• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Climate Change is good for the world

flogger

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2012
Messages
19,466
Reaction score
5,445
Location
Wokingham, England
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I've always said that global warming represents a net benefit for humanity and something that should be accepted and not combatted. This article lays out my thoughts pretty well and is well worth reading in its linked entirety. Here are some of the highlights

The chief benefits of global warming include: fewer winter deaths; lower energy costs; better agricultural yields; probably fewer droughts; maybe richer biodiversity. It is a little-known fact that winter deaths exceed summer deaths — not just in countries like Britain but also those with very warm summers, including Greece. Both Britain and Greece see mortality rates rise by 18 per cent each winter. Especially cold winters cause a rise in heart failures far greater than the rise in deaths during heatwaves.

The increase in average carbon dioxide levels over the past century, from 0.03 per cent to 0.04 per cent of the air, has had a measurable impact on plant growth rates. It is responsible for a startling change in the amount of greenery on the planet. As Dr Ranga Myneni of Boston University has documented, using three decades of satellite data, 31 per cent of the global vegetated area of the planet has become greener and just 3 per cent has become less green. This translates into a 14 per cent increase in productivity of ecosystems and has been observed in all vegetation types

It is often argued that global warming will hurt the world’s poorest hardest. What is seldom heard is that the decline of famines in the Sahel in recent years is partly due to more rainfall caused by moderate warming and partly due to more carbon dioxide itself: more greenery for goats to eat means more greenery left over for gazelles, so entire ecosystems have benefited.

As Bjorn Lomborg has pointed out, the European Union will pay £165 billion for its current climate policies each and every year for the next 87 years. Britain’s climate policies — subsidising windmills, wood-burners, anaerobic digesters, electric vehicles and all the rest — is due to cost us £1.8 trillion over the course of this century. In exchange for that Brobdingnagian sum, we hope to lower the air temperature by about 0.005˚C — which will be undetectable by normal thermometers. The accepted consensus among economists is that every £100 spent fighting climate change brings £3 of benefit.

Why climate change is good for the world
 
In the long term we will likely adapt. In the short term it will suck given how much of our population and infrastructure is along the coasts.
 
In the long term we will likely adapt. In the short term it will suck given how much of our population and infrastructure is along the coasts.

By that I assume you are referring to the Sea Level hobgoblin.

The usual claim from left-wingers is that sea level will go up around a meter or so by 2100.

And that is total fiction.

Sea level is going up according to the satellites at around 3 millimeters per year and according
to the tide gages a good deal less than that. A meter by 2100 requires an average rate of 12 mm/yr
every year for the next 83 years starting right now. There really isn't evidence for that. Well really
when is this dramatic increase in the rate of sea level rise going to begin to happen?
 
In the long term we will likely adapt. In the short term it will suck given how much of our population and infrastructure is along the coasts.

I doubt it. The seas have been rising for nearly 20,000 years. The rate of rise today is unremarkable over that timescale and is well within the rate of normal natural increases

Post-Glacial_Sea_Level_600.jpg

Sea level rises as purported by AGW alarmists are just shroud waving to get attention
 
I doubt it. The seas have been rising for nearly 20,000 years. The rate of rise today is unremarkable over that timescale and is well within the rate of normal natural increases



Sea level rises as purported by AGW alarmists are just shroud waving to get attention

Shroud waving? How 'bout plain old garden variety BS.
 
I think Shroud waving is appropriate, plane old BS may be a friendly tail, that does not imply
your continued actions will likely render large sections of the planet uninhabitable.
Climate change could make parts of the Middle East and North Africa ?uninhabitable? | The Independent

Ironic isn't it, when we have in fact seen an observed 11% greening of such desert areas in the last 3 decades and a commensurate reduction in the incidence droughts and famines there too.

The fact that its actually good news overall doesn't sell though does it :(
 
The origins of global warming go back to c. 1905 when a Swedish guy discovered that some gases cause warming. And he thought that this was a good thing. Of course, he was Swedish and probably wanted warming. I take a fatalistic view of it. I believe that homo sapiens are only slightly more capable of altering their behavior than other species and that species come and go. Change is the natural order of things. In 100,000 years or so homo sapiens will cease to exist and perhaps "better" life forms will arise.
 
