What about the possibilty of global warming being good.?

Question

My calc professor is always stating that Global Warming is a good thing. He has shown a graph that dates the fluctuation of heat rising and falling for thousands of yrs. He says that if it wasnt for burning the fossil fuels we would already be going into a "little" Ice Age, Im adding the graph plotting the Earths temp throughout 100,000's yrs.

http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/images/global_temp2.jpg

I need to know how I can debate with him. He says "would you rather keep the polar bears or your own brother. You decide. Id better start researching agriculture on ice"

Answer 1

Its a forgone conclusion that a warm climate leads to more prosperous times for humanity, and you do not have to look back but a few hundred years to see that the climate can fluctuate rapidly and dramatically, and it has nothing to do with humanity.

http://www.longrangeweather.com/images/G...

.

.

Answer 2

he obviously does not live in Mexico .or China .or aby other place that has been heavily affected

Global warming is but a component, in a group of destructive forces at work such as ;deforestation,desertification,Subsequen... wind and Water erosion,soil and water contamination ,irresponsible or wasteful utilization of bio resources and air pollution.

WHICH WE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR.

A while ago one of NASA's top scientists concluded that the Arctic Ocean could be nearly ice-free within five years, much faster than all previous predictions.

when the north pole is gone , you may have polar bears soon in America ,looking for a home ,

Calculations do not include the accumulative ,speeding up ,factor with time. the increase in water temperature will get faster all the time as well as the melting, when the ice is all gone the deeper cold Ocean currents will be drastically affected,which in turn will affect the warm currents,since all moving bodies of water are connected in series.

This will affect coastal climates ,world wide ,almost instantly. All aquatic flora and fauna will be affected,many dying off and others becoming invasive,

And recently In Chiapas ,and Tabasco in Mexico .more then a million people became homeless overnight with water coming up to their roofs ,because of rains from super evaporation from the forests,this had never happened before. Millions of animals died.

In India 3000 people died because of super storms .

.A few years ago in Europe 3500 people,died during a heat wave ,many of them in France .

Right now the average death toll annually is 150.000 due to Global warming

. these figures are already out of date and are expected to double soon.

In Northern China millions of people are running for their lives because regular dust storms so far have buried 900 villages under the sand and the whole of northern China is turning into a dessert.

The Sahara is growing by 7 kilometers a year all around the edges ,like a slow burning fire shriveling up their neighbors In the Kalahari huge rivers have dried up and thousand of species are gone due to their habitats disappearing .

The biggest changes are invisible at micro biotic levels species are becoming extinct ,others are multiplying ,

This affects the insect populations that follow ,and changes in that ,affect all that follows in the food chains ,

in the last 300 years half of the planets forests have gone

and in the last 50 years

half of our wet lands ,rain forests and ice fields .and 3000 species of animals .

We are now witnessing a mass Extinction of animals and plants of Biblical proportions,equal since the disappearance of the dinosaurs

.

There is a series that you can download easy ,called

bbc,Planet earth by David Attenborough.

About 15 ---700mb videos

this is a photographic team that has been filming Nature stories all over the world ,for a very long time .

In 3 of the episodes called --the future--saving species(this one covers extinction and the importance of species)

the future--living together ,ice worlds ,

they compare films they made before of places and species to what they are filming now in the same places.

Many scientists give commentaries as well .

Whole migrations of animals involving millions have disappeared in only 20 years,

in one place in the tundras ,in just 5 years

If we want to save ourselves as a specie ,we have to address

the problems

We can correct most of the destructive factors

with disciplines ,changes of attitude and habits,alternative energies ,sustainable design etc.

All species are in Danger eventually,and each is important because all of Life on this planet is interrelated even if it is not obvious

Imagine that the Eco system is a wall and each specie is represented by a brick

Every brick taken out weakens the wall ,and eventually it will collapse ,which brick is the most important ???

they are all important and we are one of the bricks

Answer 3

Your professor is right about the ice age thing. Based on past climatic cycles we are "due" for an ice age.

The problem isn't that the earth is getting hotter, the problem is that fact that it's happening at an extremely high rate. This gives life and ecosystems little chance to adapt.

I wouldn't say that global warming is a good thing though.

Don't let your professor infuence you too much. Don't let me influence you too much either for that matter. Educate yourself.

Answer 4

It's not really possible.  The information in the links below will provide you with plenty of reasons.

