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

Re:Give me a break...

[An Onerous Coward]

I've discussed the data and the theories with a number of people. It's useful to remember that global warming caused by CO2 is just a theory, based on two observations: First, the world is warming up. Second: observations of prior world temperature changes commensurate with observations of CO2 levels, and notably higher CO2 with higher temperatures. There is some evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, however there are much stronger greenhouse gases (i.e. methane) which we now produce at industrial levels.

Let's add a couple of observations to your "Big Two":

3) We know that humans are responsible for the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. stonecypher has been drastically misinforming you about the entire volcano non-issue.

4) It is indisputable that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. We've known at least that much for 150 years. It's disingenuous to portray this as a mere correlation, since the mechanism driving the correlation is well understood.

5) We know that solar flux has been basically steady since we started getting satellite data, so the most obvious alternative ("The sun is just warmer") is untenable.

6) We know that objections to the "consensus position" are surprisingly rare within the scientific community. A bit argument ad populum, but at least the populum in question knows what it's talking about. That's the sort of evidence that laypersons (who are notoriously bad at complex scientific issues) should be able to appreciate.

Regarding methane: First, we produce a helluva lot more CO2, which hurts the "maybe it's methane" picture you're trying to paint. Second, anthropogenic methane gets broken down relatively quickly, certainly when compared to CO2 levels. Methane concentrations have arguably stopped rising, so controls on methane are probably not our highest priority. More here.

The consequences are numerous. First, we may not address the actual problem that is causing global warming. Second, we may cause huge social and economic consequences for no benefit. Third, if there is no benefit, any future notion of relying upon "scientific evidence" may be viewed skeptically by the masses.

What, exactly, are these "huge social and economic consequences?" If the recently released IPCC report is to be believed, an aggressive anti-CO2 campaign would "cost" about 3% of the expected economic growth between now and 2030 (I put the term "cost" in quotes, because this statistic ignores the cost of doing nothing). So, when we get to 2030, an aggressive climate change action plan will relegate us to the brutish, barbaric lifestyle of... 2028.

Also, you have to recognize that many of the proposed solutions have all manner of environmental and economic benefits that have absolutely nothing to do with global warming. CFLs, solar power, electric cars, reduced reliance on oil imports, smarter electric grids, kickass mass transit systems, localized food production... every one of them delivers benefits above and beyond reduced CO2 emissions. I believe that the economic "doomsday scenarios" of the climate skeptics are pure bunk.