What's the use of Climate Change?

[Thanda]

You are still refusing to address any of my points and questions.

Your questions are an attempt to argue with me about how the negatives actually outweigh the positives. I already admitted in the OP that could well be the case. I merely wanted a conversation of the positives - is that too much to ask for?

 

[Thanda]

Actually, let's approach this differently since you have a preconceived notion about what I should be posting:

Anything positives about climate change - or you can declare that there are none - if that's what you believe.

 

[Quetzal]

Anything positives about climate change - or you can declare that there are none - if that's what you believe.

This thread is so damn stupid, I am actually sad I have made this many posts in it.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

ANY change can be considered good or bad, depending on the scope of consideration (that is, who is benefiting and who is not) and the time scale involved. There isn't one simple answer.

Example: let's say the ocean levels rise by 10 feet. The current coastline, including many cities, will be inundated. People who own property along the current coastline, which in the US is generally valuable, will lose their land. Will society reimburse them for their loss? Or will they simply be out their investment? That would be bad from their perspective, I would think. On the plus side, there will be new coastlines, and people who currently own usually-less valuable interior land will find increased prices for their now beach-front property: they'll make money...unless the ocean levels continue to rise, in which case other people further inland will then benefit, while those whose land has been covered will be sol. All those people who currently live, and all that infrastructure that is currently above sea level will be swamped--that's a negative, because people will have to move (where will they go to live?), investments will be lost, etc. But new homes will have to be built, new infrastructure created...meaning jobs, and investments, and opportunities to make money...

There will be less land area, but the population will have to live and make a living on what's available, so that will tend to drive demand up, leading to more opportunities...and costs...and so on... Most of the fruits and vegetables consumed in the US are produced in the Central Valley of California, southern Texas, and Florida--all of which will be at least partially inundated by even a 10-foot rise in sea levels--that will have negative impacts on those areas, but maybe the rising sea levels will also open up new areas for growing food, so that might be a positive...

Net, will a sea-level change be a positive or a negative? Until you have a really good and reliable economic modeling computer program, it's all guesses. Do you want to make plans or place bets--gamble your future, of that of your children and grandchildren, one way or the other--on speculation that climate change is, or is not, real, and is, or is not, going to have an impact on society in the future?

I think prudence dictates we do more research and try to find ways to be more efficient, and cause less unintended effects, in the future. That kind of investment will allow us to adapt to whatever changes happen.

 

[Nietzsche]

Sure. We will lose a lot of wildlife and flora, and probably it'll have huge impact on human population as well.

But the thread was asking for something positive, something that we're not losing. At least that was my impression of the introductory post.

He said a positive.

Less swans is a massive positive.

 

[Ouroboros]

He said a positive.

Less swans is a massive positive.

Ah! I see. LOL!

And less crows.

 

[jeager106]

With more CO2 in the air, there's more food for the plants. They need it. Maybe this will make a comeback for the jungle, and perhaps even make the deserts grow again? Just throwing something out there...

Yes. That is WAY OUT THERE.

 

[jeager106]

To me, the discussion is usually about a few things. One is the little things each / all of us can be doing today that is different from perhaps yesterday and that would reverse the path toward extinction. This is where the politics and partisan stuff comes up in spades. Like, I don't get how a POTUS who makes this a big deal can justify flying around in Air Force One, and sleep well - other than being told that it is perfectly justifiable from those on his partisan side and that there are bigger fish to fry. But, it certainly tells me that as long as that is occurring, I really need not go overboard in all the teeny tiny things I may adjust. If I were instead to see POTUS treat that as BFD, I would see hypocrisy is being removed, to some degree, from the equation and a sense of consistency is called forth.

The other thing is the drastic, overall scenario used as a scare tactic to implement monumental changes. Also political, but not necessarily. It's akin to whatever a doomsday scenario is presenting and essentially trying to communicate you have reason to be fearful and there's either nothing or very little you can do about this. It's out of your individual control and did we mention that fear is suddenly a good thing to have allegiance to?

