Best environmental science books according to redditors
We found 95 Reddit comments discussing the best environmental science books. We ranked the 54 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
We found 95 Reddit comments discussing the best environmental science books. We ranked the 54 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the top 20.
If you haven't listened yet, be sure to check this book out.
https://www.amazon.com/The-Coming-Storm/dp/B07FHLQ2DD
Also, fuck AccuWeather.
I'm not sure if this topic has been explored in any great depth as it relates to race relations in America, but purity/cleanliness rituals have long been used as a means of enforcing social hierarchy throughout history. This text looks at a fairly long list of examples.
So I doubt anyone seriously believed replacing the pool water was necessary for medical reasons.
Some modern examples of cleanliness as a non-medical ritual include the concept of "cooties" on the playground, or washing one's mouth out with soap after swearing. Daily showers are also a little excessive.
All the following information can be found in either Permafrost: A Guide to Frozen Ground in Transition by Neil Davis or in Land of Extremes: A Natural History of the Arctic North Slope of Alaska by Alex Huryn and John Hobbie.
These are thermokarst lakes and are an ubiquitous permafrost feature found all across the arctic tundra along with pingos, palsas, ice wedges, poygonal ground, and beaded streams. These thermokarst lakes are often termed oriented lakes since most seem to be found elongated 90 degrees to the prevailing wind. They are quite shallow, never exceeding 3 m. Those less than 2 m freeze to the bottom every year. They also reduce the thickness of permafrost around and beneath them ( In bare tundra near Point Barrow, permafrost can be as much as 400 m thick whereas under these lakes it may only be 60 m ).
Since these lakes are often associated with poylygonal ground, it is thought they originate with these structures. Ice wedge polygons often form raised relief, which with the extremely flat tundra prevents drainage. Water tends to stay as it doesn't evaporate very efficiently due to cold temperatures, low sun angle, and short summers despite most of the arctic receiving less than 300 mm of precipitation per year. Consequently, these polygons form small shallow ponds. If there is enough relief, these ponds may connect and form beaded streams. Otherwise, they remain disjoint.
It is thought from these small polygonal ponds, these thermokarst lakes form. Wind blowing across the surface may promote preferential erosion on one side of the small pond, growing and elongating it. This erosion removes the thin active layer (the thin layer of earth that that thaws every summer) insulating the permafrost below. This removal of insulation promotes thawing of the permafrost at the borders of the pond, allowing the pond to continue eroding its banks and melting more permafrost. The pond deepens, widens, and subsides linking up nearby polygonal ponds and forming a basin, allowing it to capture more water and continue growing each summer. They can become quite large such as Teshekpuk Lake.
These lakes rarely host fish. They typically host grasses and a small selection benthic inverbrates. They make great summer habitat for migrating birds and of course mosquitos.
The sub has some decent resources in the FAQ. Other than that, Evolution: A Very Short Introduction is great. It's part of a series of pocket-sized handbooks on various topics, evolution among them.
If you wanna go heavy, Evolution by Douglas Futuyma is where to go.
>Were these claims ever substantiated, and if so, did the Trudeau government reverse or change these policies?
Yes there is an entire book on it
https://www.amazon.ca/War-Science-Muzzled-Scientists-Blindness/dp/1771004312
UFO researcher Erol Faruk is a scientist with absolutely credible credentials both in the chemical engineering industry and as an academic. His research into the Delphos Case is claimed to have produced solid, scientifically supported evidence of something genuinely anomalous, but no peer reviewed scientific journal will publish it.
Read in the above article the trouble Faruk went through trying to get his findings published by a mainstream journal, even when he jumped through all the right hoops.
Eventually Faruk self published with the alarmingly long but effective title posted here, The Indisputable Scientific Evidence for a UFO Landing and Deposition (aka The Delphos Case) that was denied Publication by Scientific Journals.
(That's an Amazon.com link, I have no idea if you can get it elsewhere. I get no remuneration for posting that link, btw :) )
There is extensive discussion of this "muzzling by stealth" in The War on Science, which covers this whole subject area in sometimes nauseating detail.
http://www.amazon.ca/The-War-Science-Scientists-Blindness/dp/1771004312
The author's thesis is that all of this is by design and all intended to eliminate dissent to the government's resource extraction priorities.
