Your climatic effect description there is quite wrong. Or are you trying to express sarcasm? I can't tell.
Are you sure? The planet is arid during cold periods due to frozen water increasing, lower CO2 reduces plant productivity as does cooler temperatures, and violent frequent storms are what happens when the equator and pole have a larger energy difference for work to be drawn from in the form of tornadic and cyclonic systems. The largest desert on the planet is the south pole ice cap, it is utterly inhospitable, the largest hot deserts have been shrinking since the end of the last glacial, there's no reason to magically expect that to reverse if more fresh water were freed up, is there?
You have read all the IPCC reports fully right?
Come now, Max. Don't give us the 'have you read the IPCC reports fully', when it's clear that you haven't. Otherwise you wouldn't be saying
the opposite of what they are about the strength of tropical storms (it's page 993 in the AR5).
The rest of what you wrote is just half truths.
Sure, parts of the arctic might become more hospitable with rising temperatures. But what good will it do for people already living in areas that will in turn become less hospitable?
Sure, more CO2 stimulates plant growth. But what good will it do for the farmer if his crops keep dying due to droughts?
Sure, higher temperature means more moisture in the air. But what reason is there to expect it to end up watering
your plants, and not instead flooding some guy in Bangladesh?
These are complex issues, and trying to naively apply global changes to local conditions is no different than a guy proclaiming that there's no warming, because there's snow outside his window.
Climate change is a problem because it's a
change. You have population centres located where they are located because the local climate is conductive to human settlement. Conductive not because you don't get your armpits sweaty, but because they're reasonably safe, you can grow enough food in the vicinity, and they're not under water.
If that changes, and those areas become less ideal, people will have to pony up their hard earned cash to mitigate the worsening conditions, or move. Or starve, I guess. It will cost money, increase government interventionism, and run a high risk of destabilising volatile regions.
It won't matter much to the affected people that some other area became nice, when they're losing their homes.
Will they all move to the lush plains opening up in Siberia? Who's gonna pay for it? Who's gonna build the infrastructure? Will they be accepted where they go?
Given what is currently happening in Syria - destabilised after a major drought, mind you - and with Syrian refugees, these have become rhetorical questions.
Sure, there's a lot of over-the-top exaggerations of the effects of global warming floating in conversations - in this thread as well - so it's understandable that people start rolling their eyes. No, the Earth won't burn. No, humanity won't get killed off. No, it won't be a civilization-ending catastrophe.
But then again, that's not what any of the reports say, is it?
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 4469207 times)