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.
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.
Nice comment.
We all tend to look down at our feet, so to speak, when we discuss things.
America has huge resources, some of which (The Colorado River and the Ogallala aquifer ) are in danger of being over used. Others, like The Mississippi, are massive watersheds so the only thing that matters is rainfall. A failing Colorado and Agallala and a thriving Mississippi may bring the Mississippi Valley back to the forefront as a farming center.
Since you are moving to China, you may be interested in learning what China has done and is doing to reroute water to the more arid northern areas.
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.
!
Land this is now frozen will not become arable land! It's becoming bogs full of trapped methane, more and more of which is being released into the atmosphere, accelerating the warming process. By the time the bogs dry up and there's any chance of the land becoming arable, the humans who would farm it will be gone, due to extreme temps.
"Too lazy" to get irrigation water to the land that's drying up? What are you talking about? It's already irrigated, but the water supply is running out.
We all tend to look down at our feet, so to speak, when we discuss things.
America has huge resources, some of which (The Colorado River and the Ogallala aquifer ) are in danger of being over used. Others, like The Mississippi, are massive watersheds so the only thing that matters is rainfall. A failing Colorado and Agallala and a thriving Mississippi may bring the Mississippi Valley back to the forefront as a farming center.
Since you are moving to China, you may be interested in learning what China has done and is doing to reroute water to the more arid northern areas.
I don't think we'll be there long, maybe a couple years but probably less than 5. We're going to be right on the southern coast. And I mean right on the coast... the expat community in Shenzhen is built on reclaimed land so I'm very curious to learn how Hong Kong and PRC are experiencing coastal flooding and what, if anything, they're doing about it.
Property Values of Homes 10-15 feet above sea level will see great growth.
But in effect, the US and Canada despite being some of the largest contributors to Global Warming will have the least effects. Only Miami and New Orleans (and neighborhoods here and there) will suffer Greatly.
The US and Canada have a bounty of Freshwater that most regions of the world would envy. and Climates suited for Farming will shift towards the areas with vast quantities of Fresh Water, so our Freshwater and food won't be overly effected.
Oh gods, not again.
There is no global warming.
Earth is slowly entering Mini Ice Age, due to normal precession change of the Earth orbit. We already had one between 16th and 18th centuries.
Oh gods, not again.
There is no global warming.
Earth is slowly entering Mini Ice Age, due to normal precession change of the Earth orbit. We already had one between 16th and 18th centuries.
Where you be living, bro? Cause it's been hot all over the damn place.
In reality I do not see any positive benefits of global warming. Let's admit it. It has so many disadvantages and can destroy our very dear earth.
And if you were around 120,000 years ago you would be saying the same thing. That was the last interglacial warming period, and temps were 5-7C higher than they are today. Did it destroy the earth? In about 25 to 30,000 years from now, the earth will be in another ice age, that's the way the cycle has worked for millions of years and I would expect it to continue. It really doesn't matter if it is a positive thing or a negative thing, it's going to take place, what matters is if we choose to adapt, most animals will and those that don't will go the way of past animals that didn't.
Climate change is going to happen, however, today there are humans around to see it take place, and like humans, because it is happening it must be our fault, some are going to try and convince you that it our fault so they can profit from this.
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:
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:
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.
US FS does blame fires for extreme bark beetle attacks....A lot of those Yosemite Rangers are high most of the time....As for positive results I have no idea. I don't think anything we do now will effect the climate tomorrow or even 100 yrs from now....What are you gonna do about it???? http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/r...ibson_k001.pdf
US FS does blame fires for extreme bark beetle attacks....A lot of those Yosemite Rangers are high most of the time....As for positive results I have no idea. I don't think anything we do now will effect the climate tomorrow or even 100 yrs from now....What are you gonna do about it???? http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/r...ibson_k001.pdf
We are seeing the same thing here in Oregon, the pine beetle destroying entire forest. In the past when they saw this type of thing happening they went in and harvested the diseased trees which removed a lot of the pine beetles, this was done before the trees died and the beetles moved on to other trees. Now we have dead pine forest in central Oregon that are just waiting to go up in flames.
US FS does blame fires for extreme bark beetle attacks....A lot of those Yosemite Rangers are high most of the time....As for positive results I have no idea. I don't think anything we do now will effect the climate tomorrow or even 100 yrs from now....What are you gonna do about it????
[url]http://www.fs.fed.us/rm/pubs_other/rmrs_2009_gibson_k001.pdf[/url]
Actually according to the abstract it's still inconclusive and further research is needed.
If we can affect the ozone layer (would you like to try and say we didn't do that either?) we can affect carbon levels too.
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.
