Is there an upside to global warming?

[Cainkane1]

Ok a celebrity named Neal Boortz once said on his program that Greenland was so named because at one time it had a green forest. It got cooler and the ice sheets grew and destroyed the perhaps mythical greenery he's speaking of.

What if a significant amount of ice did melt away and exposed some land. Wouldn't the inhabitants be able to enjoy the increased space?

 

[BenBurch]

It gives the cranks of the world something to deny?

 

[Mark6]

Of course there is. Russia, Canada and Scandinavia will all have increased crop yields. Worldwide there will be less need for heating fuel. In the long run yes, Greenland and Antarctica will become available for colonization. I live in Massachusetts -- I will be able to scuba dive year round instead of just May through October.

But benefits do not outweigh harm.

 

[athon]

For who?

There are organisms that will flourish in warmer climates. Loss of ice will open up new land for some plants to settle. Drought will favour other organisms, especially opportunists.

As for humans, it's not so much a matter of death and destruction as much as adaptation. Cultures will change and the way of life for many will have to change quickly. We have the resources and technology for it to be possible, however it's going to create a lot of hardship for many people. Communities without direct access to those resources will suffer most, with the extremes being famine, increase susceptibility to certain illnesses, poverty and homelessness.

Athon

 

[fagin]

Ok a celebrity named Neal Boortz once said on his program that Greenland was so named because at one time it had a green forest. It got cooler and the ice sheets grew and destroyed the perhaps mythical greenery he's speaking of.

What if a significant amount of ice did melt away and exposed some land. Wouldn't the inhabitants be able to enjoy the increased space?

I always understood Greenland was named as such by a viking explorer? to make it attractive to settlers.
Too lazy to google it but probably somebody the red.

 

[RossFW]

It's true enough, I think, to not be able to say that the end-state global conditions may be as good or better for most Humans than the current climate. Our current climate is very different than at other times in Human History, and nobody suggests it is "Better" or "Worse".

HOWEVER our current economies and population distributions are based on the globe as we now recognize it, and we have partitioned it with political boundaries.

Extreme change in where is able to support what population at what level of prosperity will undoubtedly lead to large scale displacement, migration and exploitation. this almost inevitably leads to conflict.

So even if the change was, on a Net scale, good. the transition will, at least for our and the next couple of generations, be de-stabilizing and hazardous.

 

[macdoc]

There is another thread on this with additional information that has more detail on various aspects.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156338

Refreshing to see some common sense of people recognizing the reality of the problem.

Couple of things to clarify.

Northern hemisphere is fertile in the north in very few areas that are now tundra and taiga. The top soil was all scraped by the glaciers to the Great Plains and Ukraine and Chinese fertile belts.

It would take thousands of years to build topsoil.

ANYTHING under a glacier now will be bare rock - no soil at all.

Greenland MIGHT melt with a few hundred years in a worst case but would have nothing arable except coastal deltas.

Antarctica would be bare rock and the eastern portion is so enormous that is would be 10s of thousands of years to make a significant dent. It's the size of the US and up to 3 miles deep in ice or more in some areas.
The latent heat to melt that is just mind boggling.
Fortunately it's around to moderate our climate swings.

We are in a big dangerous experiment with no practical off button.

Interesting times ahead.

 

[lomiller]

The last time Greenland had anything resembling forests was 125 000 years ago so I’m pretty sure that isn’t how it got the name. While there is good farmland where thick glaciers sat 20 000 years ago, it took thousands of years for topsoil and drainage patterns that could support agriculture to develop.

 

[Ducky]

I live in Minnesota. Pretty soon I'll be asking for this Global Warming everyone talks about when my soft-top jeep won't start because it's 20 below 0. Fahrenheit. Without wind chill.

Ps: There is no time in recorded history when Greenland was green. It's been under ice for roughly 100,000-150,000 years. Neal Boortz is repeating fairy tales.

 

[plumjam]

Given global land distribution, if it ever happens as advertised, it will be of long-term benefit to mankind.

 

[macdoc]

The guy was Erik the Red - the original have I got a deal for you guy.

•••

Minnesota and the northern part of North America has been under this dipole pattern there with cold interior temps and warmer to the very far north.

If you watch the rotation here of the globe you'll a relatively chilly midnorth America surrounded by a lot of red.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4TRLrKIMCiU

 

[casebro]

Sure there is an up side. New Orleans will be totally washed away.

