The benefits of climate change (1 Viewer)

[copkiller]

Unlike the author of this article I do not dispute that human induced climate change is likely to be a real.

The Bright Side of Global Warming by Simon Que

For those in the tl;dr camp:

-Warmer temperatures have historically been correlated with human prosperity.
-Humans have a remarkable ability to adapt to changes in climate, and have already been able to settle areas with extreme heat thanks to modern technology.
-Although low lying land may be lost, new land in places like Greenland, northern Canada and Russia, and possibly Antarctica will become more hospitable and conducive to agriculture.
-This melting of ice and warmer climate will also allow us to access more natural resources in the aforementioned areas.
-The more ice melts, the more warm oceans there are which can sustain fish.
-Shipping routes through the arctic circle may be shortened.
-More people die from extreme cold than extreme heat. Milder winters will be beneficial for much of the world's population.
-People are more susceptible to most diseases in cold whether than in warm whether.


I'd also add that people who panic about climate change tend to suggest that all the negative will happens at once. For instance they will quote a figure like "500 million refugees will be displaced from their homes."

While this scenario is entirely plausible, the doomsayers misrepresent it as if to suggest this just suddenly happen one day. The reality is sea levels are rising very slowly. This gives people a chance to incrementally relocate. Hundreds of millions of people suddenly having to evacuate is simply not going to happen.

 

[Azarnakumar]

I made a thread about this once.

How great would it be if an inland sea returned to Australia>? Think of the area that would open up to agriculture etc jesus it is unfathomable

 

[copkiller]

How great would it be if an inland sea returned to Australia>? Think of the area that would open up to agriculture etc jesus it is unfathomable

Climate change will not cause an inland sea to form you moron.

 

[Jeee]

Global warming -> melting ice caps, hence access to more fresh water locked in icecaps.

 

[Azarnakumar]

WRONG FAGGOT

no but seriously you are a dumb cunt

If sea levels rise to a high enough level/weather patterns change so that inland nsw/qld/nt/sa recieve more rain, then the inland of Australia, Lake Eyre region, will become inundated more than it is, creating an inland sea.

DO YOU LIKE APPLES?

 

[Azarnakumar]

i have posted links to research indicating this before, i will not look for it now as i am about to go home, look for it yourself if you doubt me

 

[copkiller]

WRONG FAGGOT

no but seriously you are a dumb cunt

If sea levels rise to a high enough level/weather patterns change so that inland nsw/qld/nt/sa recieve more rain, then the inland of Australia, Lake Eyre region, will become inundated more than it is, creating an inland sea.

DO YOU LIKE APPLES?

Whether patterns will not necessarily change so that there is more rainfall in those areas. It could result in less.

In any case, it would require extreme amounts of rainfall to create an inland sea. Lake Eyre is really the only area where this could happen. Most of Australia is above sea level and would not become submerged even with extreme rainfall.

 

[Azarnakumar]

Of course it is speculative as to which way weather patterns will go you sped, but if it does increase, the lake eyre region will fill with water. If the sea levels rise, more parts of australia will correspondingly becoming lower, creating more chance of inundation. Seriously research thigns before refuting them outright, you dumb cunt

 

[murphyad]

Global warming -> melting ice caps, hence access to more fresh water locked in icecaps.

That is moronic. Ice caps will melt into oceans of salt water: very little (if any) fresh water will be added.

Furthermore, this threat totally misses the point. The critical issue is not what the temperature is now, or what it will be, but how fast it is moving.

Rapid change is the real danger. Human habits and infrastructure are suited to particular weather patterns and sea levels, as are ecosystems and animal behaviors. The rate at which global temperature is rising today is likely unique in the history of the human race. Furthermore, rapid climate change is the prime suspect in most mass extinction events, including the Great Dying some 250 million years ago, in which 90% of all life went extinct.

What we know about ecosystems, and what geologic history demonstrates, is that dramatic climate changes are a tremendous shock to the biosphere and cause mass extinction events. If you see some benefit in that, then you've obviously had a lobotomy.

 

[copkiller]

Furthermore, rapid climate change is the prime suspect in most mass extinction events, including the Great Dying some 250 million years ago, in which 90% of all life went extinct.

250 million years ago there wasn't a species with modern technology that could relocate to anywhere on the planet and adapt to almost any conditions.

I believe that in a worst case scenario, we will still have enough time for people to relocate from areas that become worse off to areas that become more suited to human habitation.

Obviously there will be costs involved, and all else being equal I don't think climate change is good, but I'm just saying I don't think it is all doom and gloom and I think people use scaremongering to overstate the costs of climate change.

 

[Jeee]

That is moronic. Ice caps will melt into oceans of salt water: very little (if any) fresh water will be added.

Furthermore, this threat totally misses the point. The critical issue is not what the temperature is now, or what it will be, but how fast it is moving.

Rapid change is the real danger. Human habits and infrastructure are suited to particular weather patterns and sea levels, as are ecosystems and animal behaviors. The rate at which global temperature is rising today is likely unique in the history of the human race. Furthermore, rapid climate change is the prime suspect in most mass extinction events, including the Great Dying some 250 million years ago, in which 90% of all life went extinct.

