That website again?
Internet volunteers, some with no scientific background at all, who do their own “peer review”? But hey, at least the website was designed by the dude’s wife.
That mundane and pointless reply again? 
As pointed before killing the messenger remains a fallacy, last time there was no explanation or demonstration from you that the examples they point at (and it is almost all published science what they point at) are wrong as in this case.
Of course, just to show how mundane that reply was, it does not even counter what it was observed, that even experts already debunked what the other poster posted ages ago. That there is a website that records that what a contrarian posted was debunked years ago, is just inconvenient for the few contrarians that still think that the sources that they depend on are not garbage.
Why? Because it makes you feel better to think that?
I mean, everybody in the world would like anthropogenic climate change to be a beneficial phenomenon, if that were possible. The fossil-fuel companies and other entities that are doing the most to accelerate and perpetuate anthropogenic climate change have vast amounts of funding to encourage research into any beneficial aspects of climate change that anybody can scrounge up. Because they would much rather be hailed as benefactors of humankind than have to confront drastic profit-eating regulation on greenhouse-gas emissions at some point down the road.
And yet, in spite of all these wonderful opportunities to rejoice in climate change for fun and profit, the overwhelming majority of actual climate scientists persist in telling us that the downsides of climate change, in terms of humans and other species adapting to it, will far outweigh the benefits.
I mean, it’s nice that you’re trying to be resilient and maintain a positive outlook in the face of a damaging and discouraging severe drought. I’m not telling you that you need to be all hopeless and despairing and convinced that nothing will ever go right again.
But I don’t think you’re really accomplishing anything by simply refusing to face facts. The facts, as far as the current state of climate science understands them, imply that optimistic expectations about absence of severe and prolonged downsides to anthropogenic climate change are unrealistic.
I am facing the facts.
The facts are that a warmer planet is a more productive planet.
Wrong. Just because the consequences of the anthropogenically modified atmosphere are called “the greenhouse effect” doesn’t mean that the earth will actually become like a greenhouse in the sense of fostering more beneficial growth and productivity overall.
Productivity will be lost due to labor losses from unsafe heat levels, for one thing.
Droughts will continue getting worse overall.
The consequences for insects and their contributions to agriculture will be negative overall.
I could go on for pages, but I’ll conclude with the most important aspect of all the aspects that you seem to be blithely ignoring:
There is currently no end in sight for the continued increase of anthropogenic GHG concentrations in the atmosphere and the severely destabilizing climate changes that accompany it.
If it were just a matter of temperatures going up by 1.5C or so over the next few decades and then magically stopping at that level for the foreseeable future, there might be at least a little justification for complacent indifference. We’d have a reliable “new normal” that we could focus on adjusting to.
But there isn’t going to be a “new normal” or an adjustment period for it if we just go on obliviously pretending that climate change isn’t really a bad thing. There’s just going to be a continuous sequence of “new abnormals” hitting us with unprecedented problem after unprecedented problem.
I mean, as I said, these are the findings of research scientists who specialize in these subjects. Why on earth should anybody think that your layperson’s emotional optimism is a more reliable predictor of future conditions than their scientific studies?
Not really.
Climate change deniers also argue that climate change is good for us. They suggest longer, warmer summers in the temperate zone will make farming more productive. These gains, however, are often offset by the drier summers and increased frequency of heatwaves in those same areas. For example, the 2010 “Moscow” heatwave killed 11,000 people, devastated the Russian wheat harvest and increased global food prices.
What we need to know is really who told you that it would be beneficial (it can for some, but most will not see it that way), it has been years already, and one should by now dump on the ones that mislead us, and not the ones that report what the proper experts are saying.
No, it’s not, except where geoengineering projects are deliberately greening it. There are certainly some climate change scenarios that predict a wetter climate for the Sahara, similar to what it’s experienced at some points in the past. But in those scenarios other regions, such as the Mediterranean basin, become drastically more arid at the same time, so the net impact is definitely not positive.
As in a casino, the winners are going to be comparatively few and many of the losers are going to lose big. That’s not a net positive overall.
The good thing about a climate system that is reasonably stable over centuries and millennia is that it allows the formation of stable societies in which most people can rely on being “winners” at some level of basic environmental security. They don’t have massive ongoing degradation of human habitat due to sea level rise swamping coasts and increasingly frequent and severe natural disasters, or the consequent displacement of several percent of the entire human population within a few decades.
You’re perceiving this as a comparatively trivial problem because you’re only looking at a few tiny pieces of it (and most of those through an unwarrantably optimistic distorting lens). The fact that your current drought is not going to last forever, and that you might see a net increase in average precipitation over the next decade or so, doesn’t mean that climate change as a whole is no big deal, or no bad thing.
Look around. You don’t have to be spoon fed what to think. Learn to think for yourself.
Look at history and ask yourself, “When has a warmer Earth not been more productive?”
By the way, the one climate scientist I know thinks the alarmists are crazy.
That is funny, I actually came to find a lot about how unreliable the contrarians are thanks to years of finding out what they avoid. You need to be aware that less experts agree nowadays with what you think is research, almost all the time contrarians grossly underestimate what is going on.
So, out with your sources, we need to know who to dump as has been the case for decades now.
We haven’t had an Earth this warm for at least the last hundreds of thousands, if not few million, years. And as I said, there is no end in sight for the GHG accumulations or the temperature rise.
If you insist on trying to evaluate the consequences of climate change based only on a vague and fuzzy concept of “productivity” and the woolly notion that “well, wetter and warmer weather has to be more productive”, then of course you’re going to be oblivious to the more realistic assessments of serious negative consequences. But being oblivious doesn’t make you right.
