Global warming discussion

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

Name one good or bad thing about global warming a time. In which others can talk about whats good or bad about it.

One each per member, then another member go's. Once another member posts one, then you can post another again. This should be cool!


I will say

Longer Growing seasonsl,

[kevin]

The collapse of dozens of ecosystems the world over, leading to mass extinction, including perhaps civilization itself.

Oh and more heat does not corollate to longer growing seasons. It does go to jungles and deserts though. Which are highly unarable.

This is beyond absurd.

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

Kevin, plants can't grow under ice, and perma frost. A huge area of Canada and northwestern Russia, will be open up for growing. In if civilization its self falls because of it, then it was never that strong.


Heres my next one.

Shiping lanes opening up over the north pole.

[Extremeweatherguy]

a new ice age caused by melting sea ice.

[CajunMama]

I thought the games forum was closed?

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

This is a discussion made as a game.


Heres another no more coats, also that ice age thing could happen.

[CajunMama]

Again....i thought the games forum was closed. And if you'd read all the other "global warming" threads that have been on this board, nothing good comes out of it.

[Brent]

Again....i thought the games forum was closed. And if you'd read all the other "global warming" threads that have been on this board, nothing good comes out of it.

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

Is it not that more discussion about it not a good thing? If its so serious lets discuse it. I say its not all bad, if you look at much larger area will be ice free; which will mean more growing season, and also more farmland. So you could say it has its goods and bads.

[senorpepr]

Using your logic... there would be more ice free areas therefore allowing for more farmland. However, you fail to note the areas that would be lost to due the conditions being too hot/arid. Furthermore, since the ice has melted making the sea levels higher, more land would be lost to sea water.

Overall, more land would be lost than gained.


Additionally... CajunMama makes a good point. You are tempting fate here. There has rarely been a global warming discussion that hasn't gone political and/or out of hand. Also, the game forum was closed.

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

Ancient global warming (after the last Ice Age) lead to the rise, and sustainment, of modern civilization

[kevin]

Kevin, plants can't grow under ice, and perma frost. A huge area of Canada and northwestern Russia, will be open up for growing. In if civilization its self falls because of it, then it was never that strong.


Heres my next one.

Shiping lanes opening up over the north pole.

(1) I wish it was that simplistic. That you could say that just because areas with short growing seasons have longer durations of warmth, that agriculture will flourish. There are a whole host of reasons why it will not. But if I were to tell you that ecosystems will collapse, species that pollinate will be decimated, and that this along with arid conditions would cause a collapse in world agriculture, you would just tell me that tundra will go away and be replaced by wheat fields.

(2) Civilization in an abstract sense will exist. Western Civilization is going to face however several pressures at the same time. A change in energy economy, a peak in population, and a threat to the climate and ecology. All at the same time, I'd say 50 years from now. Western Civilization is VERY complex and unstable because of it, because it relies on a host of unsustainable (currently) mechanism. Agriculture, organized human settlements, and probably a good dash of industrialization will remain hundreds of years from now. But all this? One cannot be so certain we're going to continue to "progress".

[Hybridstorm_November2001]

I still say warmer is better than colder, especially for Northern Hemisphere countries. Cold enough = Ice Age = close of sea ports = end of trade = no crops = death for billions = end of the World as we know it.

[kevin]

Climate change either way will go towards crop failure and the death of millions.

[JonathanBelles]

on an outstretch, a climate change so extreme that may cause homo sapiens to evolve!

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

Kevin, plants can't grow under ice, and perma frost. A huge area of Canada and northwestern Russia, will be open up for growing. In if civilization its self falls because of it, then it was never that strong.


Heres my next one.

Shiping lanes opening up over the north pole.

(1) I wish it was that simplistic. That you could say that just because areas with short growing seasons have longer durations of warmth, that agriculture will flourish. There are a whole host of reasons why it will not. But if I were to tell you that ecosystems will collapse, species that pollinate will be decimated, and that this along with arid conditions would cause a collapse in world agriculture, you would just tell me that tundra will go away and be replaced by wheat fields.

(2) Civilization in an abstract sense will exist. Western Civilization is going to face however several pressures at the same time. A change in energy economy, a peak in population, and a threat to the climate and ecology. All at the same time, I'd say 50 years from now. Western Civilization is VERY complex and unstable because of it, because it relies on a host of unsustainable (currently) mechanism. Agriculture, organized human settlements, and probably a good dash of industrialization will remain hundreds of years from now. But all this? One cannot be so certain we're going to continue to "progress".