There's a factor that wishes to uphold the righteousness of science. I don't think I can do this factor justice in one paragraph. I don't think it's the primary factor and is why I list it third. I do think science is partially to mostly responsible for getting us to this point, but realize how debatable that is, and so rather just leave this point as short as I am.

But I do think the third factor is balanced by the other factor which is resistance to the notion of climate change on various levels or points being made. I think that resistance is a good thing, but like all things with consensus where politics is involved, the minority position (resistance) will be downplayed and ridiculed constantly. This last factor though is helped each day when a prediction from 10 to 30 years ago turns out to be inaccurate. Kind of like how if a religion claims the world will end in 1999, and there is resistance to that, and then when it comes to pass, the consensus around the religious position is that it's still going to end, just that we didn't get it right, so allow us now to use ad hoc explanations to further convince that the end is near, and surely we can be trusted to convey that information. I find it good to have healthy skepticism around anything related to drastic scenarios regarding climate change.

Which to me, is about the most positive thing that there is on this (broad) topic. That and the fact that man made climate change is inherently a natural occurrence.

If you please?
How can MAN MADE be a NATURAL OCCURRENCE???????????????????

Inquiring minds don'cha'know?

 

[Ouroboros]

Yes. That is WAY OUT THERE.

Oh. And another thing that might happen, new life forms, plants and animals, that will thrive on the higher Co2 levels, and also the heat. During the Jurassic epoc, there was much higher concentration of oxygen, at such level that it would have been toxic for humans (if I understand it right), and it was a lot warmer than now. When the climate changed, flowers could thrive. Dinosaurs not so much. And now, maybe we won't thrive anymore, or mammals in general, but new species will come and take our place.

 

[Nous]

Today I was looking at the google news page as I normally do every morning. At the end of the page there is a the science section where they often have stories about climate change. Today the story was about how climate change is increasing the amount of Toxins in food.
This got me thinking: for such a benignly named phenomenon this climate change thing sure seems to do nothing but bad in the world. It would probably be more aptly named "Climate Terror" or "Climate Terminator".

Was the climate really that perfect before that all the changes happening are causing nothing but trouble? Or are there some useful positives that are coming from the changing of the climate (albeit perhaps without outweighing the negatives)?

If there are positives, what are they?

Regardless of how innocuous anthropogenic global warming might be, the efforts to reduce the burning of fossil fuels and to reduce GHG emissions and environmental destruction due to raising, using and slaughtering livestock are admirable and can only have a beneficial effect on the environment and people.

 

[Revoltingest]

I feel dumb for asking, AGW?

Anthropogenic (human caused) Global Warming.

 

[Revoltingest]

I feel dumb for asking, AGW?

Tis smart to ask questions in order to gain info.

 

[jeager106]

Tis smart to ask questions in order to gain info.

It IS as I was going to ask the same thing.
(smarty pants)

 

[Ouroboros]

(smarty pants)

Another benefit of global catastrophes. First we had smartphones, then smart cars, now we're going to have smart pants too!

 

[Acim]

If you please?
How can MAN MADE be a NATURAL OCCURRENCE???????????????????

Inquiring minds don'cha'know?

Because humans are natural. Ergo, everything (conceivable) we produce / do would be naturally occurring. An aspect of nature. Nature itself.

Unless, ya know, humans are not natural. Maybe supernatural?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So can no one give me any positives?

Polar bears are drowning - that's gotta mean something positive for seals.

In the end, as long as life has the ability to continue, one being or another will benefit from ANY change, even as it is detrimental to others, or even millions of others.

 

[metis]

Polar bears are drowning - that's gotta mean something positive for seals.

In the end, as long as life has the ability to continue, one being or another will benefit from ANY change, even as it is detrimental to others, or even millions of others.

Or billions. [U.S. Department of Defense estimation of up to 2 billion being directly affected adversely]