Could Global Warming Make Life on Earth Better?

mikee805 writes "A lengthy article in Spiegel explores the possibility that global warming might make life on Earth better, not just for humans, but all species. The article argues that 'worst-case scenarios' are often the result of inaccurate simulations made in the 1980s. While climate change is a reality, as far as the article is concerned, some planning and forethought may mean that more benefits than drawbacks will result from higher temperatures. From the article:'The medical benefits of higher average temperatures have also been ignored. According to Richard Tol, an environmental economist, "warming temperatures will mean that in 2050 there will be about 40,000 fewer deaths in Germany attributable to cold-related illnesses like the flu." Another widespread fear about global warming -- that it will cause super-storms that could devastate towns and villages with unprecedented fury -- also appears to be unfounded. Current long-term simulations, at any rate, do not suggest that such a trend will in fact materialize.'"

Comments

Head in the sand

[whisper_jeff]

Is it just me or does this strike others as "lalalalalalalalalalalaI'mnotlisteninglalalalalala la!" Way to ignore the vast majority of solid information out there and try to put a rose on a pile of shit.

Re:Head in the sand

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just you.

Re:Head in the sand

[Undertaker43017]

"But then what will the rest of the US do when they can no longer mooch off the cash that California and the east coast provide?"

Be better off, because we can finally get rid of all the social bloat crap that those "blue" states ram down our throats!

Oy vey gevault.

[stonecypher]

Aren't we all sick of the global warming hoax yet?

You heard me, I called it a hoax. Not only has our planet seen amounts of CO2 that make the current amount look silly, but we're coming out of a geological cold phase. CO2 lags heat, not the other way around. It's all about the sun. We've got nothing to do with it.

Surprisingly convincing BBC documentary.

Re:Oy vey gevault.

[goldspider]

Scientists and scholars were once absolutely positive that the earth was the center of the universe too.

And just like back then, anyone who questions the prevailing groupthink is branded a heretic or worse.

Re:Oy vey gevault.

[stonecypher]

Ok, historically CO2 has been part of the feedback to solar forcing of climate change.

I realize it's traditional for people defending global warming to do so without actual data, but let me be clear with you: if you don't have data, I'm not going to listen to a word you say. I'm looking at a climatological record right now, and I see not one bit of evidence that the CO2 level has ever reinforced temperature in any way. STOP MAKING UNDEFENDED CLAIMS. THEY HAVE NO VALUE.

But the increased CO2 has been a positive feedback, sustaining the climate change well past the solar forcing.

No experimental evidence has ever shown this. What you are reciting is the speculation of a Swedish pseudoscientist from the 1960s. There is no evidence to support this whatsoever. You might as well be telling me about how oxygen transfers into and out of the phlogiston. (If you don't know what the phlogiston is, you probably don't understand my violent reaction to the droning repetition of bad science. I'll be simple and say "global warming isn't the first time science has done this.")

What's different this time is that due to human activity we are pushing CO2 directly

You do realize that by ratio, if you dump a single bucket of water into Lake Erie, you've put a hell of a lot more change in parts per million into Lake Erie than mankind has put into atmospheric CO2 throughout all time, right? Yes, we're pushing CO2 directly. And we're doing it at a rate that makes me question whether you've ever actually looked at the math, once you say that. There are other greenhouse gasses we've pushed more of into the atmosphere, for fuck's sake. Why are you so fixated on CO2? Our impact through water vapor, for example, should be several orders of magnitude greater than that through CO2, but I don't see any international movements to cover our pools, or put saran wrap over our bathtubs.

Do you see the spike? My eyeballs tell me the slope is roughly 100ppm/century.

Yes, that number is about right. Amusingly, it's parts per million against emitted gasses, not against the atmosphere, which is why any intro to statistics class will tell you to never, ever rely on charts that don't explain units of measurement, since you actually have no idea whatsoever what they're saying. This is a common sense issue, something you might try out. If it was 100 parts per million per century, then in the last 250 years, as shown by that chart, 2.5% of our atmosphere would have been replaced by carbon dioxide.

Do you really believe we've replaced 1/40 of our atmosphere with carbon dioxide? Really ?

But, more specifically:

Do you see the spike?

Yes, in the same way that one might say there's a mountain in front of me, then point out an anthill. Wow, you found a slight shift in the ratio of constituent gasses released by humanity.

Now find the spike in a graph of those actual gasses. When you realize that our CO2 change is so minor that you can't even see the point on the graph just in the gasses we release, let alone in gas presence, maybe you'll start understanding the scorn.

HOLY CRAP, THERE'S A CAR RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOU, GET OUT OF THE WAY, YOU'RE GOING TO HIT IT! Here, use this telescope. Can't you see it?

Yes, the ratio of CO2 to other gasses we're emitting is going up. THAT IS A GOOD THING. The other things we emit are much, much worse. I'm going to say it again, and maybe this time you'll listen.

Mount Saint Helens released more CO2 than humanity has in its entire existence. The ash from Mount Saint Helens had settled within a month. Why is it that Mount Saint Helens is in the downslope of temperature, if it happened to release double of mankind's total global warming mechanism all over the matter of a few hours? Why point at data which is better explained by other thing

More paid-for "research" from special interests

[stevedcc]

I never ceased to be amazed at the sheer number of "Global Warming's a Myth / Good for Us" stories in American Newspapers and on American websites.

A few thoughts:

How many times have you heard of scientists complaining because an government won't let them spread bullshit?

How many companies have a vested interest in ignoring/delaying/otherwise interfering in the result of genuine science when it doesn't suit their policies?

There will always be "scientists" who are willing to say what someone pays them to say. But when you get significant numbers of experts complaining about science being repressed, large scale international focus on the issue and dissenting countries with an administrations that have long standing and close connections to the oil industry, shouldn't anyone in their right minds be suspicious of such stories?

Re:More paid-for "research" from special interests

[DigiShaman]

Galileo was considered a heretic (in a literal sense!) by the Church rather than his fellow scientists.

Ahh, history repeats itself! Global Warming is the new "religion" and Al Gore is its prophet among the followers. Let's just hope we don't get submitted to another Inquisition in the future.

um.. say what?

[dangermen]

when the temperatures rise, areas that are good for farming will be too hot for crop farming. Areas that have ideal temperatures for growing crops will shift north towards Canada. Canada has crap soil, the glaciers and winds moved good soil to the US. Crops don't grow in crap soil. Less crops means less food which will equal bad no matter how your fricken spin it. BTW, the world stays on average about 4 months ahead in general food supply.