> I am not going to try and convince you to have children one way or the other. My only point is that some people must have children - if everyone were to stop having children starting today, we would face much harsher consequences as a species than if we were to continue on as we are now (which also isn't the optimal solution either). Ideally, we would start shrinking population gradually across the globe until we met something that is completely sustainable (which is a moving target as technology develops, but I digress).
Loads of people are having children already though. It's not like we're facing imminent population crash.
> we would face much harsher consequences as a species than if we were to continue on as we are now (which also isn't the optimal solution either)
That's just not true though. The present course is the one which is leading to far harsher conditions. Loads of places are already really overpopulated. There are major emerging issues to do with food security, water security, jobs, health, climate etc and most of them are a consequence of the size of the population. Have you read this?
The heat-trapping effect of greenhouse gases is basic physics, known for over a century. So to believe that the Earth is warming but it's not our fault, you have to believe that:
To dig into the case in more detail, the best source I've found is Hansen's Storms of My Grandchildren. He focuses on physics and geological history, rather than complicated computer models, and works through multiple lines of evidence.
On another tack, a book which is often recommended but I haven't read yet is Merchants of Doubt, which documents how the fossil fuel companies are using the same tactics the tobacco companies used, to get the public to doubt well-established science.
>Were these claims ever substantiated, and if so, did the Trudeau government reverse or change these policies?
Yes there is an entire book on it
https://www.amazon.ca/War-Science-Muzzled-Scientists-Blindness/dp/1771004312
>the problem is misinformation and lack of education to the extent where we can't even agree it's a thing.
That was by design.
They borrowed the same tactic as the tobacco industry used - create doubt and uncertainty. Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming
In 1977 Exxon concluded that its main product would 'heat the planet disastrously.' Exxon's response: set up fund for extreme climate-denial campaigns.
>as early as 1977, Exxon (now ExxonMobil, one of the world’s largest oil companies) knew that its main product would heat up the planet disastrously. This did not prevent the company from then spending decades helping to organize the campaigns of disinformation and denial that have slowed—perhaps fatally—the planet’s response to global warming.
Exxon is lobbying for a carbon tax. There is, obviously, a catch.
The oil giant wants immunity from lawsuits that would make it pay for the damages of climate change.
If you don't mind reading a textbook, I like Evolution by Futuyma. Don't let the price scare you, you can get the previous edition for super cheap. One thing that's nice about it is it has an entire chapter at the end of the book with concise scientific answers to many "criticisms" of evolution and offers criticisms of its own for alternative "theories." The same chapter also goes on to talk about why teaching evolution is important in a broad way.
The topic is too broad. Most books won't tackle the whole subject from science to policy.
I can recommend The Rightful Place of Science: Disasters and Climate Change as an "optimistic" rational presentation of the science of climate change and extreme weather for example.
This book describes exactly who these people are, down to their names, motives, and history with doing the exact same thing with tobacco/cancer years ago: Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming.
Yes, that's right. The same people who led a campaign to convince people that cigarettes didn't cause cancer are doing the same with climate change, because money talks.
Not a book, but this is the science, from the scientists themselves (sorta, the IPCC is a committee that reviews all of the literature, and provides a meta-level analysis of what everybody has to say). the IPCC provides some of the most current and collectively vetted climate science literature available. Of note is that each publication is free to the public, and provides a Summary for Policymakers at the start of every book. This 20-50 page synthesis is a "for the public" overview of the science, attached to a 1000+ page book of the actual science, and all of the citations and references you could ask for. The version linked above is from the 5th report, the 6th is not yet available.
They recently released another publication, which is a bit more poignant and directed, titled Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5 °C, which also comes with a great summary document.
The problem with a traditional "book" on climate change is they are outdated as soon as published. we are learning so fast, its hard to capture that outside of the peer-reviewed literature. A great book I suggest is Reason in a Dark time. It does a great job of tracking the policy and actions/inactions of how we got where we are, and the book is rife with citations for every fact/tidbit he uses to justify his point of view. It is not about science so much as the policy, which I think is very pertinent this day in age.
Somebody did...in Ottawa anyway. Chris Turner's book War on Science is a good read. he was part of the Death of Evidence march in 2012.
If you want to find such islands, take a look at this book., which is highly entertaining, though not always on purpose.
Most of the unclaimed islands out there are in completely horrendous locations, or are little more than arid rocks, and still, most have already had most of their guano deposits mined.
