The Upside of Climate Change

[puppypower]

Have humans ever, in the history of the earth, caused the earth's temperature to rise? The answer is no. The temperature in the middle ages, was also high, but that is not attributed to humans.

 

If manmade is true, this is a unique event in the history of the earth; man causing global warming. That means we really don't know how this works, 100%, because there is nothing in history to compare this too. You would need another similar event, that has all the same variables, and not just one variable in common.

 

If I developed a new auto engine that can get 150 MPG on grape juice, and ran it through all the tests in my garage and collect all types of data, nobody will just take my word for it, because this engine is unique and is hard to predict. This is still a totally unique engine no matter how many tests I say I ran. Any investor will want to run a second series of tests. The reason is, when dealing with unique things, one series of tests, in the hands of con artists, can be used to fool people.

 

The fact that there is so much resistance to any good news about climate change, appears to be in part media conditioning, and part the needs of a sales pitch connected to the angle of the curve. The pitch needs fear to create the irrationality needed to see the angle that has been assumed. If we add good things, this will alter the angle. There is resistance.

 

In the early days the predictions were 5-10 years in the future. This was not panning out. Now the predictions are 30-50 year range so if they don't pan out few will remember. The good news is all the doom and gloom that was to be today, did not happen as pitched by that angle. We need a new angle that included both the good and bad, since the good has its own logic.

 

Edited November 15, 2015 by puppypower

[swansont]

Have humans ever, in the history of the earth, caused the earth's temperature to rise? The answer is no. The temperature in the middle ages, was also high, but that is not attributed to humans.

The answer is yes. It's been happening for a few hundred years.

 

If manmade is true, this is a unique event in the history of the earth; man causing global warming. That means we really don't know how this works, 100%, because there is nothing in history to compare this too. You would need another similar event, that has all the same variables, and not just one variable in common.

Human-generated CO2 is not distinguishable from that from natural sources, nor for any other greenhouse gases. Trapped heat does not "know" if it was trapped from anthropogenic causes or not, and the thing whose temperature rises can't tell the difference. There is no overall distinction between studying human-caused climate change and natural climate change. There is just climate study.

 

Repeating your bogus claim does not make it true.

 

If I developed a new auto engine that can get 150 MPG on grape juice, and ran it through all the tests in my garage and collect all types of data, nobody will just take my word for it, because this engine is unique and is hard to predict. This is still a totally unique engine no matter how many tests I say I ran. Any investor will want to run a second series of tests. The reason is, when dealing with unique things, one series of tests, in the hands of con artists, can be used to fool people.

What you're missing, or perhaps willfully ignoring, is that we can study the combustion of sugar and water and whatever other trace materials one finds in grape juice, and analyze their energy content. Given sufficient data, the chemistry and thermodynamics would make it clear whether or not your claim was possible, without running any tests on your engine. Because of science, we know over-unity engines are a crock even before we start, regardless of them being unique.

 

In short, what a load of crap.

 

[overtone]

 

 

The good news is all the doom and gloom that was to be today, did not happen as pitched by that angle.

Yes, it did.

 

Some of it, like the Greenland glacier melt and the methane release rate, has been exceeding the predictions of the "angle".

[Phi for All]

The good news is all the doom and gloom that was to be today, did not happen as pitched by that angle.

 

Or... or, the good news is what really happened. We did enough good to offset some of the doom and gloom predictions for a while. We've pushed the timeline back because we're doing something, just not at the levels experts would like to see. And some predictions are worse than the originals.

 

Are you pretending this is all happening in a vacuum? Are you seriously pointing at predictions made in the past and not accounting for what's been done since? You really need to work on your rigor.

 

 

 

 

This is why I fail to see an upside to climate change. I'm not saying we shouldn't study it, but for the denial crowd facing so much intelligent argument, it's like a life preserver that keeps their ignorance afloat. "We don't need to do anything because it will all average out. Some will suffer, some will prosper."

[MigL]

The difference between a 'crapshoot' and a 'promise', as you put it Overtone, is knowledge based on all available data.

Some have simply been pointing out that disregarding some data, because it may make an opposing view look more favourable, damages the 99.9% prevailing viewpoint as well.

[overtone]

 

 

The difference between a 'crapshoot' and a 'promise', as you put it Overtone, is knowledge based on all available data.

