Yet another global warming skeptic sees the light and admits the earth is getting warmer. This time it made news since the skeptic is a physicist who conducted studies over three years to examine the arguments of, well, skeptics. He has concluded that, yes the earth is getting warmer, and yes, mankind contributes to this trend.
My but it takes some people quite a while to learn the basics. The earth has been growing warmer since the end of the last “Great Ice Age” about 10,000 years ago. And yes man has been influencing this trend ever since we discovered how to make fire.  But better late than never.
We should take this momentous moment to look at other basics about the earth and its climate. First, the natural habitat of man lies in a zone which extends about 10 degrees north and south of the Equator. Outside this zone man survives by virtue of man-made inventions including clothing, heating, and shelter. Obviously we have extended the zone of habitat for man to the very ends of the earth. However, the further we go the higher the cost.
Further, the average temperature of the earth is 60 degrees F or 15 degrees C. At temperatures under 72 degrees F or 22 degrees C the human corpus dies in a matter of hours if not protected by man-made inventions, i.e. clothing, heating,  and shelter. The import is that, for man to inhabit most of the earth, he needs to alter the climate or adapt to it.Â
This is important since the warmer the earth becomes the less costly it becomes to extend our zone of existence, i.e. less cost to make our homes warm. At the same time, we will reduce the need to spew noxious gases into the atmosphere by heating our homes. If one extrapolates the data one sees that global warming is essentially a self-correcting problem, i.e. as we reduce the need for heating, we reduce noxious gases in the atmosphere and thus reduce man-made global warming.
Of course the concern is not that the earth is getting warmer, but that it is doing so at an accelerated rate. Most agree that, if greenhouse gases are not checked, the average temperature of the earth will increase by 1-2 degrees C over the next 100 years. But wait, that average will have to grow by 7 degrees C to come up to the minimum temperature required for unassisted human existence.  And that is the minimum, most studies show that man can live at much higher average temperatures.  So we have several centuries of “global warming” at current “breakneck” speeds before the human race is actually threatened. Â
Ah yes, it is not global warming that is the problem, it is “climate change.” In other words it is not the heat itself that is the problem but the changes in our weather patterns caused by that heat.Â
By consensus one change is that,as the average temperature rises, the earth will have more rainfall. Great news this since the whole world is concerned about dwindling sources of fresh water.Â
Oh, the climate changes may take current intensely farmed land out of production while opening up new lands not presently farmed. Not a bad idea this, trade in land with spent mineral resources for lands laden with minerals.  Of course this will mean widespread movement of farmers but tell me the news about massive movement of farm workers, e.g. Mexican field hands in the USA.
No, I do not dispute global warming or climate change. Indeed I welcome it, since I see the good it will produce.  I get the idea that most who are concerned about this trend simply don’t like change, rather than have specific fears.  Let us look at the ways we can use this change, rather than spend our time and money in what promises to be at best, simply ways to slow down the trend.Â
Oh, about the polar ice caps melting and flooding the world, you may be interested in knowing that throughout its geological history the earth has at times had no ice caps, yet the earth has never been totally covered by the seas.
Comments are closed or deactivated
Not just an economist, but an anthropologist and an agriculturalist! Two assumptions I question:
1) That fuel to produce heating is the primary cause of carbon dioxide emissions: Fuel is used for transportation and to provide electricity, neither demand primarily a function of temperature. So why assume that a reduced need for heat will result in a reduced need for fuel?
2) That change can be predicted in time to compensate for it: We can not currently predict where and how global change will impact climate in specific areas. The current cost of drought and fires in the Southwest is destroying the economy of that area. So rain falling on overloaded flood plains in SE Asia and North Dakota does not help Texas. You also assume that plants that flourish in one zone will also flourish as temperate zones move further north and south.
Joey. The great contradiction of life is that the only constant is change. We have an amazing record of adapting to change. I am sure we will be able to continue to do so.
I worked my way through college in the economic research service of the US Dept of Agriculture.
