Carbon dioxide rise in the atmosphere

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by timojin, Aug 27, 2015.

  1. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,432
    And that the good ones are as apt to migrate quickly to new ranges as the bad, and that "good" or "bad" designation will follow the animal wherever it goes, and so forth. All of these are uninformed assumptions, made in ignorance and completely wrong.
    Nobody is starting from that assumption. Nobody is even assuming that the changes will be toward "more animals".
    People will vacation on the polar ice more readily than they will vacation in the slums of Mumbai in the middle of the summer, I'm betting.

    One of the reasons they can vacation under palms is that there aren't a whole lot of people already living under those palms. (There's a shortage of fresh water, often. Also food. And the summer heat is brutal, often. And so forth.)

    The question is whether, when they come home from their vacation, they regard the new prevalence of horrible diseases in their home towns (where there are still no palms, and there will be no palms unless their existing trees die) as a good thing or a bad thing. I'm guessing bad. And whether they regard the new heat at night when they are trying to sleep - without those nice ocean breezes and waving palms - as good or bad. And so forth.

    People don't take vacations to the Seven Ovens of China in the middle of summer. And if the oven weather comes to them, while getting even worse where it is now, things will get ugly in a hurry. Heat already kills more people than cold, now.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2016
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,703
    Why will there be no palms if the temperature is appropriate for them? If you like them, grow them.
    Some will not like all this, and they have a lot of space to move in Canada and Siberia.
    If you think more cold would be preferable, I would disagree.
     
    sculptor likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,432
    After the new climate has moved in and settled down, and the existing trees have died off, sure. The beach and the ocean and the sand and so forth will take a little longer, of course. The diseases will be familiar by then, maybe the good old days will have been forgotten.
    Hardship. As predicted.
    I don't. But I think less heat would be better for people in a lot of places that are going to get more heat, instead.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,703
    For some. Others will find it nice.
    Every change will be unfavorable for some people. And creates, of course, some costs.
     
  8. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,798
    The most preferable thing for the entire ecosystem would be to maintain the same temperature and climate that it has adapted to over the last few thousand years or so. Anything else is a hardship - even if you, personally, would like it warmer. (If you really want it warmer,, turn up your thermostat. It will solve your problem without the mass dieoffs and extinctions.)
     
  9. Schmelzer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,703
    The question is what creates higher costs - all what is proposed to stop or reduce climate change, or the climate change itself. To find this out, one would need a neutral evaluation of the costs created by a climate change. Which is far away from what I observe today.
     
  10. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,432
    Refugees moving to a comparatively inhospitable place, residents inundated by refugees. Nice for whom?
    You aren't observing. If you were, you could find a variety of reasonable estimates fairly easily - and they are all, essentially, descriptions of disaster.
     

Share This Page