55 Globalization and Challenges Before India-gen (Single Space)

8/3/2019 55 Globalization and Challenges Before India-gen (Single Space)

1/19

Positives and negatives of global warming

Link to this pageThe skeptic argument...

It's not bad"Two thousand years of published human histories say that warm periods were good for people. It was the harsh, unstable Dark Ages and Little Ice Age that brought bigger storms, untimely frost, widespread famine and plagues of disease." ( Dennis Avery )

What the science says...

Select a level... Basic Intermediate

Negative impacts of global warming on agriculture, health & environment far outweigh any positives.

Heres a list of cause and effect relationships, showing that most climate change impactswill confer few or no benefits, but may do great harm at considerable cost.

Agriculture

While CO2 is essential for plant growth, all agriculture depends also on steady water supplies, and climate change is likely to disrupt those supplies through floods anddroughts. It has been suggested that higher latitudes Siberia, for example maybecome productive due to global warming, but the soil in Arctic and bordering territories isvery poor, and the amount of sunlight reaching the ground in summer will not change

because it is governed by the tilt of the earth. Agriculture can also be disrupted by wildfiresand changes in seasonal periodicity, which is already taking place, and changes tograsslands and water supplies could impact grazing and welfare of domestic livestock.Increased warming may also have a greater effect on countries whose climate is alreadynear or at a temperature limit over which yields reduce or crops fail in the tropics or sub-Sahara, for example.

Health

Warmer winters would mean fewer deaths, particularly among vulnerable groups like theaged. However, the same groups are also vulnerable to additional heat, and deathsattributable to heatwaves are expected to be approximately five times as great as winter deaths prevented. It is widely believed that warmer climes will encourage migration of disease-bearing insects like mosquitoes and malaria is already appearing in places ithasnt been seen before.

Polar Melting

While the opening of a year-round ice free Arctic passage between the Atlantic and Pacificoceans would confer some commercial benefits, these are considerably outweighed bythe negatives. Detrimental effects include loss of polar bear habitat and increased mobile

ice hazards to shipping. The loss of ice albedo (the reflection of heat), causing the ocean
http://www.skepticalscience.com/link_to_us.php?Argument0=50http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=43489http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htmhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/link_to_us.php?Argument0=50http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=43489http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives-intermediate.htm


2/19

to absorb more heat, is also a positive feedback; the warming waters increase glacier andGreenland ice cap melt, as well as raising the temperature of Arctic tundra, which thenreleases methane, a very potent greenhouse gas (methane is also released from the sea-bed, where it is trapped in ice-crystals called clathrates). Melting of the Antarctic iceshelves is predicted to add further to sea-level rise with no benefits accruing.

Ocean Acidification

A cause for considerable concern, there appear to be no benefits to the change in pH of the oceans. This process is caused by additional CO2 being absorbed in the water, andmay have severe destabilising effects on the entire oceanic food-chain.

Melting Glaciers

The effects of glaciers melting are largely detrimental, the principle impact being that manymillions of people (one-sixth of the worlds population) depend on fresh water suppliedeach year by natural spring melt and regrowth cycles and those water supplies drinkingwater, agriculture may fail.

Sea Level Rise

Many parts of the world are low-lying and will be severely affected by modest sea rises.Rice paddies are being inundated with salt water, which destroys the crops. Seawater iscontaminating rivers as it mixes with fresh water further upstream, and aquifers arebecoming polluted. Given that the IPCC did not include melt-water from the Greenlandand Antarctic ice-caps due to uncertainties at that time, estimates of sea-level rise arefeared to considerably underestimate the scale of the problem. There are no proposedbenefits to sea-level rise.

Environmental

Positive effects of climate change may include greener rainforests and enhanced plantgrowth in the Amazon, increased vegitation in northern latitudes and possible increases inplankton biomass in some parts of the ocean. Negative responses may include further growth of oxygen poor ocean zones, contamination or exhaustion of fresh water,increased incidence of natural fires, extensive vegetation die-off due to droughts,

increased risk of coral extinction, decline in global photoplankton, changes in migrationpatterns of birds and animals, changes in seasonal periodicity, disruption to food chainsand species loss.

Economic

The economic impacts of climate change may be catastrophic, while there have been veryfew benefits projected at all. The Stern report made clear the overall pattern of economicdistress, and while the specific numbers may be contested, the costs of climate changewere far in excess of the costs of preventing it. Certain scenarios projected in the IPCCAR4 report would witness massive migration as low-lying countries were flooded.Disruptions to global trade, transport, energy supplies and labour markets, banking and

2


3/19


4/19

Malaria is one among others. Italy recently had a brush with Chikungunya (morefun to pronounce, if not to experience).

