"Real science would be compiling both the negative and positive effects of coming back to average. Where can I find the positives in IPCC materials?
Here's the problem.....there isn't much. Farmer to farmer here is a great example.
It was originally thought and touted that increased CO2 would be beneficial to plants. After all it is a reasonable assumption given that it is essential for plant growth and evidence in greenhouses shows that introducing CO2 helps the plant grow like gangbusters. Then researcher tried it and here is what they found when they tried it in labs and a small forest:
Increased CO2 saw a small growth spike then the opposite started happening. The plants started getting sick and in the experimental forests and the labs they became more diseased and sickly. It was concluded that the phosphorus and nitrogen levels became unbalanced as to the CO2 levels and the short term spike was quickly mitigated by long term decline. I am confident you understand this and given your associations should be able to get the same data
Part of this research is now being applied to help explain why the pine beatle is ravaging our forests.
Population booms don't happen without food. The food supply has been leading the boom.
We eat petroleum. Currently for every calorie consumed it is estimated we eat the equivalent of 10000 petro calories to farm, process, transport and package the food. Even the fertilizer is generally petroleum. Cheap and easy and plentiful food has helped to contribute to a global population boom but it is a false economy as we are converting oil to food essentially.
Think about it.....you're a farmer.....how much food could you produce without fossil fuels? How many people could the world feed without petroleum? A billion? recently anthropologists stated that agriculture 10000 years ago may not have been invented to support religion as previously thought but rather as a response to hitting a wall for hunter gather societies who were starving.
