Why is climate change bad?

[Swordsmith]

I don't want to talk about whether global warming exists, whether man causes it (or even a significant fraction of it), why it exists or anything like that. Start another thread for that, if you want, IMO.

What I want to know is, is it really actually a bad thing?

I know, people who currently own or live on beachfront property would of course think being underwater is bad. I grant you, for them, it is bad.

Similarly, folks who can no longer grow the crops they currently grow would be.. inconvenienced to put it mildly. Forced to move somewhere else, or worse, if it's really bad.

But it seems to me that for every place that's hurt by warming, there should be somewhere else that benefits. Beachfront property in Miami is no longer beachfront? Bad for Miami. But now there's beachfront property in say Coral Springs. Isn't that a more or less zero sum game, in the big picture?

Similarly, places that are warmer could just switch to growing crops that grow under warmer conditions. Idaho growing crops that used to grow in California, say for instance.

And yes, we lose some places to desertification, maybe, but wouldn't we also see some current deserts bloom? Wouldn't we see current tundra turn into fertile fields?

Isn't the only real consequence to the status quo? Won't there be winners as well as losers?

I'm not talking, of course, about "runaway greenhouse" scenarios, where earth turns into Venus 2.0 or something. But neither is anyone else. They're talking about 10 C at the high end, and there are models that predict that the upper limits of earth's warming are actually lower than that even if we do nothing at all.

I'm not saying it -is- unimportant. I'm not saying we -should- not care. And I'm not actually ignoring the very real global pain that such changes would incur. But overall, is it really the humanity extinction level of disaster that people are acting like it is? Or is it just major suckage for a substantial but relatively tiny percentage of the population, and that balanced by some major niceness for an equally substantial but relatively tiny percentage of the population, and at the end of the day, not much of a real practical difference at all for the vast majority who aren't on either end of that bell curve?

If the average temperature here in PA was a few degrees warmer than it is now, I don't think I'd really care. I used to live in VA, and I've also lived year round in FL, and Brazil. Warmer wouldn't kill me. (unless I'm missing something)

 

[Natesriv]

You assume we're at the current temp and it'll just stay there. We're still warming. Plus warmer waters will start to melt significant amounts of frozen methane, which is by far a worse heat trapper.

Gotta admit I like this mild winter, but I think the real problem is the speed at which this is happening might be more for ecosystems to adapt to as fast..

Seems funny, like a 5°F rise would do anything, but it pushes the extremes on the bell curve of weather out there more, so there'd be more cold for some, more hot for others.... at least that's what the current models say.

The easiest way to alieve this, and take the "blame" off mankind is to get away from fossil fuels which are dirty, known to fill the air with CO2 and won't last forever.

Huge advances in battery storage tech, wind tech, large increase in solar power, wave power, geothermal. Increases in efficiencies in our power consumption.... keep the focus on that, move away from strip minining, get as close to carbon netural and there's hope.

Besides, think of all the new jobs and industries to be created by shifting towards a new method of meeting our power needs...

If you want to see what unbridled CO2 output along with lax regulation... visit Bejing or Bombay and take a deep breath.

This isn't impossible to fix...just takes the will to do it..

 

[Swordsmith]

No I don't assume that we'll stay where we are. If we continue the way we are going, we're looking at a gradual rise in average temps for some time to come. I do think most models predict that that will end, and for the sake of this argument want you to assume that this is so, that we can continue to pollute at our current rate (or even at our current increasing rate) and that the global temp average will still cap out somewhat but not outlandishly warmer than today.

For the sake of this thread, then, my question is... does that really matter, world wide?

Won't, say, Mexico suck more to live in, but Canada be better to live in?

Change isn't bad in and of itself, it can be for the better or for the worse, depending on your current circumstances.

Now you do raise two points that are on topic; one, if global warming really means more energetic weather, meaning higher highs, lower lows, and more frequent and more violent storms. Those would probably all be bad things, while I can't see "a little warmer everywhere all the time" as being universally bad.

Two, if the change is going faster than ecosystems can adapt, we could have mass extinctions. Given the degree to which man has been doing this directly, I'm not as overwhelmed about accidentally doing some more of it than I should be, perhaps. But there have been warmer earth climate periods in the past, as well as colder ones, there have been times when there was no ice at the poles at all, I hear. Doesn't seem like that's a "wipe out all life" or even "all human life" scenario.