Dengue fever is also to be considered

Furthermore, "skeptics" take as fact the idea of "CO2 fertilization" popularizedheavily by the propaganda site called CO2Science. However, that fact may notbe nearly as much good news as they imagine.http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/nov02/plant1102.htmhttp://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/24/13430http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/312/5782/1918

Those positives and negatives are still pretty much open to speculation, I remainquite skeptical of the "CO2 fertilization" idea in light of the open air experimentsconducted so far.

4. GMB at 13:20 PM on 29 December, 2007 "Those positives and negatives are still pretty much open to speculation, I remain

quite skeptical of the "CO2 fertilization" idea in light of the open air experimentsconducted so far."

1. Every last open air experiment so far has CONFIRMED the fertilization effect.

2. Open air experiments may appear to be "streetwise" but they are very muchlikely to UNDERESTIMATE the CO2-fertilisation effect.

Open air experiments sound to me like an appalling waste of money. You either control a factor in an experiment or you do not. Piping CO2 into the area isn'tgoing to have the same effect as having the CO2 homogenised in the air. Sincethe plant is accessing the CO2 at the molecular level and not at the level of littleeddies and wisps of unhomogenised CO2. What looks at first like the streetwisesimulation on second thoughts appears to be hopelessly unrealistic. And itappears to underestimate the massive and universal benefit of extra CO2.

But nonetheless these experiments CONFIRM this universal benefit. Theyunderestimate the benefit but still they confirm the benefit.

5. Philippe Chantreau at 16:09 PM on 29 December, 2007 What makes you think that the limits on Rubisco Activase will not manifestthemselves? How could it be good to shift the ratio of ATP/ADP toward ADP?

Since CO2 level is already quite a bit higher, those bumper crops should alreadystart to show up. Examples?

Universal benefit? How is it universal?6. Philippe Chantreau at 16:23 PM on 29 December, 2007

And if you dig, you find stuff about methane hydrates and the P/T extinction, so itis a stretch to say there is no justification whatsoever of dire predictions. I'd saythat it would be as much of an exaggeration than to predict bumper crops on thebasis of the existing CO2 fertilization alone.

7. Wondering Aloud at 06:52 AM on 8 January, 2008 In other words Malaria should be removed from the list. Maybe there are other diseases but Malaria which already exists in the Arctic is not one of the bugs thatis likely to increase its range due to climate change so its inclusion here is simplywrong. Other diseases would also have to be evaluated case by case and there

4
http://www.promedmail.org/pls/askus/f?p=2400:1001:3675790125585410252::NO::F2400_P1001_BACK_PAGE,F2400_P1001_PUB_MAIL_ID:1000,40407http://www.promedmail.org/pls/askus/f?p=2400:1001:3675790125585410252::NO::F2400_P1001_BACK_PAGE,F2400_P1001_PUB_MAIL_ID:1000,40407http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/nov02/plant1102.htmhttp://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/24/13430http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/312/5782/1918http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#204http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#204http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#209http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#209http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#210http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#210http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#268http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#268http://www.promedmail.org/pls/askus/f?p=2400:1001:3675790125585410252::NO::F2400_P1001_BACK_PAGE,F2400_P1001_PUB_MAIL_ID:1000,40407http://www.promedmail.org/pls/askus/f?p=2400:1001:3675790125585410252::NO::F2400_P1001_BACK_PAGE,F2400_P1001_PUB_MAIL_ID:1000,40407http://www.ars.usda.gov/is/AR/archive/nov02/plant1102.htmhttp://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/97/24/13430http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/312/5782/1918http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#204http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#209http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#210http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#268


5/19

are many if not more illnesses associated with low temperatures.

I haven't had time to research many of these claims but the few I haveresearched on the negative side are very doubtful, like polar bears beingthreatened, which is directly contradicted by the available data. This is an oldsalesman trick of inflating the number of arguments on your side and minimizingthe number on your opponents side. It doesn't impress me and it does the AGWargument more harm than good.