 

[macdoc]

Is there a backstory to that comment..

 

[Eyeron]

There is no such thing as global warming. It's all a hoax perpetrated by cultists.

 

[CapelDodger]

The guy was Erik the Red - the original have I got a deal for you guy.

It was indeed Erik the Red, but the rest is just myth. Greenland was sometimes referred to as Gruneland but Grune doesn't mean "Green". (Can't recall what it does, or did, mean.) The colony was already there when Erik had to flee Iceland because there was a price on his head and a blood-feud. He tried going back about ten years later but barely got away with his life; the family he'd pissed off was well in with the King of Norway. His son, Leif, is said to have started the colony in Vinland (Vin doesn't mean "Vine", by the way).

There was, and still is, open land on the south and south-east coasts of Greenland.

 

[CapelDodger]

The last time Greenland had anything resembling forests was 125 000 years ago so I’m pretty sure that isn’t how it got the name. While there is good farmland where thick glaciers sat 20 000 years ago, it took thousands of years for topsoil and drainage patterns that could support agriculture to develop.

While good land will be lost in coastal flood-plains (some of the best land there is) land will become available in the shape of peat-bog in Canada and Siberia. Hard to see the up-side in that.

athon asks the crucial question : upside for whom? AGW will affect people in a variety of ways, depending on location and economic standing. People in Minnesota might think winter heating costs are a big issue, while rather more people in Southern India won't. Nor, I imagine, will people in Texas who spend more on air-conditioning.

Everybody will get their own mixed package of upsides and downsides.

 

[CapelDodger]

It's true enough, I think, to not be able to say that the end-state global conditions may be as good or better for most Humans than the current climate. Our current climate is very different than at other times in Human History, and nobody suggests it is "Better" or "Worse".

Since the development of agriculture and settled life I imagine regional climate change has always been regarded as for the worse at the time ...

HOWEVER our current economies and population distributions are based on the globe as we now recognize it, and we have partitioned it with political boundaries.

Extreme change in where is able to support what population at what level of prosperity will undoubtedly lead to large scale displacement, migration and exploitation. this almost inevitably leads to conflict.

So even if the change was, on a Net scale, good. the transition will, at least for our and the next couple of generations, be de-stabilizing and hazardous.

... and I doubt it will be any different this time.

When the situation stabilises people will try to keep it stable (which may actually include keeping CO2 at a high, but constant, level). For them it will be the best of all possible worlds .

 

[Herzblut]

Is there an upside to global warming?

I think this needs to be analysed in some detail, depending on various aspects of warming. So, let's just choose for example

benefits of mild winters:

- reduced road salt consumption
- reduced heating energy consumption
- extended vegetation periods, higher agricultural output
- less street traffic insuries and casualties
- less freeze related human victims
- less forest damages
- reduced winter related sickness rates, e.g. by flue, cold etc.
- reduced snow/ice related economic damages.

Thinking about it, more benefits can surely be found.

Herzblut

 

[macdoc]

countered with

- Higher flash flood and landslide road damage
- increased air conditioning use
- increased desertification and salt incursion - loss of wheat belt in fertile areas.
- increased storm damage
- more heat wave related deaths ( see France )
- more malaria and tropical diseases as tropics expand ( already are and have )
- more boreal forest damage to overwintering beetles ( already in progress in Canada )
- higher forest fire frequency and risk - already happening - see Australia and S California
- we'll give you snow damages..
-but see you increased snow pack and faster melting for major flooding ( see Midwest )

but nice try

 

[Herzblut]

countered with

- Higher flash flood and landslide road damage
- increased air conditioning use
- increased desertification and salt incursion - loss of wheat belt in fertile areas.
- increased storm damage
- more heat wave related deaths ( see France )
- more malaria and tropical diseases as tropics expand ( already are and have )
- more boreal forest damage to overwintering beetles ( already in progress in Canada )
- higher forest fire frequency and risk - already happening - see Australia and S California
- we'll give you snow damages..
-but see you increased snow pack and faster melting for major flooding ( see Midwest )

but nice try

If you eliminate everything unrelated to mild winters (like "heat wave related deaths" ), there's not much left over. Basically nothing, except your "overwintering beetles". Prove your astonishing assertion that mild winters are more damaging to forests than frosty winters are, and you have something like a point.