# Observed winners in global warming **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 30, 2015, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observed-winners-in-global-warming/721176 "2015-05-30T04:02:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observed-winners-in-global-warming/721176/21 "2015-05-30T15:06:43Z")
> [@am77494](#): > > “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. Nope, the reality is that it is the credibility of Greg Easterbrook that is diminished. > **[Gregg Easterbrook](https://www.desmog.com/gregg-easterbrook/)** > > Gregg E. Easterbrook Credentials Background Gregg Easterbrook is a writer, lecturer, and a senior editor of The New Republic. He was a fellow at the Brookings Institution, a Washington, D.C. think tank. Gregg Easterbrook is no longer a skeptic of... > **[Don Easterbrook's Heartland Distortion of Reality](https://skepticalscience.com/don-easterbrook-heartland-distortion-of-reality.html)** > > At the recent scandal-plagued Heartland climate conference, Don Easterbrook gave a presentation in which he discussed his previous predictions of global cooling.  Given the inaccuracy of those predictions after just one decade, we were surprised to... > [@](#): > > Climate Contrarian Distortions of Reality > > Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this presentation is the degree of misinformation and distortion of reality associated with it. Any climate scientist can immediately tell you that the IPCC projected approximately 0.2°C global surface warming over the first decade of the century - certainly nowhere near 1°C. Yet nobody at Easterbrook’s presentation spoke up to correct the glaring mistake, which was central to his entire talk. There were few climate scientists present at the Heartland conference, but the fact that nobody caught or corrected Easterbrook’s error speaks volumes about the lack of climate expertise and/or lack of interest in getting the facts right amongst the conference attendees. > > As a result, Heartland members are now touting Easterbrook’s misinformation to a more mainstream audience, such as by Peter Ferrara at Forbes magazine. While a partisan policy analyst like Ferrara can perhaps be forgiven for deferring to a scientist like Easterbrook on scientific matters, somebody should have caught the error immediately before Ferrara had a chance to disseminate this misinformation. > > Additionally, Easterbrook should never have made this error to begin with. The caption of the IPCC figure he used was clear and explicit that it depicted model simulations responding to only the greenhouse gas forcing. Even if the graphic in question depicted responses to the total global radiative forcing, to cherrypick a single model run and ignore the fact that it displays an anomalous spike in 2011 reveals exceptionally poor data analysis on Easterbrook’s part. > > The fact that such a glaring distortion of reality was presented at the Heartland conference (at least twice) without being corrected and was subsequently disseminated to a much larger audience by Heartland members reveals a distinct lack of true skepticism amongst the Heartland Institute and its conference attendees. I have seen many like him that do distort the evidence, and clearly his angle is to talk about the good that we can expect, but it is people like him ( **not a climate scientist, he is a political one** ) that are miscalculating with the idea to make AGW to be less of a problem. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 3:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observed-winners-in-global-warming/721176/22 "2015-05-30T15:15:01Z")
> [@Hail\_Ants](#): > > 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, 😃 > [@Hail\_Ants](#): > > 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. **Moderator Note** Let’s keep political commentary out of this thread (and this is political commentary, not scientific). If you feel you must, you may start yet another thread in Great Debates. Let’s stick to the positive and negative effects of predicted global climate changes, not whether AGW is real or not. Colibri General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observed-winners-in-global-warming/721176/23 "2015-05-30T15:34:31Z")
One important thing to note **am77494** : the item you posted in your second post from Easterbrook is from 2007 and the one here is from 2012, one can blame it on the typical errors of people in the media makes about any science, it seems that he is getting it better now but still not a very reliable guy yet. (When one looks at the desmogblog it is clear that he was an skeptic that is getting convinced now by the overwhelming evidence, if he is important in this thread it is as an example to follow IMHO. As he also shows how it is possible for someone to change their mind if one is an skeptic still on this issue). But it is clear that there are important items that he is missing so as to get optimistic notes about what that can indeed be seen in the future. The uncertainty that is actually reported in the published science makes one wonder why indeed he is sounding so sure. But it is not hard for me to see why, he would be out of a job if he would report strongly about what the contamination of our atmosphere is more likely to get us. ---
**Author:** ![protoboard](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/fbc32d/32.png) [@protoboard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/protoboard)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 7:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observed-winners-in-global-warming/721176/24 "2015-05-30T19:49:14Z")
It seems like the Western US is getting drier and hotter and the eastern US is getting colder and wetter. Which one of those is a “winner” is up for debate of course. ---
**Author:** ![ftg](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ftg/32/2801_2.png) [@ftg](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ftg)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 7:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observed-winners-in-global-warming/721176/25 "2015-05-30T19:59:54Z")
One thing to keep in mind is that Climate Scientists are constantly being surprised by how fast things are changing and entirely new phenomena that are popping up they hadn’t really seen coming. E.g., their predictions on how soon the Arctic will be ice-free in the summer gets lowered every few years. Ditto how long until certain Antarctic ice shelves will break. The rapid release of Methane from the Russian tundra is far more than had predicted a few decades ago. And there have been some real oddities in the polar jet streams that have surprised people. So trying to predict if Sub-Saharan Africa is going to be wetter or drier at this point is nearly a crap shoot. The best general, overall, prediction is: Expect more extreme wetter. Stronger storms, nastier hot/cold spells, etc. A lot of deviation from average. I don’t imagine there are many places where this would be considered a win. ---
