Dear Mohamed Wahba, it's an insightful question. While most regions will suffer from climate change, a few higher latitude areas like Canada, Russia, and northern Europe may see some limited benefits from warmer temperatures, such as increased agriculture and longer growing seasons. However, any potential benefits would likely be outweighed by negative impacts like extreme weather, melting permafrost, and rising seas. The vast majority of the world will face severe challenges from climate change that require urgent action to reduce emissions and adapt, rather than hoping for potential benefits. Climate change remains a global crisis even if a handful of regions may see isolated upsides.

Humble regards,

thank you for your thoughtful discussion

Common sense may have a role in these speculations; seems clear to me there will be winners (mainly in cool/cold higher latitude regions) and losers (mainly in warm/hot lower latitude regions) as a result of global warming. I agree largely with Brooks reply above; although it seems to me in some regions the benefits of warming within some northern regions could indeed outweigh the costs. I think the media reporting has conditioned most people, including scientists, to have an overly pessimistic attitude toward climate change; there will likely be some regions that emerge as overall 'winners' due to global warming--I do agree that for the world as a whole, the negative impacts will likely outweigh the positive impacts.

We keep seeing new science results expanding the expected impacts of climate change. It's no longer enough to just think in terms of the wet getting wetter or the dry getting dryer, extremes in temperature, precipitation, glacial & permafrost melting etc. There are now more results with respect to impacts on species, ocean rise, ocean and lake chemistry, impacts on agriculture as a result of changes in pests, changes in atmospheric and ocean circulations, etc, etc. I expect we'll continue to learn more, both in terms of chains of consequences, specifics of changes we're becoming aware of, and in terms of things we haven't yet considered.

How do we sort through all this and integrate it into a clear view of the future, at the global, regional, local and personal level, and at different times in the future? That's a tough one. But we're starting to see the realities of climate change becoming more of a concern amongst populations, governments and the private sector. That's a good thing.

My primary hope is in the gathering momentum to make radical changes in the root cause, namely rapidly and drastically reducing human impact on the climate.

Dear Doctor

"The science of climate change is well established:

• Climate change is real and human activities are the main cause. (IPCC)
• The concentration of greenhouse gases in the earth’s atmosphere is directly linked to the average global temperature on Earth. (IPCC)
• The concentration has been rising steadily, and mean global temperatures along with it, since the time of the Industrial Revolution. (IPCC)
• The most abundant greenhouse gas, accounting for about two-thirds of greenhouse gases, carbon dioxide (CO2), is largely the product of burning fossil fuels. (IPCC)
• Methane, the primary component of natural gas, is responsible for more than 25 per cent of the warming we are experiencing today. It is a powerful pollutant with a global warming potential over 80 times greater than CO2 during the 20 years after it is released into the atmosphere. (Methane Emissions fact sheet, UNEP

What do we need to do to limit global warming and act on the climate emergency?

• To prevent warming beyond 1.5°C, we need to reduce emissions by 7.6% every year from this year to 2030. (EGR, 2019)
• 10 years ago, if countries had acted on this science, governments would have needed to reduce emissions by 3.3% each year. Every year we fail to act, the level of difficulty and cost to reduce emissions goes up. (EGR, 2019)
• Deep reductions in methane will be necessary to help limit global warming to 1.5°C or 2°C, according to IPCC. Over 75 per cent of methane emissions could be mitigated with technology that exists today – and up to 40 per cent at no net cost according to the International Energy Agency. (Methane Emissions fact sheet, UNEP)
• Conserving and restoring natural spaces, both on land and in the water, is essential for limiting carbon emissions providing one-third of the mitigation effort needed in the next decade. (Nature for Climate Action fact sheet, UNEP)
• Since over half of global GDP has a high or moderately high dependency on nature, investing in nature-based solutions will not only limit global warming but also result in about 4 trillion dollars in revenue for businesses and over 100 million new jobs each year by 2030. (Nature for Climate Action fact sheet, UNEP)
• For governments, a green COVID-19 recovery could cut 25 per cent off 2030 emissions, putting the world on track to a 2°C pathway. (EGR, 2020)
• Nations agreed to a legally binding commitment in Paris to limit global temperature rise to no more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels but also offered national pledges to cut or curb their greenhouse gas emissions by 2030. This is known as the Paris Agreement. The initial pledges of 2015 are insufficient to meet the target, and governments are expected to review and increase these pledges as a key objective this year, 2021.
• The updated Paris Agreement commitments will be reviewed at the climate change conference known as COP 26 in Glasgow, UK in November 2021. This conference will be the most important intergovernmental meeting on the climate crisis since the Paris agreement was passed in 2015.
• The success or otherwise of this conference will have stark consequences for the world. If countries cannot agree on sufficient pledges, in another 5 years, the emissions reduction necessary will leap to a near-impossible 15.5% every year. The unlikelihood of achieving this far steeper rate of decarbonization means the world faces a global temperature increase that will rise above 1.5°C. Every fraction of additional warming above 1.5°C will bring worsening impacts, threatening lives, food sources, livelihoods and economies worldwide.
• Countries are not on track to fulfill the promises they have made.
• Increased commitments can take many forms but overall they must serve to shift countries and economies onto a path of decarbonization, setting targets for net-zero carbon, and timelines of how to reach that target, most typically through a rapid acceleration of energy sourced from renewables and rapid deceleration of fossil fuel dependency."

Living in a continental climate, such as Northern Europe, presents complexities regarding the impact of warming, including:

- A shorter winter infection season, albeit more intense.

- Much lower energy expenditure on central heating, with a modest increase in demand for air conditioning.

- A longer vegetation season.

I research mortality-related issues, and the impact is far more complicated than commonly claimed, with one significant factor often ignored. I reside in a region where significantly more people succumb to low-temperature mortality (winter infections modulated by low temperatures) than high temperatures. Depending on assumptions made in models regarding adaptations, estimations of the consequences of additional heatwaves combined with a shorter infection season may vary widely.