Maybe global warming might be a good thing.

When you ask people that belive in global warming this question, they don know what to say. Just what do you deem the RIGHT temperature of the earth should be.?

IMO global temps higher than they are now might be a good thing. Look at the globe. Much of the land mass is in the higher latitudes. Most of northern Canada, Greenland, and Asia are too cold to farm now. With increases in population we will need more food, and a place to grow it. So----------lets hope there is global warming so people dont starve.

 

The problem is that the higher temperatures melt the ice caps and cause the sea levels to rise. That means no more Florida, no more Louisiana, most of the Gulf coast will be gone, and everywhere else will be hit wil summers much hotter and winters much colder than usual, and storms will grow in strength. And any new land made available by the warming cycle would be frozen again eventually. The higher sea levels will cause a cooling cycle that will eventually cause a new ice age, with glaciers forming in the northern regions, such as Canada.

 

It takes more than warm temperatures to grow crops.

 

You are going to just confuse them, let them believing their stories, their children will be the ones that have to live with it so they do not care. LALALALALA.....................

 

It probably will be a good thing for a very small number of people and a big disaster for a very large number of people.

Your scenario is possible, but very, very unlikely. The much greater possibility is widespread famine.

 

We can easily divert that rising sea water with a few construction projects and considering that Antarctica is twice the size of Australia, it would be a net gain for us. Also, plants and animal species absolutely thrive in warmer climates.

I hate to break it to you but this cycle will happen no matter what you do to stop it. Maybe the alarmists should quit focusing on the impossible and start preparing for the eventuality.

 

Copied my post from a related thread, " "The computer models used to predict climate change are far more sophisticated than the ones that forecast the weather, elections or sporting results. They are multilayered programs in which scientists try to replicate the physics behind things such as rainfall, ocean currents and the melting of sea ice. Then, they try to estimate how emissions from smokestacks and auto tailpipes might alter those patterns in the future, as the effects of warmer temperatures echo through these complex and interrelated systems.
To check these programs' accuracy, scientists plug in data from previous years to see if the model's predictions match what really happened.

But these models still have the same caveat as other computer-generated futures. They are man-made, so their results are shaped by human judgment"http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040503722.html

Computer models are not an exact science. At most they are hypotheses or predictions. However, they are "one" of the tools that scientists can use. It is well known that we are still in a pre-glacial cycle/period(for those that believe historical data). And, the earth has been cooling for the last decade or more. There are many studies and papers that support this. http://isthereglobalcooling.com/, here is on passage from this article, they are many more reasons supporting cooling at this link; Welcome. There has now been over 18 years with no measurable atmospheric global warming and a slight cooling in the past 12 years. I will try to give you the answer to the question "is there global cooling?" As you are well aware there is a huge effort around the globe to counter the alleged impact of mankind on the world's climate. If in fact mankind will cause the seas to rise appreciably by causing CO2 induced global warming then certainly let's do something about it. But, what if global warming is not what they say it is? What if the world's temperature is headed in the opposite direction? Global temperatures increased for twenty years from the late 1970s to the late 1990s but have either stopped warming or have begun to cool in the last seventeen years. The global warming and subsequent cooling were even predictable due to hundreds of years of historical trends and observation of the impact of variations in solar activity and ocean cycles on global temperatures.

Did you know that in the past the Roman Period and Medieval Period were both several degrees warmer than today's temperature. The world then cooled at least four degrees from approx. 1450 to 1850. This period was called the Little Ice Age (a period of glacial advance, the same glaciers that have been in retreat until recently). Global temperatures the past 10,000 years were mostly warmer than today, the trend has been for cooling temperatures and not warming ones.These temperature variations were not caused by man. They were caused entirely by natural forces. Looking at historical data one might predict that the entire East Coast will be covered by ice sometime in the future.

I am all for research on new "cost-effective", planet friendly, energy sources. But not at the financial demise of businesses and citizens. Until the time technological advancements can make solar energy, wind energy cost effective for the masses, we need to continue mining coal, drilling for oil, etc. Unless the entire planet stopped using fossil fuel as a source of energy, there wouldn't be a significant change to the Earths temperature for 100's of years. I vote that the earth is "cooling", and the Government knows this and that is why they stopped calling it "Global Warming". Climate change exists as it has since the beginning of time.
We must change the way we build, where we build and adapt to changing weather in various locations. "

 

This is why deserts are such thriving places.

- - - Updated - - -

The ol' it's been cooling for the last 17 years trope.

No it hasn't. The warmest years on record have been in the last 10.

The no warming is a lie. It's known to be a lie.

They chose as their start point an abnormally warm year, ignored the years before it and then announced that there hadn't been an upward trend. Of course when you apply the context of the years beforehand there is an obvious upward trend.

