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.
You can ice skate on the Tames river, no need to use the bridges as it freezes over.
Less air conditioning bill in the summer.
This is tongue in cheek at the green weenies.
I'll take warmer as you can grow crops inside of the artic circle if it is warm enough, you can't grow crops on top of a glacier.
But you probably won't be able to grow crops where they are grown now.
Why these eruptions are necessary to bring into the conversation is a drastic change in temp didn't cause mass extinctions. Daylight isn't everything in biology. Look at the UK and look at Manitoba, which has more species. There are plenty of species that can tolerate the daylight problem if the temp is warm enough and the climate wet enough.
Yes, the hurricanes and tornadoes might increase with climate change, I'll give you that.
But how would any of the species you mentioned go extinct. They move around. It's not like they can't move to where the food is.
That 70% number is inflated. That would require every single climate in the world to shift drastically, and that's not going to happen.
Do you really understand how migration patterns work, not all animals migrate for one and they do not have enough time to adapt to the changes. Krakatoa only affected the weather for about 4 years, not enough to cause changes in habitat, Yellowstone changed the weather for the entire world, caused many extinctions, especially the northern hemisphere. That 70% loss is over the next 200 years and our weather has already changed in the past century, what makes you think it will not continue to get worse over the next two centuries? Every single climate in the world has already been altered and as the climate warms up the weather extremes will increase, it is all part of a loop and any changes get amplified down the route.
I do not deny science. But I do use common cense now and again. Fossils of crocodiles at the poles tends to indicate it was warmer then that now.
going from ICE AGE to back again involves rapid climate change. Ice is an amplifier of climate change. if you want a stable climate then it is all ice or no ice. We have had snow ball earth before. Want to have that climate in our future? Or how about no ice. With no ice then a bit cooler gets just a bit cooler not an ice age. A bit warmer gets you a bit warmer not the end of an ice age.
Stable is good.
I'm challenging your conclusion. Warmer is better. You can't keep what we have long term as it will cool off or warm up more.
Fossils of crocodiles at the poles are there because the land mass that is there now, was in a different more equitable situation for crocodiles. The continents were in different locations over the age of the earth, it is called continental drift or plate tectonics. We technically did not have snow ball earth, which would be total ice coverage, the equator has always been ice free.
It is actually a 5th grade level spelling ability. Thank you very much. What those scientist are advocating is reducing green house emissions. What they aren't telling you is that the climate before the current warming trend started was the little ice age. Do you want to go ice skating on the thames river in England? It was cold and they don't talk about the really big hail stone in Europe as well.
The little ice age was not global, it was pretty much regional and limited to the northern hemisphere. Evidence over the past few years shows signs of major volcanic activity and lack of sunspots were part of a large combination that caused the little ice age. The biggest issue with a warmer climate is a rising ocean, as much as 30 feet if it warms up by just 5º, a colder climate would lock up more moisture in ice at the poles and high altitudes, causing the oceans to drop and more coast land would become available for living and agriculture. I am for a colder world.
The real question is even if we concede humans are responsible for global warning is will the cost to the West of any actions they take to reduce global warming be exceeded by the benefits of acting unilaterally to reduce global warming. Shipping jobs to China and India will do nothing to reduce GW. We are still at the same point we were with the Kyoto bs.
Do you really understand how migration patterns work, not all animals migrate for one and they do not have enough time to adapt to the changes. Krakatoa only affected the weather for about 4 years, not enough to cause changes in habitat, Yellowstone changed the weather for the entire world, caused many extinctions, especially the northern hemisphere. That 70% loss is over the next 200 years and our weather has already changed in the past century, what makes you think it will not continue to get worse over the next two centuries? Every single climate in the world has already been altered and as the climate warms up the weather extremes will increase, it is all part of a loop and any changes get amplified down the route.
Ok, I didn't know yellowstone was followed by a major extinction.
But have the climates been changed everywhere? The only trends I can see here is the US has gotten wetter on average since the beginning of the 20th century. And global warming effects the poles most, not the tropics, that's why I'm really questioning your 70%, since the arctic species are very few and have very wide ranges. If it does effect the tropics, then I can see more justification for extinction.
Ok, I didn't know yellowstone was followed by a major extinction.
But have the climates been changed everywhere? The only trends I can see here is the US has gotten wetter on average since the beginning of the 20th century. And global warming effects the poles most, not the tropics, that's why I'm really questioning your 70%, since the arctic species are very few and have very wide ranges. If it does effect the tropics, then I can see more justification for extinction.
Well, globally the world just had its warmest year since they started recording the temperatures in 1849. The west coast has become dryer, we had our warmest and driest summer in over 160 years, this was our fourth January with out much rain in a row. The worst part of a warmer climate is less snow and we need snow pack for summer run off. As it is now with California, the snow wants to be at or above 8000 feet and it used to be way below that. Rain just runs off into the rivers and eventually into the ocean, snow melts slowly and replenishes the water table. The tropics are drying up, the Amazon forest is being bulldozed for agriculture and how are the animals going to move in a short amount of time what with us impeding their routes. Rising seas affect the entire planet, many island nations are at risk of major flooding. A warmer world is not necessarily a nicer or friendlier world.
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.
