The Upside of Climate Change

Recommended Posts

Another good side of man made global climate/warming is many people have made lots of money from this, such as Al Gore. If carbon credits had been mandated, and people had to pay for not doing anything, with middlemen taking a skim, other money could have been made. This has also been a boom for weather science with many jobs created. This has also allowed certain industries to benefit, through crony capitalism; solar energy.

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

Its that the downside is significantly worse than the upside.

• Replies 129
• Created

Popular Days

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.

Mild winters greatly affect the ice pack and snow melt. Last year we had nearly no snow in the hills, which lead to a record dry summer and the greatest forest fire season that Vancouver Island (rain forest) has seen in a really long time. There's no upside to that.

Likewise, animal migrations such as caribou and polar bears highly depend on hard freezes to range themselves.

The oil, gas and diamond patches depend upon the winter ice roads to transport equipment and fuel. Short seasons seriously undermine the development and economy of those industries. Winter forestry produces more pulp and lumber than summer, because most of the accessible timber lots are in muskeg swamps.

Share on other sites

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?

In all due respect, reality is based on Newton Law of action and reaction; balance of forces. It is unrealistic to assume all will be bad. That is more important for a sales pitch, like this new car is the best. The salesman will not say the brakes are undersized and there may be future engine problems. More realistic computer models should be able to show both the bad and the good to know the model is not a used car trick.

Say for the sake of argument, there is climate change going on, but this is natural and therefore whatever we do, well intentioned or not, will not matter. Then the models will need to show the good and the bad so people can avoid the storms and find the safe zones. Shouldn't we plan for all contingencies?

It is not like the ocean levels will rise overnight. The process will occur slowly, like an old man dipping slowly into the hot tub. We have time to mobilize people to the good zones. But we need to know where, when and what to have a safe mobilization and the hope for rebuilding.

Edited by puppypower
Share on other sites

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.

I see a lot of claims that the prediction is not good, but nobody ever seems to cite the details of what predictions they are talking about. That makes this a pretty vacuous claim.

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 here we have the simple repetition of a previous claim, with absolutely no acknowledgement of any of the objections to it.

Stop failing the Turing test.

This has also allowed certain industries to benefit, through crony capitalism; solar energy.

Provide evidence that crony capitalism is involved.

Share on other sites

It is not like the ocean levels will rise overnight. The process will occur slowly, like an old man dipping slowly into the hot tub. We have time to mobilize people to the good zones. But we need to know where, when and what to have a safe mobilization and the hope for rebuilding.

Agreed. But I'm not sure how having to relocate hundreds of millions of people would be considered an "upside" of climate change - I'd probably consider it a challenge presented by climate change we can act appropriately to mitigate. BTW there's anecdotal evidence that climate change induced migration has already begun

Share on other sites

Provide evidence that crony capitalism is involved.

A solar energy company that intends to file for bankruptcy received $535 million in backing from the federal government and has a cozy history with Democrats and the Obama administration, campaign finance records show. Shareholders and executives of Solyndra, a green energy company producing solar panels, fundraised for and donated to the Obama administration to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Tulsa billionaire George Kaiser, a key Obama backer who raised between$50,000 and $100,000 for the president’s election campaign, is one of Solyndra’s primary investors. Kaiser himself donated$53,500 to Obama’s 2008 election campaign, split between the DSCC and Obama For America. Kaiser also made several visits to the White House and appeared at some White House events next to Obama officials.

Campaign finance records show Kaiser and Solyndra executives and board members donated $87,050 total to Obama’s election campaign.A solar energy company that intends to file for bankruptcy received$535 million in backing from the federal government and has a cozy history with Democrats and the Obama administration, campaign finance records show.

If you give to politicians, you will get special treatment. This was not even a good investment since they had to declare bankruptcy. Crony Capitalism is not good at picking winners. I am sure Solyndra thought this windfall was a good side of global warming.

Another good side of climate change is the political capital that socialist, liberal and communists politics will gain. If we assume manmade is real, and business and freedom of choice is corrupt and guilty, we will need government to take over control. Government and socialism will be winners.

Small countries, via the UN, will also get to play the victim, by blaming all their woes on climate change. It has little to do what corruption and incompetence. They will then be able to extort recompense from the larger countries who will be accused of causing all their problems. This is a windfall for them which is a good side of global warming.

The downside is bad, since these change will cripple economies, leading to turmoil in once prosperous countries. The chaos will then require government get even bigger to fix the problem That is again good for government, but like you said there is more downside to this.