Thank you Kevin, your very knowedgeable on this subject. Do you take any classes for it?

[kevin]

I've taken some geography courses that touched on the subject, but most of it is personal interest.

No one can be certain what will happen or whether the amount of arable land will actually decrease with global warming. The most important thing to consider though is it will change the places where crops are harvested, which means there will have to be adjustments. These will be costly and probably lower the amount of food produced.

What concerns me is the possibility that oil used in our agriculture system right now, will become expensive, raising the cost of agriculture and food storage/shipment right at the time where agriculture faces climatic pressures. Uncertainty of this sort bothers me. I hate sounding like Malthus because those who say there will be mass famines have always been wrong, but technology can only go so far in this current path. When you are pouring millions of years of sunlight on acres of crops to quadruple yields.. that allows a great population explosion.. but there is not an infinite amount of liquid sunlight beneath the surface.

A good book on all this is by Evan Eisenberg : The Ecology of Eden
http://www.amazon.com/Ecology-Eden-Evan ... 0330308858

[gigabite]

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsro ... 67312.html


NASA SATELLITE INSTRUMENT WARMS UP GLOBAL COOLING THEORY

Measurements from a NASA Langley Research Center satellite instrument dispute a recent theory that proposes that clouds in the Tropics might cool the Earth and counteract predictions of global warming. The Langley instrument indicates these clouds would instead slightly strengthen the greenhouse effect to warm the Earth.

Scientists at NASA Langley in Hampton, Va., used observations from an instrument called CERES (Clouds and the Earth's Radiant Energy System) on the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) satellite to test the Iris effect?the proposed cooling mechanism.

"The Iris effect is a very interesting but controversial idea for how clouds might act to stabilize the climate system. If correct, it would be welcome news for concerns over future climate change," said Bruce Wielicki, CERES principal investigator at NASA Langley. "We tested the Iris hypothesis by looking down at these clouds using the latest generation of satellite data in the Tropics and found the opposite answer. If anything, these clouds appear to slightly destabilize climate."

According to the Iris effect, the climatically important canopy of clouds in the Tropics decreases as climate warms. As its size shrinks, so does the area of ocean and land covered by the canopy. With more of the Earth's surface and atmosphere free from heat-trapping clouds, more emitted thermal energy (or heat) can escape to space and, according to the theory, cool the Earth.

While a smaller cloud canopy could allow more heat to leave the Earth, it also means more sunlight could reach the surface. In the battle between the cooling of escaping heat and the warming of incoming sunlight, cloud properties determine which one will have a stronger effect on climate. CERES provides the most accurate measurements ever of how much heat clouds trap and how much sunlight they reflect.

"We used the cloud observations from CERES, placed them inside the Iris climate model and found a slightly destabilizing effect of these clouds," said Wielicki. "The result is that the Iris effect slightly warms the Earth instead of strongly cooling it."

"A recent study by Dennis Hartmann at the University of Washington has seriously challenged whether the Iris decrease in cloud canopy would occur in a warmer climate," Wielicki adds. "Our study takes the next step and shows that, even if the Iris effect decreases the cloud canopy, the resulting change in the planetary energy balance would not act to stabilize the climate system."

Bing Lin, a NASA Langley researcher and CERES team member, will present the paper on this research during Session 10 of the 13th Symposium on Global Change and Climate Variations at the American Meteorological Society annual meeting on Wednesday, Jan. 16, at 1:45 p.m. The Journal of Climate published this paper in the January 1, 2002, issue.

Designed and managed by NASA Langley, there are CERES instruments aboard the TRMM and Terra satellites. The CERES instruments were built by the TRW Corp., Redondo Beach, Calif.

The Iris hypothesis was published by Richard Lindzen and co-authors in the March 2001 issue of Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

[curtadams]

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2002/200201167312.html

NASA SATELLITE INSTRUMENT WARMS UP GLOBAL COOLING THEORY

Measurements from a NASA Langley Research Center satellite instrument dispute a recent theory that proposes that clouds in the Tropics might cool the Earth and counteract predictions of global warming. The Langley instrument indicates these clouds would instead slightly strengthen the greenhouse effect to warm the Earth.

The Iris hypothesis was published by Richard Lindzen and co-authors in the March 2001 issue of Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

Yes, that was a good evidence against a pretty speculative hypothesis (the "adaptive iris hypothesis") that global warming would be slower than expected. One more piece of evidence that warming is a very serious problem.

[Yarrah]

Bad thing: rising sea leavel will eventually flood my country.