Earth Becoming Greener Due To Increased CO2

[tara]

From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change on April 25.

Yeah. Grow more and bigger plants - more growth is always good!

I always laugh to myself when I read about the dangers of increased CO2 in the atmosphere being a pollutant. People need to get their heads checked.

CO2 is good for plants and for people.

Yip. And nitrogen is good for plants, too. The more the better. Why would anyone worry about too much nitrogenous fertilizer? It leads to bigger plants, doesn't it?

On the other hand, if you have an interest in conserving current species, ecological systems and complexity, current island and low-lying or glacier irrigated human habitations, rather than just maximising growth, then more CO2, more heat energy and more weather may not be such an unmitigated positive.

There are lots of smart scientists who outline lots of independent lines of evidence pointing to climate change as being primarily man driven.

+1

They are also worried about negative feedback loops and the like and predict some pretty dire consequences if we don't get off this path.

Do you mean positive feedback loops (leading to potential tipping points)? I think there are some of each, but the recent and current trends seem to be that the negative feedbacks loops are not sufficient to maintain stability.

We are seeing some of the effects now. I work in municipal engineering, and our stormwater systems are overrun. They are designed for 1:10 to 1:50 year rainfall events. We are getting those events now every few years. This costs huge sums of money to fix. And this is the least of our worries.

I don't work in municipal engineering, but we are seeing effects like this here too and in many places.
Some places it's droughts (and wildfires, etc), which are also costly.

(Oh, whoops. Droughts and wildfires are not always so great for growing big plants, I guess.)

 

[Philomath]

90% of the “experts” believe unsaturated oils are essential.
90% of the “experts” believe estrogen is a beneficial hormone
90% of the “experts” believe Metabolic disorders are genetic diseases

I still have a hard time believing the “experts”

 

[x-ray peat]

90% of the “experts” believe unsaturated oils are essential.
90% of the “experts” believe estrogen is a beneficial hormone
90% of the “experts” believe Metabolic disorders are genetic diseases

I still have a hard time believing the “experts”

Haven't you heard? There is no thinking for yourself anymore. The world is far too complex and we need experts to tell us what to do and think. Or so they would have us believe.

 

[jaa]

Do you mean positive feedback loops (leading to potential tipping points)? I think there are some of each, but the recent and current trends seem to be that the negative feedbacks loops are not sufficient to maintain stability.

Oops I meant positive feedback loops (with negative consequences )

 

[Such_Saturation]

So most of the experts (90%) think climate change is primarily caused by humans and this % increases the more prestigious (more citations and publications) an expert is.

citation needed

 

[jaa]

citation needed

Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia

 

[x-ray peat]

Surveys of scientists' views on climate change - Wikipedia

oh no, not again.

 

[burtlancast]

Yeah. Grow more and bigger plants - more growth is always good!

Yip. And nitrogen is good for plants, too. The more the better. Why would anyone worry about too much nitrogenous fertilizer? It leads to bigger plants, doesn't it?

On the other hand, if you have an interest in conserving current species, ecological systems and complexity, current island and low-lying or glacier irrigated human habitations, rather than just maximising growth, then more CO2, more heat energy and more weather may not be such an unmitigated positive.


+1


Do you mean positive feedback loops (leading to potential tipping points)? I think there are some of each, but the recent and current trends seem to be that the negative feedbacks loops are not sufficient to maintain stability.


I don't work in municipal engineering, but we are seeing effects like this here too and in many places.
Some places it's droughts (and wildfires, etc), which are also costly.

(Oh, whoops. Droughts and wildfires are not always so great for growing big plants, I guess.)

Looks like someone has a horse in this race.

 

[Stramonium]

We are so egotistical we think we have control over an entire planet temperature

 

[dfspcc20]

It would be convenient if CO2 was the only consequence of extracting, refining, storing, transporting and burning fossil fuels...

Possible carbon tax aside, what are the arguments against reducing/eliminating the many superflous uses of fossil fuels? Such as

- commuting long distances daily, often in large vehicles (often with just the driver and no passengers), to jobs we despise.

- zoning laws that make it nearly impossible to be able to live near where you work, shop, where food is grown, etc.

