A few years back, when I read the article on global warming, it had predicted winners and losers in global warming. Positive effects were like deserts turning green, some places getting a more temperate climate, etc. etc. So far I only see losers - California drought, Arctic Ice receding, etc. etc.
So where are the winners ? Are there any observed positive effects of global warming so far ? and where on the globe are these places ?
How do you define good and bad? In human terms only, or for other organisms as well?
What’s good for one species may be bad for others. Deserts greening up are good for some species, but may be bad for the species that are adapted to desert conditions. Global warming may open up the Northwest Passage to shipping, but at the cost of losing polar bears and other arctic species. Migratory birds are arriving earlier and earlier in the spring, but there is concern that they may get out of sync with the food species they depend upon to feed their nestlings.
Central Texas seems to have had a big change…
I do not define good or bad. The papers /publications did :
Here are some examples :
1> Global Warming: Who Loses—and Who Wins? - Published in 2007
2> Climate Change’s Winners and Loserson NPR published in 2007
3> The winners and losers of climate change
My simple question is - have those predicted “winning” effects been observed ?
AFAIK there is not going to be a clear winner until the climate reaches a new stable situation.
Think of the current situation as us approaching a bottle neck. Easterbrook talked about Russia benefiting, but before that winning condition is reached Russia has encountered huge droughts that decimated their wheat crop in recent years and had also big forest fires, and the Aral sea is virtually gone.
Lack of water in many regions and the loss of entire countries due ocean rise means that, unless xenophobic tendencies are overcome, we can expect a lot of unrest; even in the “winning” regions.
I do think that humanity will make it, but I’m getting pessimistic in the sense that there are still powerful interests that do not get that besides controlling emissions to prevent worse results we still have a lot to do to prepare for the changes, and those powerful interests also do not think much about preparing.
AFAIK (but I’m not a climate scientist), nobody’s identified a particular benefit on a national or regional scale that is confidently attributed to climate change (except perhaps Arctic sea transit, which appears to have limited prospects).
The thing is, AFAICT, that most of the impact of climate change is going to be in the direction of greater variability and uncertainty, at least in the near term. And what tends to be perceived as a “win” is a positive development that’s stable and predictable, so you know what to expect.
So if, for example, increased CO2 levels increase crop yields, then that’s certainly a “win”. But if it’s accompanied by more frequent droughts, floods and other extreme weather incidents and/or the expansion of the geographic ranges of certain pests and weeds so there’s an increased risk of the crop not making it to harvest, the higher yield is less likely to be perceived as a “win”.
This means, ISTM, that there will be lots of specific short-term “wins” in the form of a mild winter or a newly available habitat for a certain species and so forth. But it will be difficult to identify overall “winners” over a substantial time period because the sporadic benefits are going to be randomly blended with negatives like more extreme weather, habitat losses, etc.
I know this is GQ, but the biggest ‘winners’ in global warming are the scientists who promote it in order to win more research grant money. The losers are the objectiveness and integrity of the scientific community in general, 
It was demonstrated how powerful interests are behind the ones that in reality do not have any integrity.
Read about the history of how it is science what drives this, and it is politics what drives the attacks against the science and the scientists.
Reported.
There is no stable situation and never has been. As they say, the only constant is change.
Also, how do we define ‘winning’ - I.e. expanding in population/range, of just ‘not going extinct’?
Some species will die off in, for example, the hotter, drier end of their range (if it gets even hotter and drier), but will be able to expand at the cooler, wetter end (if the conditions there also become favourable). That may net to zero, or turn out to be a net gain or loss depending on a wide range of other factors.
I wouldn’t go quite that far. There are certainly periods in Earth’s history of rapid climate & environment change. And other periods of very slow gradual change. Or slow, small oscillation around a fixed middle ground. e.g. ENSO.
The whole point of (A)GW is that for humans there’s a big difference between slow change, and change that happens fast enough to muck up our investments and infrastructure. And for nature there’s a difference between slow change, and change that happens fast enough to majorly disrupt ecosystems.
e.g. in response to changing temperatures, a species of tree can “migrate” N or S about half a mile per year. Fine. Until temps change such that it needs to migrate 10 miles per year, year after year, to stay in its habitable zone. Then the whole forest is in trouble.
