology! C02 is essential to all plant life, the well being of our planet / atmosphere.

Nuclear power is the safest and most power efficient source of energy we have right now.
Even when you factor in every nuclear disaster that ever happened, the handling of radioactive waste, the ecological impact on the land, and the human cost they're still a fraction of that from fossil fuels.
FACT.
Chernobyl and Fukushima completely disagree.
 
Last edited:

Melon Husk

Member
Also NASA:



Nature:
Great job planting those trees China, good on them.
China has planted billions of trees over the past four decades as part of its fight against expanding deserts, mostly in its north. Each year, the country sows seedlings over an area nearly the size of Ireland.
...
The government says that it has planted more than 66 billion trees across 13 provinces in the country’s north since the programme began in 1978.
Around the year 2000, deserts across the country were expanding by 10,400 square kilometres a year, says the government. But in 2017, the State Forestry Administration reported that China’s deserts were shrinking by more than 2,400 square kilometres a year.
...
In 1999, the Chinese government began planting millions of trees in its Grain for Green Program, intended to repair damaged farmland in key agricultural in the northern Loess Plateau, which is roughly the size of France. “I was there two years ago, and it is indeed amazing that once bare landscapes are now almost fully covered by plants,”
...
And the afforestation drive is continuing apace: in 2018, the State Forestry Administration announced a target of 30% forest coverage by 2050. At the moment, the coverage is around 22%.
Let's hope they can sustain it.
 
Last edited:
You would be surprised how much power solar farms + wind farms +wave farms can produce (+ individuals with their own solar/wind equipment can give back power to the grid and get discounted prices).
A tiny country like Portugal gets about 73% of its energy from renewable sources.
America has no shortage of land and shore, if resources are well used, you can produce more power than you can consume.

i believe the problem is being able to deliver that amount of power consistently, no? what if it isn't sunny or windy during peak so you can't generate enough power to meet demand, you need to have battery backed reserves to supplement what you are capable of generating at that moment, which is inefficient and expensive

it seems like a nuclear and solar/wind/hydro combo would actually be the most realistic and economically sound option. either way, it finally seems like coal is being phased out which is a good thing
 
Last edited:

Ar¢tos

Member
i believe the problem is being able to deliver that amount of power consistently, no? what if it isn't sunny or windy during peak so you can't generate enough power to meet demand, you need to have battery backed reserves to supplement what you are capable of generating at that moment, which is inefficient and expensive

it seems like a nuclear and solar/wind/hydro combo would actually be the most realistic and economically sound option. either way, it finally seems like coal is being phased out which is a good thing
Solar panels actually keep charging on cloudy days, but are less efficient. Having a power grid adapted to renewal energies involves a big investment in energy storage and in the ability to move power between sub-grids depending on where it is most needed. It is easier for a small country, it's not impossible for a big one, but it's worth it. Petrol/coal industries might be the biggest barrier to achieve this in America because of the power they hold. Here they can't really do much about anything, just grumble a little.
Fusion energy is the cleanest, if they ever solve how to keep high temperatures stable to achieve it.
 

Ornlu

Banned
You would be surprised how much power solar farms + wind farms +wave farms can produce (+ individuals with their own solar/wind equipment can give back power to the grid and get discounted prices).
A tiny country like Portugal gets about 73% of its energy from renewable sources.
America has no shortage of land and shore, if resources are well used, you can produce more power than you can consume.

Where are you basing that 73%? I looked it up, and I'm assuming you have the numbers inverted (27% of its energy from renewables, 73% from non-renewable) in 2015. I doubt they have increased their renewables use 300% in 4 years.

 

Ornlu

Banned
My bad, 53%, I typed wrong.
PCbJIUS.jpg

53% is still very impressive. However, I think we're talking about two different things. 53% of the energy produced in Portugal is renewable. Conversely, 27% (don't see a 2019 number) of the energy consumed in Portugal is renewable. So, in other words, it would appear that they are buying a lot of renewable energy from a neighbor, or buying CO2 credits.
 

Yoshi

Headmaster of Console Warrior Jugendstrafanstalt
You deny basic science / biology! C02 is essential to all plant life, the well being of our planet / atmosphere.
Uhm, what? I have never said that CO2 is not essential to plant life. No one ever has discussed eliminating CO2 altogether.
 
Top Bottom