- living in large, inefficient houses that need more lighting, heating, cooling, maintenance, etc. than necessary

- the perceived need to maintain large plots of non-native monocrop grasses (i.e., the American lawn)

- paving over forests, grasslands, wetlands, etc, to make the above 4 points possible

- regulations that make it difficult to produce food on the small, local scale

- the wackiness of globalization where not only is stuff we need shipped from halfway around the world, but also countries end up importing and exporting the same thing. Example: the US and Canada ship things like milk and lumber back and forth to each other. Or the US sending chickens to China to be processed then shipped back to the US to be consumed.

- The ubiquity of single-use plastic bottles, packaging, cutlery, etc, which pretty much always end up in the ocean or near groundwater where they will degrade into smaller and smaller bits, eventually poisoning the food chain at every level.


Does any of that contribute to human well-being and happiness at all? I'd posit that much of the energy we use goes towards no ones' benefit (not even the people at the top).

I recognize there are legitimate uses for fossil fuels that can still benefit humanity, but those uses are the exception, I'd wager.

 

[x-ray peat]

It would be convenient if CO2 was the only consequence of extracting, refining, storing, transporting and burning fossil fuels...

Possible carbon tax aside, what are the arguments against reducing/eliminating the many superflous uses of fossil fuels? Such as

- commuting long distances daily, often in large vehicles (often with just the driver and no passengers), to jobs we despise.

- zoning laws that make it nearly impossible to be able to live near where you work, shop, where food is grown, etc.

- living in large, inefficient houses that need more lighting, heating, cooling, maintenance, etc. than necessary

- the perceived need to maintain large plots of non-native monocrop grasses (i.e., the American lawn)

- paving over forests, grasslands, wetlands, etc, to make the above 4 points possible

- regulations that make it difficult to produce food on the small, local scale

- the wackiness of globalization where not only is stuff we need shipped from halfway around the world, but also countries end up importing and exporting the same thing. Example: the US and Canada ship things like milk and lumber back and forth to each other. Or the US sending chickens to China to be processed then shipped back to the US to be consumed.

- The ubiquity of single-use plastic bottles, packaging, cutlery, etc, which pretty much always end up in the ocean or near groundwater where they will degrade into smaller and smaller bits, eventually poisoning the food chain at every level.


Does any of that contribute to human well-being and happiness at all? I'd posit that much of the energy we use goes towards no ones' benefit (not even the people at the top).

I recognize there are legitimate uses for fossil fuels that can still benefit humanity, but those uses are the exception, I'd wager.

Do you have any sources for that claim? I would wager that the wasteful uses of fossil fuel is the exception, not the rule. But with that said reducing all of the wasteful uses of all resources should be encouraged and I think everyone here would agree with that. However what you are proposing is a strawman argument and is a very different suggestion than the massive reduction in fossil fuel use that the alarmists would want to enforce upon us. The end result of their planned madness would be an impoverished world and very little if any effect on the climate.

 

[dfspcc20]

Do you have any sources for that claim? I would wager that the wasteful uses of fossil fuel is the exception, not the rule. But with that said reducing all of the wasteful uses of all resources should be encouraged and I think everyone here would agree with that. However what you are proposing is a strawman argument and is a very different suggestion than the massive reduction in fossil fuel use that the alarmists would want to enforce upon us. The end result of their planned madness would be an impoverished world and very little if any effect on the climate.

For the main thesis of my post (that most of the energy we use as a civilization isn't really improving anyone's happiness or well-being), I have no reliable sources I can quote other than my own experience of the world. If you have experiences or sources to the contrary, it would be a great relief to be proven wrong on that.

I should add that I'm definitely against CO2 reductionism of the "alarmists". I'm just scared the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater if they are no longer the loudest voice. There is a lot of ugliness with business-as-usual that can and should be fixed.

 

[x-ray peat]

There is a lot of ugliness with business-as-usual that can and should be fixed.

I can agree with that

 

[Lucenzo01]

They want to make combustion cars ilegal: they hate freedom and every manifestation of it. That's why they want to ban guns: they hate the idea of people defending themselves without government assistance.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

So most of the experts (90%) think climate change is primarily caused by humans and this % increases the more prestigious (more citations and publications) an expert is. It's agreed upon that greenhouse gasses are the primary driver of this, and CO2 is the main culprit. Outcomes range from some coastal flooding and more frequent storm events (mild) to runaway effects that kill billions of people and many more animals (severe). You can ascribe whatever probability distribution to those outcomes that you want to that, but unless you're an expert who knows where other experts get things wrong, can explain that to them, and have additional info and better models yourself, you're just talking ***t. Particularly if you overweight the mild scenario and put next to no weight on the medium to severe outcomes. It is pragmatic to address this issue now, and it's a moral responsibility. Writing global emissions off as "lol it's good for plants, idiot scientists, peat right again!" is idiotic, immoral, and irresponsible. Don't be that person unless you have good reasons not to be that person. And no, pointing at your favourite climate change denying or downplaying scientist does not count. They are just one of many scientists in the field, and represent an overwhelmingly minority and fringe position.

