Not unlikely that [CO2] will reach 500 by 2050 and I'd consider 450 almost certain. In a scattered way we have considered possible advantages but it makes sense to assemble them and look at quantifying and monetizing them. May not be possible to consider each separate from disadvantages that may ride along, but at least we can exclude pure disadvantage aspects here. I list candidates to be considered, post others I've missed: Plant growth CO2 fertilization Reduction of extreme cold events Access of plants (crop or otherwise) to new habitats by +CO2 or +T Areas where climate may improve
Oh, sounds like fun: Reduced heating costs (maybe just lump this in with reduction of extreme cold events) Fewer winter deaths from cold (again, maybe just lump this in with reduction of extreme cold events) Improved trade: An ice-free Northwest/Northeast Passage all year long Improved tourism: places currently bitterly cold may become more attractive vacation spots New ocean-front property (that is currently several feet to miles further inland from the current coast line)
I missed polar shipping, which will bring the wrath of Huntsville upon me. But also now thinking about those few for whom a CO2 - temperature relationship does not exist. They cannot extol temperature or ice-melt benefits. So sad to tie one's own ankles together. Anyway, plant production increases with CO2 as long as all other needed resources are sufficiently abundant. Second-order effects on protein content or chemical protection against herbivores.
Probably for the past two weeks, the Russian nuclear powered ice breakers could have escorted shipping through the Northeast passage. My estimate is in 10-14 days both passages will be open assuming winds don't force temporary pack ice closure of choke points. Bob Wilson
We'd look at north-polar shipping only in terms of money saved in last few years. Beyond that only towards the next few years. i would expect big-money shippers to be conservative.
Careful what you ask for: Source: Conservatives are again denying the very existence of global warming | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian . . . American conservatives are denying the very existence of global warming. . . . . . . a white paper, written by fossil fuel-funded contrarians Joseph D’Aleo and Craig Idso along with James Wallace III. Two months ago, D’Aleo and Wallace published another error-riddled white paper on the same website with fellow contrarian John Christy; both papers aimed to undermine the EPA’s Endangerment Finding. . . . In this paper, the contrarians try to undermine the accuracy of the global surface temperature record, which has been validated time and time again. They don’t bother trying to hide their bias – the paper refers to “Climate Alarmists” and speaks of invalidating the Endangerment Finding. The errors in the white paper The paper itself has little scientific content. Using charts taken from climate denier blogs, the authors claim that every temperature record adjustment since the 1980s has been in the warming direction, . . . I suppose I could have just cited the two papers without comment but there was a new term: . . . The Daily Caller even went as far as to call it a “peer-reviewed study.” In a sense that’s true – a number of other fossil fuel-funded contrarian scientists who are technically the authors’ peers signed onto the paper. But of course that’s really pal review, not peer review; the white paper was not published in a peer-reviewed journal because it obviously would not withstand scrutiny by scientific experts. . . . Not quiet the original request since it is the same as the answer from this guy about who he is married to: Bob Wilson
Arctic temps are at below average levels .While sea ice is also below average . The correlation is that cold temps cause less ice.(SARC) But how does CO2 cause less sea ice ?