Edited by puppypower
Share on other sites

If you give to politicians, you will get special treatment. This was not even a good investment since they had to declare bankruptcy. Crony Capitalism is not good at picking winners. I am sure Solyndra thought this windfall was a good side of global warming.

So, that would be a no, in terms of actual evidence for crony capitalism. Just a smear tactic.

As far as Solyndra goes, yeah, that was embarrassing, to have the only company ever to go bankrupt happen on that program. Oh, wait...

Share on other sites

Should this thread be moved to Politics?

There are good points made by other contributors, but I'm not gathering anything scientific from the OP.

Just rhetoric.

Share on other sites

The fact that certain individuals or companies will use any event, even disasters , to swindle and take advantage of others is nothing new, and it isn't just affecting the climate change industry.

Upsides and downsides are frame dependant properties ( like energy ).

If I lived in Indonesia, at 2 meters above sea level, I'd be very worried, but if I lived in Siberia, not so much.

These are very narrow views however. A wide view would see South American and SE Asian jungles turn to deserts, while the new temperate zones ( Alaska/ NWTerritories and northern Russia/Siberia don't yet have the topsoil cover to make up for the losses in agriculture elsewhere. Coupled with the mass migrations resulting from sea level rise, we could see millions die from famines.

Share on other sites

Another good side of man made global climate/warming is many people have made lots of money from this, such as Al Gore.
First person to mention Al Gore in an argument about climate change loses the argument.
Share on other sites

Many people are afraid of change of any kind.

And some people seem to be afraid of science.

In all due respect, reality is based on Newton Law of action and reaction; balance of forces. It is unrealistic to assume all will be bad.

That has nothing to do with Newton's law. (But that is about the level of scientific expertise we have come to expect from you.)

And here we have the simple repetition of a previous claim, with absolutely no acknowledgement of any of the objections to it.

Stop failing the Turing test.

Brilliant. I might have to pinch that.

Share on other sites

Al Gore also, Overtone ?

Are there any politicians you approve of ?

Share on other sites

Al Gore also, Overtone ?

Are there any politicians you approve of ?

It's just a rule: First person to mention Al Gore on a science forum in an argument about climate change loses the argument. It's got nothing to do with Al Gore himself.
Share on other sites

The fact that certain individuals or companies will use any event, even disasters , to swindle and take advantage of others is nothing new, and it isn't just affecting the climate change industry.

Upsides and downsides are frame dependant properties ( like energy ).

If I lived in Indonesia, at 2 meters above sea level, I'd be very worried, but if I lived in Siberia, not so much.

These are very narrow views however. A wide view would see South American and SE Asian jungles turn to deserts, while the new temperate zones ( Alaska/ NWTerritories and northern Russia/Siberia don't yet have the topsoil cover to make up for the losses in agriculture elsewhere. Coupled with the mass migrations resulting from sea level rise, we could see millions die from famines.

Your are assuming that all these predictions will come true, 100%. You're a good company man. However, there is a difference between the doom and gloom predictions, and what will be in reality. Name me one prediction, over the past 20 years, of that global scale of doom and gloom, that was supposed to happen by now, that has come true?

The analogy is the consensus says lightning will strike you if you go outside. But it does not happen with the urgency it was sales pitched Even though it never seems to happen, you still want to be believe it will happen this time.

The northern polar cap was supposed to have been melted by now, with all the connected doom and gloom. Here we are with the ice getting larger again. The good side of climate change, which I predicted was more of the same and not a doom and gloom melt down. I did better than the consensus, which is why I don't recognize their authority.

What I would like to see is those who make these doom and gloom predictions have to put their money where their mouth is. The way it is now, there is no accountably if they get it wrong. Why is that? If they get any more predictions wrong, they should be stripped of their funding and sent back to back of the funding line. But what happens is the same people get to make more predictions. If you don't fire the fool, some will think he is a genius.

Maybe we can go back to the forum archives of the first discussions of manmade global warming and see what has happened; doom and gloom or upside.

Share on other sites

Your are assuming that all these predictions will come true, 100%. You're a good company man. However, there is a difference between the doom and gloom predictions, and what will be in reality. Name me one prediction, over the past 20 years, of that global scale of doom and gloom, that was supposed to happen by now, that has come true?

That's shifting the burden of proof. You're the one claiming that predictions haven't come true. It's up to you to evaluate them.

Anyway, temperatures have been going up. 2014 was a record high, and 2015 is poised to go even higher.