Exactly. So if your data is insufficient to establish the requisite knowledge (or likelihood) for a promise, you are shooting craps.

 

Which is the upside of AGW. Much of the downside is inevitable, almost none of the upside is - at least in the short run.

[Phi for All]

Have humans ever...

[long bit of soapboxing snipped]

 

Your posts don't really address anything people have been asking you and telling you, have you noticed that? If you really want to point out an upside to a disastrous situation, is it helpful to ignore criticism? You don't use the quote function to specifically address concerns, and you basically repeat the same things you said in the OP, without taking replies into consideration (at least not in print). You make obvious mistakes, they're corrected, but you never acknowledge them.

 

In essence, you're preaching. This style is great for blogs, or the pulpit, where others really don't have much in the way of input, but it's really frustrating when used in a science discussion with other people. How about climbing down off the soapbox, and answer some specific questions and concerns that were put to you?

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

To add an official note to Phi's post above: puppypower, your soap boxing will not be tolerated here. If you wish to preach, do so on a blog.

[Ophiolite]

And you disappoint me, sir, for not recognizing my response was aimed at the callous, "Others may be suffering, but I'm doing just fine with this" attitude of the OP. There are bound to be those who prosper from any horrible event, I just thought it was in extremely poor taste to try spinning it positively. Seems fairly hypocritical, looking at the accusations of media manipulation.

 

Is it an emotional, knee-jerk response that tells me, but not you, it's a losing proposition to tell some people climate change will turn out well for them?

I have read your post, re-read it and read it yet again, then several more times and the attack on the callous was not apparent on any of the readings, even with the advantage of now knowing that was your intent.

 

It is very clear that there will be some benefits to global warming. It is very clear that these benefits will in the short and medium term be far outweighed by the downsides. Posting a few paragraphs of mocking sarcasm because you consider speaking of such benefits positively to be in poor taste remains, in my view, an emotional knee-jerk reaction.

 

Your last sentence makes no sense to me, though it seems to have some of the characteristics of a strawman. You seem to be saying the OP had engaged in a knee-jerk response.

[iNow]

Knee jerking and men of straw aside, most here readily acknowledge that there are pluses and minuses, and have done exactly that within this thread. What IMO tends to cause umbrage is ones tone, calls for balance in the media when the relevant facts on this topic are anything but balanced, and also when one fails to adequately temper their mention of said pluses with a realistic perspective about their lack of prominence relative to the overwhelming negatives.

 

Stepping back for a moment, we should try to recall that the issue of climate change relates directly to our survival and to the likelihood of well-being for our offspring. We should keep in mind that there have been and still are to this day well-organized and extremely well-funded campaigns who have for decades been perpetrating fraud on us all; fraud intended to stall action and (like a wedge) focused on sowing fear, uncertainty, and doubt.

 

Recall that factions and fiercely protected in-groups have formed on this topic and the debate has become a bit post-modernist. Discussions where facts don't seem to matter are now the norm and it's evolved into an issue where respectful disagreement and kind acceptance of differing opinions is no longer viable. Wheel spinning is all that's happening. We continue to delay and we continue inserting false debates and unneeded obstacles along an already complex and difficult path; a path we must with focus and intensity pursue in order to execute on the many societal changes required to address this crisis. My point is that it will understandably sometimes be emotional.

 

If you'll allow me to be so bold, I recommend that we all dismount our high horses and recognize that this issue is a contentious one. Supplemental to that point, I also encourage us to recognize that our posts here are not made in a vacuum; that the OP has a bit of history at this site that likely prevented him from being afforded the same leeway most other members would surely have received upon introducing such a topic. Respectfully, perhaps we can all move forward now?

[dimreepr]

In the short term the ‘crapshoot’ may result in beneficial weather conditions in a, very, few places but is far more likely to result in large scale crop failures and mass starvation.

 

In the long term the only upside that I can see from AGW is that humans will have a common ‘enemy’ against which to unite.

[zapatos]

In the long term the only upside that I can see from AGW is that humans will have a common ‘enemy’ against which to unite.

That seems to imply that if we were aliens and we were free to choose for earth any climate we wanted, ranging from what the earth has now to any warmer climates, that the very best choice would be the climate the earth is now experiencing.

