Subscribe in a reader


Username
Password
Keep me logged in
New? Register here


It's the sun
Climate's changed before
There is no consensus
Surface temp is unreliable
Models are unreliable
It's cooling
Ice age predicted in the 70's
Al Gore got it wrong
We're heading into an ice age
CO2 lags temperature
View All Arguments...


Latest Posts

Positives and negatives of global warming

The skeptic argument...

"Two thousand years of published human histories say that warm periods were good for people. It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine and plagues of disease." (source: Sid Avery)

What the science says...

The best way to put this in perspective is to compare all the positives of global warming to the negatives (note - some of the positives are tongue in cheek):

Positives

Negatives

Agriculture

Agriculture

Health

Health

Arctic Melt

Arctic Melt

Environment

Environment

Glacier Melt

Glacier Melt

Economical

Economical

Miscellaneous weird stuff

Miscellaneous weird stuff

Further reading

National Geographic have an informative article listing the various positives and negatives of global warming for Greenland.

Comments

  1. This NY Times article apparently refers to the following document:
    “Estimating Future Costs for Alaska Public Infrastructure At Risk from Climate Change”
    [ Response: Many thanks, I've updated the link (under Economical) - always good to go direct to the source! ]
  2. Malaria spread? It already reaches the Arctic circle how much more could it spread?

    I know tongue in cheek but some of these things are mutually exclusive.
  3. Philippe Chantreau at 10:09 AM on 27 December, 2007
    Malaria is one among others. Italy recently had a brush with Chikungunya (more fun to pronounce, if not to experience).

    Dengue fever is also to be considered

    Furthermore, "skeptics" take as fact the idea of "CO2 fertilization" popularized heavily by the propaganda site called CO2Science. However, that fact may not be nearly as much good news as they imagine.
    http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/nov02/plant1102.htm
    http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/24/13430
    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/312/5782/1918

    Those positives and negatives are still pretty much open to speculation, I remain quite skeptical of the "CO2 fertilization" idea in light of the open air experiments conducted so far.
  4. This is totally wrong. Higher CO2 levels as a result of industrial-CO2-release will cause BUMPER CROPS EVERYWHERE.

    On top of that if there is industrial-CO2-warming, an idea for which there is no evidence, but if it transpires it will certainly be a less harsh phenomenon than warming as a result of a brighter sun. The dire predictions are totally baseless. If you dig you will never find any justification for them whatsoever.
  5. "Those positives and negatives are still pretty much open to speculation, I remain quite skeptical of the "CO2 fertilization" idea in light of the open air experiments conducted so far."

    1. Every last open air experiment so far has CONFIRMED the fertilization effect.

    2. Open air experiments may appear to be "streetwise" but they are very much likely to UNDERESTIMATE the CO2-fertilisation effect.

    Open air experiments sound to me like an appalling waste of money. You either control a factor in an experiment or you do not. Piping CO2 into the area isn't going to have the same effect as having the CO2 homogenised in the air. Since the plant is accessing the CO2 at the molecular level and not at the level of little eddies and wisps of unhomogenised CO2. What looks at first like the streetwise simulation on second thoughts appears to be hopelessly unrealistic. And it appears to underestimate the massive and universal benefit of extra CO2.

    But nonetheless these experiments CONFIRM this universal benefit. They underestimate the benefit but still they confirm the benefit.
  6. Philippe Chantreau at 16:09 PM on 29 December, 2007
    What makes you think that the limits on Rubisco Activase will not manifest themselves? How could it be good to shift the ratio of ATP/ADP toward ADP?

    Since CO2 level is already quite a bit higher, those bumper crops should already start to show up. Examples?

    Universal benefit? How is it universal?
  7. Philippe Chantreau at 16:23 PM on 29 December, 2007
    And if you dig, you find stuff about methane hydrates and the P/T extinction, so it is a stretch to say there is no justification whatsoever of dire predictions. I'd say that it would be as much of an exaggeration than to predict bumper crops on the basis of the existing CO2 fertilization alone.
  8. Wondering Aloud at 06:52 AM on 8 January, 2008
    In other words Malaria should be removed from the list. Maybe there are other diseases but Malaria which already exists in the Arctic is not one of the bugs that is likely to increase its range due to climate change so its inclusion here is simply wrong. Other diseases would also have to be evaluated case by case and there are many if not more illnesses associated with low temperatures.

    I haven't had time to research many of these claims but the few I have researched on the negative side are very doubtful, like polar bears being threatened, which is directly contradicted by the available data. This is an old salesman trick of inflating the number of arguments on your side and minimizing the number on your opponents side. It doesn't impress me and it does the AGW argument more harm than good.
  9. Wondering Aloud at 05:00 AM on 10 June, 2008
    http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=569586

Post a Comment

Foul language, trolling, personal attacks or non-relevant links will be deleted.

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.

Articles Using This Argument
© John Cook 2008