The analogy is the consensus says lightning will strike you if you go outside. But it does not happen with the urgency it was sales pitched Even though it never seems to happen, you still want to be believe it will happen this time.

Baloney. That's not the consensus.

The northern polar cap was supposed to have been melted by now, with all the connected doom and gloom.

Citation? Can you back up even one claim that you make?

The way it is now, there is no accountably if they get it wrong.

ibid

Why is that? If they get any more predictions wrong, they should be stripped of their funding and sent back to back of the funding line. But what happens is the same people get to make more predictions. If you don't fire the fool, some will think he is a genius.

Maybe we can go back to the forum archives of the first discussions of manmade global warming and see what has happened; doom and gloom or upside.

If you could establish that these people have made poor predictions, there might be something to discuss. But all you are doing is asserting something being true, without any support for it.

Share on other sites

Name me one prediction, over the past 20 years, of that global scale of doom and gloom, that was supposed to happen by now, that has come true?

Global sea levels have risen as predicted, global temperatures have risen as predicted (not only amount, but location and timing), severe droughts have struck the places named most vulnerable to AGW drought, also wildfire, the Arctic ice on both land and sea has melted back (faster than predicted, actually, but the IPCC is known to be "conservative" and bend over backwards to avoid alarming predictions), methane releases from high northern stores both land and sea have increased substantially, acidification of the shallower parts of the ocean has increased rapidly, and so forth.

Edited by overtone
Share on other sites

Name me one prediction, over the past 20 years, of that global scale of doom and gloom, that was supposed to happen by now, that has come true?

I'd trust known scientists, peers and a lifetime of personal experience before I'd trust someone with head-in-ass disease that throws shit against a wall, then interprets and preaches the results as truth.

I work with this technology every single day. You on the other hand have absolutely no credence to convince anyone otherwise. Your experience in my field is zero.

Thought it will undoubtedly fall on the deaf ears of denial, I'll tell you now, that one time Japan was a world leader in the production of freshwater pearls. In the last 25 years, hundreds of farms have closed because of unknown diseases resulting from increased annual water temperatures. In case you have trouble with the English language, that translates to CLIMATE CHANGE and nobody, including the farmers deny it was anything less than man-made. Only one major farm operates in Lake Kasumi and their production is mere shadow of itself. China is now experiencing the same thing and it's anticipated it will half of the traditional volumes in the next ten years. Some blame lies on pollution, but pollution rarely kills shellfish, insomuch as contaminating it from human consumption. Again, made made warming issues.

Simply put, even a fraction of a degree of warming has been hugely detrimental to species that have been on this planet for millions of years.

I can post hundreds, if not thousands of links from scientific studies:

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jan/31/news/mn-59546/3

"Global warming is seen as the scariest threat of all. For the past two years, the waters off Ehime have been 1.5 degrees warmer than the average for the 15 preceding years, according to prefectural data. Higher temperatures make shellfish more susceptible to disease."

http://www.spc.int/climate-change/fisheries/assessment/chapters/11-Chapter11.pdf

http://www.unesco.org/csi/smis/siv/inter-reg/climate.htm

"Storm surges and sea level rise result in saltwater contamination of our groundwater, making it unsuitable for crop irrigation. The changes in air and water temperature change the way the ocean currents flow, affecting the migration of deep-water fish, our staple food. Warmer temperatures favour invasive plant species and disease-bearing insects. Vector-borne illnesses are on the rise. Warmer sea temperatures are destroying our coral reefs, which have served in many islands as a natural breakwater.

We urgently need to implement projects that will help us adapt to and mitigate the effects of climate change. We in the Pacific have been among the first to suffer the effects of procrastination over climate change, even though we contribute relatively little to the production of greenhouse gases."

http://www.spc.int/DigitalLibrary/Doc/FAME/InfoBull/POIB/14/POIB14_17_Tun.pdf

"In Japan, a decade-long chain of mortality problems became acute in 1996 and 1997, resulting in the death of 150 million Akoya pearl oysters in Japan (Canedy 1998). Average mortality rates, depending on locality, ranged from 25 to 60 per cent"

http://www.fao.org/docrep/field/003/ab726e/AB726E06.htm

Share on other sites

Agree with your points, but not the way you presented them there's no need for insults.

Rule #1 - You mention Al Gore, you lose the argument.

Rule #2 - You resort to insults, you lose the argument.

Share on other sites

Your are assuming that all these predictions will come true, 100%.

No he isn't. He is not assuming ALL will come true. And he is not assuming they will be 100% accurate. (Although, so far, it seems they have been reasonably accurate.)

