Is there an upside to global warming?

[macdoc]

Easiest one of all - and "mild winters" is sophistry in an unstable climate regime - false springs and mid winter melts from unstable climates are damaging to many species

ENVIRONMENT: Climate-Driven Pest Devours Canada's Forests
By Am Johal*

Mountain pine beetles killed these lodgepole pine trees in Prince George, BC.

Credit:RadRafe

VANCOUVER, Jul 31 (IPS/IFEJ) - Environmentalists and researchers say that climate change is a significant factor in the pine beetle epidemic that has ravaged forests in the western Canadian provinces of British Columbia (BC) and Alberta.

In some areas of the BC interior, almost 80 percent of the lodgepole pines will have been devastated by the beetles within 10 years, resulting in widespread economic consequences, according to resource experts.

"The pine beetle infestation is the first major climate change crisis in Canada," Doug McArthur, a professor of public policy at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, told IPS.

"The pine beetle has survived the warmer winters due to global warming. The result is the rapid cut of forests to salvage the wood, which could, within seven or eight years, result in some communities being without a forestry industry which has sustained many regions for decades. The potential economic impact of this climate change issue is massive," he said.

A temperature of -40 degrees Celsius for a few days is needed in the winters to kill off the beetle adequately.

Ben Parfitt, a resource policy analyst with the BC chapter of the non-profit Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, told IPS, "To contextualise the magnitude of the devastation, it is probably the biggest landscape-level change since the ice age."

You can add maple trees to the damaging list

Sticky times for the maple tree
Its leaves are a riot of colour; its sap produces one of America's favourite delicacies. But the effects of climate change may soon drive the maple tree out of Vermont

By Rupert Cornwell

and no more wheat in the US mainland or Indian subcontinent.

But if your "thing" is Apline meadows there will indeed be more of those....sans glaciers in the alps.

Past, present and potential future glacier cover in the entire European Alps has been assessed from an integrated approach, combining in-situ measurements, remote sensing techniques and numerical modeling for equilibrium line altitudes. Alpine glaciers lost 35% of their total area from 1850 until the 1970s, and almost 50% by 2000. Total glacier volume around 1850 is estimated at some 200 km3 and is now close to one-third of this value. From the model experiment, we show that a 3°C warming of summer air temperature would reduce the currently existing Alpine glacier cover by some 80%, or up to 10% of the glacier extent of 1850. In the event of a 5°C temperature increase, the Alps would become almost completely ice-free. Annual precipitation changes of ±20% would modify such estimated percentages of remaining ice by a factor of less than two.

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL026319.shtml

Very "mild winters" indeed.

Climate excursions associated with AGW will NOT be pretty. But keep those rose coloured glasses handy...

I have some warm tundra for sale....built in methane supply

 

[MervinFerd]

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?

This is asking the wrong question.

Temperatures are going up, no matter what we do. That's already built in. A degree C increase and stop---which is the forecast with vigorous reductions in CO2 emissions---and cultures and economies will adapt. We will lose treasured landscapes and species, and we will have economic disruptions, but there will be winners and losers.

But, if we do nothing, temperatures will rise several degrees C and there will only be losers.

 

[macdoc]

Originally Posted by Cainkane1
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?

That would be

a) if it wasn't already underwater
b) what inhabitants
c) they'd need to enjoy bare rock

some seals might thrive

 

[macdoc]

A degree C increase and stop---which is the forecast with vigorous reductions in CO2 emissions-

Nice concept but won't happen. Warming will continue until equilibrium is reached a few decades out and then will continue beyond that but at a much reduced pace.

IF we held it to 380 where we are now maybe we only get 2 degrees C

If wishes were horses...our kingdom might be saved .

 

[ServiceSoon]

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?

We'll finally find Atlantis. I heard it was a great place to hangout.

 

[Herzblut]

Easiest one of all - and "mild winters" is sophistry in an unstable climate regime - false springs and mid winter melts from unstable climates are damaging to many species



You can add maple trees to the damaging list

And the overall effect of global warming on boreal forests is positive, or negative?

Edit: Oh, and you refused to commend on the massive reduction in heating energy consumption by milder winters. The mild winter 2006/07 led to a 20% reduction in Germany. Positive or negative?

Less traffic accident deaths, positive or negative?

Less economic damage caused by winter impacts? You read about the chaos produced by a little bit of snow in London last winter?

 

[macdoc]

Grade 1 reading comprehension...what do you thing millions of dead trees represent....

Germany??/ offset by new demand for A/C in areas where there was little or none.

Traffic deaths have been falling steadily for decades...stupid association.

You are incorrect about "less snow" - it's more in different places.

Major Midwest Flooding Highlighted in U.S. Spring Outlook
March 19, 2009 -- Flooding in the upper Midwest, which could rival the high water levels experienced in 2006 and possibly 1997, and continued drought in the South and West are among the highlights in NOAA’s National Weather Service Spring Outlook issued today.

A deep snowpack and recent heavy rain have elevated the spring flood threat in parts of the Midwest:

Water released by melting snowpack that is deeper than normal – while running off the already saturated and frozen ground – poses an imminent serious flood threat in the Red River Valley.

That now makes it three 100 year floods in the last 12 years....

An unstable climate will yield a few winners and many many losers.

You missed the greening up of the Sahel which IS a plus....more than offset by the desertification of Southern Europe.

You really should learn something about your planet.....the lacunae are deep and obvious.

BTW

• Find more articles on winter driving deaths versus summer 2009

Fall driving more hazardous than summer or winter

July 14th, 2009 (PhysOrg.com) -- While many believe summer is the most dangerous season on U.S. roads because motorists tend to drive faster, drink more alcohol and drive more often for leisure, a new report by the University of Michigan suggests otherwise.


