[meri_dian]

Warmer temperatures will mean we may need to change where we farm our food and move some cities but it's much better than things getting colder. It may even be better than the current climate, given it may actually increase the amount of land where food is arable.

[outsidetheparty]

Sure, just a simple little matter of rearranging our entire food supply; relocating at least 39% of the US population, not to mention a few hundred million residents of China, India, Bangladesh, etc.; decades or centuries of turbulent and unpredictable weather (hurricanes are so exciting!); massive ecological upheaval during which most species on earth either have to migrate to new habitats, evolve, or go extinct (and don't forget it'll be the shortest-lifespan creatures that will adapt most quickly to their new circumstances -- so goodbye trees, hello swarms of insects!)

Sure. Great idea. Brilliant. Why wouldn't we welcome it?

[zipwitch]

Assuming for a moment that you're serious or even a little accurate, consider for a moment the cost of the infrastructure the human race has built over centuries based on traditional climate patterns. Now imagine build all that again, no not from scratch, but it's still a vast endeavour that we will struggle and suffer to make succeed, if we even can.

[pedalpete]

Though I don't "welcome global warming", I think this is a good point of debate.

The comparison to "getting colder" isn't really valid, as it is not the only option.

Most people would like things to stay the same. Perhaps we should be looking at what temperature would be the most beneficial to the planet as a whole.

If we were to create a new earth, what would be the ideal temperature, how would we manage it, where is that in comparison to where we are now, how can we get there.

Is it a dangerous question? probably.

[pharrington]

Since human cognition is based from previous cognitive state and interpretation of sensory input, precise communication requires mapping the communicative symbols as closely as possible to your desired semantics.

Earth itself will do just fine at any temperature that's below literally evaporating. Various life on this planet has evolved to thrive in wildly disparate climates, and short of complete eradication of an ecosystem, surviving organisms both tend towards better suitability for their given environment and adapt their environment towards better suitability for them (both with limits). We humans should be looking at what temperature ranges would be the most beneficial to human society as a whole. Sure, that's incredibly self biased, but as a human, I contend that's an incredibly useful bias to have.

[oldcynic]

My starting point with that question is to say humans are best suited to the global climate under which they evolved. Muck about with that at your peril. Try it out on the hot-spare planet first please.

Attempting to adapt the environment will have unforeseen, probably serious, consequences. I for one hope we do not try, or have no choice but to try, geoengineering attempting to avoid catastrophe.

[pharrington]

I completely agree with your first point. One of the key problems is that humans are the most adept species in billions of years at adapting the environment. Over time, the more likely a thing is to happen, the more that thing does happen. Adaptation is most likely to occur in the form of adding energy, and as Applejinx noted elsewhere in this thread, adding energy to a chaotic system increases its degree of deviation.

[oldcynic]

Quite, and we've never tried geoengineering on a global scale. We've had enough problems from localised changes from agriculture or introduced species.

To your second point I've always preferred climate change as a term over global warming as some areas will end up cooler, others more changeable. Especially if one of the major ocean current systems slows or stops.