Get off your smug high horse. Experts aren't gods and they aren't priests. They don't define or interpret reality. They get a paycheck like everybody else. This new religion of scienceology is really something else.

It's not 90% of experts. According to the oft repeated canard 97% of climate scientists who publish on the topic of anthropogenic global warming support anthropogenic global warming. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

It seems like the elder gods have spoken. Global warming is real and we are all going to die.

Oh wait

We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. that humans are causing global warming.

I guess selection bias isn't selection bias if it's endorsing your position is it? It's just 'consensus'.

 

[pimpnamedraypeat]

It would be convenient if CO2 was the only consequence of extracting, refining, storing, transporting and burning fossil fuels...

Possible carbon tax aside, what are the arguments against reducing/eliminating the many superflous uses of fossil fuels? Such as

- commuting long distances daily, often in large vehicles (often with just the driver and no passengers), to jobs we despise.

large oil corporations need the money

- zoning laws that make it nearly impossible to be able to live near where you work, shop, where food is grown, etc.

large oil corporations need the money

- the perceived need to maintain large plots of non-native monocrop grasses (i.e., the American lawn)

You can't have people growing their own food and being self-sustaining terrorists now can ya?

- paving over forests, grasslands, wetlands, etc, to make the above 4 points possible

- regulations that make it difficult to produce food on the small, local scale

- the wackiness of globalization where not only is stuff we need shipped from halfway around the world, but also countries end up importing and exporting the same thing. Example: the US and Canada ship things like milk and lumber back and forth to each other. Or the US sending chickens to China to be processed then shipped back to the US to be consumed.

- The ubiquity of single-use plastic bottles, packaging, cutlery, etc, which pretty much always end up in the ocean or near groundwater where they will degrade into smaller and smaller bits, eventually poisoning the food chain at every level.

Does any of that contribute to human well-being and happiness at all? I'd posit that much of the energy we use goes towards no ones' benefit (not even the people at the top).

Haha no they definitely benefit. You can't even imagine.

 

[burtlancast]

Is it a coincidence not a single Global Warming advocate is denouncing the widespread racket of planned obsolescence?

Shouldn't the sabotaging of consumer appliances be the first thing to be admitted and rectified when one wants to curb CO2 emissions?

What we find instead is a tacit condoning of a global criminal practice affecting millions.

Let's allow industry to undermine their own products and ramp up profits, create gigantic amounts of toxic waste that will take tens/hundred of years to remediate.

Evidently, it's the mindless consumerism of everyday folks that's the real culprit.

Bring back Cousteau and let's have some rational population reduction, shall we.

It's for your own good.

 

[jaa]

Get off your smug high horse. Experts aren't gods and they aren't priests. They don't define or interpret reality. They get a paycheck like everybody else. This new religion of scienceology is really something else.

It's not 90% of experts. According to the oft repeated canard 97% of climate scientists who publish on the topic of anthropogenic global warming support anthropogenic global warming. Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

It seems like the elder gods have spoken. Global warming is real and we are all going to die.

Oh wait



I guess selection bias isn't selection bias if it's endorsing your position is it? It's just 'consensus'.

Counting abstracts that express no position on AGW as against AGW is wrong. You can only count those that aim to look at AGW. A climate change paper that focuses just on levels of ice won't tell you anything about the causes behind the changes.

The 90% number comes from experts in the field who think humans are the primary driver of climate change. That's different than the 97% figure. It's a corroboration.

And yes, for the reasons I repeated over and over again in this and threads like it, plus the link to an article by Oxford philosophers explaining why bayesian reasoning dictates you should default to the expert consensus absent any extra information, you should default to the experts. This is like arguing with a child that 2+2 is 4. If you keep insisting it's 3 and want to claim I'm arrogant for insisting it's 4 and trying to walk you through it, that's fine, but I've obviously reached a wall and there's not much more I can say on this matter. Hopefully my posts weren't too abrasive and will reach those who are on the fence and interested and open to learning how to evaluate things in a world drowning in information.