Or they have other horrible things wrong with them: McQuarie island, near antarctica, is home to a giant penguin-boiling vat built in the 1890s, designed to extract oil from up to 200 penguins at a time. Also: winds blow constantly and reach 100 mph and it's rainy or foggy 300 days a year.
You may watch this video too for more updated facts, it's quite biased but the recent lead exposure study, cited in the video, has definitely a big impact on the debate.
[Paper] (https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/36569/1/MPRA_paper_36569.pdf)
[Book] (https://www.amazon.com/Lucifer-Curves-Legacy-Lead-Poisoning-ebook/dp/B01I3LTR4W)
Article on the author
Michael Lewis has the fabulous skill of taking an important issue and arranging it as an amazing story. A portion of his book The Fifth Risk, was separated out by Audible as part of its "audible originals" series, and can be listened to separately as The Coming Storm.
It bugged me that so much of The Fifth Risk was this excerpt since I'd listened to The Coming Storm first, so there's a packaging problem there to be aware of, but that excerpt is solid and important. For people who have audible subscriptions, I definitely recommend The Coming Storm, even though it robs enough of The Fifth Risk that I don't then recommend the other book.
Ignoring that, though, it tells the story (better than I will summarize here) of how the national weather service is publicly funded, but commercial forces have fought to keep it from being made easily and freely available to the public so they can build private services that both compete with the public service and rely on it. I'm not doing the stunning and frankly scary nature of it justice here. The article here is consistent with what's in that story, but no one tells it like Michael Lewis. Even knowing what you're expecting to find in that story, I'm betting you'll still be shocked.
I've read some of the books listed in this thread. Here's one I like which doesn't appear to be mentioned yet: Global Warming: Alarmists, Skeptics & Deniers; A Geoscientist looks at the Science of Climate Change
http://www.amazon.com/Guide-Microlife-Science-Life-Environmental/dp/0531112667/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1453749068&sr=8-1&keywords=guide+to+microlife
I wasn't sure if linking this from Amazon is okay. I'm still fairly new to Reddit. This is actually a high school textbook, but seems like a good place to start as it covers a broad range. What magnification are you on in the picture. We generally scan on 10x and read slides on 40x. At 40x, it's about the size you show. The ocular micrometer is hugely helpful for this stuff. But I could be wrong. I live in an area where we hardly saw anything interesting, so it's hard to learn. We finally opted to send samples to our reference lab once our 'expert' retired.
you might enjoy this book: https://www.amazon.com/Guide-Microlife-Science-Life-Environmental/dp/0531112667/ref=sr_1_1 its very helpful in id'ing micro-organisms.
Just finishing Steve Milloy's book "Scare Pollution", about EPA and the PM 2.5 frauds. It is essential reading. https://www.amazon.com/Scare-Pollution-Why-How-Fix-ebook/dp/B01NALP1HX/
There's a whole industry dedicated to offering 'reasonable observations'.....
This makes me very suspicious of remarks similar to yours. Nothing personal.
Submission statement: Further corroborating the video posted by /u/DynamoJonesJr about the nonsense that is the Bell Curve.
>Lead pollution is consistently linked to cognitive and behavioral impairments, yet little is known about the benefits of public health interventions for children exposed to lead. This paper estimates the long-term impacts of early-life interventions (e.g. lead remediation, nutritional assessment, medical evaluation, developmental surveillance, and public assistance referrals) recommended for lead-poisoned children. Using linked administrative data from Charlotte, NC, we compare outcomes for children who are similar across observable characteristics but differ in eligibility for intervention due to blood lead test results. We find that the negative outcomes previously associated with early-life exposure can largely be reversed by intervention.
Further reading:
https://www.amazon.com/Lucifer-Curves-Legacy-Lead-Poisoning-ebook/dp/B01I3LTR4W
This book is a quick read on geoengineering the climate if you all are interested. I read it when it came out, thought it was a good starting point/ first briefing. https://www.amazon.com/Planet-Geoengineering-Audacious-Earths-Climate/dp/B003RL0GS0
There's a recent book about the scientists who are paid to argue against the agreed upon science.