You don’t take into account the affect rising sea levels are having on some areas, particularly low-lying atoll islands in the Caribbean, Indian Ocean, and Pacific Ocean. These effects are being felt now as salt water rises higher in the limestone atolls’ water lenses. Once it hits the level of the roots of the taro a major food source for the people living there is essentially gone. If it reaches the roots of the breadfruit trees, the island will become uninhabitable. These are islands that in many places have been inhabited for thousands of years. What are their populations supposed to do? Move to high islands? But other people are already living there. What happens to their culture, especially their navigation and seafaring? The thing is, this is happening right now, not 20 years from now.
Leo,
See, a lucky guess on my part! Have you read the great book, “1493″? It describes the ecological impact on both Old and the New World directly after the voyages of Columbus. Homo sapiens as a species has been very adaptable; but, individuals and specific cultures have not. Absent intelligent intervention, we are all in for a very brutal “survival of the fittest.” I think there must be a better way.
Reilly,
Thank you for the information about the impact of rising sea waters on island agriculture and the people and cultures of these regions. I think that the populations living closest to the sea and most dependent on it are our canaries. There has been publicity about Indian and Eskimo people living on the North Atlantic coast who are seeing drastic changes in their environment that also threatens their way of life. It is harder to know if the economic collapse in the American South West due to lack of rain is also caused by global warming.
The most important thing I learned from my Peace Corps service in Colombia is that my own culture did NOT have generational knowledge of the impact of our technology and did not KNOW that we did NOT know. It is like driving down a strange highway on a moonless night at 100 miles an hour without headlights. The Industrial Revolution made technological change so rapid that it has not been possible to know let alone prepare for unintended consequences. It is a “leap of faith” that humans will survive.
During my Peace Corps years and beyond, I got caught by the clash of cultural values. On the one hand, my culture circa 1963 had a blind faith in science and believed that everything new and modern was better, by definition, than anything old, even if “old” merely meant last year’s model. On the other hand, I lived in Colombia with people who were suspicious of anything new and were very resistant to change. Midwives always wanted to know how the introduction of something new would impact what was already known. Peace Corps Volunteers, today, are still described as “agents of change.” But the absence of thoughtful monitoring of the changes that Volunteers may have precipitated over the last fifty years, reflects a value that says “anything new is best.” No need to follow-up.
Reilly. In Florida I live on an island at 18 inches above sea level. The island was formed by a hurricaine in 1926. Man has turned it into a major shrimp boat port, a home for “well seasoned” people (the new term for seniors), and a location for warehouses. I am sure Mother Nature will alter the course of events long before the sea reaches my front door due to global warming, in about 10 centuries at today’s “breakneck” speed of rising oceans.
My home in Mallorca is on an island that 60 years ago produced most food consumed there. Today about 90% of all food stuffs are imported due to:
1. The population has doubled in 40 years
2. Tourism has become the life blood of the island
3. Farm workers have moved to higher wage jobs
4. Changing tastes in diet, e.g. rabbit is no longer the prized dish
Joey
“Tradition,” the essence of the musical “Fiddler on the Roof” in which I once sang. The show deals with how change upsets a family and a whole community. I always smile at how those who are “progressive” in their politics are usually “conservative” in their values. I embrace technology and have no fear of it. We create it, we can control it and use it for our own benefit.
Once more, the great contradiction of life, the only constant is change.
Leo,
Thank you for this comment:
“I embrace technology and have no fear of it. We create it, we can control it and use it for our own benefit.”
To me, it absolutely crystalizes the dangerous values of the sixties.
It is not “either or.” I remember coming home and thinking that American technology was a cornucopia that spilled forth all kinds of things - some good, some awful and some ridiculous. The polio vaccine was a gift to the world. DDT, DES, hexachlorophene,infant formula, were all products that had deadly unforeseen consequences to some vulnerable populations. Do you remember pastel colored, scented toilet paper? I thought it was a joke. It wasn’t.
The world is not black and white. We need to be cautious about our technology.
Joey.
The 1960s was the most prosperous period in America’s history.
Leo,
And your point is?