Has anyone considered the positive effects of global warming?

Question

So much focus has been on the negative effects of global warming, some coastline will be lost, polar bears and seals will suffer, etc.

But, what about the up side?

As the temperate zone moves northward, vast areas of land in N. America and Asia will open up to farming. Land that is now in a climate unsuitable for crops will be able to produce food for the larger world population.

The polar regions, although unsuitable for polar bears and seals, will flourish with new species moving into the vacated niche and warmer conditions.

It seems to me that much more will be gained than lost as a larger portion of the earth's surface area opens up for species that thrive in warmer climates.

Your thoughts?

Answer 1

Wow, nice thinking but I don't agree with both of your answers to what we would gain, because we would actually be losing the things you said. Farming -  We won't be protected by the rays the sun gives off because there will be a "hole" in the ozone layer and that will effect the crops in a bad way. the sun gives off like UV rays and solar wind and our atmosphere and the layers that protect us will be destroyed so we will be open to many things from space such as electro-magnetic rays, the sun, and space debris or meteors.  Arctic -  As for the polar regions, all of the ice will melt and there is no land mass under it so it will just be sea where the Arctic regions were. And, if there were any land mass under there, then how would the animal species get there? They couldn't have been living somewhere in the Arctic because if they were already there in the Arctic, they would probably die because of the change in climate because they weren't made for that climate and they might not adapt.

Answer 2

You don't want the fresh water in the ice caps to throw off the salt content of the oceans.

Answer 3

global warming has way more bad consequences than good ones. besides the amazing amount of storms that we are going to have and the floods and stuff, there are a few good consequences. for example England has quite a chilly weather, cooler than France, who is famous for wines. global warming could benefit the British lads because they can plant vineyards due to the new found heat of the weather. of course this would not be a good thing from the french point of view because their vineyards in the south would be now useless. but then again floods would decide to take a nap on British soil so in the end it wouldn't help them that much to have a weather change.

Answer 4

Yes someone has.  Green House warming was first proposed by the Swedish scientist Arrhenius over 100 years ago.  He was a Nobel prize winner back when that actually meant something.  And he won it for Chemistry, not Sophistry.

Arrhenius thought global warming was a good thing, not only because he lived in Sweden, but because history shows that humanity flourished during warmer times and starved and suffered during cooler periods.  

Don't worry about polar bears and seals.  Ever been to California?  No shortage of seals there.  And polar bears have been found to have interbred with Grizzlies so they adapt just fine.  Actually, the population of polar bears has more than tripled in the last 20 years.

Global warming was not invented by Al Gore, but he does take credit for it.  It is a flawed theory.  Global warming causes an increase in CO2, not the other way around.  And we cannot control or influence global warming.  We are but feeble humans.

Answer 5

That is a ridiculous argument.  The fact that so many species would become EXTINCT (that means they will never return, ever) would have more ramifications on the global habitat than one can imagine.  Birds would not be able to migrate (the equatorial area would become to hot) therefore, they would not be able to spread seeds from region to region.  The rainforests will die and we will lose untold amounts of species and culture.  If you really think more farmland is worth destroying countless habitats, and other people think like you, god help us all.

Answer 6

a tan

Answer 7

I like that we have warmer summers here in Ireland but I don't want the ice-caps to melt!

Answer 8

Smart thinking, but my friend ocean water being salty is not suitable for agriculture and the polar bears and the seals cant survive the hot climate.

The area destroyed will be allot more than revealed for agriculture and what about the level of calamity of billions of people being made homes less.

But I still admire your level of optimism or in other words "ignorance is a bliss"!

Answer 9

With all due repect, you had better do a little research on the subject. This is my though on your question. Have a great day  john t

Answer 10

What you fail to understand is humans may become EXTINCT as well!

Answer 11

It's revealing some significant flaws in our education system.

The level of ignorance demonstrated in promoting the green agenda is astounding.

Answer 12

Like girls wearing less clothes?

Answer 13

Most effects are positive.

Answer 14

Sure.

And the scientists that have know that, on balance, this would be a huge loss.

Two problems.  One is massive coastal development.  Flooding will cost us a HUGE amount of money.

The other is intensive agriculture, and irrigation systems.  Our system is very specialized.  Moving crops around is extraordinarily difficult.  And some poor countries can't afford to give up growing their own food to buy it from someone else.

A few places will win, but overall it will be a huge loss.

Answer 15

Well if it melts enough and the seas rise to a point where the high water line goes inland about 60 miles....I have beachfront property YAY!