On 03/12/2011 05:48, Gib Bogle wrote:
On 3/12/2011 4:54 p.m., The Natural Philosopher wrote:

When I hear someone expressing concern about the idea of a warmer
globe, I sometimes ask if they would prefer it if the the globe were
cooler. Why should the temperature we have become used to over a few
centuries be regarded as the ideal temperature? (I am not oblivious to
the costs of adjustment to a changing temperature, but that's a
separate issue.)

That I can answer very simply.

Change costs money.

The new Monte Carlo may well be Novosibirsk, but we will have to build
it. And we lose the investment in the old one if the sea floods it and
most of France becomes the northern fringe of the Sahara.

Change is expensive, pure and simple.

Did you not read my last sentence? The cost of change (i.e. how you get
there) is a separate issue from the question of whether a warmer planet
would be better or worse. Almost everyone assumes that it would be
worse, but it might be better for plant growth and food production.

For small amounts of warmer it might be better for a while, but you will
take a hit on fertile river deltas lost to the sea. And large chunks of
the Netherlands, Florida and Norfolk will be under water (and many
capital cities partly abandonned or with expensive flood defences).

Once you start to get to temperature rises in the tropics where plant
growth is seriously impeded either by availability of water, excessive
temperature denaturing crucial enzymes or most likely a combination of
both then all bets are off.

Up to that point plants like sugar cane with C4 metabolism will grow
faster in a warmer world with more CO2. After it gets too hot we lose
productive land to deserts where only specially adapted plants can grow.

Regards,
Martin Brown