I think Shroud waving is appropriate, plane old BS may be a friendly tail, that does not imply
your continued actions will likely render large sections of the planet uninhabitable.
Climate change could make parts of the Middle East and North Africa ?uninhabitable? | The Independent

I had to look "Shroud Waving" up. Seems it's mostly a publicity stunt to gain attention.
Band wagon and me tooism also seem to apply. I suppose the underlying issue isn't
necessarily BS but in this case it is.
 
The increase in average carbon dioxide levels over the past century, from 0.03 per cent to 0.04 per cent of the air, has had a measurable impact on plant growth rates.

Why climate change is good for the world

Quick question, since you've never managed to answer it before.

This 'global greening' is detectable by observation (much like global warming), but there are many factors influencing plant growth (much like temperatures) and on a planetary scale it's impossible to precisely and directly measure the impacts of all individual factors over time (same as for warming). The attribution of CO2 as the primary cause for this global greening is based on the consistency between observation and modeled responses (same as for global warming).

So since you constantly refer to the attribution of CO2 as the primary cause of global greening, does this mean that you also accept the identical process by which it is attributed as the primary cause of global warming?



https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth
The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”

While the detection of greening is based on data, the attribution to various drivers is based on models,” said co-author Josep Canadell of the Oceans and Atmosphere Division in the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation in Canberra, Australia. Canadell added that while the models represent the best possible simulation of Earth system components, they are continually being improved.​
 
I've always said that global warming represents a net benefit for humanity and something that should be accepted and not combatted. This article lays out my thoughts pretty well ...(snip)

What scientific evidence would convince you that this is not the case?
 
In the long term we will likely adapt. In the short term it will suck given how much of our population and infrastructure is along the coasts.

Except that the coastal regions aren't going to drown. That's just plain hyperbole. We know that it would take a MASSIVE melt-off to see any measurable rise in sea levels and all the cherry-picked examples in the world aren't going to change that.
 
What scientific evidence would convince you that this is not the case?

My answer, given I share the views expressed, is that I do not know what that evidence would be.

I have looked at all the predictions and consider them to be predictions of a slight inconvienience. The adaptions to sea level increas will cost less than the local councils spend on traffic lights. At least for any place that has traffic lights.

Given that these predictions, upon examination, turn out to be very very exagerated at best and down rigt fraud generally I have seen nothing at all which causes me to consider a slightly warmer world a bad thing.

Do you have anything which is likely to alter my view?
 
Quick question, since you've never managed to answer it before.

This 'global greening' is detectable by observation (much like global warming), but there are many factors influencing plant growth (much like temperatures) and on a planetary scale it's impossible to precisely and directly measure the impacts of all individual factors over time (same as for warming). The attribution of CO2 as the primary cause for this global greening is based on the consistency between observation and modeled responses (same as for global warming).

So since you constantly refer to the attribution of CO2 as the primary cause of global greening, does this mean that you also accept the identical process by which it is attributed as the primary cause of global warming?

Global greening is observed and confirmed. Rates of plant growth via added CO2 are confirmed. There is no analogy with CO2 attribution and heat rise as we do not know the correct climate sensitivity for CO2 ergo unlike the well known fertilization properties of CO2 it is pure guesswork.

The beneficial impacts of carbon dioxide on plants may also be limited, said co-author Dr. Philippe Ciais, associate director of the Laboratory of Climate and Environmental Sciences, Gif-suv-Yvette, France. “Studies have shown that plants acclimatize, or adjust, to rising carbon dioxide concentration and the fertilization effect diminishes over time.”

So I guess commercial greenhouse owners must have been getting it wrong for decades now ..... or there again maybe not

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2qVNK6zFgE
 
What scientific evidence would convince you that this is not the case?

Evidence that could show current temperatures to be in any way unprecedented or outwith natural variation either in level or rate of change
 
Global greening is observed and confirmed. Rates of plant growth via added CO2 are confirmed. There is no analogy with CO2 attribution and heat rise as we do not know the correct climate sensitivity for CO2 ergo unlike the well known fertilization properties of CO2 it is pure guesswork.

