The Upside of Climate Change

[Prometheus]

As you say, "older fears were mistaken", which suggests that present-day fears could be just as mistaken.

 

Excess humours in bile were once thought to cause malaria, therefore current models that it is caused by parasitic protozoans could be just as mistaken.

[imatfaal]

!

Moderator Note

Shelagh - please see my modnote here before posting in this forum again. Thanks.

[Shelagh]

The information I have pooled together is freely available on the Internet. I neither wrote nor agree with most of it; I offered it to show the reasons for my scepticism. In the event the messenger is bring blamed for all the information that is currently available. I've even been accused of martyrdom, which isn't my style at all.

 

I wish you all a very happy New Year, and good luck to all the climate scientists and much success with new discoveries in 2016!

Edited January 1, 2016 by Shelagh

[Strange]

The information I have pooled together is freely available on the Internet. I neither wrote nor agree with most of it;

 

The trouble is, because you post links and quotes with no comment, one can only assume that you are doing it because you agree with them. It would be helpful if, when you post something, you were to say "I agree with this because ..." or "I disagree with this because ..."

 

Note the "because" part is important. So far you have given no meaningful reasons for your scepticism. OK, you have said that you doubt the models. But how familiar are you with those models? How familiar are you with other widely used models? Do you have a good (rational, well-informed) basis for doubting climate models above all others? Or is it just that some of your favourite writers and pundits doubt them?

 

 

In the event the messenger is bring blamed for all the information that is currently available.

 

No. The messenger is being blaemd for the way she presents her message (or fails to).

 

 

I've even been accused of martyrdom, which isn't my style at all.

 

You have played the "why am I being attacked" card.

 

Happy New Year to you too! And to everyone else.

[haram]

During all history of life on Earth, abrupt climate changes were more devastating than asteroid impacts. At the ending of last ice age, humans were benefited, but just because we were marginal minor species, and changes were in our favor, mostly. This time is opposite case.

Suddenly mild winters are maybe good for our old bones, but bad for present ecosystem that were during millenniums adjusted for harsh conditions. And no, humans can't be excluded from environment.

Edited March 25, 2016 by haram

[Airbrush]

If the earth is getting warmer due to CO2, that means more water will be in the earth's atmosphere at any time (water concentration increases with temperature) and therefore there will be more rain and more CO2 available to help grow more plants for food, while providing more fresh water for the bulging world population that is anticipated.

 

More water vapor in the atmosphere means more greenhouse gas, which reinforces a vicious circle of warming because even more water vapor in the atmosphere. When the northern ice cap melts, that is permanent, no more white to reflect sunlight, but dark ocean to absorb more heat. Then the trapped methane gets released for the first time. There is no happy ending, it just gets worse and worse. Ocean levels rise, coastal communities are forced to move inland and then major wars begin.

[Itoero]

Maybe something like the Azolla event will happen again.

Perhaps we can start such an event.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event

[Raider5678]

Maybe something like the Azolla event will happen again.

Perhaps we can start such an event.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azolla_event

Wow.

[Airbrush]

Let's start planting Azollas. Anyone know of some giant lakes we can dedicate to this project?

[TheBeardedDude]

Well, this NE winter hasn't been quite so as enjoyable as the last. Blasted La Niña.

[Sriman Dutta]

I am surprised and horrified that global warming is good for us. I would rather die in a car accident than die due to suffocation in a CO2-concentrated atmosphere.

[Itoero]

Plants are making more leaves because of the extra CO2.

It seems there are ways Earth tries to keep the balance.

 

https://www.carbonbrief.org/rising-co2-has-greened-worlds-plants-and-trees

[iNow]

^Correction: SOME plants in the SHORT-TERM, but plants also can't thrive on CO2 alone: https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

 

More detail here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-advanced.htm

Edited December 17, 2016 by iNow

[Dr cool]

^Correction: SOME plants in the SHORT-TERM, but plants also can't thrive on CO2 alone: https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

 

More detail here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food-advanced.htm

 

Forget skeptical science as a valid science reference. It's anything but.

 

You'll find plenty of science studies that show greater drought resistance with elevated CO2, due to reduced evapotranspiration.

 

For what it's worth, the world is getting greener in response to atmospheric CO2.

 

This doesn't imply that climate change is a good thing of course; In fact far from it, but there's no point being a denier of the fact that there will be upsides that operate over a specific time interval.

[swansont]

 

Forget skeptical science as a valid science reference. It's anything but.

 

You'll find plenty of science studies that show greater drought resistance with elevated CO2, due to reduced evapotranspiration.

 

For what it's worth, the world is getting greener in response to atmospheric CO2.

 

 

Evidence?

[Dr cool]

 

 

Evidence?

 

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

 

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1365-2435.12532/abstract

[swansont]

And the evidence that Skeptical Science is not a valid resource?

[Dr cool]

And the evidence that Skeptical Science is not a valid resource?

 

There's no need for evidence.

 

SkS contributors are not climate scientists so it's expected that there will be technical errors with many of their interpretations of the science. Even a high school student wouldn't use SkS as a science reference.

 

But mostly it's their political orientation that creates distortions in the facts presented. They are really no more or less apolitical that Watts up With That, and are nothing more than a presenter of polar opposite confirmation bias.

 

Their motto is to be skeptical of climate skepticism, which is true, but it also makes their own positions on every issue align with a consensus narrative. Real scientists are of course skeptical by nature and seek to test and challenge science facts, but that's not how SkS operates. They're plainly just a bunch of activists looking for a cause.