For the roughly 10,000 years humans have been acting differently from the other apes we’ve enjoyed a relatively stable climate characterized by slow oscillations about a fixed center with occasional short-term bounces due to volcanoes, etc.
It seems clear that simple era is now ending.
Any business paper will be full of stories about how much businesses and investors prize certainty and hate uncertainty. Lots of capital investment is put on hold when uncertainty reigns. Usually the uncertainty is caused by geopolitical tensions, internal politics, regulatory agencies, central banks, etc. But as we’ve seen many times over the last 50 years, the *perception *of uncertainty is at least as big a factor as the *actuality *of uncertainty.
As business large and small and the populace at large wake up to the reality of much increased climate uncertainty we can expect all sorts of adverse consequences.
tldr: “Change” itself may be constantly with us, but rate of change is far from constant, and public sentiment about change is even more fickle and variable, prone to flights of panic or euphoria. It’s a grave mistake to whitewash the last of those under the label of the first.
The winners are those who can provide the products and services to those who need to adapt to a changing world.
McKenzie Funk describes some of that in Windfall: The Booming Business of Global Warming. Here is an article about the book: Profiteers Are Lining Up To Make Money Off Global Warming
Here’s the problem: Suppose that, say, central Canada becomes a lot better for growing crops. But how do you grow crops in central Canada? The techniques that are currently good in Canada (which crops to grow where, when to plant, when to harvest, how much to irrigate, etc.) won’t be any good any more. You can figure out new techniques, but that takes time. And maybe, by the time you figure out the new techniques, the climate has changed yet further, and those techniques no longer apply, either. The benefits can’t really start to apply until after the climate stabilizes. Global warmth might be good, but global warming isn’t.
Quite the contrary: Every situation in all of the sciences eventually reaches some stable equilibrium. It’s just a question of how long it takes to get there, and whether the equilibrium is the one you want. Extinction, for instance, is a stable equilibrium, but I wouldn’t recommend it.
It seems the winners will be those who plan ahead of climate change, and the losers those who do/can not.
Why would global warming make deserts turn green? I’d have thought that reverse would happen - oases would become arid.
Global warming means more total rainfall.
Some places will get more than they did. Others will get less. Some of the places getting more will have been deserts before. Or will be different sorts of desert. 10" rain / year is a desert. But it’s a very different desert from one with 2" or 2/10" of an inch of rain per year.
“Deserts turning green” is rhetorical shorthand.
There is just as much corruption on both sides. The difference is that it’s become accepted that on one side there are the ‘scientists’ who say it’s a foregone conclusion, and everybody else not 100% on their side gets labeled a ‘denier’ regardless of their credentials or research. When in fact there is not even close to enough long term evidence to prove it either way. Which going by the scientific method means you cannot make these assumptions.
The title of this post is ‘…winners in global warming’ and this is all relevant to that.
“Eventually” and “some stable equilibrium” sounds like a cop out. I think the more relevant question when it comes to non-linear systems like climate is the effect of small changes in initial states resulting in large changes in the time evolved state. I think that is under discussion here : I find it strange that scientists who predicted positive effects (effects as linked to in my second post) of global warming - do not come out and say that they miscalculated or misunderstood. In the long run it just diminishes their credibility.
After years of this it is clear that the ones labeled deniers are indeed that.
Ignoring the now hundreds of years of reseaerch is not conductive to progress, or in this case to the protection of the wealth of nations as even Neil deGrasse Tyson can tell you.
But with an attempt (that comes from denier sources usually) at poisoning the opinion people should have about the science and the scientists.
As even conservative scientists can tell you for sure there were winners when big changes were made that benefited humanity in the past, disparaging the ones that are winners thanks to a major change that is needed is very odd considering that it is industry and free enterprise the ones that will be also the winners.
[QUOTE] Some people say transitioning to clean energy will simply cost too much - "leave it to future generations." In Edinburgh, Scotland, Richard Alley explains that if we start soon the cost of the transformation could be similar to that which was paid for something none of us would want to do without - clean water and the modern sanitation system. [/QUOTE]It would be really silly to disparage Joe the Plumber just because he benefited from a previous change and so it goes for Joe the solar panel installer.