Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
GEOL 381
Dr. Clark
March 3, 2016
Empirical evidence and climate models make it very difficult for global warming
skeptics to question whether the earths climate is changing. There is general consensus
that the global average temperature is increasing rapidly, and will likely continue to warm
at a similar rate if left uninterrupted. However, there is substantial disagreement over the
causes for this change and the kinds of impacts that climate change will have. This paper
will focus on the latter debate: whether warming temperatures will be generally beneficial
or harmful. I will discuss both sides of the controversy, beginning with the voices that
claim global warming will be beneficial, following with evidence that argues for the
negative effects of warming, and finally concluding with my personal analysis of the
issue.
Those who think global warming will be positively impactful have a variety of
arguments, but many of them fall under an umbrella claim, one that says rising global
temperatures will actually make the earth more inhabitable, not less. Steve Goreham, a
leading climatism skeptic, says that the earths climate has changed in similar ways
before, citing the Medieval Warm Period and Roman Climate Optimum as examples
(Goreham, 2016). Figure 1 (next page) is a graph used by Goreham to demonstrate the
According to Goreham, there is strong evidence to suggest that living things have
always adapted to these climate changes, and that life and vegetation actually flourishes
1
under increased temperatures. One example he provides is the discovery of a white
spruce stump that could be dated to 5000-6000 years ago, a period with a similarly
warming climate.
Other scientists and scholars, such as Thomas Gale Moore (2008), agree that a
warming earth would be made more inhabitable: there would be longer growing seasons
in places that typically experience snow and frost in the late fall, winter, and early spring
months, and an increase in temperate weather combined with increased carbon dioxide
levels would nurture plant growth. Goreham affirms the latter point (a concept referred to
as carbon fertilization), noting that carbon dioxide is green, and necessary for the
The apparent benefits for northern countries would be especially great. Moore
cites studies done in Europe and the United States that show a higher correlation between
cold temperatures and death rates than the relation between high temperatures and death
rates. He concludes that higher global temperatures would decrease the likelihood of
2
season-related deaths in countries that would regularly experience extremely cold
temperatures.
benefits. Greenlands current climate is similar to the Medieval Warm Period (Moore,
2008), and a National Geographic report discusses the positive impacts global warming
has had on the country. These include increased and diversified crop harvests, increased
livestock growth, and warmer coastal waters resulting in increased availability of cod
Another argument for the earths increased inhabitability with global warming is
related to changes in extreme weather events. Moore (2008) claims that the frequency of
storms is not a significantly increased risk, and that the frequency of higher-intensity
scientific reasoning Moore gives has to do with the correlation between temperature and
air pressure. He says that the extreme contrast in temperature between Arctic and
3
equatorial regions propels global airflow, and that in reducing the temperature disparity,
Its important to note that Moore (1988) also recognizes the potential for some
these areas. He also references the possibility of drier conditions in some areas (but
wetter conditions in others) and increased water salinity due to rising evaporation rates.
In any case, Moore justifies these impacts, saying that, People living in the temperate or
colder regions of the world will experience positive effects that outweigh the costs.
Figure
3:
NOAA
As a transition point for moving into the other side of the debate, I think it is
helpful to analyze some model-projected data. Figure 3 shows NOAAs prediction for
precipitation changes by the end of the 21st century if global warming continues at its
current rate. Proponents of the first side would point out that there is significantly
4
increased annual precipitation in several key areas, namely, northwestern South America,
mid-eastern Africa, Saharan Africa, southeast Asia, and large regions across the northern
hemisphere. While these instances are notable and would have some true benefits, they
do not obscure the loss of precipitation that would set in motion a series of positive
feedback effects.
For example, when temperatures rise, soil evaporation accelerates and plants
accelerate transpiration (i.e. they are losing moisture). This effect, evapotranspiration,
declining vegetation and crop yields (Cline, 2008). This in turn takes away from the
hastening the effects of carbon emissions on global warming. In places with decreased
precipitation, the feedback effect is similar. Vegetation struggles without sufficient water
supply, giving way to arid or deforested regions. In regions of high biodiversity such as
5
Another issue is the science behind Goreham and Moores carbon fertilization
claim. While its true that plants use carbon dioxide in photosynthesis, the actual benefits
of continued increase coupled with global warming are questionable at best. Figure 4
(previous page) shows projected global agricultural yieldstaking into account warming
levels.