 

So yeah, they can make climate change look scary by drawing comparisons with nuclear bombs, but it's not too difficult for a high school student to work out that the millions of Hiroshima's worth of energy apparently added to the climate system is somewhat less than 0.01% of the total number of Hiroshima's that already exists.

 

As the idiom goes, we didn't all come down in the last climate change induced shower.

[swansont]

There's no need for evidence.

Yes, there is.

 

SkS contributors are not climate scientists so it's expected that there will be technical errors with many of their interpretations of the science. Even a high school student wouldn't use SkS as a science reference.

You're moving the goalposts.

Science reference ≠ valid resource

 

The discussion is not just scientific, and their explanations are referenced to valid sources.

 

But mostly it's their political orientation that creates distortions in the facts presented. They are really no more or less apolitical that Watts up With That, and are nothing more than a presenter of polar opposite confirmation bias.

If you're going to claim confirmation bias, you need evidence.

 

Their motto is to be skeptical of climate skepticism, which is true, but it also makes their own positions on every issue align with a consensus narrative.

Maybe because the consensus is backed up by loads of evidence.

 

Real scientists are of course skeptical by nature and seek to test and challenge science facts, but that's not how SkS operates. They're plainly just a bunch of activists looking for a cause.

That's the problem with "plainly". It's plain if you've already made up your mind. So it's plain to you, so you don't require evidence and present none. (ooh, there's that confirmation bias)

 

 

[

[Phi for All]

There's no need for evidence.

 

Oh, boooooo! This isn't Facebook, it's a science discussion site.

[Dr cool]

You're moving the goalposts.

Science reference ≠ valid resource

 

Then perhaps we have different goalposts. There are many sources of information that are available to the general public, with varying degrees of validity or accuracy, but very few speak with scientific authority. 'Real Climate' is probably the best available, although even they tend to wonder into political territory on occasions.

 

 

The discussion is not just scientific, and their explanations are referenced to valid sources.

 

Exactly; They provide "opinion".

 

If you're going to claim confirmation bias, you need evidence.

 

The entire site is a repository of evidence. They claim to be skeptical of climate skepticism, so with that objective in mind they don't ever look at cracks in the evidence, nor any evidence that runs contrary to the consensus opinion.

 

By definition, that's confirmation bias.

 

Maybe because the consensus is backed up by loads of evidence.

 

Of course it is, and that's why a consensus exists.

 

That's the problem with "plainly". It's plain if you've already made up your mind. So it's plain to you, so you don't require evidence and present none. (ooh, there's that confirmation bias)

 

 

 

No, it just means that I've taken a stance against confirmation bias in all forms, including that of propaganda or opinion parading as science.

 

Like most people, with some science knowledge as well as confidence in science generally, I'm firmly of the view that the world is heating up slowly due to human activities, so blog sites such as SkS provide nothing really useful for me at all, unless you deem it necessary to perpetually reinforce the view that the world is warming due to greenhouse emissions and that we need to stop burning coal etc etc. That seems pointless to me though.

 

Why do you think WUWT is so much more popular than SkS or other consensus blogs?

 

A rhetorical question of course, because it's well documented that the scientist that resides within most of us is borne out of innate curiosity and skepticism.

 

Sure, you can argue that WUWT is just as guilty of confirmation bias as much as most other similar climate blog, but for that inner real scientist in us, the skepticism is both enticing and welcome.

 

So why deny it?

[iNow]

SkS contributors are not climate scientists

Except for all the ones that, you know, actually are: https://www.skepticalscience.com/team.php

[Dr cool]

Except for all the ones that, you know, actually are: https://www.skepticalscience.com/team.php

 

So then please specifically name the people whose qualifications and working experience grant them climate scientist status.

[iNow]

Nah

[RiceAWay]

 

Then perhaps we have different goalposts. There are many sources of information that are available to the general public, with varying degrees of validity or accuracy, but very few speak with scientific authority. 'Real Climate' is probably the best available, although even they tend to wonder into political territory on occasions.

 

 

 

Exactly; They provide "opinion".

 

 

The entire site is a repository of evidence. They claim to be skeptical of climate skepticism, so with that objective in mind they don't ever look at cracks in the evidence, nor any evidence that runs contrary to the consensus opinion.

 

By definition, that's confirmation bias.

 

 

Of course it is, and that's why a consensus exists.

 

 

No, it just means that I've taken a stance against confirmation bias in all forms, including that of propaganda or opinion parading as science.

 

Like most people, with some science knowledge as well as confidence in science generally, I'm firmly of the view that the world is heating up slowly due to human activities, so blog sites such as SkS provide nothing really useful for me at all, unless you deem it necessary to perpetually reinforce the view that the world is warming due to greenhouse emissions and that we need to stop burning coal etc etc. That seems pointless to me though.

 

Why do you think WUWT is so much more popular than SkS or other consensus blogs?

 

A rhetorical question of course, because it's well documented that the scientist that resides within most of us is borne out of innate curiosity and skepticism.

 

Sure, you can argue that WUWT is just as guilty of confirmation bias as much as most other similar climate blog, but for that inner real scientist in us, the skepticism is both enticing and welcome.

 

So why deny it?

Better be careful. These "science forum" people are trained to follow one another from their first days in college. If you confront them with their biases they might "unfriend" you on Facebook.