 

[x-ray peat]

Counting abstracts that express no position on AGW as against AGW is wrong. You can only count those that aim to look at AGW. A climate change paper that focuses just on levels of ice won't tell you anything about the causes behind the changes.

The 90% number comes from experts in the field who think humans are the primary driver of climate change. That's different than the 97% figure. It's a corroboration.

And yes, for the reasons I repeated over and over again in this and threads like it, plus the link to an article by Oxford philosophers explaining why bayesian reasoning dictates you should default to the expert consensus absent any extra information, you should default to the experts. This is like arguing with a child that 2+2 is 4. If you keep insisting it's 3 and want to claim I'm arrogant for insisting it's 4 and trying to walk you through it, that's fine, but I've obviously reached a wall and there's not much more I can say on this matter. Hopefully my posts weren't too abrasive and will reach those who are on the fence and interested and open to learning how to evaluate things in a world drowning in information.

I wouldn't say that you are being arrogant or abrasive, just obstinately wrong. Most on RPF have learned by experience that you cant trust expert opinion because it is so often wrong. Again it still surprises me that you find this site useful as most of the health info goes against your precious experts. Expert opinion would say that the cognitive dissonance alone should have you running back to WebMD. Apparently it is wrong again.

maybe these articles will help wake you up
Why Experts are Almost Always Wrong | Smart News | Smithsonian
Why Experts Get It Wrong
Why experts are wrong | 2KnowMySelf
Why Scientific Studies Are So Often Wrong: The Streetlight Effect | DiscoverMagazine.com
15 Things Experts Said That Have Been Proved Wrong In A Big Way

this is what I think explains what is going on with the AGW scare
Why the Experts Get Everything Wrong
"The people who do get taken seriously are the ones who tell us what we want to hear. In practice that generally means what people with money want to hear. It doesn’t really matter whether our experts actually believe what they’re saying, if they've been cherry-picked to say it. They are enablers more than they are real experts. The whole institutional structure of expertise—the news organizations, the think tanks, and the research institutions that give experts credibility—largely serves the interests of the people and corporations who fund it. So it should not be surprising that we have experts who say that bankers were blameless in the economic crisis, that coal is clean, or that the military budget needs to be bigger. It is ultimately up to us to be better, more skeptical consumers of expert analysis. Especially where there’s money at stake."

 

[jaa]

You were not being arrogant or abrasive, just obstinately wrong. Most on RPF have learned by experience that you cant trust expert opinion because it is so often wrong. Again it still surprises me that you find this site useful as most of the health info goes against your precious expert opinion. Expert opinion would say that the cognitive dissonance alone should have you running back to WebMD.

maybe these articles will help wake you up
Why Experts are Almost Always Wrong | Smart News | Smithsonian
Why Experts Get It Wrong
Why experts are wrong | 2KnowMySelf
Why Scientific Studies Are So Often Wrong: The Streetlight Effect | DiscoverMagazine.com
15 Things Experts Said That Have Been Proved Wrong In A Big Way

this is what I think explains what is going on with the AGW scare
Why the Experts Get Everything Wrong
"The people who do get taken seriously are the ones who tell us what we want to hear. In practice that generally means what people with money want to hear. It doesn’t really matter whether our experts actually believe what they’re saying, if they've been cherry-picked to say it. They are enablers more than they are real experts. The whole institutional structure of expertise—the news organizations, the think tanks, and the research institutions that give experts credibility—largely serves the interests of the people and corporations who fund it. So it should not be surprising that we have experts who say that bankers were blameless in the economic crisis, that coal is clean, or that the military budget needs to be bigger. It is ultimately up to us to be better, more skeptical consumers of expert analysis. Especially where there’s money at stake."

You continue to exhibit a fundamental misunderstanding that if experts are always wrong (this is built into the fundamental framework of science) that you, a non-expert, with no extra information and likely lacking information and insights that the experts have, can make better predictions than the experts. It's like thinking you can beat the stock market because you think company x is underpriced, even though your reasons for thinking that have been accounted for and factored in by the market along with a bunch of other factors you haven't even begun to consider. It's extremely arrogant and why such ideas are mocked and can be dismissed offhand. Unless you're bringing that extra information and insight to the table, you're not offering anything and there's no reason to take you seriously.