Global Warming Effects, All Bad?

Question

Assuming global warming is happening to an extent that is causing change. How is it possible that every singal change is bad. I would assume that some of the effects would be benificial. Shouldn't that be part of what we study, the good effects vs. the bad effects.

Answer 1

When it comes to temperature and rain fall, transitional ecosystem are the most readily observable. A prairie might become a desert, or a Savannah might become a forest. But they are the best indicators of what nature is doing. Coral reefs are another indicator but are also susceptible to influences not associated with GW.

Answer 2

Global warming , global climate change etc alarmists are simply ignorant mindless twits lead by hucksters out to make a buck and a legacy.

The Earth CONSTANTLY changes its climate and there is nothing humans can do to alter it any mearsurable degree.

IF global warming was true, the whole planet would be a tropical paradise.

Answer 3

Without global warming, New York City would be under a mile thick ice sheet.

We wouldn't have the Great Lakes, or Minnesota's 10,000 lakes.  In fact, there wouldn't be any natural lakes in the north at all.

We need a planet that warms and cools.  Only fools try to "manage" the climates temperature to keep them static.

Answer 4

I know one good thing that gonna happen. That's, when Northern Ocean gonna melt, the trading between Europe, Asia and North America is gonna get easier, and we'll be able to pump oil from the bottom of it ( I don't know that's good or bad)

Answer 5

Because its an unknown, we must assume that most are bad for humans.

Answer 6

Global warming is exactly _why_ we are here and able to raise food crops.

Climate change is a money and power grab scheme by the bottom feeder politicians and power brokers. It's nothing to do with ecology and everything to do with money.

Con artist and politicians (here unnamed, but you may call him "Mr. Environment") have enriched themselves on this issue, taking home Oscars, Nobel Prizes and millions of dollars. Meanwhile, evangelical leaders are setting up their flocks for extreme fleecing by leftist politicos who will speak with great charm in the appeal for Christian votes by talking in glowing, biblical-sounding terms about "being good stewards of God's creation."

Here is truth about global warming:

Global warming is one-half of the climatic cycle of warming and cooling.

The earth's mean temperature cycles around the freezing point of water.

This is a completely natural phenomenon which has been going on since there has been water on this planet. It is driven by the sun.

Our planet is currently emerging from a 'mini ice age', so is

becoming warmer and may return to the point at which Greenland is again usable as farmland (as it has been in recorded history).

As the polar ice caps decrease, the amount of fresh water mixing with oceanic water will slow and perhaps stop the thermohaline cycle (the oceanic heat 'conveyor' which, among other things, keeps the U.S. east coast warm).

When this cycle slows/stops, the planet will cool again and begin to enter another ice age.

It's been happening for millions of years.

The worrisome and brutal predictions of drastic climate effects are based on computer models, NOT CLIMATE HISTORY.

As you probably know, computer models are not the most reliable of sources, especially when used to 'predict' chaotic systems such as weather.

Global warming/cooling, AKA 'climate change':

Humans did not cause it.

Humans cannot stop it.

Answer 7

My main worry is that the "Ice Road Truckers" program might be cancelled.

Answer 8

No, and the potential positive efefcts are all worked into predictions and assessments.  Agriculture in Canada, Siberia and Iceland for example may temporarily benefit.  Here's one example of a report that documents potential temporary gains in some areas:

The Potential Effects of Global Climate Change on the United States

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/effects...

"The effects of a warmer climate alone would generally reduce wheat and corn yields. Yield changes range from + 15 to -90%."

"Dryland farmers in the Great Plains are particularly vulnerable to climate variability. The Great Plains States of Nebraska, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas were the hardest hit during the Dust Bowl of the 1930s (Worster, 1979; Hurt, 1981). Yields of wheat and corn dropped as much as 50% below normal, causing the failure of about 200,000 farms and migration of more than 300,000 people from the region."

So while many farmers may see 90% loss in productivity, others may see a 15% increase.

Here's more on the effects (not just bad):

Effects of global warming

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_...

Claims that scientists or policymakers are only collecting and communicating the bad news are lies spread by the climate change misinformation industry, funded by ExxonMobil, the coal industry, and the American Petroleum Institute.  It's an objection that is easy to expose as simplistic propaganda.

However as the changes become more rapid, changes in rainfall patterns, season timing and temperatures may become increasingly difficult to follow accurately.  Given CO2's 1000+ year persistence in the atmosphere and the fact that growth in China and India alone will wipe out all emissions savings possible in developed nations, there is no letup in warming forecast through the year 3000.  Life on this planet, including human civilization, is always tuned to favor the current climate, so it's not rational to expect a lot of positive side effects or any magic pill solutions.  This experiment is likely to end very, very poorly for us.  There's no way to candy coat that bitter pill to make it easier to take.

---

“This melting process may be approaching a point where it won’t be centuries before Greenland’s ice melts, but a much shorter time-frame,” Tapley said

http://www.utexas.edu/news/2006/08/10/en...

If we look past 2100,

- Global and regional warming could more than quadruple after 2100

- Sea level will still be rising at the end of the millennium (3000)

- Ocean pH will fall dramatically for all but the minimum emission scenario

- Business-as-usual could lead to abrupt climate changes

- Abrupt climate changes could occur long after emissions cease

- The ocean carbon sink becomes less effective the more CO2 is emitted

- The land could be a net carbon source on the millennial timescale

"Potential sea level rise on the millennial timescale (excluding the contribution of Antarctica), is 0.5-11.4m in GENIE-1 and 1.0-8.5m in MoBidiC.  Collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, if it occurs, could add up to 4-6m on the millennial timescale [Oppenheimer and Alley, 2004]"

“…our relatively conservative assumptions, for example regarding climate sensitivity or the exclusion of the Antarctic ice sheets, still produce the result that only by starting to reduce CO2 emissions in the very near future, and continuing to reduce them such that they are zero by year 2200, can we avoid dangerous climate change on the millennial timescale.”

http://www.tyndall.ac.uk/research/theme1...

Answer 9

Of course there are going to be some good effects, and scientists study those too.  For example, the northwest passage is opening up, areas that are too cold right now (like Siberia) will become habitable, etc.

Unfortunately, scientists have concluded that the negative effects will by far outweigh the positive effects.  For example, a study on the effects of global warming on the US was just released (by court order 4 years late, because the Bush Admin refused to release it).  As you can see in the link below, there are some really bad consequences for us.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...

Answer 10

Enjoy life!.

Leave the GW hoax for somebody else.

My 2 cents.

Answer 11

There will be some areas that win (Canada's agriculture may improve), but, on balance, they'll be far outweighed by the bad.

Answer 12

depending where u live summer all year round.