Lab results for the infrared absorption values of varying CO2 concentrations are as easily obtained as the influence on plant growth - and as applicable to the real world. Which is to say, in both cases the controlled conditions are really not much of a comparison at all for the complicating factors and widely varying circumstances found on a planetary scale, but estimates and observations are consistent enough to draw fairly confident conclusions.

Heck, if you rejected the model-derived attributions in both cases, at least you'd be showing consistency. But instead you seem to hang half your worldview on one whilst rejecting out of hand the other.
 
Lab results for the infrared absorption values of varying CO2 concentrations are as easily obtained as the influence on plant growth - and as applicable to the real world.
Which is to say, in both cases the controlled conditions are really not much of a comparison at all for the complicating factors and widely varying circumstances found on a planetary scale, but estimates and observations are consistent enough to draw fairly confident conclusions.

The atmosphere is not a lab and such results cannot be replicated in this manner. If it was as easy as this then they wouldn't need to keep studying it

Heck, if you rejected the model-derived attributions in both cases, at least you'd be showing consistency. But instead you seem to hang half your worldview on one whilst rejecting out of hand the other.

One is demonstrably correct the other is not. Climate model performance to date is woeful and here is why

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5c9415b970b-pi
 
The atmosphere is not a lab and such results cannot be replicated in this manner. If it was as easy as this then they wouldn't need to keep studying it

One is demonstrably correct the other is not. Climate model performance to date is woeful and here is why

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5c9415b970b-pi

Wow, you're still trotting that garbage propaganda link out? You do a far better job of proving your lack of objectivity and genuine scepticism than I ever could :clap:
 
Wow, you're still trotting that garbage propaganda link out? You do a far better job of proving your lack of objectivity and genuine scepticism than I ever could :clap:

By all means demonstrate which part of it got it wrong ?
 
My answer, given I share the views expressed, is that I do not know what that evidence would be.

I have looked at all the predictions and consider them to be predictions of a slight inconvienience. The adaptions to sea level increas will cost less than the local councils spend on traffic lights. At least for any place that has traffic lights.

Given that these predictions, upon examination, turn out to be very very exagerated at best and down rigt fraud generally I have seen nothing at all which causes me to consider a slightly warmer world a bad thing.

Do you have anything which is likely to alter my view?

I would guess not. I would guess no one could. However, this seems an odd position for someone to take. It seems quite easy to come up with plausible potential evidence that would change my mind on any position I have arrived at thru scientific investigation. Granted, it is far easier to come to a belief than it is to change that belief and admit I was/am wrong.

Personally, I believe that the arguments put forth in the linked article have already been thoroughly refuted many times. The argument that the earths current warming is net beneficial is not new. It gets recycled pretty regularly. Still, I could easily say what would change my mind about it.
 
Personally, I believe that the arguments put forth in the linked article have already been thoroughly refuted many times.

Really ? By whom ?

The argument that the earths current warming is net beneficial is not new. It gets recycled pretty regularly. Still, I could easily say what would change my mind about it

What about the observed global greening of the planet ? The increased crop yields and longer growing seasons ? These benefits greatly outweigh any of the alleged disadvantages and historically warmer periods have always benefitted the bulk of humanity
 
Pollen season gets worse each year - Business Insider

By the way, have your allergies been bothering you or someone you know. There is a reason for that, you guessed it wrong, it isn't climate change, but the carbon count. Yes plants grow better with the increase in carbon dioxide. They need it to grow and the higher the count the better plants grow. And the better the plants grow, the more pollen they put out. This has caused an increase in the illnesses caused by pollen including allergies and asthma. And it will only get worse.
 
Pollen season gets worse each year - Business Insider

By the way, have your allergies been bothering you or someone you know. There is a reason for that, you guessed it wrong, it isn't climate change, but the carbon count. Yes plants grow better with the increase in carbon dioxide. They need it to grow and the higher the count the better plants grow. And the better the plants grow, the more pollen they put out. This has caused an increase in the illnesses caused by pollen including allergies and asthma. And it will only get worse.

I'm guessing you are a 'glass is half empty' kinda guy right ? :wink:
 
Back
Top Bottom