Could global warming help species?

[Skeptic]

On the global warming issue, it has become fashionable to be very pessimistic. The science does not say whether global warming will be disastrous or simply a change. Interpretations, though, trend heavily towards the disastrous.

For example ; there are numerous theoretical positive and negative feed-back mechanisms possible. Positive accelerates the warming. Negative restricts or even reverses warming. If you read popular descriptions of these feed-backs, they are almost totally positive. There is no clear science to say that feed-backs have to be positive, and the negative ones are equally likely. It is purely political fashion that dictates positive feed-back is emphasized.

If all feed-backs are positive, then the fate of the world is to accelerate into heat death. In fact, if this was the case, the world achieved heat death some billions of years ago. This because warmings and cooling shave always occurred. If only positive feed-backs existed, then the first warming would have accelerated into heat death.

Thus, we know that there are also negative feed-back mechanisms. Yet they are almost never mentioned.

[Aracari]

The problem is that this is not a natural, slow change as have happened many times in the past. This is a very fast one and the main cause is our pollution.

Animals will adapt, new environments will take place of existing ones, for example some rainforests will disappear, some will grow (if we let), some reefs will die, ocean currents will change, species will die but others will take place, etc. Even humans will adapt, but it will have a cost, and this will likely be a shortage of food, diseases, pests, extreme weather, etc. This will lead to war and global chaos (except for the rich, they will always be fine).

There's nothing wrong with pessimistic views, even if they are not 100% true. There're only benefits out of it.

[spadlet]

Originally Posted by Aracari

(except for the rich, they will always be fine)

Unless there's a revolution

[Skeptic]

To Aracari

I agree with you that current warming is faster than has been measured in past eras.

However, my point is that the interpretation of the data has become highly political. Extreme views are colouring the reports that come out. We do not know that the long term results of warming will be catastrophic. That is a biased interpretation. Sure, there will be change, and there is always some pain associated with adapting to change. However, it would be good to see a little perspective on the way this is reported.

For example : warming will open up vast areas of land in Canada and Siberia to productive agriculture. Because these land masses are so immense, the total amount of acreage globally capable of growing food will increase substantially. Yet this simple fact is never mentioned. Why?

[TheBiodegradableMan]

Originally Posted by Skeptic

For example : warming will open up vast areas of land in Canada and Siberia to productive agriculture. Because these land masses are so immense, the total amount of acreage globally capable of growing food will increase substantially. Yet this simple fact is never mentioned. Why?

I thought the arguement against ideas about improved agriculture were that climate change will lead to plants containing more carbon and less nitrogen. Insects that crave nitrogen would have to consume more vegetation to get enough. Also, how do we know how much precipitation or what the exact temperatures will be in each area? Why is it bad to use climate modelling to prodect effects of global warming, but then it is used to make predictions on which areas will have improved agriculture? Also, if an area does change to have the right climate for agriculture, that means it could also be be habitable by pests, bringing them further north.

[Skeptic]

To biodegradable man.

I don't know where you got the carbon/nitrogen thing from. It is not so.

The areas I am talking of are currently frigid, but should warm to the point where wheat can be grown. Sure, insects will increase - to about the point at which they currently exist in the wheat belt. Areas further south may become less suitable for wheat, but more suitable for other crops, such as corn, or even rice.

Global warming has maximum impact on high latitudes. Areas currently warm will not heat up to anything like the same extent - a fact that is already clear in direct measurements. As someone else said - the effect in tropical areas will not be harmful because of warming, but may, in certain areas, cause harm by reducing rainfall.

This may be balanced by the fact that other areas, currently arid, may get more rainfall. 6000 years ago the Sahara was warmer and wetter than today, and widely inhabited by people, including areas too dry for anyone to live in today. This may happen again.

The point I am making is that climate change is not all doom and gloom. Change will cause pain, but some of the change may well be very beneficial.

[TheBiodegradableMan]

I found the site I read that from. It's kind of old though, so I don't know if they've proven that wrong or something.

"In soils, the CO2 "enrichment" could lead to changing ratios among important plant nutrients and in the process lead to decreased nitrogen availability. In this case, any stimulatory effect that increased CO2 may have on plant growth could be constrained -- a positive feedback."

http://www.andweb.demon.co.uk/enviro...gfeedback.html

[Skeptic]

To biodegradable man.

The carbon/nitrogen ratio in plants is kind of critical. That is : if it is too far out, meaning only by a tiny amount, the plant simply will die. If the plants are living, that makes them suitable food for animals. With the exception of those that are naturally toxic, of course.