What are the consequences of inaction for global warming?

Question

What will actually happen if man does not take some drastic measures to "fix" global warming? Is there any reason at all to believe the doomsday scenarios, or are the actual consequences much less than the chicken littles predict?

Is it a bad thing if the temperate zones grow some? If, for example, the Gulf Stream shuts down because Greenland gets warm, won't that make Greenland cold again? If the Pacific gets warmer, won't that increase the production of clouds that reflect solar energy, which will cool things off? It seems to me that every catastrophic prediction I've seen has an ameliorating reaction that results in little or no actual long term effect.

So other than creating lots of grant money for researchers and good material for movie-making, are there any REAL consequences that will threaten mankind unless immediate drastic measures (whatever those would be) are taken?

Answer 1

None - In 50 years you will not be able to determine that there has been any warming or not.

By that time, we'll be looking back and wondering what the h**l were they thinking by believing in global warming.

Answer 2

We must do our best to not squander the Earth's bounty, but we have to leave temperature and cycles to the Creator. He has a plan.

All we have are EGOS

Answer 3

there was a study dose a while ago in the UK that found that it would cost about 1% of global GDP to solve global warming but it would cost between 10 and 20 % of global gdp to not act. sounds like a no brainier to me.

there will also be many more complex changes most of which are outlined here.

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

Answer 4

The consequences of unreduced global warming will be severe, but it's not the end of the world.  It's still far better to reduce it some.

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.  People fleeing across national borders could start wars, and the US military is very worried about that.

The bottom line is that, for most people here, the consequences are mostly economic.  Bad, though:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6096...

It's a lot cheaper to take some steps to reduce it.  Those will not be trivial, but we're not going to have to go back in time, either.  As a bonus we'll reduce our insane dependence on imported oil.  Maybe make some money selling technology.

Good question, honestly stated.  Starred.

EDIT - By the way this guy is the leading expert on the Earth's ability to heal itself, which he thinks is superb.  The data on global warming has convinced him this is different.

http://www.amazon.com/Revenge-Gaia-Earth...

EDIT2 - MARIS.ROGER - The reason for the similarity with the MWP is that what's happened so far is like the MWP, only a little more so.  What will happen if we keep going is not.   And our modern agriculture system is far more highly stressed and far more sensitive to climate change than the one back then.