Fatality crash rates are highest in the fall, with October at the top of the list (10.2 deaths per billion kilometers), according to a study in the current issue of the journal Traffic Injury Prevention.

 

[Jorghnassen]

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

Except that you can't assume climate change will result in consistently milder winter or that it will have consistently less precipitation. If anything, the only predictable thing is more variation and less stability and that's not a good thing. The Ice Storm of 1998 was the result of milder than normal temperatures hovering around the freezing point, and it's still AFAIK the costliest weather related disaster in Canada. Warmer temperatures in winter in a number of areas implies more moisture in the atmosphere and more precipitation. More snow means more road maintenance, less snow means less snow cover which can be really bad for vegetation because it makes it more vulnerable to frost damage. With temperatures varying more wildly, you can have very warm periods followed by sudden deep freezes. That's also bad for the roads.

 

[Herzblut]

Except that you can't assume climate change will result in consistently milder winter or that it will have consistently less precipitation. If anything, the only predictable thing is more variation and less stability and that's not a good thing.

The opposite is correct. Since GW favors
- winter over summer
- nighttime over daytime
- polar regions over tropical ones
it tends to flattern variations and, hence, decrease temperature gradients leading to a more stable climate.

Warmer temperatures in winter in a number of areas implies more moisture in the atmosphere and more precipitation.

In what areas, compared to which ones? What is the overall balance?

 

[lomiller]

Something else to keep in mind is that many of the higher latitude areas in question are only accessible by ice road. Not only does warming not turn the land viable for agriculture overnight, the current economic activity in these areas would be gravely hurt because they become inaccessible. There are few, if any, winners from global warming

 

[macdoc]

leading to a more stable climate.

wrong - with the same level of support as you provide.....

Your grasp of earth's geo-systems has proved rather less than adequate in the past so your opinion on such matters is effectively worthless.

Now if you care to cite a mainstream climate paper from say Nature to support your thesis...

 

[Jorghnassen]

The opposite is correct. Since GW favors
- winter over summer
- nighttime over daytime
- polar regions over tropical ones
it tends to flattern variations and, hence, decrease temperature gradients leading to a more stable climate.

You're qualitatively thinking at the long run of the mean temperature globally. I'm saying that climate change is not just an increase in the mean temperature, but also in the variance of it . More variability means more extreme weather, and when that variability happens around freezing point, that's when all Hell breaks loose (e.g. Ice Storm of 98 did much more damage than any actual or conceivable cold snap could).

In what areas, compared to which ones? What is the overall balance?

You're thinking narrowly about average when it's not the only measure of effect. "Overall balance" doesn't mean much. Getting 200 mm of rain spread over a month won't have the same cost as getting 200mm of rain in a month, but all falling within a single day (because of much higher chance of damaging flash floods). A year of drought followed by a year of double the normal amount of rain doesn't result in an overall average agricultulral output for two years. Less rain in region A and more in region B may negatively affect the economy of both regions.

I'm not saying that there are no possible upsides to climate change, but most "off the top of my head" upsides one can think of don't fare so well upon closer examination.

 

[Herzblut]

You're qualitatively thinking at the long run of the mean temperature globally. I'm saying that climate change is not just an increase in the mean temperature, but also in the variance of it .

I understand what you say, just that I think you're wrong. What do you think about my argument? Have you understood it?

I'm not saying that there are no possible upsides to climate change, but most "off the top of my head" upsides one can think of don't fare so well upon closer examination.

I suggest you simply try harder, or try at all.

 

[Eyeron]

There is no such thing as global warming. Why? Because I say so. And I have one skeptical paper that proves one million climatology scientist completely and utterly wrong. And that is the hard cold truth.

 

[Highly Selassie]

Global warming is a good thing! All those poor starving people in Bangladesh and Florida can just up and move to Greenland, where there's a massive fertile plain underneath that ice cap! They'll grow bananas in the south and winter wheat in the north! The weather will be perfect because I don't know what Hadley cell circulation is!

 

[Herzblut]

Your grasp of earth's geo-systems has proved rather less than adequate in the past so your opinion on such matters is effectively worthless.

There's no reason to assume you're capable of making that judgment.

Now if you care to cite a mainstream climate paper from say Nature to support your thesis...

For my "thesis" that decreasing temperature gradients lead to less extreme weather events? You might have missed it, but that's text book knowledge.

 

[Highly Selassie]

For my "thesis" that decreasing temperature gradients lead to less extreme weather events? You might have missed it, but that's text book knowledge.

OK then, what textbook contains such an idea? I confess I took several undergrad courses in meteorology and climatology and never encountered this idea. Maybe I skipped that class...

 

[macdoc]

yep....what IS textbook knowledge for those that actually read them is more energy in the system will create greater extremes of weather patterns...

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090616133944.htm

The insurance companies know even if you don't

still awaiting citation - textbook??? sure that will do...

 

[MattusMaximus]

Is the OP referring to naturally occurring global warming or that caused by humans (AGW)? There's an important distinction, because without naturally occurring GW the Earth would be too damn cold in order to have liquid water on the surface. So, a certain amount of GW is good, in my book; the problem is that we have - through our CO₂ and other emissions - contributed to the entire GW process and caused temperatures to rise too high. So it's basically the Goldilocks principle: you want just the right amount of GW.

Now, as for the predicted effects in 10, 20, 50, 100 years of AGW? I don't know, and this is - to me - where much of the legitimate controversy lies right now, not whether or not AGW is occurring.

 

[Trakar]

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.

Actually, throughout most of the last several thousand years, there have been and are green, forested and grassy areas in the southern coastal valleys of Greenland. During milder stretches these areas a quite ameniable to the type of settlements and living familiar to most early nordic peoples. during the rougher stretches, not so much so.