Simple Global Warming questions what can it do?

Question

Ok so what are the things that can happen because of global warming. Like I know it can cause floods but there is probably more. Like what other weather effects and why?

Answer 1

It won't be a Hollywood movie style disaster. Gradually coastal areas will flood and agriculture will be damaged. But it will be very bad. Rich countries will cope, but it will take huge amounts of money. In poor countries many people will die of starvation, but not all of them.

Secondary effects include danger to our national security, with desperate people fleeing across national borders, starting wars.  The national intelligence agencies recently issued a report on this.

Increased warmth will spread disease carrying insects where they can't go now, causing more sickness.

Answer 2

Global Warming causes increased taxation and allows government total control of your life.

Answer 3

There is currently no evidence that man has made any significant contribution to climate change.

Some interesting facts.

1. During most of the past 2,000 years, the temp has been about the same or higher. Currently, we are barely over the average for the last 2,000 years.

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index....

2. During the medieval warm period (820 – 1040 AD), Greenland supported farming. Those areas previously farmed are now covered in glaciers. Obviously the melting and reformation of glaciers is a cyclical occurrence.

3. The earth experienced a little ice age which ended around the late 1860's or so. This is about the time man started recording temperatures. This would be like measuring a lake depth after a severe drought, then worrying about it flooding as it rose to normal levels.

4. The earth has been warming for the last 18,000 years, since the last major glacier time period. During this time frame, the glaciers have been melting at a fairly consistent rate. Also, for most of the last 1 billion years, the earth had NO glaciers or ice coverage.

http://www.museum.state.il.us/exhibits/i...

5. The AGW theory states that CO2 is the primary driver of temperature. They arrived at this idea because they did not know of anything else which could cause it. But during the 70's and during the current decade, temperatures dropped while CO2 continued to rise. This means that natural occurrences are driving temp, not CO2.

6. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation and sun spots provides a much better correlation to earths' temperature than CO2 levels ever have.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/200...

http://motls.blogspot.com/2004/09/sunspo...

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/sppi_r...

7. Polar Bears are experiencing a population boom. Coke sales in the arctics are through the roof. Polar Bears have been around for thousands of years, and remember, we are only at the average for the last 2,000 years. They lived through all the previously warmer climates.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/...

8. Many glaciers are expanding. Even Antarctica is growing on 98% of is land mass. Only 2% is melting.

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1...

9. There is no consensus on AGW. This was a lie that has been propagated by the media.

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckt...

10. Yes we emit CO2 into the atmosphere and it is a greenhouse gas, but, we only contribute about .28% of all the greenhouse effect. Water vapor makes up about 95% of the greenhouse effect. CO2 and other trace gases round out the greenhouse gases at about 5% for all of them. Of that 5%, only 3% is CO2, and most of that is natural. Again, our contribution to the greenhouse effect is a paltry .28%

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenh...

11. The spread of disease is not attributed mainly to temperature. If this were the case, Florida would be a giant festering disease ridden cesspool. Economic standing is the primary determining factor in the spread of disease. Poor cultures can not fight the disease or eradicate the pests like more successful nations.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12077886...

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.h...

12. Natural climate disasters (hurricanes, cyclones, etc) have never been scientifically linked to global warming (whether natural or man made).

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppa...

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?i...

In fact, we have less hurricanes hitting the USA than earlier in the century.

http://www.junkscience.com/Hurricanes/de...

And cyclones are less frequent than in the past.

http://www.wunderground.com/hurricane/de...

Answer 4

For me if you watch the documentary of  Al Gore , it show what will happen in the near future if  Global Warming continues.  I think those who do not have snow will be having snow. Floods will happen to the places who dont experience flooding. The storms will be stronger than before.  WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHINGTO STOP GLOBAL WARMING.

Answer 5

CrazyConservative has a lot of well supported, interesting points. Unfortunately, many of them are a bit misleading...

"At present there is a small minority which is seeking to deliberately confuse the public on the causes of climate change. They are often misrepresenting the science, when the reality is that the evidence is getting stronger every day. We have reached a point where a failure to take action to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions would be irresponsible and dangerous."

The Royal Society (the UK's leading scientific academy)

So allow me to correct these misrepresentations with apologies in advance for the length:

1 - GW concerns centre on the speed of change; the absolute temperature is not as much a worry as how quickly we get there. 2,000-year averages are simply not germane to the GW discussion (they are valid for some research, but not to GW)

2 - The MWP was a short-term, localised weather phenomen and not indicative of GLOBAL climate

3 - Same for the little ice age which was mainly felt only in the north Atlantic region. The "trend is best described as a modest and irregular cooling from AD 1000 to around 1850 to 1900, followed by an abrupt 20th century warming." It's that 'abrupt' that is at the root of GW discussions.

