We’d expect most changes to the Earth’s climate to be bad (on net) for its current inhabitants because the Earth has been settled in ways that are appropriate to its current climate. Species are adapted to their current environment, so if weather patterns change and the temperature goes up or down, or precipitation increases or decreases, or whatever else, that’s more likely to be bad for them than good.
Similarly, humans grow crops in places where those crops grow well, live where they have access to water but not too many floods (and where they are on land rather than underwater), and so on. If the climate changes, then the number of places on Earth that would be a good place for a city might not change, but fewer of our existing cities will be in one of those places.
There are some expected benefits of global warming (e.g., “Crop productivity is projected to increase slightly at mid- to high latitudes for local mean temperature increases of up to 1-3°C depending on the crop, and then decrease beyond that in some regions”). But, unsurprisingly, climate scientists are projecting more costs than benefits, and a net cost. News articles are likely to have a further bias towards explaining negative events rather than positive ones, and may be of uneven quality (as waveman pointed out), so if you want a thorough account of the costs and benefits you should look at something like the IPCC report, which was the source of my quote about increased crop productivity.
I think it’s mostly an availability bias, since most of the non-climate scientists who have anything to say about global warming are heavily involved in either conservation or economic issues relating to the Global South, both areas likely to suffer under climate change. Do any Canadian/Russian/Northern European posters have any stories about people talking positively of climate change, I’ve heard a few comments about peach trees and wine in the UK, though it’s kinda muted because of the possibility of Gulf stream interactions making us colder. But certainly you hear plenty of arguments along the lines of “why should we care, we’ll be well out of it”.
EDIT: Come to think of it, given the wealth differentials involved, people probably avoid saying this because it would come across as callous, though with appropriate changes to international trade and development it needn’t be.
It’s a common joke in Alaska that Global Warming can’t come soon enough.
It’s tongue in cheek, generally related to some weather story which has been conflated to involve Accelerated Global Warming (even though the likelihood that the specific event has anything to do with the changing climate is extremely small).
It’s also worth noting that Climate Science as a discipline is extremely young. As far as I know you can’t even get a specific degree for it anywhere yet. It seems right now the best you can do is a meteorology or atmospheric science degree, or some sort of combined meteorology/climatology degree. That will probably change soon (and there may already be programs I am not aware of), but the study of the climate itself is only a few decades old, so expect a lot of poor theories to give way to more solid theories in the coming years.
The most unfortunate thing about climatology is just how politically charged it is while it is so new. I suppose this happens a lot in science, but it is still unfortunate. It is simply begging researchers to fail the second heuristic, and the usual safe haven of public funding is possibly the biggest source of the problem!
Good points. Also the official reports discuss the impact on cold countries and the water-conserving and growth enhancing effects of higher CO2 levels. So they are not blind to positive impacts of CO2/AGW.
I notice also that Canada, as a superficial beneficiary from AGW has dropped out of the Kyoto treaty. Apart from really cold countries there seem to be few winners.
We’d expect most changes to the Earth’s climate to be bad (on net) for its current inhabitants because the Earth has been settled in ways that are appropriate to its current climate. Species are adapted to their current environment, so if weather patterns change and the temperature goes up or down, or precipitation increases or decreases, or whatever else, that’s more likely to be bad for them than good.
Similarly, humans grow crops in places where those crops grow well, live where they have access to water but not too many floods (and where they are on land rather than underwater), and so on. If the climate changes, then the number of places on Earth that would be a good place for a city might not change, but fewer of our existing cities will be in one of those places.
There are some expected benefits of global warming (e.g., “Crop productivity is projected to increase slightly at mid- to high latitudes for local mean temperature increases of up to 1-3°C depending on the crop, and then decrease beyond that in some regions”). But, unsurprisingly, climate scientists are projecting more costs than benefits, and a net cost. News articles are likely to have a further bias towards explaining negative events rather than positive ones, and may be of uneven quality (as waveman pointed out), so if you want a thorough account of the costs and benefits you should look at something like the IPCC report, which was the source of my quote about increased crop productivity.
I think it’s mostly an availability bias, since most of the non-climate scientists who have anything to say about global warming are heavily involved in either conservation or economic issues relating to the Global South, both areas likely to suffer under climate change. Do any Canadian/Russian/Northern European posters have any stories about people talking positively of climate change, I’ve heard a few comments about peach trees and wine in the UK, though it’s kinda muted because of the possibility of Gulf stream interactions making us colder. But certainly you hear plenty of arguments along the lines of “why should we care, we’ll be well out of it”.
EDIT: Come to think of it, given the wealth differentials involved, people probably avoid saying this because it would come across as callous, though with appropriate changes to international trade and development it needn’t be.
It’s a common joke in Alaska that Global Warming can’t come soon enough.
It’s tongue in cheek, generally related to some weather story which has been conflated to involve Accelerated Global Warming (even though the likelihood that the specific event has anything to do with the changing climate is extremely small).
It’s also worth noting that Climate Science as a discipline is extremely young. As far as I know you can’t even get a specific degree for it anywhere yet. It seems right now the best you can do is a meteorology or atmospheric science degree, or some sort of combined meteorology/climatology degree. That will probably change soon (and there may already be programs I am not aware of), but the study of the climate itself is only a few decades old, so expect a lot of poor theories to give way to more solid theories in the coming years.
The most unfortunate thing about climatology is just how politically charged it is while it is so new. I suppose this happens a lot in science, but it is still unfortunate. It is simply begging researchers to fail the second heuristic, and the usual safe haven of public funding is possibly the biggest source of the problem!
Good points. Also the official reports discuss the impact on cold countries and the water-conserving and growth enhancing effects of higher CO2 levels. So they are not blind to positive impacts of CO2/AGW.
I notice also that Canada, as a superficial beneficiary from AGW has dropped out of the Kyoto treaty. Apart from really cold countries there seem to be few winners.