No one ever says it, but in many ways global warming will be a good thing

forestsLast week, a study in the prestigious journal Nature revealed just how much CO₂ increases have greened the Earth over the past three decades. Because CO₂ acts as a fertilizer, as much as half of all vegetated land is persistently greener today. This ought to be a cause for great joy.

Instead, the BBC focused on warning that the paper shouldn’t make us stop worrying about global warming, with threats like melting glaciers and more severe tropical storms. Many other major news outlets did not even report on the study.

Our climate conversation is lopsided. There is ample room to suggest that climate change has caused this problem or that negative outcome, but any mention of positives is frowned upon. We have known for decades that increasing CO₂ and precipitation from global warming will make the world much greener – by the end of the century, it is likely that global biomass will have increased by forty percent.

Similarly, we know that many more people die from cold than from heat. The biggest study on heat and cold deaths, published last year in Lancet, examined more than 74 million deaths from 384 locations in 13 countries from cold Sweden to hot Thailand. The researchers found that heat causes almost one-half of one percent of all deaths, while more than 7 percent are caused by cold.

As global warming pushes temperatures up, more people will die in heat waves; a point emphasized by campaigners like UN climate chief, Christiana Figueres. What we don’t hear from her is that fewer people will die from cold. One study for England and Wales shows that heat kills 1,500 annually and cold kills 32,000. By the 2080s, increased heat-waves will kill nearly 5,000 in a comparable population. But ‘cold deaths’ will have dropped by 10,000, meaning 6,500 fewer die altogether.

Read rest…

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (5)

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    We should thank Dicaprio for making his
    massive contribution to the benefits of a warming world . Well done !
    Why is it governments , prior to making policy decisions, don’t reveal what the positives are of a warming climate ? When did they know the benefits of a warming world would far outweigh cooling ?
    Why would they introduce and continue expanding policies that cause 10,000’s of thousands of fuel poverty deaths each year and mass destruction of birds and other animals ?

    Why did they not informed the public that there family, friends and other members of the general were at risk of dying from cold
    because the government wanted to make energy very expensive ? The rich survive and the poor …well top bad . Population control 101 .

    Why did the IPCC not detail the benefits of our warming world ? Is it because their mandate was to produce a picture governments wanted ?
    Lomborg is right …where have the media been ? Balanced reporting ? What a joke . How many media owners have pumped scary global warming because they invested in government propped up “renewable ” companies that are now in free fall ?

    Global warming is tanking because the
    pump and dump scheme of renewable stocks is unwinding fast .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Jim

    |

    Great article. I might even take it a step further. I believe it would be catastrophic if we did not release carbon back to the atmosphere and this is why. According to Chris Scotese and the IPCC the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere have dropped dramatically over geologic time. 500 million years ago atmospheric CO2 levels were 5,000 to 6,000 ppm; 150 million years ago, when the dinosaurs roamed the earth, levels had fallen to about 2000 ppm. In the 1800’s, according to the IPCC, levels were about 290 ppm. This lost CO2 is now in the form of coal and oil deep in the earth, and without man’ involvement, would be permanently lost to the carbon cycle. Without man’s involvement it is certain that further carbon would be removed from the atmosphere to this sequestered pool with further decreases in atmospheric CO2. With man’s involvement CO2 levels have risen to 400 ppm. If CO2 levels were allowed to drop below 200 ppm plant life, crop yields and humans would suffer and surely die off.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Right you are Jim . We are a lot closer to that unhappy outcome (historically low levels of CO2 ) than the tremendous benefit of higher levels of CO2, natures plant food .

    Three cheers for higher CO2 and any global warming sent our way . Any scientific organization on the planet want to dispute that ?
    Considering ,as Jim points out , CO2 has historically been as much as 10 times the current level from natural occurring variables why do scary global promoters try to sell fear of something so beneficial ?

    It’s like your Mom saying vegetables are bad for you . How this scam got this far is a case study in human behaviour .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    [quote name=”Jim”]In the 1800’s, according to the IPCC, levels were about 290 ppm.[/quote]

    Jim, you make an excellent point about the higher levels of carbon dioxide in the past. I agree that we are in a period of carbon dioxide famine.

    Just as everyone else did, I accepted the IPCC statement that CO2 levels were in the neighborhood of 290 ppm at the beginning of the industrial revelution. However, just as the alarmist campaigners have been lower historical temperatures to support the cause their climate change agenda, it appears that they also lowered the historical level of CO2. This gas was probably 50 ppm higher than the IPCC was telling us. Checkout:

    https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS%20Pre-industrial%20CO2.pdf

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    The main point of this article is the one side coverage of the cost vs advantages of warming. This is very true. This isn’t science; it is a political campaign that has the strong support of the main stream media.

    This article may have one flaw in that it appears to accept the UN IPCC models as far as the cost of warming. These models are running about three times hotter than observed data, so predict higher costs. Of course, another flaw is to assume carbon dioxide is causing the warming when historical data does not support this assumption.

    As far as cold vs heat wave deaths, not only are there more deaths caused by cold, but the heat wave deaths are often avoidable. Consider the massive deaths in Russia where people get drunk and then go to the river to cool off. They wouldn’t drown if they skipped the getting drunk part. I assume in the deaths from cold people are already dressing warmer. In cases where deaths are caused by heat exhaustion, where water is available, many if not most of these deaths can be avoided by wetting down the clothing and keeping it wet.

    Reply

Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.