4 - Yes, the last Glacial Maximum was 18,000 years ago and I agree that "during this time frame, the glaciers have been melting at a fairly consistent rate"(although the link provided says nothing about this). Point is, we're not debating the past 18,000 years nor the next 18,000 - we are worried about the last 100 and the next 100!

During THIS time frame, glacial melt has been far from consistent with historical averages:

"Glacial melt rates since 2000 was1.6 times more than the 1990s and three times the loss rate of the 1980s"

Melt water "from large glaciers in southern Greenland has almost doubled in the last 10 years"

"in recent decades glaciers have begun melting at rates that cannot be explained by historical trends"

As for "for most of the last 1 billion years, the earth had NO glaciers or ice", for most of the last 1 billion years life as we know it did not, and could not have lived on this planet (including humans).

5 - "They arrived at this idea because they did not know of anything else..." - flat out wrong! Scientists came to this conclusion from factual evidence, theory and modelling - in other words, normal scientific methods.

"during the 70's and during the current decade, temperatures dropped while CO2 continued to rise" - very misleading and bad statistics: Take a series of ten years in a row. Each year will be hotter or colder than the previous one. If colder, then the statement "the temperature dropped" is true... BUT we are not talking about year-on-year variations (this is as useful as saying it rained yesterday but not today hence the world is getting drier...).

The average of the 70s (14.01 degrees) was cooler than the 80s (14.26) was cooler than the 90s (14.40) was cooler than 2000-04 (14.59)... the hottest years on record are 2005, 1998, 2002, 2003 and 2004.

6 - There ARE links to solar radiation and minor variations in climate; there are no links to long term climate change: "even though the sun's activity has been decreasing since 1985, global temperatures have continued to rise at an accelerating rate; the issue of whether the sun's activity is causing global warming had been dispensed with by most scientists long ago."

The IPCC found that "the maximum likely influence of solar" fluctuations on climate change is just 20%.

7 - I love this one... "Coke sales in the arctics are through the roof." I've seen this a few times now but no one can explain to me what the sale of sweet fizzy drinks in an area has to do with global climate change...

Polar bear populations are booming in one area only: The proper facts are: Of 19 "discrete" polar bear populations, two are "increasing," six are "stable," five are "declining," and six remain beyond the government's ability to calculate.

The population boom observed in the two areas of increase can be explained by a) migration due to habitat loss elsewhere (e.g. loss of ice cap) into more denser human populations and b) conservation (mainly of seals - more seals = more bears). The fact remains that the bears in general are stressed, habitat is decreasing rapidly and their future remains uncertain - we should never wait until a population crashes before doing something!

That said, this issue has been seized upon by both sides as an emotional and political issue - polar bear populations are NOT a primary indicator of global warming!

8 - Yes, 'many' glaciers are expanding: Again, localised effect anticipated by GW (more snowfall in some places due to more water in the atmosphere).

But 'many more' are shrinking... "Sixty-seven percent of glaciers are retreating at a startling rate in the Himalayas and the major causal factor has been identified as climate change"

"Glaciers throughout Alaska are shrinking more and more rapidly"

87 per cent of glaciers on the Antarctic Peninsula have retreated over the past 50 years.

Antarctica is growing in the centre, yes. This is an anticipated effect of GW (warmer planet = more water in the air = more precipitation; Warmer air over the poles = more precipitation at the poles). Even the link he provides says that the increase in ice only "partially" offsets the rise in sea level due to melting ice.

Once again, Crazy is being selective with the data and trying to use local conditions to argue global issues - doesn't work!

9 - No, there isn't a complete consensus. Never will be on any subject on this planet. Doesn't need to be either... Science doesn't work by consensus of opinion, it works on fact. The majority of internationally recognised, non-partisan climatology experts however, do agree on the basic facts.

Global public iopinion polls clearly demostrate that the majority of the world's population believes that GW is real, man is a primary cause and we should do something about it.

10 - The link provided has poor science; by including natural sources of water vapour, it distorts the picture. The point is that the world's climate was more or less in balance, displaying minor variations until UNnatural greenhouse gases disturbed the balance.

Man's contribution to the CHANGE in greenhouse gases (and it is the change, not the total, that drives GW) is almost 100%. The IPCC says that it is over 90% certain that GW is man-made.

Crazy's facts are derived from this one web site that is run by Monte Hieb who worked as the chief engineer for the West Virginia Office of Miner’s Safety. He is an amateur fossilist. He is not a climate scientist. He has not published any scientific papers on causes of global warming.

My facts are from the IPCC, a UN body convened with the approval of all the world's governments; they were given the Nobel Peace Prize for their work in climate change.