​
" Merchants of Doubt tells the story of how a loose-knit group of high-level scientists and scientific advisers, with deep connections in politics and industry, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades. Remarkably, the same individuals surface repeatedly-some of the same figures who have claimed that the science of global warming is "not settled" denied the truth of studies linking smoking to lung cancer, coal smoke to acid rain, and CFCs to the ozone hole. "Doubt is our product," wrote one tobacco executive. These "experts" supplied it."
​
link: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003RRXXO8/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1
You asked about Harper, I gave you the answers and your reply only relates to 8 of the 23 things I mentioned, you have anything to say about the 15 other things?
> This is literally something I have only heard on reddit. I believed it back then, but now I am a lot smarter to just trust random redditors and get my opinions from them
There was a book about it as well
https://www.amazon.ca/War-Science-Muzzled-Scientists-Blindness/dp/1771004312
No, the tobacco lobby did.
Hi, I graduated with a degree in Natural Resources a few years ago. Your basic 100 level courses are most likely going to be general science courses like Chemistry, Biology, and some math. Here are some of the books I used and enjoyed in my upper level courses, though you might not get into these for a few years yet: A Sand County Almanac by Aldo Leopold, Evolution by Douglas Futuyma, The Economy of Nature by Robert Ricklefs, Introduction to Wildlife Management by Paul Krausman, The Origins of Modern Environmental Thought by J.E. de Steiguer.
I don't recommend you buy any of these textbooks, because your college probably will use different textbooks. Of course if you think they sound interesting or you find a cheap copy by all means go ahead, but many schools will use a slightly different version, or if your teacher is published, they may want to use their own books. I liked these ones and if you read it I'm sure you could learn a lot, but it might not all be relevant to what your current classes are.
Also I'm sure some of your books will depend on your part of the country, I went to school in the Southwest so many of my books are geared towards issues like water conservation and one of my favorite textbooks A Field Guide to the Plants of Arizona, we also used Mammals of California, you might buy Mammals of North America and another local guide depending on where you are, I had to buy two (California and North America) for my mammalogy class.
I took a lot of elective biology classes for my general biology credits towards my degree. Your school may not have the same classes, or use the same textbook, or you may not be interested, but here are some other books I'd recommend. Most are 'fun' books and read more like a narrative and are normal book length instead of chapter books. You can learn from reading them but they are set out more like a story than a textbook crammed full of data. The World Without Us by Alan Weisman, Alex & Me by Irene Pepperberg, The Devil's Teeth by Susan Casey, Never Cry Wolf by Farley Mowat, Survival of the Sickest by Sharon Moalem & Jonathan Prince, Evolutionary Medicine Edited by Trevathan, Smith, & McKenna, Endgame by Derrick Jensen, Why We Get Sick by Randolph Nesse & George Williams.
Anyway hope this was useful and you got some good ideas, feel free to ask me for further information about anything! I don't think you should worry about being the oldest kid in your class, there are plenty of older people there than you and I think having a bit of maturity will help in your studies. Good luck!
Read Stephon Emmott's 10 Billion, for similar figures with citations. It reads like a Network manifesto.
It seems to me like almost all of the dedicated Env. Sci. majors are newer programs, so there's probably not much specific dedicated text.
I'm taking an Env Sci. 101 course right now after switching my major over to it, [this is the text we're using, with all of the online integration bells and whistles] (https://www.amazon.com/Environment-Science-behind-Stories-Books/dp/0321927575)
It's, y'know, an Intro To textbook. Feel like they're all generally the same.
Canada survived similar
Introduction to Microwave Remote Sensing by Ian Woodhouse is a great textbook that's actually readable. It's $10 for the kindle edition (which you can read on your computer with the kindle app), or free if you have a kindle unlimited subscription.
Edit: Also definitely look at the Alaska Satellite Facility's Vertex data portal. Its much more user-friendly than ESA's data portal if you are looking at Sentinel-1 data and includes a lot of other radar satellite missions in its database. They also have really nice tutorials for working with SAR data.
I think you may just be overlooking the data. For example, how can you say that, "All I see there is talking about a species adapting. Not inter-species evolution." with clear examples such as cetacean evolution?
It is also important to note that even if we had no fossils evidence (which we have plenty of) genetic sequencing has more than confirmed common descent.
One thing I will say is the thread that started this is idiotic. The fact that Dinosaur bones exist is not a refutation of creationism. There are plenty of good reasons to believe that a creator is not necessary to explain anything and then without sufficient evidence should be rejected.