 

I'm going to be honest, can't tell if serious or just trolling. Of course that would be a bad thing. Look at desertification, that's a bad thing. Even if Canada were to warm up, it doesn't mean it's ecosystem will be able to handle the change in temperature. Tell a creature that has adopted to the cold to survive in the heat, and then it's possible to figure out why the Neanderthals went extinct.

 

Wow, you need to think outside the box here a little bit. Ecosystems will change, they will not stay the same but they will change into something that is more likely to foster an abundance of animals and plants then the barren permafrost deserts you have up there now.

 

Great, do you have the time it'd take for everything to evolve to handle it?

Got any words or wisdom for the countless people who would die in the meantime?

 

Evolution requires thousands of years to happen naturally. A sudden change is bad. It means that the flora and fauna can't change in time. Think about invasive species. Introduce one thing, and because they didn't evolve alongside them, natural species have no natural defense against them.

 

Who in the world is going to die from the temperature rising by about 8 degrees?

Some species will go extinct but there are already anywhere from 1-100 species that go extinct every day now. Those that disappear will be replaced by others.

Some will evolve and some won't. Welcome to the natural world.

 

People need to eat. Is that new to you? Are you going to take in the hundreds of millions who find their homes under water?

 

What time limit are you on?

I am really having a hard time what you are saying here?

And why do you think a sudden change is bad? If you were to melt all the ice on top of Antarctica you may displace some penguins but they would be replaced by literally tens of thousands of different species.

So what is the problem?

 

If you were to melt the ice in Antarctica you'd raise sea levels quite a bit. That'd flood a lot of land.

 

Do you have any idea how long its actually going to take before those people living near the Sea have to move?

You act like its going to happen next year or something.

Tell me, how far has the Sea encroached inland since this "global warming" thing started which they say was around the industrial revolution time.

Would you care to take a guess?

lol

 

I work with a talkative libertarian. Here are the reasons (from those viewpoints, not mine):
Money. The incredible amount of money spent on a) directly impacting efforts, like CO2 sinks, or technologies to directly reduce our impact, and b) on limiting the impact of current businesses and human lifestyles (cars, factories, power plants, etc.) would limit the economies of all nations in the world and limit our progress. The argument is that we, as a country and a society, will progress further by not limiting any of this, and then will have more resources overall to battle the problem.
Politics. Because they think of the problem in the way outlined in , clearly anyone who thinks otherwise is an idiot, who is anti-big-business and trying to pander to a base in order to get elected, or amass political and monetary power to effect policy that works in their favor. Obviously, the methods outlined in are so logical and obvious, that political corruption, propaganda, and idiocy are the only possible reasons for the "global warming movement."

 

100 years versus a million.

Do you understand evolution and the process of how things evolve over time? As in millions of years?

Invasive species. This is an example of why sudden change is bad.

Evolution requires millions of years to happen. Global warming effects us now. There's no time for evolution to take place. Entire ecosystems will die because of it.

- - - Updated - - -

100 years versus a million.

Do you understand evolution and the process of how things evolve over time? As in millions of years?

Invasive species. This is an example of why sudden change is bad.

Evolution requires millions of years to happen. Global warming effects us now. There's no time for evolution to take place. Entire ecosystems will die because of it.

 

Not all change is for the good

When permafrost melts it does not leave behind nice farmland - mostly it leaves behind bog and swampland

 

Eight degrees??? Just about everything really

That is because places in the tropics which hit highs of 42 degrees will then hit highs of over 50 degrees. See that is not a top temperature rise but an AVERAGE temperature rise - so we would get more heat waves

 

Unless I missed it, I didnt see any GW type say what they have determined the CORRECT temp should be. Im sure they must know, since they claim to know everthing about weather and climate. Kind of like the fact that the internet inventer Gore said by now there wouldnt be any arctic ice.

 

So, it is either permafrost or bog. So, what's the issue?

 

That is no different than what the Earth has warmed up to before and species were just fine.

You guys also seem to be missing the fact that no matter what you do, you can never prevent it from happening.

EVER

 

Species were just fine? What the heck makes you think THAT?

Besides, the standard way of survival was to move. And, the catch is that we are strongly against people moving. When people start crossing our border, we start yelling bloody murder - and others do too. Today, India is building (has built) walls against Bangladesh - where climate change has impacted agriculture.

The scary parts are things like multiple new failed states such as Somalia. This is why the Pentagon sees this as a national security risk. When agriculture fails, humans get desperate. And nations with significantly deprecated agriculture aren't wealthy enough to buy their food from somewhere else. We can always spend whatever it takes to buy our food from Canada, or ??, but failed states don't have that option.

Yes, we probably can not prevent all warming from happening without doing some fairly dangerous maneuvers that very few humans are excited about.

But, we CAN knock some of the top off, making it substantially cheaper, safer and more likely to deal with the remainder.