Feel free to cite some of their own peer-reviewed research publications supporting their minority viewpoints with scientific evidence. Short of that, your self-reported support from “one climate scientist” means less than nothing, especially compared with the findings of actual climate scientists that have already been linked to here.
(That’s not to say that there are absolutely no “crazy alarmists” on the non-climate-denial side of public opinion who exaggerate the likelihood of every worst-case scenario they come across. Every science-and-public-policy issue has some ill-informed crazy alarmists doomsquawking that all the most farfetched catastrophic hypotheses are guaranteed to happen. But the majority of mainstream climate scientists are not crazy alarmists, and if your alleged “one climate scientist” acquaintance claims they are, then they’re either lying or crazy themselves.)
I first saw it reported by National Geographic about 10 or 15 years ago. Are you going to try telling us that National Geographic is a bastion of anti-climate change?
From The Greening of the Sahara: Past Changes and Future Implications:
From SAHARA DESERT GREENING, THANKS TO GLOBAL WARMING:
From Greening the Sahara:
I don’t know what is counterintuitive of the affect of rising carbon levels in the atmosphere. It isn’t that unusual for people with greenhouses to inject extra CO2 to help plants grow bigger and better.
From The Sahara was ‘green’ for over 6,000 years and had 10 times more rain than now:
Researchers seem to think that it was warmer during the Eemian, the previous interglacial period to this one.
Also, it was warmer during the Holocene Climatic Optimum.
Are you, by chance, one of the contributors to said website?
Since I did not use them in my last reply, that is once again a very mundane and pointless remark.
It’s just that you seem to be particularly interested in that one, rather unscientific, website as your go to source.
Not the only source I use, wrong and pointless shrug there too.
Calling them unscientific is just once again going for the fallacy of shooting the messenger, it is also like calling a popular science program uncientific, just because the editors are not scientists, very silly indeed.
Wrong again, particularly about the Holocene.
No, really, the research you are looking at is the pits. Do us a favor and tell us what are your sources.
My previously linked article that you quote here says that the Sahara could become much less arid in future due to climate change, as I already noted. And your “Greening the Sahara” link is mostly talking about an eco-restoration project, which as I already noted has significant potential for modifying the local climate.
Your other links with their exaggeratedly optimistic views are from propaganda sites like the fossil-fuel-industry-fronting Heartland Institute and something called “Ancient Code” (?). You are not “looking around you” or “learning to think for yourself”: you’ve drunk the Kool-Aid of science-denial organizations that are deliberately feeding you misinformation and distortion and encouraging you to ignore actual scientific findings.
Oh, for pity’s sake. Claiming that anthropogenic climate change has to be beneficial overall because farmers use added CO2 to help plants grow is like claiming that driving your car off a cliff has to be beneficial because everybody knows that going downhill uses less gas and is easier on the engine.
The answer in both cases is “No, it doesn’t.”
Take a look at a more nuanced scientific analysis of the issue like this one, instead of relying on the comforting propaganda from your fossil-fuel shill sites.
(Emphasis added.) I mean, seriously, do you think that climate scientists as a group aren’t smart enough to know that in isolation, additional CO2 can have positive effects on plant growth? Do you think that all their warnings about negative consequences of global warming are because they’re just too dumb to have noticed this potentially hopeful feature, and they needed “skeptical” “common-sense” ordinary people like you to point it out to them?
Newsflash: You are not smarter or better-informed about climate science than climate scientists in the aggregate. You aren’t blessed with special knowledge or intelligence or viewpoints that make you better able than they are to perceive the consequences of climate change in a realistic way.
Focusing on one small piece of the climate-change phenomenon such as “but CO2 is good for plants!” does not mean that you understand the global consequences of the phenomenon better than climate scientists do.
Not much, if at all. Even if you aren’t convinced by GIGO’s link that current temperatures have already surpassed the Holocene’s, the current climate is definitely well on track to break all Holocene temperature records by 2100. (The Eemian occurred more than 100Kyears ago, of course.)
And again, I repeat: The real climate-change problem is not so much the anthropogenic GHG concentrations that are already changing the climate, but the catastrophically unchecked continuation of the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and the impacts they’ll have in the future.
Millennia of human civilization during a period of relatively stable global climate have brainwashed you into taking it for granted that climate-related shifts must be manageably gradual and non-extreme. That is not necessarily a justified assumption.
Since I don’t pay any attention to those, I don’t know what they are. I was just searching for information on the Sahara Desert becoming greener because of warming.
Is the National Geographic Society a front for the fossil fuel industry, too?
I’m not brainwashed, but you appear to be suffering from it.
The climate is estimated by experts in the field to have been about 2 to 5 F higher during the Eemian than it is now. Also, that or more earlier in the Holocene.
What I know is that it was anything but a disaster when climate was warmer in the past and that the real disaster is when it was cooler. Even in the relatively mild “Little Ice Age” the Earth was far less productive than it is now. Some people are reported to have had to turn to grinding tree bark into flour so that they had something to eat.
Actually, I mentioned the higher CO2 helping plants because it is very true and the effect is not small. Warmer temperatures and more CO2 are good for plants, not bad for them.
The civilization that we enjoy today was made possible by Global Warming.
Again, the temperature you are thinking about is being overshoot. And no, saying that you look at the National Geographic for support is grosly underwhelming unless you cite what you post about. Because, unless you cite, one can the just ignore the contrarian old chestnuts out there because almost all the time, contrarians that you follow also cherry picked or misunderstood what groups like National Geographic said about an issue.
Repeating the misunderstanding, or the cherry pick, or denier deceptions from a few does not make them new or accurate.