Finally, never forget that even if the theory evolution were refuted today that would not make intelligent design, young earth creationism or any other theory correct. It is not an either or situation. None of these theories have any credible evidence. On the other hand there are mountains of evidence for evolution.
Here are some options for further reading.
Why Evolution is True
This is a really good book for people new to the theory.
Evolution by Douglas J. Futuyma
This text book gets into the meat and potatoes of the issue. A very fun read.
3% of them disagree it's our fault, not that the climate is changing. That is simply what is being observed.
Conservative groups that represent carbon fuel industries probably prop up that 3% and give them more voice than they would otherwise have.
If someone could prove it wasn't carbon, they'd be a hero, because we'd all be saved. Everyone wants it to not be real cause it sucks so bad. So any evidence that denies it is more likely to be trumpeted.
Skepticism is fine, but rest assured people listen to deniers all the time, and then they look at the evidence and sigh.
This book Merchants of Doubt talks about how industries try to make good science seem unreliable:
https://www.amazon.com/Merchants-Doubt-Handful-Scientists-Obscured-ebook/dp/B003RRXXO8?ie=UTF8&ref_=dp_kinw_strp_1
That's the primary reason I bought it. I'm interested in evolution, but don't know enough details about why we know it. I have a copy of Futuyma (which seems very expensive from Amazon US compared to the UK), but it's hardly relaxing evening reading.
The seaweed figure (50 billion tons annually) is from Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_sequestration
The Wikipedia references this article:
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/nov/20/climate-crisis-future-brighter-tim-flannery
>The most exciting, if least well understood, of all the biological options involve the marine environment. Seaweed grows very fast, meaning that seaweed farms could be used to absorb CO2 very efficiently, and on a very large scale. The seaweed could be harvested and processed to generate methane for electricity production or to replace natural gas, and the remaining nutrients recycled. One analysis shows that if seaweed farms covered 9% of the ocean they could produce enough biomethane to replace all of today’s needs in fossil fuel energy, while removing 53 gigatonnes of CO2 (about the same as all current human emissions) per year from the atmosphere. It could also increase sustainable fish production to provide 200kg per year, per person, for 10 billion people. Additional benefits include reduction in ocean acidification and increased ocean primary productivity and biodiversity. Many of the technologies required to achieve this are already in widespread use, if at a comparatively minuscule scale.
The article referenced in the above quote is not identified. The article is presumably referencing the following book by the author Tim Flannery:
This one "Atmosphere of Hope" is out of stock:
https://www.guardianbookshop.com/catalog/product/view/id/344757/
Tim Flannery has a number of books on Amazon including this one specifically on seaweed:
https://www.amazon.com/Sunlight-Seaweed-Argument-Power-Clean-ebook/dp/B071LD3TVS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1503710029&sr=8-1&keywords=Tim+Flannery#customerReviews
Perhaps there is some information there.
I need to look into this more myself. Busy with work. Have done a little sporadic reading,
I note that much of the Pacific Coast can produce large amounts of kelp provided the seaweed has an attachment point and a population of sea otters that eat the animals that would consume the kelp. I think many of the plans for seaweed involve providing floating attachments in the open ocean. I read a little (can't remember where). Apparently the seaweed can be sunk in deep water and it will be preserved on the ocean floor without releasing the carbon incorporated in its cells.
There is also talk of using passive means to mix the oceans to fertilize sunny surface waters with nutrients from the deep oceans. Idea is to stimulate algae growth and accelerate the natural carbon cycle in the ocean.
http://www.academicmatters.ca/2013/05/harpers-attack-on-science-no-science-no-evidence-no-truth-no-democracy/
This is a great blog post chronicling virtually every cut, muzzling, cancellation etc from the Harper government: http://scienceblogs.com/confessions/2013/05/20/the-canadian-war-on-science-a-long-unexaggerated-devastating-chronological-indictment/
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/01/07/pellerin-robson-stephen-harper-vs-canadas-intellectuals/
"The War on Science: Muzzled Scientists and Wilful Blindness in Stephen Harper's Canada" by Chris Turner is also a great book on the subject: http://www.amazon.ca/The-War-Science-Scientists-Blindness/dp/1771004312
http://www.amazon.com/Evolution-Third-Douglas-J-Futuyma/dp/1605351156/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1421514838&sr=1-7&keywords=evolution
I'd guess Buzzfeed isn't a scientific source at all, but there's still no harm in calling it out. I just find the whole article's presentation of "shocking water use" is misleading, the facts are overly-distilled (sorry for pun) and set up for a misleading bias.
