David, I appreciate your posting this link. IMHO there are two unfortunate themes running through Yale Climate Connections' list of 2015's Key Climate Science Research Advances.
1. Weak proof of causasion. The frequent assumption that some bad thing that happened was caused by anthropogenic climate change. That is, using fallacious post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning.
2. Studying only bad things that may have been caused by climate change, while ignoring good things. E.g., there are no studies of how many deaths from cold may have been prevented because of global warming. There are no studies of how much more food has become available thanks to longer growing seasons, higher rainfall, and the benfits of higher CO2 to plant life. There are no studies of the expansion of forested areas thanks to these three factors.
2. Studying only bad things that may have been caused by climate change, while ignoring good things. E.g., there are no studies of how many deaths from cold may have been prevented because of global warming. There are no studies of how much more food has become available thanks to longer growing seasons, higher rainfall, and the benfits of higher CO2 to plant life. There are no studies of the expansion of forested areas thanks to these three factors.
Aside from the fact the evidence is against net benefits for food (“Based on many studies covering a wide range of regions and crops, negative impacts of climate change on crop yields have been more common than positive impacts (high confidence)“), the literature tells us that plant interactions in the biosphere are far more complex than overly simplistic assertions of "see-oh-too good!".
There also AFAIK are no studies that find increasing CO2 is a net benefit to forests, due to N limitations, C cycling underground, confounding effects of low-level O3, change in species assemblages, etc.
David in Cal wrote: "E.g., there are no studies of how many deaths from cold may have been prevented because of global warming."
This is really one of the stupidest (sorry) claims out there. Do you really expect us to heat up the entire world just so a few people don't die in Fairbanks, Alaska?
That would be like cooling down your entire house just so the butter you left on the table doesn't melt.
How about instead we see that the few people in Fairbanks have adequate furnances and fuel?
"There are no studies of how much more food has become available thanks to longer growing seasons, higher rainfall, and the benfits of higher CO2 to plant life."
False.
"Suitable Days for Plant Growth Disappear under Projected Climate Change: Potential Human and Biotic Vulnerability," -- Camilo Mora et al, PLOS Biology, June 10, 2015 http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002167
6 comments:
Nice work David.
Best,
D
David, I appreciate your posting this link. IMHO there are two unfortunate themes running through Yale Climate Connections' list of 2015's Key Climate Science Research Advances.
1. Weak proof of causasion. The frequent assumption that some bad thing that happened was caused by anthropogenic climate change. That is, using fallacious post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning.
2. Studying only bad things that may have been caused by climate change, while ignoring good things. E.g., there are no studies of how many deaths from cold may have been prevented because of global warming. There are no studies of how much more food has become available thanks to longer growing seasons, higher rainfall, and the benfits of higher CO2 to plant life. There are no studies of the expansion of forested areas thanks to these three factors.
Cheers
2. Studying only bad things that may have been caused by climate change, while ignoring good things. E.g., there are no studies of how many deaths from cold may have been prevented because of global warming. There are no studies of how much more food has become available thanks to longer growing seasons, higher rainfall, and the benfits of higher CO2 to plant life. There are no studies of the expansion of forested areas thanks to these three factors.
Aside from the fact the evidence is against net benefits for food (“Based on many studies covering a wide range of regions and crops, negative impacts of climate change on crop yields have been more common than positive impacts (high confidence)“), the literature tells us that plant interactions in the biosphere are far more complex than overly simplistic assertions of "see-oh-too good!".
There also AFAIK are no studies that find increasing CO2 is a net benefit to forests, due to N limitations, C cycling underground, confounding effects of low-level O3, change in species assemblages, etc.
Best,
D
David in Cal wrote:
"The frequent assumption that some bad thing that happened was caused by anthropogenic climate change."
What study that we listed does that unjustifiably?
David in Cal wrote:
"E.g., there are no studies of how many deaths from cold may have been prevented because of global warming."
This is really one of the stupidest (sorry) claims out there. Do you really expect us to heat up the entire world just so a few people don't die in Fairbanks, Alaska?
That would be like cooling down your entire house just so the butter you left on the table doesn't melt.
How about instead we see that the few people in Fairbanks have adequate furnances and fuel?
"There are no studies of how much more food has become available thanks to longer growing seasons, higher rainfall, and the benfits of higher CO2 to plant life."
False.
"Suitable Days for Plant Growth Disappear under Projected Climate Change: Potential Human and Biotic Vulnerability,"
-- Camilo Mora et al, PLOS Biology, June 10, 2015
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1002167
David in Cal: Here are several more studies that show that the simplistic idea that CO2 is all good for plants is wrong:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2015/05/plants-not-getting-simplistic-message.html
Post a Comment