CLIMATE CHANGE

May 2004
		A team of international ecologists using a computer model to predict the effects of climate change say as many as 1 million species could be on the way to extinction by the year 2050. One of the study's authors, Lee Hannah, and environmental experts Daniel Botkin and Patrick Michaels answer your questions.

Forum Introduction Will climate change act as a catalyst for new species? Is climate change the result of human activity or a natural phenomena beyond our control? Do we know anything about species extinction rates from the relatively recent "little ice age"? Can climate change be reversed, as opposed to deterred? Does the impact being made by humans in this (brief) period really explain world-wide shifts in climate? For every study that claims to observe climate change, there are others that seem to refute it. Wouldn't we all be better served by a global campaign to address air quality? What, if any, are the potential upsides of global warming?	Jerry McManus of Seattle asks: I'm familiar with the current thinking on the potentially adverse effects of climate change. It makes sense that the warming of the Earth could bring coastal flooding, increased forest fires, and drought, but it has also been reported that Vladimir Putin has been openly questioning if warmer temperatures might be good for Russia. This has made me curious and I'm wondering what, if any, are the potential upsides of global warming? Who would benefit the most? Daniel Botkin responds: Assuming that global warming happens as the best climate models forecast, one can say the following: The "benefits" may happen too quickly for forests, most wildlife and fish, to actually be beneficial. Forecasts of "benefits" have tended to be done in terms of temperature only, not rain and snow, so the warmer conditions are seen as benefiting cold climates. But forecasts of climate change under global warming tend to indicate that soils will become drier and therefore, even if the temperature seems more "benign" the overall environment may not be so. The places that have the best combination of climate and soils today are most likely to lose. That includes much of the United States. Very locally benefits might occur that would not be benefits regionally. For example, if you owned forestland that had bogs that you did not want, the warming and drying may benefit you. But a regional drying that decreased wetlands overall could be harmful to native plants and animals. Lee Hannah responds: Some agricultural areas might expand at high latitudes in areas such as Russia. On the flip side, the big losers are small island states that are likely to be completely flooded by rising sea levels. Patrick Michaels responds: Good question. I'm guessing (against the tide) that the biosphere in general benefits from slight warming. That's because, in general, the warmer it is (as long as there is adequate moisture) the greener and more diverse the biosphere is. And there is satellite evidence for a rather profound greening of the high latitudes now, as that is where climate change tends to accentuate. People ignore this argument at their peril, and Putin was not afraid to make it.