 

[laborsmith]

There have been several mass extinctions in the history of earth, the dinosaurs being the most well known. They seem to have less effect on deep sea creatures, which I suppose sharks are basically the same today as they were a few hundred million years ago. But the loss of land mass and the Peking example of breathable air seem to me to be reasons to be concerned. Since we know there are steps that if taken could positively (from a human pov) ameliorate adverse effects it seems the better part of wisdom to take them.

But then, I'm a social worker (retired) not a geologist.

Laborsmith

 

[MidnightClub3]

Climate change goes just beyond rising coastlines, but more so the affect it has on entire species. Habitat, migration and population are all things that are intertwined and relative to each other. We've seen entire species wiped out by artificially messing with these variables through human interaction and ignorance like pollution, introducing new species to areas, etc. Same goes for crops; flora and fauna alike.

Long story short though, we know the things that harm the ozone. It's demonstrated science. Why "shouldn't" we live as clean as possible? Good planets are hard to find.

 

[Swordsmith]

When I was a kid, the big scare was global cooling. An ice age was coming and we were all dooomed, DOOOOOOMED I TELL YOU. A couple decades later, it was global warming, but we were all still DOOOMED. But all the changes we are talking about seem to be within the bounds of previous changes to the climate, nothing really out of the ordinary on a geological scale.

And what if there really was an ice age coming, but we warmed it away? Shut down CO2 production, get some more plant life planted, and suddenly the glaciers are coming?

Rising water, we already know what to do, we've got city after city (New Orleans, London etc) below sea level already, heck, whole countries come to think of it. Just build the dikes bigger and stronger. Glaciers, on the other hand, there's nothing to do but pick up your things and move somewhere out of the path.

 

[MidnightClub3]

Not enough is known about this yet, but some scientists suspect there was once an atmosphere on Mars as well as huge deposits of water. "Something" happened. Now look at it. We are in the baby stage of finding out our true impact on our Earth through burning noxious energy sources. One could argue about this for ages, but my point is we have ONE planet. There is no back-up. Even if there is a slight chance we are making this one ****ty, why not try and preserve it instead of being ignorant and hypothesizing that we aren't that bad? (even though we know CO2 is harmful to the atmosphere.) Look at some cities in China where the pollution is comically bad you can't even see through it some days. It doesn't take a scientist to realize polluting our air is bad.

 

[Palmaris]

Climate change could be bad because humans might show that they are too slow and stubborn to react to the changes. Many will think that I was able to grow corn here before, why can't I now? I'll try again, this year will be better.

Also, our lifestyles have changed immensely. Previously I am certain that people were quite nomadic and could adapt to changes. Now, you have to purchase a piece of land and you own it. But say that you purchased some land on the waterfront and it suddenly becomes worthless. That's not going to go over well with most people to have their way of life affected.

 

[The Champ]

Global warming could be disastrous for our friendly Polar Bears...

Momma Bear and her cub depend on Hudson Bay freezing over so they can hunt seals on the ice.



I took these photos in late October of 2007 - the bears were all starting to congregate just outside of Churchill, Manitoba - waiting for the bay to freeze over so they could eat... This was our 35th wedding anniversary trip.









Some forms of life need cold weather to survive.

If Hudson Bay fails to freeze over (and other areas that have proper habitat for Polar Bears) - there won't be anymore of these beautiful creatures.

 

[SuperFudd]

So, should we be running from sea surge or glaciers?
And what about global dimming?

 

[JustSonic]

I was a major in Geography in College and can answer most of these questions easily. Unfortunately I'm on my phone...

Climate change is bad because everything we know now will change and become more extreme at a rate that nature, including humans, can't adapt to. Sure, some places will warm but others will freeze. And we have data backing up proof that this is the worst the planet has seen during what is actually a little glacial period right now when the planet is suppose to be cooler than normal.

 

[Natesriv]

The SPEED is the key reason... Any event which changed the climate in such a rapid time, man made or natural (volcanoes, meteorites/asteroids, sun spot maximums) hasn't been good. There's no record of a rapid climate shift which isn't followed by a mass extinction...