 

Is it that simple? Is any climate warmer than that which we are now experiencing, worse than the current climate? Was the earth (or people, or life, or whatever other criteria you are using) worse off (from a climate perspective) during all previous warmer climates?

[dimreepr]

That seems to imply that if we were aliens and we were free to choose for earth any climate we wanted, ranging from what the earth has now to any warmer climates, that the very best choice would be the climate the earth is now experiencing.

 

Is it that simple? Is any climate warmer than that which we are now experiencing, worse than the current climate? Was the earth (or people, or life, or whatever other criteria you are using) worse off (from a climate perspective) during all previous warmer climates?

 

 

The climate we have now is conducive to human life whereas the climate predicted, in the long term, may not be.

[iNow]

Is it that simple? Is any climate warmer than that which we are now experiencing, worse than the current climate? Was the earth (or people, or life, or whatever other criteria you are using) worse off (from a climate perspective) during all previous warmer climates?

The question is one of context. Worse off, for whom/what, exactly? Given our current land use patterns and population centers, even minor changes in global average annual temperatures have fairly major impacts.

 

You may already be familiar with this, but overviews like this help paint the broader picture: http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

And another here: http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/

[zapatos]

The question is one of context. Worse off, for whom/what, exactly? Given our current land use patterns and population centers, even minor changes in global average annual temperatures have fairly major impacts.

 

You may already be familiar with this, but overviews like this help paint the broader picture: http://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

And another here: http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/

Great links, thanks.

 

So it seems like climate change is primarily a problem for humans not so much because warmer weather is 'worse', but because we've invested our capital based on the way the climate has been in recent centuries. Farms set up for the best utilization of seasonal patterns, cities built close to the water's edge, etc. Had civilization grown up during the most recent ice age, the climate we are experiencing now would likely have been the nightmare scenario.

[overtone]

So it seems like climate change is primarily a problem for humans not so much because warmer weather is 'worse', but because we've invested our capital based on the way the climate has been in recent centuries.

And the speed of the change, which dislocates not only human endeavors and adaptations but those of everything else - including some things we depend on.

 

It's not just human "invested capital", but evolutionary and ecologically "invested capital". It's not just recent centuries, but recent millenia. And so forth.

Edited November 18, 2015 by overtone

[Strange]

Great links, thanks.

 

So it seems like climate change is primarily a problem for humans not so much because warmer weather is 'worse', but because we've invested our capital based on the way the climate has been in recent centuries. Farms set up for the best utilization of seasonal patterns, cities built close to the water's edge, etc. Had civilization grown up during the most recent ice age, the climate we are experiencing now would likely have been the nightmare scenario.

 

And this is why the denialist tactic of "what's so special about the climate now" is so dishonest (or ignorant).

[puppypower]

 

And this is why the denialist tactic of "what's so special about the climate now" is so dishonest (or ignorant).

 

 

Many people are afraid of change of any kind. Because of this fear of change, they won't allow themselves to see any good side connected to the potential of change. If you ask a child whether they want to move to a new town, where your new job might be, most children will only be able to see the doom and gloom of leaving their friends and all they ever knew. You'll have a hard time getting them to discuss the good side, like they will make new friends, have a better house, and have new places to explore.

 

I have noticed only a few people are capable of an objective brain storm session. What we say in this topic, will not change anything. So why the fear of brain storming? Where I live, the skilled craftsmen who have to work outside for a living, have had one of their best years due to a warmer than average fall. I am sure they could get used to that extra money, when the snow begins in a few weeks and jobs dry up.

 

The Debbie Downers cannot see this as plus, but will prefer the dwell on the bogey man. This irrationality is not suited to scientists. A real scientist does not data stack based on sentiment.

 

One explanation for the contrast of styles is, if you are taught to be self reliant, than change can still be scary but it is also a challenge to be faced and overcome. If one is taught to be dependent change can be scarier since so many things are not under your control and one is not used to having to act on their own. The self reliant plans to move to higher ground, while the dependent remains in the flood zone and wait for help. If things remain the same, thing feel more under control in a dependent environment.

[CharonY]

Great links, thanks.