Figure 5 accounts for the same factors, but assumes carbon dioxide is indeed a
fertilizer for certain crop types such as wheat, rice, and soybeans. Figure 5 is somewhat
consistent with Moore and Gorehams theories, in that northern regions could benefit
countrieswould still suffer dramatically. A final look at a graph (Figure 6 on next page)
projecting crop yields until 2100 serves as further confirmation that long-term effects will
be negative.
6
Figure 6: Crop Yield Effects
Another central issue of global warming is sea level change. Sea levels may rise
for a number of reasons, including glacial melting and an increase in ocean volume.
Ocean thermal expansion models predict that a uniform ocean warming of 3C would
raise sea level by 2.4 m. However, even just half a meter would displace millions of
people living in coastal and delta regions (Clark, 2016). Changes in sea level would
flow and volume (increasing flood risk), as well as water nutrient levels (affecting
surrounding plant and animal life). Increased water salinity due to disturbed water supply
would also be devastating for countries lacking the resources and technology to
global warming. The National Resources Defense Council claims that higher evaporation
rates in summer and fall months (and the resulting loss in soil moisture) will increase
risks of drought and wildfire. The Council also cites evidence of more Category 4 and 5
7
consensus states that more intense precipitation over most areas is very likely, more
extreme high temperatures are very likely, and increased risk of drought over mid-
Extreme events are certainly devastating to terrestrial regions, but they also have
substantial impacts on human health. Contaminated water can cause outbreaks in disease
and infection. Droughts can result in malnutrition, mass starvation, and weakened
immunity. Wildfires put people at risk for prolonged smoke inhalation. Hurricanes and
other extreme storms most obviously put lives at risk, but also leave communities
Other human health issues that arise from global warming include heat stress,
allergy and respiratory problems, and the spread of disease. While relationship between
heat and death is somewhat uncertain, there is evidence that more frequent and extreme
heat waves will result in higher numbers of heat-related deaths. The National Resources
Defense Council cites the 2003 European heat wave (70,000 deaths) and the 1995
Chicago heat wave (739 deaths in one week) as examples. In relation to respiratory
Coupled with high temperatures, this increase in pollution has been shown to correlate
with increased death rates (Clark, 2016). Finally, there is the spread of disease.
Developing and under-resourced areas will be affected the most. Figure 7 (next page)
details vector-borne diseases expected to spread, the populations affected, and the
likelihood of effect.
8
Figure 7: Clark (2016)
survive. A small increase in global temperatures would allow the mosquito to spread into
regions it wouldnt otherwise be able to inhabit (i.e. typically cooler, drier, or higher
elevation regions). While many northern, developed nations would have the tools to
In summary, I have discussed two sides of the global warming debate: those who
believe warming will have positive net impacts, and those who think the effects of
warming will be slightly varied, but, overall, strongly negative. I must agree with the
latter group. While there does seem to be some merit to a few of the first groups claims
of benefits, I find it problematic and unhelpful that much of the data seems concentrated
in northern, highly developed regions. The science backing several claims (i.e. carbon
9
fertilization, effect of precipitation changes, crop yields) seems somewhat inconsistent,
decontextualized, and lacking global applicability. In contrast, the evidence and scientific
backing for claims of negative impact is much more comprehensive and globally
relevant. From a common sense perspective, the potential for devastating global damage
simply seems unequivocally greater than any small potential for good.
10
Sources
Goreham, S. (2013). Hot weather and climate changea mountain from a molehill?.
http://news.heartland.org/editorial/2013/07/04/hot-weather-and-climate-change-
mountain-molehill
Owen, J. (2007). Global warming good for Greenland?. National Geographic News.
greenland-warming.html
Moore, T.G. (2008). Global warming: the good, the bad, the ugly and the efficient.
http://embor.embopress.org/content/9/1S/S41
Moore, T.G. (1988). Climate of fear: why we shouldnt worry about global warming.
Cato Institute.
The Natural Resources Defense Council. (n.d.). The consequences of global warming.
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/fcons.asp
11