Most discussions of global warming, or “climate change,” proceed on the assumption that warming is bad, and only bad—for people, for animals, and for plants. That assumption is mistaken.
While global warming will almost certainly bring some harms to some locations, it will also almost certainly bring some benefits to other locations. Indeed, in some places it will almost certainly bring both harms and benefits.
Understanding a very basic element of “greenhouse” warming theory will help us grasp why this is so. According to theory, warming driven by increased concentration of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases” happens mostly toward the poles, mostly in winter, and mostly at night. This theory is embraced equally by those who think human-induced global warming, or climate change, already is or will become more harmful than beneficial, and even someday catastrophic, and by those who reject that idea or think the warming already is or will become more beneficial than harmful.
Not only theory but also observational data support this understanding. Throughout the period during which human emissions of carbon dioxide and other “greenhouse gases” have contributed significantly to global warming, observed temperatures have risen more toward the polar regions than toward the equator; more in winter than in summer; and more at night than in the daytime.
This implies that it is mostly cold temperatures, not hot temperatures, that rise. This means the harms done by excessive cold are reduced much more than the harms done by excessive heat are increased. Since cold snaps kill ten times as many people per day, on average, as heat waves, this means fewer people die from extreme temperatures.
Some implications of this:
- Growing seasons, for wild and cultivated plants, become longer. First freeze in autumn happens later, and last freeze in spring happens earlier. Hence plants have a longer period each year during which they can grow.
- The geographic ranges in which plants can grow expand more toward the poles than they shrink toward the equator. That is, total range in which plants grow increases.
- As a result, the geographic ranges in which people and animals, both of which depend on plants for food, can increase, and the food available to them can increase. Farmers can plant earlier in the year and harvest later, allowing in many cases for an added growing cycle and hence greater harvest.
So far we’ve addressed only the potential harms and benefits of the warming itself. But the main way human activity contributes to that warming—the emission of greenhouse gases, of which carbon dioxide is the most important—has effects other than simply on global temperature. Plants use carbon dioxide in photosynthesis—how they combine sunlight, water, and nutrients to build their fiber and fruit. Increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in which plants grow makes them grow better. For every doubling of carbon dioxide concentration, plants increase their growth efficiency by an average of 35 percent. They grow better in warmer and cooler temperatures and in wetter and drier soils, meaning they survive heat waves, cold snaps, floods, and droughts better. They make better use of soil nutrients. They resist diseases and pests better. They improve their fruit-to-fiber ratio.
All of these things about both warming and enhanced carbon dioxide mean more food for everything that eats plants—and everything that eats something that eats plants. Those people—the poor—and animals that have the greatest difficulty obtaining enough food benefit most.
Human history testifies to this understanding. Societies have thrived the most—people have been better fed, clothed, housed, and have been healthier and lived longer—during warmer periods than cooler periods. During the Minoan, Roman, and Medieval Warm Periods, civilization flourished and population grew as death rates declined relative to birth rates. During the Little Ice Age, civilization struggled as people suffered from insufficient food, making them more vulnerable to disease. So remember, whatever harms might accompany some global warming, there are benefits, too. And we think they outweigh the harms. To learn more, read A Call to Truth, Prudence, and Protection of the Poor 2014: The Case against Harmful Climate Change Policies Gets Stronger
Photo by Aaron Burden on Unsplash.
Keith Ham says
Hi, I’ve read your article and the Cornwall Declaration. I’m confused by your continued skepticism to climate change. Could I recommend chapter three in Climate Change by Mark Maslin and his talk to Google in 2017. I see that you are a professor of history and theology which is wonderful by the way, but you do not have any background in climatology.
My confusion comes with a question: what are the interests behind the statements of the Cornwall Alliance? Can you please list the interests of your Alliance?
references:
https://www.veryshortintroductions.com/view/10.1093/actrade/9780198719045.001.0001/actrade-9780198719045
https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-trp-001&hsimp=yhs-001&hspart=trp&p=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DPwYB4PeF4qM%23action%3Dshare#id=0&vid=b3832c73892995b0305f6e22fa237d1c&action=click
E. Calvin Beisner says
For some strange reason, I just received an automated notification, dated today, 8/21/2024, of your comment, dated 4/16/2020. Why the notification just came, I have no idea, but I’m glad it did, because I missed your comment when it appeared, so never replied. I hope you’ll wind up seeing this reply.
You wrote that I have “no background in climatology.” Well, I have no formal credentials. But as I explained in a post earlier this year (https://cornwallalliance.org/2024/03/a-review-of-hugh-rosss-weathering-climate-change):
“I’ve read, over the past 15 years or so, over 50 complete books (and parts of 100 or more others) and many thousands of articles, hundreds peer reviewed, on the science, and over 30 books (and parts of 20 or so others) and many thousands of articles, scores peer reviewed, on the economics, of climate change and climate-and-energy-policy. (And over the previous twenty years I’d read about half a dozen other books on the subject, and a few hundred articles.) One of the world’s top climate scientists, Dr. Roy W. Spencer of the University of Alabama at Huntsville, is on my board and told me some eight or more years ago something like, ‘Cal, you understand the arguments pro and con on climate change better than practically any of the climate scientists I know. We all specialize in our own narrow little slices. You read all of it.’
“[Of course, nobody reads ‘all of it.’ But I do read much on many aspects of climate change and from many sides in the controversy.] Another climate scientist, Dr. Neil Frank, who was the longest-serving Director of the National Hurricane Center, told me just a couple of weeks ago, when he was a guest on Cornwall Alliance’s Facebook live program, that he believed I understood the science of climate change much better than most climate scientists.”
So that’s the background I bring. No credentials but enormous study and extensive communication, over a period exceeding thirty years, with many climate scientists. Recently I co-edited, with retired Professor of Climatology Dr. David R. Legates, our book Climate and Energy: The Case for Realism–16 chapters by 16 authors, including 9 climate scientists, plus economists and energy experts.
You asked what are Cornwall Alliance’s “interests.” Well, our mission is to educate the public and policymakers on Biblical Earth stewardship, economic development for the poor, and the gospel of Christ, together with Biblical worldview, theology, and ethics.
Perhaps you were interested in “interests” in terms of conflicts of interest. The vast majority of our funding, both in numbers of donations and in amounts donated, come from private individuals; a few come from small, privately held companies, but frankly they’re so few and so small that I’d have to ask our development director to search them out in our donor database and tell me which ones they are. In short, we aren’t supported by “Big Oil,” or “Big Gas,” or “Big Coal,” or “Big Anybody.” So, no conflicts of interest in what we do.
Take some time to explore our website a bit more (e.g., under the “About” and “Landmark Documents” tabs) and you’ll have a better idea of who we are, what drives us, and what we think and why we think it.
d eric schansberg says
Hey Keith,
*I* get confused (or worried) when people make comments unrelated to a post. 😉
This post accepts GW and then moves to its costs and oft-overlooked benefits. (This commonly-observed allergy– to talking about both sides of the coin– is a sure sign of fundamentalist / religious thinking and a passion for propaganda. And I’m confident that you don’t want to embrace that look!)
Do you have some debate with the claims in this essay?
Richard Lowry says
Would it be accurate to say that a benefit of a warmer planet would be shorter life spans of viruses like covid-19? I’ve heard that viruses don’t do well in sun and heat, but I’m not a scientist.
d eric schansberg says
I was hoping that would be the case, but the science is a mixed bag on that for COVID, as far as I’ve seen.