 

So it seems like climate change is primarily a problem for humans not so much because warmer weather is 'worse', but because we've invested our capital based on the way the climate has been in recent centuries. Farms set up for the best utilization of seasonal patterns, cities built close to the water's edge, etc. Had civilization grown up during the most recent ice age, the climate we are experiencing now would likely have been the nightmare scenario.

 

As Overtone mentioned, the rate is an issue. But there is, of course more. The biggest long-term challenge are likely to be ecological changes on potentially global scales. Human interventions has already damaged or destroyed many ecosystems, but the effects of climate change in that amount of time is likely to act as an multiplier to that damage. In addition, things like acidification of oceans are going to be effects that we simply cannot assess. But considering the scope, it is obvious why it does make people (especially those studying those systems) somewhat nervous.

[Arete]

The Debbie Downers cannot see this as plus, but will prefer the dwell on the bogey man. This irrationality is not suited to scientists. A real scientist does not data stack based on sentiment.

 

As has been pointed out, the negatives far outweigh the positives.

 

Here's a summary of impacts for New England: http://www.neaq.org/conservation_and_research/climate_change/climate_change_in_new_england.php

 

Along with those nice fall days, it's predicted that there will be an increase in severe storms and heatwaves in the region. So I guess as long as those craftsmen don't mind sweltering summer temperatures, fall will be worth it.

 

The bigger issues are things like the potential displacement of 112 million people in Bangladesh alone due to sea level rise. How many of those people would you be happy for your neighborhood to take in? Climate change is going to make it nicer where you live, right?

[Lagoon Island Pearls]

El Niño is a known climate change effect, albeit temporary. We had one on the west coast of North America this year.

To a pearl farmer, increased water temperatures give rise to better growth to the current inventory, but likewise comes with a whole host of new pathogens and predators that increases mortality and loss of production of new inventories. I suspended operations for more than 4 months and expect this year's production to be less than a quarter of previous seasons.

 

There's no upside.

[MigL]

Ahh, but el Nino also translates to much milder winters here in the Great Lakes region ( 17 deg F today ).

So, yes there is an upside.

 

The problem with global warming is NOT that there isn't an upside.

Its that the downside is significantly worse than the upside.

Edited November 19, 2015 by MigL

[swansont]

The problem with global warming is NOT that there isn't an upside.

Its that the downside is significantly worse than the upside.

 

Much like global warming doesn't mean "uniformly warmer everywhere".

[puppypower]

 

As has been pointed out, the negatives far outweigh the positives.

 

Here's a summary of impacts for New England: http://www.neaq.org/conservation_and_research/climate_change/climate_change_in_new_england.php

 

Along with those nice fall days, it's predicted that there will be an increase in severe storms and heatwaves in the region. So I guess as long as those craftsmen don't mind sweltering summer temperatures, fall will be worth it.

 

The bigger issues are things like the potential displacement of 112 million people in Bangladesh alone due to sea level rise. How many of those people would you be happy for your neighborhood to take in? Climate change is going to make it nicer where you live, right?

 

 

 

One difference that needs to be pointed out, is the warm fall I talked about was an actual event in reality, while the doom and gloom you quoted is predicted to happen, with the history of prediction not that good.

 

If prediction counts for more than actual events I could also make good side of global warming predictions with the same track record and we can then compare. I see a warmer world with more rain and more fresh water. The longer growing season with more water means more crops per season to feed the hungry world. There will be weather events, but this is normal for all climates.

Edited November 19, 2015 by puppypower

[Phi for All]

 

 

One difference that needs to be pointed out, is the warm fall I talked about was an actual event in reality, while the doom and gloom you quoted is predicted to happen, with the history of prediction not that too good.

 

If prediction counts for more than actual events I could also make good side of global warming predictions with the same track record and we can then compare. I see a warmer world with more rain and more fresh water. The longer growing season with more water means more crops per season to feed the hungry world. There will be weather events, but this is normal for all climates.

 

And this is why I object to trying to paint an upside to climate change.

 

It's not that it doesn't need to be looked at, that it doesn't need to be studied. It's that this type of argument just fills all the crazy-balloons these deniers carry around so proudly. I mean really, look at the reasoning from ignorance here. This is a drowning man who is so grateful for the upside life-preserver he's been thrown.

 

No need for worry or added expense, it all evens out, right?