The graph for 10,000 years lets you see the picture much better.  The cooling was very slow, and easily dealt with.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Ima...

The rapid warming since 1970 or so - not so much.  Our modern society, with massive coastal development and intensive agriculture, would be badly damaged by global warming.  The cost would be huge.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6096...

If we do nothing, things will be very bad.

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNe...

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/ar4-wg2.h...

Answer 5

It is nonsense for anyone with a proper scientific background to say we are due for another ice age.  Elementary research into past climate changes will show you these do not occur with the a predictable  frequency. And anyone who   thinks the global warming issue can be debated  in terms of a choice between keeping polar bears and your brother isn't worth debating with - and you say this man is a professor?

Take a look at the current media coverage of upward revisions of the expected increases in sea level by 2100, now estimated in a range either side of a metre based on new data on the rate of melt of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. This is about twice the earlier estimate released by the UN's International Panel on Climate Change.   As for the climate change deniers there is no point in debating with them  as they live in a fantasyland  which denies proven science accepted wordwide by every reputable national and international scientific body.

Answer 6

That possibility is very close to zero percent.  

Ask him if he's familiar with past warmings of the same magnitude, and what happens when the oceans become acidic.  Here's what happens:

Permian–Triassic extinction event

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permian-Tri...

It was the Earth's most severe extinction event, with up to 96 percent of all marine species and 70 percent of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct. Because approximately 25 percent of species survived the event, the recovery of life on earth took significantly longer than after other extinction events. This event has been described as the "mother of all mass extinctions".

This time up to 58% of all species on the planet are expected to die:

http://www.killerinourmidst.com/methane%...

A careful examination of a large number of species in numerous parts of the planet projects that a stunning portion of them will be "committed to extinction" in just 50 years, with only modest global warming (Thomas, 2004).

The findings are the result of a comprehensive examination of more than a thousand terrestrial species -- plants, insects, mammals, birds, frogs and reptiles -- in regions representing about 20% of the Earth's surface. The regions studied are located in all continents except Asia, and represent a wide variety of environments: boreal (northern), temperate, and tropical forests, tundra, grasslands, savannah, deserts. The amount of warming that was projected in the study was shockingly small. Three projections were used: 0.8 to 1.7 °C (1.4 to 3.0°F) in the minimal warming case, 1.8 to 2.0°C (3.2 to 3.6°F) with mid-range climate change, over 2.0°C (3.6°F) at maximum (Thomas, 2004; Pounds and Puschendorf, 2004).

But with only this rather minimal amount of warming, and even with an assumed ability to disperse to more favorable environments, 11, 19, and 33 percent of total species (in minimal, mid-range, and maximal cases, respectively) will disappear. Mortality among those species with little or no ability to disperse will be considerably higher (34, 45, and 58 % in the respective no dispersal cases).

---

Furthermore, it appears that rising CO2 levels make food less nutritious, so we'll have to find ways to grow more of it (while growing conditions have become a lot more challenging through heat, drought, etc.):

Warming may change the nature of the food we eat

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Science/Suzu...

---

A math professor should be particularly well suited to understand the seriousness of this finding that aerosols may be temporarily supressing the effects of CO2:

"HEAT CAPACITY, TIME CONSTANT, AND SENSITIVITY OF EARTH'S CLIMATE SYSTEM" by Stephen E. Schwartz, June 2007

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/steve/pubs/HeatCa...

"It should be emphasized that one should not take any comfort with the fact that the aerosols may be negating much of the greenhouse gas forcing--in fact just the opposite. Because the atmospheric residence time of tropospheric aerosols is short (about a week) compared to the decades-to-centuries lifetimes of the greenhouse gases, then to whatever extent greenhouse gas forcing is being offset by aerosol forcing, it is last week's aerosols that are offsetting forcing by decades worth of greenhouse gases. Because the greenhouse gases are long-lived in the atmosphere, their atmospheric loadings tend to approximate the integral of emissions. Because the aerosols are short-lived, their loading tend to be proportional to the emissions themselves. There is only one function that is proportional to its own integral, the exponential function. So only if society is to make a commitment to continued exponential growth of emissions can such an offset be maintained indefinitely. And of course exponential growth cannot be maintained forever. So if the cooling influence of aerosols is in fact offsetting much of the warming influence of anthropogenic greenhouse gases, then when society is unable to maintain this exponential growth, the climate could be in for a real and long-lasting shock."

