Positive benefits of global warming ? (organic, bike, buy, oil)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah. Warm weather is great for life, animals and plants!
Plants also love CO2. Plants have been on a CO2 starvation diet since the Jurassic period when CO2 levels were 6 TIMES higher than today. These facts get completely lost in the whole global warming hysteria.
And IF you believe that humans can alter temperature, when you look at this chart you would agree that we are heading into another ice age. Do you really want North America to be covered in ice again? http://www.investingadvicewatchdog.c...00000years.jpg
It's really not a question of belief, it's a question of reality.
Aw, why do I even bother? This forum is so choc a bloc full of right wing know nothings spewing their insanity, it's better that I just go get a bite to eat than waste any time attempting to explain climate change to the people that come to this site. It's like talking to the cat. On second thought, the cat has some common sense.
Yes, it certainly IS a question of reality.
While it is true that some land that is now arable will become desert (IF we are too lazy to bother getting water to it for irrigation), land that is now frozen will become arable land as the climate warms (IF we are not too lazy to find water to irrigate it).
Humanity will have to adapt or die, just as all other plants and animals will have to adapt or die.
The main problem is, humanity is showing a distinct lack of willingness to adapt.
"THEY" keep harping on the lack of potable water, but have done nothing to increase the supply of clean water. One would think that California would be building desalinization plants all along the coast, but they seem to be more interested in cutting tunnels through the mountains to bring in more water from areas that barely have enough for themselves!
"THEY" keep harping on the inevitable sea level rise, but have done nothing to adapt the coastline to the increasing water levels that "THEY" say are bound to happen. If The Netherlands did it all those many years ago, surely the United States can do it now! Yet, nothing is being done.
YES, there really ARE some positive aspects to global climate change. But, being positive does not sell newspapers nor does it allow for the creation of new laws and taxes. Disasters and Doom and Gloom are much more marketable!
It's really not a question of belief, it's a question of reality.
Aw, why do I even bother? This forum is so choc a bloc full of right wing know nothings spewing their insanity, it's better that I just go get a bite to eat than waste any time attempting to explain climate change to the people that come to this site. It's like talking to the cat. On second thought, the cat has some common sense.
Got that right. The last three years have gotten increasingly hotter across the planet. The last 6 mos are the hottest on record. Kuwait just hit 129 degrees- record for that area. CO2 levels are the highest ever recorded.
The average person remains clueless. The scientists are screaming this out and producing paper after paper on it. Trump insists they're all just lying and wants a new oil pipeline.
The short term dangers to humanity are huge. Water wars, floods, huge storms, climate refugees on every continent, crop failures, massive wild fires. Sure, the planet will change and survive but we're just sitting on our rear ends and waiting for the crises to occur instead of doing anything. People are still moving to the Keys even though they're going underwater, still moving to the southwest even though drought will hit crisis levels. Just business as usual.
Yes, it certainly IS a question of reality.
While it is true that some land that is now arable will become desert (IF we are too lazy to bother getting water to it for irrigation), land that is now frozen will become arable land as the climate warms (IF we are not too lazy to find water to irrigate it).
Humanity will have to adapt or die, just as all other plants and animals will have to adapt or die.
The main problem is, humanity is showing a distinct lack of willingness to adapt.
"THEY" keep harping on the lack of potable water, but have done nothing to increase the supply of clean water. One would think that California would be building desalinization plants all along the coast, but they seem to be more interested in cutting tunnels through the mountains to bring in more water from areas that barely have enough for themselves!
"THEY" keep harping on the inevitable sea level rise, but have done nothing to adapt the coastline to the increasing water levels that "THEY" say are bound to happen. If The Netherlands did it all those many years ago, surely the United States can do it now! Yet, nothing is being done.
YES, there really ARE some positive aspects to global climate change. But, being positive does not sell newspapers nor does it allow for the creation of new laws and taxes. Disasters and Doom and Gloom are much more marketable!
You're right. We ARE showing a distinct lack of willingness to adapt and I think what tops that list is getting off of fossil fuels in favor of something safer, more localized and in some cases, more enjoyable (like riding an electric bike!).
I hope you realize that the "THEY" in Florida that won't change their infrastructure are not the ones that believe in any climate change. You can't change infrastructure without social and political forces and the political and social forces in that state are so unyielding and anti-scientific that they literally wiped the term "climate change" from their state government.
So I ask you, how can you expect "THEY" to adapt to the coastline's increasing water levels if they are so fantastically opposed to discussing the causation of it? In this situation, it's on THEM, the DENIERS... and what absolutely sucks about it is that these same people in 10-20 years are going to beg the federal government "Oh help me Big Government! Our community's streets are so flooded that nobody can drive around many days a week! Our landscaping is ruined by all the saltwater coming up! And now my mortgage is underwater too, because nobody will buy my house! Help us Big Government, whatever shall be done!"
I like this article... some are willing to face the challenge:
[url=http://www.npr.org/2016/05/17/477014145/rising-seas-made-this-republican-mayor-a-climate-change-believer]Rising Sea Levels Made This Republican Mayor A Climate Change Believer : NPR[/url]
Yes, of course there will be localities that experience a perceived positive change. The weather may become more enjoyable, but the issue is that it's not just about the weather or crops. Changes are systemic and have systemic consequences. We are very likely not going to understand all the intricacies.