The article credits a book 10 Billion by Stephen Emmott for its data, and it seems that some reviewers have a similar opinion of the book.
Here's the Amazon link: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Ten-Billion-Stephen-Emmott/dp/0141976322/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1373018022&sr=8-1&keywords=ten+billion
and an extract from the book too: http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/jun/30/population-growth-wipe-out-life-earth?guni=Keyword:news-grid%20aux-1%20Pixies:Pixies:Position9:anchor%20image
https://www.amazon.com/Principles-Money-Banking-Financial-Markets/dp/0321339193https://www.amazon.com/Environment-Science-behind-Stories-Books/dp/0321927575https://www.amazon.com/Organizational-Behavior-13th-Mary-Uhl-Bien-ebook/dp/B00I8XF7Y0$5 each
A fantastic resource on the links between industry and the touting of doubt about well established scientific findings is Merchants of Doubt by the science historian Naomi
Oreskes. You may also want to check out her lecture on the subject: The American Denial of Global Warming
It is the last half of the lecture that you will be most interested in; where she talks about the how various other polluting industries took lessons from the tobacco industry on how to insert unwarranted uncertainty and doubt about solid environmental science.
Some of the same characters and think tanks who now engage in critiques of the climate science now where right there in the 80's and 90's denying links to human industry and the Ozone Hole, acid rain and chemical pollution such as DDT:
(Fred Singer)[http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer]
Fred Seitz (dead)
Here is what Oreskes has to say on the "Freds":
>From 1979 to 1985, Fred Seitz directed a program for R.J Reynolds Tobacco Company that distributed $45 million dollars to scientists around the country for biomedical research that could generate evidence and cultivate experts to be used in court to defend the "product". In the mid-1990s, Fred Singer coauthored a major report attacking the U.S Environmental Protection Agency over the health risks of secondhand smoke.
Merchants of Doubt page 11-12.
*"Him" being Ben Santer a climate scientist.
Uninhabited Ocean Islands are low rent
>Climate change has already killed millions of people
Thank you, this made me laugh. Pielke put this entire part of catastrophe grant shopping to bed in 2015. link
His blog used to round up all the quotes from the IPcC ar reports where they admit there is very low confidence in any link between AGW or forcing and any extreme weather events. link
> We are nowhere near being “outside” normal “climate” conditions uhhh
Lol, that’s a funny cartoon even npr debunks it though
You may not have seen the geological temperature scale: link
But it shows that declining free carbon and temperature have put us in the longest cool period in earths recent (600 million years) history.
In the last ice age(one sec, need to post this before reddit app crashes) ACO2 levels hit 180 ppm for the first time in 600 million years.
At 150...all plant life dies. awesome paper by the founder of green peace
> However there is significant evidence that a few degrees of warming will provide benefits to the poor
>Are you referencing a retracted paper without citing it?
No, I’m setting up the next line:
> Crop yields increase, deserts green, winter losses are reduced.
And you sed:
>...
But NASA agrees that in the short term warming and co2 make a greener planet.
nasa
Brb...
Crop yields have been on an exponential curve for a century. link
As yields increased, land use decreased link
Which led to more trees in places with high yields
The ipcc predicts(suggests really) that population growth and heat will cause food shortages in 2050. (Maybe)
In my opinion that’s myopic considering that by 2050 China and India will be adopting the same sort of agricorp farming as the western world uses and will see similar patterns of increased yield and diminished land use.
That will also put them in the group of nations converting former farmland to forest. More trees.
Other things you might find reassuring:
Richard Lindzen has been explaining climate change to people for thirty years and the only thing the politicians can do is insist the Emeritus chair of atmospheric physics at mit is some sort of quack.
However there is a growing body of scientists and economists calling for a practical response to climate challenges other than carbon taxes.
link
link
Crap, must go, I hope you at least peruse the links, climate change is real but the hype is selling you a solution to a problem that simply doesn’t exist. People will get incredibly wealthy from climate change....but only those who control or influence the carbon pricing and political processes around them.