What we know about ecosystems, and what geologic history demonstrates, is that dramatic climate changes are a tremendous shock to the biosphere and cause mass extinction events. If you see some benefit in that, then you've obviously had a lobotomy.

No it's not you noob. Ice caps and glaciers contain over 75% of the worlds water. * Access to more water.
When the ice caps melt in a concentrated area (among salt water let's say), it will be easier and cheaper to desalinate. * Access to more fresh water.

 

[murphyad]

250 million years ago there wasn't a species with modern technology that could relocate to anywhere on the planet and adapt to almost any conditions.

I believe that in a worst case scenario, we will still have enough time for people to relocate from areas that become worse off to areas that become more suited to human habitation.

Obviously there will be costs involved, and all else being equal I don't think climate change is good, but I'm just saying I don't think it is all doom and gloom and I think people use scaremongering to overstate the costs of climate change.

Well-considered I guess. Really, I suppose its either a 'glass half-full'/'glass half-empty' approach. However, perhaps you overstate the power of technology. Even if a worst-case scenario happened, think of the logistics of potentially relocating billions of people. We have enough trouble relocating thousands after natural disasters. China evacuated somewhere near a million (iirc) during Typhoon Whatever a couple of months back, but those numbers could be a lot higher. Or maybe not.

It's not just about us, either. Rapid warming could cause mass extinction of species and the decline of ecosystems, potentially weighing into the habitability of particular areas. Now I'm no scientist and that point wasn't very scientific, but I think that it should still be noted.

However it is all about risk management. To use a simple analogy: jumping off a rock-edge might not kill you, but you would at least break your leg. Is the fact that the worst-case scenario may not necessarily occur sufficient justification to take the plunge? I would prefer to neither break my leg nor kill myself if I had the choice.

In the end, I guess we will never know for sure until it happens.

 

[copkiller]

Well-considered I guess. Really, I suppose its either a 'glass half-full'/'glass half-empty' approach. However, perhaps you overstate the power of technology. Even if a worst-case scenario happened, think of the logistics of potentially relocating billions of people.

As I said earlier, its not going to happen all at once. Relocating a few million a year is certainly possible, in fact it already happens through immigration.

However it is all about risk management. To use a simple analogy: jumping off a rock-edge might not kill you, but you would at least break your leg. Is the fact that the worst-case scenario may not necessarily occur sufficient justification to take the plunge? I would prefer to neither break my leg nor kill myself if I had the choice.

In the end, I guess we will never know for sure until it happens.

Well as I said, just because I'm acknowledging the benefits, does not mean for a moment that I think climate change is good.

But the costs of action on climate change are also very great. Costs such as; the lost technology and living standards due to reducing carbon emissions, as well of the costs of oversight and bureaucracy to enforce emissions restrictions, and the increased government power on an international level required to enforce carbon restriction and the threat this poses to individual freedom may actually outweigh the benefits.

We may be better off not regulating carbon emissions at all. Renewables are constantly becoming cheaper as fossil fuels simultaneously become more expensive as they are depleted, so the unregulated market is moving toward renewables in the long run anyway.

As with most things, I suspect regulation will do more harm than good.

 

[Kwayera]

That is moronic. Ice caps will melt into oceans of salt water: very little (if any) fresh water will be added.

Furthermore, this threat totally misses the point. The critical issue is not what the temperature is now, or what it will be, but how fast it is moving.

Rapid change is the real danger. Human habits and infrastructure are suited to particular weather patterns and sea levels, as are ecosystems and animal behaviors. The rate at which global temperature is rising today is likely unique in the history of the human race. Furthermore, rapid climate change is the prime suspect in most mass extinction events, including the Great Dying some 250 million years ago, in which 90% of all life went extinct.

What we know about ecosystems, and what geologic history demonstrates, is that dramatic climate changes are a tremendous shock to the biosphere and cause mass extinction events. If you see some benefit in that, then you've obviously had a lobotomy.

Except for the giant ice caps in Antarctica and Greenland.

 

[copkiller]

Except for the giant ice caps in Antarctica and Greenland.

What will happen with those. Can you elaborate?

 

[Josh22]

lololol you all assume (stupidly) that climate change is a result of humans... *sigh*

 

[lolokay]

lololol you all assume (stupidly) that climate change is a result of humans... *sigh*

were there even any posts that made that assumption?

 

[yoddle]

Haha lol I was having a joke about this type of thinking with a climate change activist on Wednesday.

Yes Tasmania may now be able to grow olives but you will be dead. rofl.

 

[Josh22]

Haha lol I was having a joke about this type of thinking with a climate change activist on Wednesday.

Yes Tasmania may now be able to grow olives but you will be dead. rofl.

lol, i like

 

[yoddle]

No it's not you noob. Ice caps and glaciers contain over 75% of the worlds water. * Access to more water.
When the ice caps melt in a concentrated area (among salt water let's say), it will be easier and cheaper to desalinate. * Access to more fresh water.

Yes but I think the cons of melting ice caps may just outweigh the pros. Just.