11 - Again, Crazy is right - poverty is more of a factor in the spread of disease than temperature. But temperature is more of a factor in when diseases become endemic to a region thus driving up vulnerability and/or health care costs as people protect themselves from a new threat.

basically, he's saying 'don't worry Americans, you will have a whole pile more health worries but as you have money to throw away on prevention and cure, it's not a big deal..."

12 - "monsoon floods have come early to Bangladesh in a clear sign of climate change" (United Nations)

"Climate change causing jump in natural disasters" (CNN)

"GW has produced an increase in precipitation during the 20th century, mostly in the form of heavy rainstorms" and "warm weather caused an early snowmelt that resulted in record flooding in parts of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, California, Nevada and Montana" (National Climatic Data Center)

"GW is likely to result in more typhoons and hurricanes and more severe and frequent droughts" (United Nations)

"Global warming link to natural disasters" (Seattlepi)

"Global warming aggravates natural disasters" (China Education and Research Network)

- why wait until disaster hits?

Answer 6

Out here in the wild, wild West we are having wild fires by the 100s. Last year the weather was actually cooler and this year the temperature is cooler but the climate is drier and wild fires do happen.

Answer 7

Oi vey, I apologize for all the "skeptics" on here.

As for weather affects, there are tons of them. Affects observed so far seem to include:

-Flooding in some areas AND drought in other areas. The American south has been experiencing record droughts these past few years. As rainfall patterns shift, some areas get wetter while others get drier.

-The earlier arrival of the growing season has stimulated agriculture in some areas, but it has also disrupted it in others due to affects like the aforementioned droughts.

-A rise in sea levels could endanger low-lying areas, such as much of Florida, Bangladesh, the Netherlands, and possibly even parts of London and New York.

-It has been speculated that if glacial melting dilutes the Gulf Stream, it could lead to a "mini ice age" for the North Atlantic, a.k.a. Europe and northern North America.

Of course many of these effects are things that have not yet started to happen, and may not become significant for decades. But they are possible future consequences of global warming.

Answer 8

It's fictitious.  It isn't causing any flooding.  Or any other things.

The earth warmed by .6 of 1 deg. C over the last hundred years or so, and no more.  Since 1998, there has been no warming whatsoever.  If CO2 was causing global warming, it would have continued to get warmer, but it didn't.

The minor ups and downs in temperature are caused by mother nature.

Answer 9

It's pretty hard to get any straight answers around here.  Too many immature ideologues that apparently slept through their High School science and math classes.

Here's a good video (4th one down on the list) by actual climate scientists answering that question:

http://www.ucar.edu/webcasts/voices/#

Answer 10

when the polar ice caps melt, the cold water sinks and joins the global currents(very long story short)which in turn cause changes in the air currents, which cause climate changes for the earth, such as water where there was no water before(storms),dryness where there was lots of water before(famine,drought).theese climate changes will be too much for the earth's wildlife and most will die but the most hardy(cockroaches,lol).some of the earth's wildlife is already getting affected.frogs,polarbears,penguins are in emediate danger. other's are not far after. and i'm not sure how it works but, many diseases that have been resufacing because of it.

Answer 11

You only think it can cause floods because of media disinformation and An Inconvenient "Truth"  In actual fact our planet is constantly changing, heating and cooling, and mans actions have very little effect.

Answer 12

Global warming will reduce cloud cover because it requires more water vapour in the air before we get cloud formation.

When clouds do form, and it goes on to produce precipitation we get big precipitation events, but we also get fewer precipitation events world wide, and longer periods between rains... that means pervasive and widespread drought events that are likely to be ended with those big floods.

Global warming per se does not cause, but is caused by the condition that causes tornadoes.

That is, an enhanced greenhouse effect keeps more heat close to earth and colder strata of air above. That is prime for tornado.  

We can get tornado without that enhanced greenhouse effect. It is just that the conditions that give us tornado are enhanced with that enhanced greenhouse effect.

We will get more wildfires, not because of global warming, but because of droughts that global warming bring. We do not get more wildfires during a flood.

We get more wildfires when we have more lightning. Now do we get more lightning with global warming? not necessarily. We do not get more storms, just bigger storms.

Global warming per se does not make the oceans warm up. but having lower cloud cover does mean that more sunlight reaches the oceans to be absorbed. This will have varying effects, some good, many bad. But it will greatly increase the number and size of ocean dead zones, because it will trigger much more growth of sea vegetation.

Warming of the oceans is of course necessary to sustain a major new ice age. We need warm seas so that they can pour gigatons of water, as snow, on the land masses closer to the poles.

Ironically, the most catastrophic result of global warming could be a major ice age, but not in my lifetime.

We could get a minor ice age without having the oceans warmed up. That would help to avert (delay) a major ice age.

Anyway, if we can not stop global warming by cutting emissions, we will need to plan to do a lot more irrigation to consume the  excess CO2, and of course to feed ourselves.