Into the Frying Pan--My Opinions on Same

PeopleSystems and Sustainability: This Week in the Global Environment

Into the Frying Pan—My Opinions on Same

Global warming. Merely uttering the phrase in polite technical company is likely to kick of a melee of opinions and arguments. Add enough good bourbon or rum and you can probably generate a wacky brawl in which skinny laboratory scientists thrash ineffectually at each other. 

The first argument comes over whether or not warming is “real”, or just an artifact of the available data. There is little argument about carbon dioxide these days. Clearly the atmospheric content has risen in recent decades. Temperature is more problematic to document, with issues ranging from urban heat island impacts to asymmetries in the historical record. But I believe the biosphere is warming, and that the best evidence isn’t recorded temperatures but the responses of biota, of which a number of cases have been thoroughly documented. 

Next argument at our hypothetical dinner party is whether climate change is a “man-made” phenomenon, or a “natural” astronomic outcome. My opinion here is that is really doesn’t matter. Without a technical and engineering deus ex machina, we can’t “fix” global warming. Resources of time, money and expertise are insufficient to devise ways to “re-cool” the earth. We’d best learn to live with a warmer earth.

Finally, the arguments come down to “goodness” or “badness” of warm-earth outcomes. I think it is clear that, from a human perspective, the sea level rise accompanying gobal warming will displace millions of people, and have far-reaching impacts on human biogeography. But beyond that, it is my personal and professional opinion that a warmer earth is a better earth.

How can I say such a thing? Well, for a number of years I compiled published information regarding ecosystem changes in response to temperature increases. It turns out that primary production in general will be much higher in a warmer world, although most of the increase is due to carbon dioxide and not temperature per se. Higher primary production means greater secondary production. Along with these bioenergetic dynamics, biodiversity is higher where and when it is warmer. This has been demonstrated conclusively for marine microfauna over time, and by inter-site comparison in real time. 

Not that some species—and biomes—won’t suffer under warmer conditions. Arctic polar bears are already experiencing detrimental effects on their knife-edge survival balance between needing ice for feeding on seals and using open water and coastal strand habitats. And high-altitude species dependent on cold condition will clearly decline in both mass and diversity. But in general, warmer conditions allow/cause increased speciation. Warmth also allows the species-rich tropics and subtropics to expand, increasing biomass by definition over larger areas than present. We can see these effects even in the case of Arctic bear communities. In general, there are three species in the Arctic regions—black bears, brown bears, and polar bears. As polar bears have struggled, it seems a fourth species is in the process of developing. Several specimens taken by hunters and researchers suggest a genetic mash-up of polar and brown bears (despite being in separate genera). If true, this means that the bear diversity of the Arctic will, at worst, remain steady even if polar bears were to be reduced or even driven to extinction. My guess is that polar bears will prove adaptable and become less ice-dependent over time, which would mean warmth increasing the diversity of Arctic bears by one.

Finally, we should ask if gobal warming is an unmitigated evil as far as human beings are concerned. The Washington Post for 29 April, under the byline of Anthony Faiola, reports that wines grown in England are increasing in quality and quantity. Climate conditions in English wine regions are now close to those of mainland Europe. Admittedly they are closest to the Champagne region, which has long been the red line for quality wine produced west of the Rhine River. But quality in Champagne has risen with temperature, and English wines no longer have to bear being a joke in the brotherhood of vintners. In fact, the Post story reports that at least one French house has invested in English vineland with the intent to plant and take direct advantage of climate change. A phenomenon that increases the quality and quantity of wine in the world can’t be all bad. And I think, in general, global warming is not “bad”. From a holistic perspective, considering multiple parameters and variables, global warming is a net “good” thing. 

I expect these opinions to be tested by the hard realities of the ecosystem over the coming decades. To those of you who might be skeptical (or worse) regarding my opinion, I can only say—we’ll have our answers soon enough. Assuming that deus ex machina we discussed above fails to appear.

Note that the opinions expressed in this column are the author’s alone and do not reflect positions or thoughts of AEHS. For an excellent and prescient speculative fiction story on this topic, I highly recommend a short story called “The Keys to December” by Roger Zelazny. It is widely available now both on its own and in compilations. It can be found at several sites on the ‘net, or purchased via Amazon and Barnes & Noble.  Don’t forget to check out DAC Crossley’s wild west weblog at http://daccrossley.typepad.com/ .