In fluid and thermodynamics, the atmosphere and oceans are considered reservoirs. In that they don't change their state...they're so large that you utilize the energy they have or pass off waste energy to them and they remain constant... However we've changed the atmosphere and ocean in the space of 100 years.... that's too rapid for an ecosystem to adjust...

Hopefully the rise in solar, wind and electric transportation will ramp up... I don't think the future is dire, but we need to get away from burning coal and oil use... Oil is in SO many products, we're wasting huge amounts of it on fuel... it can be used in thousands of other uses (plastics, herbicides, fertilizer, medicine...etc...)

 

[Swordsmith]

I do completely agree that it's a criminal waste to use oil by burning it instead of keeping it around for all the other things we can do with it, many of which produce recyclables which means it isn't completely gone even after its first use.

I'm just having a little trouble drinking the cool-aid on the idea that climate change is inherently bad. Particularly when coupled with "the planet is supposed to be cooler" and "little glacial period". I'd much rather be a little warmer than a little cooler, if cooler means the glaciers sweep down and wipe half of civilization off the map.

It doesn't help that my school years were all filled with the whole "Ice Age is Coming" rhetoric, not that we paid all that much attention because "Nuclear Winter" seemed a lot bigger thing to worry about.

 

[The Champ]

I'd much rather be a little warmer than a little cooler....

My theory is, I can always put more clothes on when it's cool/cold.

I don't like being too warm and they arrest me when I take too many clothes off...

 

[CheapFuneral]

People are gonna think I'm a dick for saying this (like they don't already [emoji849]) but who cares if an animal goes extinct? If you believe in evolution don't and survival of the fittest isn't it obvious some creatures will die off as new ones take over?

As for the coast lines, I live a couple miles inland in Florida, not the beach... But I'm only a couple feet above sea level so I'd not have a home. However I'd likely see this coming and move because it's not exactly a tidal wave.

Then the ice methane thing... I mean we should trap it and if we can't do that just burn it off... Doesnt methane burn pretty clean anyway?

As for now I agree who sword... Who cares. I'll keep driving my mud truck (2mpg) and not give a ****.


**** you auto correct!

 

[rodslinger]

I...

But it seems to me that for every place that's hurt by warming, there should be somewhere else that benefits. Beachfront property in Miami is no longer beachfront? Bad for Miami. But now there's beachfront property in say Coral Springs. Isn't that a more or less zero sum game, in the big picture?

I giggled a little thinking about this as I work down there. It would probably be more like a two or three foot sea rise would turn Orlando into beachfront property and Coral Springs turns into a coral reef. Disney would be the new Key West. I feel bad for the Cubans because it will take a lot longer to paddle to Orlando.

I'm not sure anyone knows what will be the real result. I can only speculate that if it occurs too quickly and nature can't adapt fast enough is where the big trouble starts.

To me it's just a growing pile of little issues that add up to a combined catastrophe. Like what happens in typically colder winter climates that warm up a bit and no longer see the freeze/thaw cycles? Picture the midwest adpoting south Florida climate.

How do those plants and animals that need the freeze/thaw cycle to complete their growth cycle, hibernation and pollination triggers if they don't know winter ever came and went?

But would an extended summer allow longer food growing periods and better yield?

Do issues with insects and mosquito increase making the spread of disease harder to deal with? And does this insect issue now just eat up all the extra food we make on the longer growing season?

And as the world gets hotter and we all just turn the AC down lower to compensate aren't we just speeding up the process? The A/C units themselves generate heat just to cool your home. Not counting the 30k Btu/hr they are pulling out of your house, they are adding another 11,000 Btu/hr by themselves on generic residential system. And all the actual heat in your home from your TV's, chili farts, games, phones and appliances has to go somewhere too. So I have to consider that outside of any greenhouse gases or other factors, we are also PHYSICALLY heating our planet with all the cars running, plants building, planes flying, grills grilling, leaf piles burning, etc...

The physical heating of the planet can be seen just watching the local news weather broadcast. You'll see the temp is always a few degrees warmer in a large metro area than it is a little further out with less population density.

It can make your head spin thinking about it. But all I know is I'll probably be long dead and buried before I have to worry about it too much. With that I'm going to go cut the catalyst off my car and do some donuts in the neighbors corn field.