Here's more on Steven Schwartz's expert opinion, based on that mathematical problem that CO2 stays in the air 1000+ years and accumulates, while the mitigating aerosol pollutants don't:

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/news/NationalPost...

Stephen Schwartz knows as much about the effects of aerosols on climate change as anyone in the world, and he's worried. He believes climate change is so massive an economic issue that we face costs "in the trillions if not quadrillions of dollars." He thinks a Herculean effort and great sacrifice is required to get the world down to zero net increase in carbon dioxide concentrations, an effort he compares to that which the Allies undertook in their all-out war against n**i Germany and Japan.

"Recall World War II, where everyone was making a sacrifice: gas rationing, tire rationing, no new car production, food rationing," he explains. "I don't think the people of the world are ready or prepared to make such a level of personal sacrifice. Perhaps when the consequences of climate change become more apparent that will change. But by that time, there will be irreversible changes in climate."

http://www.ecd.bnl.gov/news/NorthShoreSu...

"I'm very concerned about the world my grandchildren will live in," said Mr. Schwartz, who is currently studying climate change. "There could be an increase of four to eight degrees in the next century, and that's huge. The last time there was a five-degree Celsius decrease was the last ice age. An increase of eight degrees Fahrenheit would bring change unprecedented in the last half-million years."

----

Let us know what he thinks about the aerosols vs. CO2 equation.  Also ask him how many human societies survived the Permian-Triassic Extinction (or how many would given that scenario on a planet with nearly 7 billion people on it).

If food riots are already starting to happen now, what will magically protect that from happening when the poor (and eventually the middle class), can't afford food in other countries?

http://www.climatechangenews.org/nFood.h...

Given the outlook for the world food supply, the Pentagon is seriously considering global riots and anarchy in as little as 12 years:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/...

"Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated."

Thbrother. You decide. Id better start researching agriculture on ice"

Your Answer

No spam please! When in doubt, please refer to our Community Guidelines.

is Summer they'll be practicing policing the United States as people become desperate for food:

http://www.upi.com/International_Securit...

"U.S. foreign affairs and military experts will stage a war game this summer to study and highlight the national security threats posed by global warming."

What does a math professor think will magically protect human societies as supply and demand causes food prices to go up while people's "paper wealth" (backed by value in real estate, secured by large loans) quickly disappears in a long term economic downturn?

---

Ted's Mom - How can you go on about "real facts" but offer (and pay attention to) none?  What could Al Gore possibly have to do with science?  He presents it (not particularly well), but he does not represent the validity or invalidity of the concepts that he presents.  Poor Ted.  Given your attention to the facts, he's going to have dramatically lower odds of survival in the years to come.

---

Bob - Evidence does not support your impression that the Little Ice Age was easily adapted to.  The change in climate caused a tremendous amount of conflict globally.

http://www.gatech.edu/newsroom/release.h...

"Climate change may be one of the most significant threats facing humankind. A new study shows that long-term climate change may ultimately lead to wars and population decline."

"The researchers collected war data from multiple sources, including a database of 4,500 wars ..."

Answer 7

Not very good.

Answer 8

Maybe he's right.  Why are you so sure you should debate with him?  Just curious.  I know the cult of Global Warming is the new religion of youth.  There are thousands of scientists that dispute that it is happening, that it is human-caused, and/or that it is a problem.  When I was working as a graduate student, the Geography professor showed a graph like the one you link to and said that we were just going through another cycle, etc.  One of the Environmentalist extremists in the class just freaked out.  Just a little hint, if you do debate try not to be emotional about it.  Get some real facts, not some Al Gore garbage.

Answer 9

how much life & bio mass is produced in 12 months in Brazil where its hot?

how much is produced in 12 months in Canada  where it cold?

which climate is more conducive to all forms of life based on this evidence?

Answer 10

Not only are we making earth's temp rise but to do that we have also opened a hole in the ozone layer. This is unfixable and can only keep getting larger thus letting the sun and uv rays in to our earth making our temp rise at a scarry speed. Also, if we keep using our fossil fuels they will be gone in only a couple decades if not years. As the growth of the population will increase the amount of cars being used and fossil fuels being used will increase ripping the ozone layer open even more.

Also I am a HUGE fan of the polar bear and I have no brothers (I have anoying little sisters) so I feel strongly about that comment. The polar bear will be gone in only a couple of years as the temp keeps rising and the artic melts killing along with it many of the animals up there.