**Author:** ![Blue\_Blistering\_Barnacle](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/blue_blistering_barnacle/32/3386_2.png) [@Blue\_Blistering\_Barnacle](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blue_Blistering_Barnacle)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 9:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observed-winners-in-global-warming/721176/26 "2015-05-30T21:35:05Z")
> [@LSLGuy](#): > > 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. > [@Chronos](#): > > 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 warm_ing_ 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. As noted upthread, rapid changes can be quite challenging for ecosystems (and agricultural sytems. Along the same lines, there are some species that ‘handle change’ (are more adaptable) than others. We are one of those species. Most of the other species like that are not prized by us. I’m quoting (actually, paraphrasing) someone (British, I think) who I heard on the radio, years ago, so I have no cite, but basically he said of these kind of species “when they are plants, we call them weeds, and when they are animals, we call them pests”. Basically, in terms of humanity, I think any short term gains will be modest and local, and while one might guess that tundra regions might become more habitable in the long run, there won’t be any sure bets (except that Russia will get warm ports). ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [May 30, 2015, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observed-winners-in-global-warming/721176/27 "2015-05-30T23:16:14Z")
> [@protoboard](#): > > It seems like the Western US is getting drier and hotter and the eastern US is getting colder and wetter. [Figure 3 on this page](http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/weather-climate/temperature.html) says that your assumption is wrong. ---
**Author:** ![watchwolf49](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/e9c0ed/32.png) [@watchwolf49](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/watchwolf49)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2015, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observed-winners-in-global-warming/721176/28 "2015-05-31T01:44:56Z")
Levee Engineers will be financial winners. Seems like every year I see a new hummingbird species here. Polar bears are losers as well as ski resort operators. ---
**Author:** ![Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/46a35a/32.png) [@Tim\_T-Bonham.net](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tim_T-Bonham.net)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2015, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observed-winners-in-global-warming/721176/29 "2015-05-31T04:02:04Z")
In the USA, the areas that will be flooded by rising sea levels mostly vote Democratic. So in vote counts, Republicans will be Winners. I could speculate about the connection between that fact, and Republican denial of climate change, but I think the moderator wants us to keep such political discussion in another Forum. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2015, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observed-winners-in-global-warming/721176/30 "2015-05-31T04:23:09Z")
> [@t-bonham@scc.net](#): > > In the USA, the areas that will be flooded by rising sea levels mostly vote Democratic. > So in vote counts, Republicans will be Winners. > > I could speculate about the connection between that fact, and Republican denial of climate change, but I think the moderator wants us to keep such political discussion in another Forum. **Moderator Note** Let’s not try to get around my instructions by being cutesy. No warning issued, but don;t play games like this. Colibri General Questions Moderator ---
**Author:** ![md2000](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/73ab20/32.png) [@md2000](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/md2000)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2015, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observed-winners-in-global-warming/721176/31 "2015-05-31T05:16:44Z")
The thing is, we’re going into a new ice age unless history is to be disbelieved. However, that may be tomorrow, in 1,000 years, or in 5,000 years. So relying on that fact to save our sizzling bacon is a waste of perfectly good hope. Just a note - Central Canada is above New York and Ohio. Western Canada starts about even with Minnesota and goes into the Rockies or Pacific. Western Canada may benefit from warmer weather, particularly in heating costs - but drought is as much an issue as Montana or Nebraska. It’s in the rain shadow of the Rockies and a bit too far north to get much from the gulf unless patterns change. Roads (if any) in northern Canada, just like the Alaska highway, are subject to major damage as permafrost melts and turns to mush, so there are minuses along with the benefits. Anyone who watches Ice Road Truckers knows that much of the north relies on frozen surfaces to truck goods, so warming means a much reduced trucking season - already a concern apparently in some western provinces. Hurricanes have demonstrated that the big danger is that elevated sea surface temperatures mean stronger hurricanes, packing more humidity weight and therefore more momentum plus much higher rainfalls. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2015, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observed-winners-in-global-warming/721176/32 "2015-05-31T05:27:30Z")
There’s evidence there are large oil fields (like Saudi Arabia size) in the Arctic. They’ve been inaccessible under the ice but they might now be open to seasonal drilling as the ice cap melts. So we could end up seeing a long extension of the era of cheap oil. That said, it might not be an unmixed blessing. The extra oil production and use could add to global warming and make it worse. And there’s international tension rising as several countries are making disputing claims to arctic territory. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [May 31, 2015, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observed-winners-in-global-warming/721176/33 "2015-05-31T05:34:48Z")
The real answer though is that it depends on how much global warming occurs. If it’s just a few degrees, some people will benefit and many people will suffer. But it’s possible temperatures might hit a tipping point and really go up. If Alaska turns into another Florida, there’ll be winners and losers. If Earth turns into another Venus, then everyone loses. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 1, 2015, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observed-winners-in-global-warming/721176/34 "2015-06-01T00:19:22Z")
We simply can’t turn into another Venus. It could potentially get pretty bad, but not that bad. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/observed-winners-in-global-warming/721176.md?page=1)