To give an example (and this is really an amazing story outside of climate change) for decades Yellow Stone Natl Park had a problem with Aspen trees dying and decreasing populations of small mammals and other organic degradations and they didn't understand why. They looked at a whole host of issues like parasites, molds, funguses and changes in the climate... nothing popped up in the data... except for one curiosity: wolves. The park's landscape started changing, the aspens, beavers and fish started struggling when wolves were removed from the park in the 1920's. So scientists began to ask themselves, can the disappearance of a single species cause so much change within a particular ecosystem? Like, really?
So in 1995 they brought wolves and they've been charting the changes closely ever since... and their findings are pretty substantial:
[url=http://oregonstate.edu/ua/ncs/archives/2011/dec/yellowstone-transformed-15-years-after-return-wolves]Yellowstone transformed 15 years after the return of wolves | News and Research Communications | Oregon State University[/url]
Turns out wolves are pretty important for balancing out an entire system. In fact they are given a special status: they are a keystone species.
Now Yellowstone Natl is up in the mountains and it gets a lot of winter up there. You could say that it would benefit from warmer temperatures. It would mean that more people could visit and enjoy the park each year. That would be perceived as a benefit of climate change. But what happens to the park when another keystone species has less tolerance to the heat and drought and disappears causing a massive effect on the rest of the park. Suddenly the park is ugly and not enjoyable despite more people coming out to enjoy it.
This happened to me, by the way, this summer. When I was a young girl my parents took me to the Yosemite and Sequoia Natl Parks in California and I had the most amazing memories of healthy forests and trees wider than my house! I had been looking forward to sharing that experience with my own kids for decades and the summer we packed the car and headed south. When I got to Yosemite I was horrified: the trees were dead. Nearly half of them. Dead! We were staying at a private resort and the owner was a staunch Republican with a little political shrine in the corner of the front office (I had to slightly gesture to my kids to bite their tongues and be polite!). So having just arrived and not having time to get online about the trees I asked the woman what happened. She said it was so horrible.. she and her husband had lost 600 trees that very spring. That all the trees were alive up until the beginning of the year... but then the bark beetle came. She blames it on the Yosemite fire of 2013... it never happened until after the fire...
I had my thoughts about it, but I kept them to myself and waited to talk to a forest ranger, an opportunity I got the following day, and he told me that yes, it's the bark beetle, but it's happening due to drought. The drought is causing the trees to produce less sap. The sap is what pushes out the larvae of the bark beetle before it causes destruction. Without the sap the larvae continues to grow and destroy the trees' ability to get nutrients and it dies, from the top down.
I really wanted to tell the woman before I left what I had learned. I wanted to share with her that with all that money she spent to fell the trees (600 of them, can you imagine that cost?). I wanted so badly to tell her:
You are a victim of climate change.
But I didn't. I was on vacation and not there to get into some political spat. Still the experience was very grounding and sobering and a serious buzzkill: Dry rusted trees everywhere.
The good news? The sequoias themselves are fine. The bark beetle doesn't grow in their bark.
For example:
The Indus River flows from Tibet through Pakistan and used to empty into the sea at Karachi.
It doesn't empty any more; it simply dries up. That's because the Pakistani's have over used it.
The Indus river is glacier fed.
As the glaciers melt (and they are) the Indus river will fill up. People down stream will celebrate.
Then there will be no more water for Pakistan.
It will be very, very bad.
This scenario will replay in Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh. The Chinese, who claimed Tibet BECAUSE of the water, will attempt to divert all outflow North to China. You can imagine what India will be like without water.
I am a right wing "nut case". I don't believe that all these taxes, and treaties and so forth will affect global warming one bit. Global warming will happen. The Aral Sea disaster will recur. (Don't know what happened to the Aral Sea? - LOOK IT UP!)
The much discussed rising of the sea is the least of the world's worries.
Mass starvation and nuclear war is the greatest.
One of the best sources is "The Future of Water", a documentary available from Netflix.
For example:
The Indus River flows from Tibet through Pakistan and used to empty into the sea at Karachi.
It doesn't empty any more; it simply dries up. That's because the Pakistani's have over used it.
The Indus river is glacier fed.
As the glaciers melt (and they are) the Indus river will fill up. People down stream will celebrate.
Then there will be no more water for Pakistan.
It will be very, very bad.
This scenario will replay in Pakistan, India, and Bangladesh. The Chinese, who claimed Tibet BECAUSE of the water, will attempt to divert all outflow North to China. You can imagine what India will be like without water.
I am a right wing "nut case". I don't believe that all these taxes, and treaties and so forth will affect global warming one bit. Global warming will happen. The Aral Sea disaster will recur. (Don't know what happened to the Aral Sea? - LOOK IT UP!)
The much discussed rising of the sea is the least of the world's worries.
Mass starvation and nuclear war is the greatest.
One of the best sources is "The Future of Water", a documentary available from Netflix.
I can't even think about what will happen abroad to other countries with less resources than ours. I think what's happening in our own boundaries is hard enough. I'm moving to China, but I'll be very glad to come home if all that happens.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
)
