Climate Change is Good Freeman Dyson

I read the summary, but no video access for me (likewise blogs blogspots, and many wordpress sites). About every year since 2007 Prof. Dyson has presented similar similar messages in interviews. Would you say that this one has presented some additional insights?

 

Of course there is some upsides to higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere, if you happen to live in those areas where the good stuff occurs. It isn't great if you live in an area that ends up flooding or becoming a desert. Or if it simply gets a little too warm for the generational crop of an area, like NJ and cranberries.

Some life will benefit. It doesn't necessarily mean life beneficial to us. Some life will die because of the rate of CO2 emissions.

 

He looks older than the last video I saw him on. I don't know what the old messages were. I just watched the first part as its rather boring, but I'm jaded, and would rather read an interview than see it.

1) Man made climate change is real
2) Climate models aren't that good, and we don't know the amount of climate change that will be caused by man made ghg. He thinks the predictions are overblown.
3) Non-climate effects of carbon dioxide are easier to measure and to model. Most of the non-climate effects are good for plant growth and biodiversity, some are bad.
4) He is not sure whether the net effects of man burning fossil carbon is good or bad.

Its pretty straightforward and hard to argue moral good or bad on a scientific question. Those that see moral bad look at other questions (coral reefs, sea level rise, insurance losses, etc).

 

I've seen his other videos on YouTube ...I like his thinking for the most part...have not heard much from Richard Mueller these days

 

Possible changes to arable crop yields by 2050
Keith W. Jaggard*, Aiming Qi and Eric S. Ober
Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B (2010) 365, 2835-2851
doi:10.1098/rstb.2010.0153

I have not found a newer review paper, although there have been several individual studies since. We have talked about some of them in terms of declining crop nutrition and pest resistance.

Even with the most aggressive limitation policies, mid-century CO2 will be at least 450 ppm. 500 to 550 is also possible. So the CO2 benefit on crops (if indeed it is net beneficial) is already 'dialed in'.

Is is possible to deflect attention from potentially important temperature and rainfall changes, sea level and acidification, health effects of fossil-fuel extraction and combustion? Just limit your attention to CO2 fertilization, and say it over and over again. Might work...

 

How well would plants grow with 700 ppm? 1200 ppm? That was talked about, but if high co2 was bad for plants then why would they do it in green houses
CO2 concentration ppm and effect on plants for the greenhouses gardening or indoor garden

Those papers you are talking about are modeling changes in .... Climate. Those percipitation models are highly dubious. I do think that in a chnging climate the US needs to shift from how much corn which needs lots of water and fertilizr, but would that crop do better at 600 ppm than 280 ppm? probably. I think Dyson would welcome a model that he could trust when it came to precipitation, but he doesn't trust the models. I am not sure I do.

Well he is an old man, and he has spent a lot of time on the non climate carbon dioxide effects. The question is if the press is paying too much or too little attention to him? To me the climate effects outweigh the other effects, but I agree with dyson that the models are stil pretty bad and need a lot of improvement. Perhaps that should be the focus. Not whether ghg will increase the average temperature of the earth, but how will it change percipitation. What would these changes be if humans stopped burning fossil fuels? What would they be as relatd to natural and farm land, if we treat these land areas differently? Take california for example. How much water is wasted on thirsty crops? How long will it last if the current farming methods are used? Can california even sustain its population and agriculture at projected rainfalls?

 

CO2 isn't bad for plants. It just isn't a selective fertilizer outside of a greenhouse. Kudzu, other invasives, and pest weeds will also grow better with the higher CO2 levels.

 

Perhaps man is responsible for spreading Kudzu, outside of burning ghg. I think one of the prime examples of man's effect are the many invasive species that entered issolated islands like hawaii on-board wind or paddle (no fossil fuel) powered ships. Certainly we have the simpson's episode of bart bringing such a species to australia aboard a plane, which is about bringing cane toads. The toads were brought on purpose to control the cane beetle in the 1930s, but soon bred out of control with no natural predators in Australia.

Carbon dioxide is not going to halt invasive species, but it certainly is not responsible. These species of plants and animals can often out compete native species.

 

Not blaming anyone but man for the invasive species.
Just pointing out that stating CO2 emissions as good because in increases crop yields is overlooking the fact it will also increase the growth of pest plant and weeds, whether native or alien.

 

i blame birds as well.merge.when he says, 'it's not the most pressing problem of our time', at least he admits it's a problem.

 

"It" has happened again. Based on PC posts, I read up on Prof. Dyson. He proposed developing plants that make an undecomposable form of carbon.

By email I explained that this could not actually happen, reasons why. etc. This led to a very interesting and satisfying exchange.

I'd never send email to Freeman Dyson without the variety of views expressed here at PC. So thanks again.

 

Wikipedia's biographical article about Dyson (age 91) notes that:

Translation: he's a doddering old fool.

I haven't watched the video yet but I'm going to guess that he completely ignores the speed at which CO2 levels are rising decade by decade. Not as in one-shot volcano eruption style but consistent long-term rapidly increasing levels (relative to historical natural changes). He knows that many people will give his views credence based on his earlier reputation but he spouts off in front of the camera anyway.

 

Jeff N, I object to that. Along with negative characterizations of other high-profile individuals who speak the the media. It is simple, but pointless, to put them into bins.

It is more work to understand the basis of their ideas, compare to scientific evidence and reach one's own conclusions. It appears Jeff N did that concerning CO2 rate of change, and his message would have been better left at that.

 

Okay, I watched the 22 minute video. It was worse than I thought.

Dyson says the increase in CO2 "on the average" is beneficial (I'm thinking he's a little over self-confident here). Not to worry, he says. Trust me -- I lived through the 1930's and Hitler.

He also says the global warming is likely beneficial to biodiversity without giving any apparent evidence to support a claim. That claim directly contradicts others who warn of a potential mass extinction event due to historically rapid and persistent climate change that today's evolved and interdependent ecologies of organisms cannot equally adapt to at the same pace.

Oh, and no mention of ocean uptake of carbon dioxide and ocean acidification which is already causing apparent problems for calcium carbonate using organisms like farmed shellfish.

 

I can only ask that the video (or any other Dyson media) be used to identify issues. Then, examine such issues and reach your own conclusions.

Jeff there is evidence you are doing this, but you are still 'on my lawn' (as AustinG would say) with the personal characterizations. Of course you are not the only one acting thus, but it is never respectable and (I'd argue) only weakens points you might make. Sthap.

 

I think the evidence is that Dyson doesn't really know the full extent of what he is talking about and yet he spouts off anyway in apparent self-confidence.

Of course, I don't really know what I'm talking about either but I'm not being reverentially interviewed by a Canadian newspaper from thousands of miles away.

 

Jeff, or anybody can know what they're talking about. Science being quite open, and journal paywalls being porous. Then one can chat up the experts, or the self-proclaimed experts, and actually incrementally move things forward. It is an amazing world we live in. In my experience, people you don't know will take their time to engage in real discussions. The person at the core of this thread is only the most recent example.

In my opinion, it is way more useful than binning people. Y'all have so many to choose from, across the spectrum of climatic effects. The only obvious reason not to is disinterest in exploring the topic at hand. This makes binning seem just that little bit worse.

 

Hopefully, GMO's will grow better too.

.