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.
Because I'm tired of everyone agreeing that it isn't a good idea to warm up the climate!!! The alternative to a warmer climate is a colder one. I'll take warmer thank you. And if you want a stable climate it is all ice or no ice. If you want a large human population and species diversification then you need no ice.
Ok, you have to understand how insane this notion is. Every species native to a particular area has adapted to the usual climate of the area. Plants and animals (and people) in the Amazon are well suited for the climate they currently have. Continued deforestation and a rise in temperatures will upset the balance in the ecosystem. Plants and animals in the far north are in a similar position. This is the case pretty much everywhere. A cactus cannot survive in cold climate just as a pine tree cannot survive in a dessert.
And I'll say this again because it's important: places that are already extremely warm will become wastelands if your version of reality were in fact a reality. Most of what's along the equator would be too hot to live in.
And just another thing to add, warming up places in the north does not make it ideal for farming. Some places get only a few hours of sunlight a day. Most places in the north couldn't grow crops regardless of what the temperature is.
Ok, you have to understand how insane this notion is. Every species native to a particular area has adapted to the usual climate of the area.
Here is where you don't get it. Every species alive today has survived several ice ages. The climate they inhabit moved north and south up and down in elevation. We humans think we own a bit of land. We want the climate to stay the same for that bit of land. Animals and plants don't care about this bit of land or that one. They just move with the climate or die out. Now as climate changes they can't do that this time around because we are in the way. If you want them to survive long term we need much warmer. No ice so the climate will be stable.
Duuh; Arizonians have practiced that for the last 100 years or so around Yuma. All it takes is addition of nutrients and lots and lots of water to flush salts/acids below root depth. One can easily see the long term results of such practice by viewing sat photos of the Salton Sea and historical shots of the Colorado and Gila river planes.
They have been growing crops and golf courses on nothing but sand for eons. Not very efficient but, hey, when you've got the cheapest labour pool available to offset the cost and waste of resources, it evens out.
Now all we need do is figure out how to entice Mexicans to illegally migrate north to glacierland.
You do realize that most of the north is muskeg and permafrost, right?
Here is where you don't get it. Every species alive today has survived several ice ages. The climate they inhabit moved north and south up and down in elevation. We humans think we own a bit of land. We want the climate to stay the same for that bit of land. Animals and plants don't care about this bit of land or that one. They just move with the climate or die out. Now as climate changes they can't do that this time around because we are in the way. If you want them to survive long term we need much warmer. No ice so the climate will be stable.
That's not how it works.
Also, not every species was all the affected by the ice ages. The Amazon remained snow free during that entire period.
I don't think you understand the seriousness of massively disrupting the natural equilibrium. A stable climate is necessary for sustainable ecosystems. A rapid change in temperatures makes this impossible. It's best to let the climate change on it's own rather than willingly allowing ourselves to change it.
And again, warmer climate in the north does not help anyone. The area is still not suited for farming, even if it snows less or stops snowing all together.
Also, not every species was all the affected by the ice ages. The Amazon remained snow free during that entire period.
I don't think you understand the seriousness of massively disrupting the natural equilibrium. A stable climate is necessary for sustainable ecosystems
Do you understand what a feed back loop is?
Ice is an amplifier of changes in climate. A small change warmer melts more ice and you get a larger change. Simply painting the snow black in and around England at the start of the industrial revolution could very well have been the cause of all of the warming from then until now. You want that stable climate. Then it is NO ICE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
. A rapid change in temperatures makes this impossible. It's best to let the climate change on it's own rather than willingly allowing ourselves to change it.
And again, warmer climate in the north does not help anyone. The area is still not suited for farming, even if it snows less or stops snowing all together.
It has 24 hr sunlight in the summertime inside of the artic circle. That makes it very suitable for Ag if it was warm enough.
Do you understand what a feed back loop is?
Ice is an amplifier of changes in climate. A small change warmer melts more ice and you get a larger change. Simply painting the snow black in and around England at the start of the industrial revolution could very well have been the cause of all of the warming from then until now. You want that stable climate. Then it is NO ICE.
The climate has been stable with ice for thousands of years. Removing the ice will destabilize it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ContrarianEcon
It has 24 hr sunlight in the summertime inside of the artic circle. That makes it very suitable for Ag if it was warm enough.
The Arctic circle would mostly be ocean if you remove the ice. And if you increase the temperature, 24 hours of sunlight could do more harm than good.
Here is where you don't get it. Every species alive today has survived several ice ages. The climate they inhabit moved north and south up and down in elevation. We humans think we own a bit of land. We want the climate to stay the same for that bit of land. Animals and plants don't care about this bit of land or that one. They just move with the climate or die out. Now as climate changes they can't do that this time around because we are in the way. If you want them to survive long term we need much warmer. No ice so the climate will be stable.
How rapid were the climate changes in the past, exactly?
Having millions, even thousands of years to adapt to cooler/warmer temperatures isn't the same scenario as having decades.
Rapid climate change coincides with mass extinction events.
The climate has been stable with ice for thousands of years. Removing the ice will destabilize it.
Bull fertilizer. http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graph...Change_Rev.jpg
See how nice and thin the line was 50 million years ago? See how thick the line is now? That is an unstable climate now and a stable one then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDusty
The Arctic circle would mostly be ocean if you remove the ice. And if you increase the temperature, 24 hours of sunlight could do more harm than good.
18 to 20 hrs of sunlight would make for big crops.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 03-08-2015 at 02:23 PM..
Reason: hotlinking/copyright
Ten years to go from warm back to ice age condition in the northern latitudes. If you want a stable climate then you need no ice.
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.
