Entropy

Well stated opinion, but here is another well stated opinion:

#3 It's not bad

http://www.skeptical...s-negatives.htm

Look at this article that appeared in Der Spiegel in May 2007. It makes many of the same claims that I did. I was aware of this article back in 2007, but I dismissed it at the time. Granted, there are a few erroneous claims in the article; for instance, the claim that Antarctica is gaining mass is now known to be incorrect, but there were a couple of studies in 2006 that said the same. But looking back at the paleoclimatic reconstructions and computer model projections, it's spot on. Why are we always told that the Sahel is becoming drier and the poor Africans are dying when, in reality, it's America that will become hotter & drier due to climate change?

"There is no doubt that there will be droughts in other parts of the world, especially in subtropical regions. But the widespread assumption that it is developing countries -- that is, the world's poor -- who will, as always, be the ones to suffer is incorrect. According to current predictions, precipitation in large parts of Africa will hardly decrease at all, except in the southern part of the continent. In fact, these same forecasts show the Sahel, traditionally a region beset by drought and famine, actually becoming wetter.

By contrast, some wealthy industrialized nations -- in fact, those principally responsible for climate change -- will likely face growing problems related to drought. The world's new drought zones lie in the southern United States and Australia, but also in Mediterranean countries like Spain, Italy and Greece.

All of this will lead to a major shift within Europe, potentially leading to tough times for southern Spain's mega-resorts and boom times for hotels along the North Sea and Baltic Sea coasts. While the bulk of summer vacationers will eventually lose interest in roasting on Spain's Costa del Sol, Mediterranean conditions could prevail between the German North Sea island of Sylt and Bavaria's Lake Starnberg. The last few weeks of spring in Germany offered a taste of what's to come, as sun-loving crowds packed Berlin's urban beach bars and Munich's beer gardens.

The predicted temperature increase of 3 degrees Celsius would mean that summers in Hamburg, not far from the North Sea coast, would be as warm as they are today in the southwestern city of Freiburg, while conditions in Freiburg would be more like those in Marseille today. Germany will undoubtedly be one of the beneficiaries of climate change. Perhaps palm trees will be growing on the island of Helgoland in the North Sea soon, and German citizens will be saving billions in heating costs -- which in turn would lead to a reduction in CO2 emissions."

Source: Der Speigel

Well stated opinion, but here is another well stated opinion:

#3 It's not bad

http://www.skeptical...s-negatives.htm

While Skeptical Science is a good source for many of the silly denier arguments, I don't really put a lot of stock into its assessment here. First, it appears to be at odds with the geological record. Deserts expand when the global climate is cooler, not the other way around. Certainly, some areas would become drier, but global precipitation would increase significantly. Second, it's based largely on computer models which are unable to successfully reproduce past climate or successfully model current climate changes. For instance, if one were to believe model projections, the Arctic would retain ice year round through 2100. Observational evidence, on the other hand, suggests the arctic may become seasonally ice free as early as 2015 to 2020.

So what do you propose we do? Cut down CO2 emissions and throw the world's economy back to the stone age?

There are 7 billion of us on the planet and most are extremely poor and destitute. They need energy and many

third world countries have coal, natural gas and oil but are being forced to use clean energy alternatives that

are not efficient. Hundreds of millions or more are living shortened life spans because they use

charcoal for heating and cooking. They abuse their local environment by cutting down all their trees for

charcoal and their average life span because of the smoke in their homes is in the 40s!! We have got

to let these third world nations develop a power grids. "Green" energy just is not efficient enough at this

time. Pure and simple. So basically we should continue to emit to keep the world's economy from

imploding (God knows we are close to this anyway) and let science work on making more efficient

carbon neutral energy sources...solar panels....geothermal....waves...and maybe wind. I hate wind energy

because it destroys the beautiful mountain tops where I live and is a bird and bat shredder. I see wind

as a mean form of green. We will have to learn to adapt to the changes in climate...however severe.

But climate change seem to be slow right now...what? around .2C/decade. I think this is the lesser of

two evils. World anarchy or a warmer climate? Winners and losers, that is what it will be. If you look at

history...there are always winners and losers as centuries go by for whatever reason. So this climate

change issue will introduce another factor that mankind will somehow adapt to.

But please don't wipe out the world's economies!!!! It's bad enough already....

Good post. There is a lot of evidence in the paleoclimatic records to suggest that, contrary to popular belief, a warmer world would actually be beneficial on the whole to humanity. Of course, there would be winners and losers in a globally warmed world. By and large, however, the winners would outweigh the losers. The most obvious effect would be a sharp decline in injurious cold spells, and decreases in nuisance ice and snow events. The decline of arctic sea ice will open new shipping routes and allow for mineral and resource extraction from under the sea bed. According to the most reliable temperature reconstructions, the last time we've seen temperatures at present levels was about 5-8 kya, during the Holocene Thermal Maximum, also referred to as the Hypsithermal or Altithermal era. At that time, the Sahara was a much more hospitable place, far from the uninhabitable desert we've grown accustomed to. Likewise the Middle East and Southeast Asia is thought to have been much wetter. It was a different story in North America. Much of the western United States was desert, and semi-arid grassland expanded across the Plains and Midwest.

Climate models project a similar future, and we are already seeing evidence of these changes in real-time observations. Imagine how many bodies we could feed if the Sahara reverts to savannah and forested land, and we are able to cultivate that region for crops. Likewise, climate change will allow cultivation of vast expanses of previously inarable land in northern Canada, Siberian Russia, and north China. Siberia is larger in area than the entire United States! One would expect a warmer climate today to be even wetter than the climate of the Altithermal, since many glaciers, a relic of the last glacial maximum, were still in the process of melting at that time.

A warmer and wetter climate, coupled with enhanced atmospheric carbon, would also promote biodiversity. The increased plant life spawned by a future globally-warmed earth would increase global oxygen levels. We have millions of years of fossil records and climatic reconstructions that testify to this reality. During the early Eocene, 50-55 mya, tropical plants flourished in the Arctic and along the Antarctic coast! Far from being an uninhabitable hell on earth, the tropics were no more than a few degrees warmer than today.

It strikes me as more than a little self-serving when its the NATO countries and Australia that have expressed the most concern over climate change, even going so far as to promote geoengineering, when it just so happens that many of these countries are the ones that would lose the most in a globally warmed world! The United States, southern Europe, and Australia would all experience desertification. Meanwhile, southeast Asia, including parts of China and India, the Middle East, and northern Africa would become wetter and more hospitable! Russia would, likewise, be well positioned in a globally-warmed world. Of the NATO countries, only Canada and northern and eastern Europe would experience net benefits.