Share on other sites

The analogy is the consensus says lightning will strike you if you go outside. But it does not happen with the urgency it was sales pitched Even though it never seems to happen, you still want to be believe it will happen this time.

I have been on this planet for well over half a century and have read widely in newspapers, magazines, government adverts, novels, technical books, research papers, etc. At no time have I seen any publication suggesting that there is an "urgent" risk that lightning will strike if I go outside.

What I have seen are carefully measured warnings that in a lightning storm one is advised about being in the open, or sheltering under trees, or flying a kite with an electrical conductor trailing off of it. Despite these very clear and specific warnings around fifty people a year are killed in the US by lightning. Without the warnings we might reasonably expect the number to be higher.

If you choose to ignore the warning about lightning you place your own life at risk. Your choice - I think you would be silly, but do carry on. If you choose to ignore the warning about global warming you risk the lives of my children and grandchildren. Now your view is a direct threat to me. I don't take kindly to threats.

Share on other sites

• 2 weeks later...

I want to do something that nobody seems to do; look at the upside of climate change and global warming. I live in NE USA and this fall has been beautiful in terms of mild weather and sunny skies. Normally it will be cooler and drearier. This data is not doom and gloom and therefore might seem alien, since climate change is usually pitched with only doom and gloom in mind. Why is that, since a climate shift will redistribute who will be the new winners and new losers.

If you look at the media news, did you ever wonder why the news tends to present more bad news than good news? This can make some people can lose a sense of natural data proportion; don't think there is any good news. One plane crash can make it appear like flying has become the most dangerous thing to do, since the crash is not pitched in the context of all the on time flights, so the audience can maintain a rational sense of data proportion. Why is this?

Bad news sells more commercials and products and creates jobs for expert analysis. If you saw a news story of a child with a lemonade stand, this will make you feel good, when you ago about your business. If that same child was hit by a car, there is no sense of closure, so you will stay tuned longer to learn what happened; rubber necker. Bad news has been found to allow the media to maintain a larger audience, longer, so they can pitch mores products by selling more commercials. It also means they can parade a legion of experts saying a lot about nothing, often extrapolating into other doom and gloom, for a multiplier effect.

If I discuss the good side of climate change, this may not be how most people are conditioned to address news. It may make people feel good and they go their own way causing the discussion to stop. Or some will try to move the discussion back to doom and gloom since this feels more natural.

This was also a good summer. We didn't get any 100 plus degree days and had very few severe storms, instead there were plenty of sunny warm days. I could learn to live with this new normal. The only real negative side was the large amount of winter snow due to a polar vortex effect; cooling affect. Who else has been the beneficiary of the good side of climate change?

Also consider that "news" by definition generally does not report the normal or usual. A murder of 1,000 black crows does not merit attention; one of even 10 white crows would. This is the way of news (gossip) since, well, forever.

Share on other sites

• 4 weeks later...

With or without climate change, this sounds good to me:

Can we really pull enough carbon out of the atmosphere to matter?

There are some very established ways of doing it, like reforestation. They're all limited because the biosphere itself is under so much pressure. But there are some new options. Seaweed farming is one example. Seaweed grows 30 to 60 times faster than land-based plants. One study said if you could just seed nine per cent of the world's oceans with seaweed farms, you would be drawing out the equivalent of all current emissions as well as providing 200 kilograms (per capita) of high-quality protein a year for a population of 10 billion. That's huge. Now, nine per cent of the world's oceans is an area about 4.5 times the size of Australia. It's a massive area. But the potential is there. People are now thinking about this. There are also the chemical pathways, which to me are much more interesting because they're new. An example is carbon-negative concrete. Concrete production is five per cent of global emissions now, but there are now methods of making concrete that's carbon-negative, meaning as it sets over years it absorbs CO2 into its structure. http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2015/10/28/finding-hope-within-the-doom-and-gloom-of-climate-change.html

Edited by Shelagh
Share on other sites

With or without climate change, this sounds good to me:

If climate change isn't caused by CO2 then what is the point wasting money on projects like that?

Share on other sites

With or without climate change, this sounds good to me:

Can we really pull enough carbon out of the atmosphere to matter?

I don't know, should we try or just give up?

With a suggestion of why it matters, trying seems like a good idea.

Share on other sites

If climate change isn't caused by CO2 then what is the point wasting money on projects like that?

If climate change isn't caused by CO2, will the present climate models be replaced? If so, by what?

Create an account

Register a new account