8. Mizimi at 21:03 PM on 26 August, 2008 Mostly pure speculation; extrapolation without including negative feedbacks isuseless and as WA. says, harmful to the argument.? expanding desert areas? Look at the existing deserts and tell me how theyformed and grew BEFORE any AGW effects. Oh, and right now Egypt has drilledover 100 wells into the Sahara bedrock and (so far) found sufficient fresh water for the next 500 years. Thank you satellite radar imaging which showed theunderlying ancient river courses and lakes.The same technology shows similar ancient water deposits in Darfur ( the war

there is directly attributable to scarcity of water) and the government there hasbeen offered the expertise to explore it...which could end that conflict and turn thecountry into an oasis.My Point? All the doom and gloom projections NEVER NEVER can account for paradigm shifts caused by technology. ( NY was predicted to end up knee deepin horse **** in the 1800's because of exponential increases in the use of horses....it never happened, instead, the automobile did).My point?

9. Mizimi at 01:47 AM on 4 September, 2008 What about global warming reduces heating fuel consumption?

Philippe:We should hold very lightly info that doesn't have empirical data tacked ontoit....eg: Co2 fertilisation ( or lack of it)Jasper Ridge have been conducting controlled experiments on plants for the past3 yrs and their data shows 1/3rd increase in biomass if CO2 alone is increased,and up to 85% increase if water/minerals/ temp are optimised WITHOUT extraCO2.

10. Mizimi at 00:23 AM on 18 September, 2008 From the Ministry of Ag, Ontario:

"The benefits of carbon dioxide supplementation on plant growth and productionwithin the greenhouse environment have been well understood for many years...

For the majority of greenhouse crops, net photosynthesis increases as CO2levels increase from 3401,000 ppm (parts per million). Most crops show that for any given level of photosynthetically active radiation (PAR), increasing the CO2level to 1,000 ppm will increase the photosynthesis by about 50% over ambientCO2 levels. For some crops the economics may not warrant supplementing to1,000 ppm CO2 at low light levels. For others such as tulips, and Easter lilies, noresponse has been observed."

http://www.omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm

Commercial growers all over the world have invested millions of $ into CO2

enhancement of greenhouses: Given that they are businessmen, if there was no

5
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#1256http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#1256http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#1391http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#1391http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#1578http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#1578http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#1256http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#1391http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#1578


6/19

appreciable crop increase they wouldn't be doing it- No?Now I would call a 50% increase in crop mass substantial, maybe not BUMPER,but clearly enough to warrant the cash investment.So there is plenty of empirical, current, evidence that raising levels of CO2causes plants to grow bigger and faster. It isn't an issue, it's a fact.Just as clear is that concentrations up to 1000ppm the Rubisco Activase limitdoes not manifest.

11. Quietman at 05:52 AM on 27 November, 2008 Can Carbon Dioxide Be A Good Thing?Physicist Explains Benefits Of Carbon DioxideJune 1, 2007 A physicist from Colorado State University and his colleaguesfrom the North American Carbon Program (NACP) have discerned and confirmedthe unforeseen advantages of rising carbon dioxide levels. Through theprocesses of photosynthesis and respiration, scientists have been able toelucidate why plants are growing more rapidly than they are dying. The NACP isemploying methods, such as the use of cell phone and aircraft towers to monitor and retrieve carbon data for their continuing study.

12. Wondering Aloud at 12:54 PM on 22 December, 2008 Well John after much reading I think this is a thread where you are likely wrong.

I have read a lot of claims that CO2 increasing yields is a myth, however incontrolled experiments it really tends to have a large positive effect. Some haveeven claimed that it doesn't work in the "Real World".. A good argumentsometimes but one that doesn't work very well here. If CO2 increases yieldsunder controlled conditions but this is not seen in the real world that would in factstrongly suggest that our readings of CO2 increasing were incorrect not that CO2doesn't help. That would be an interesting thing to investigate.

13. Quietman at 19:53 PM on 25 December, 2008 Lets look at this from a logical perspective.

Warmer means more like the world that we evolved in during the PETM (whenprosimians first appear) in Asia.

Colder means more like the world that came close to driving us to extinction(glacial maximum) in Africa.

We are from a tropical paradise, no polar ice caps and green pole to pole. Whichdo we wan't for our offspring? Warm and abundant or cold and starvation?

14. Mizimi at 02:57 AM on 2 January, 2009 #14....Most of the examples of increased CO2 giving increased plant growth have

come from environments where the CO2 level is artificially held at around1000ppm. In the real world the levels have risen from around 260ppm (1000AD)through 290ppm (1900AD) to 380ppm(2005), in other words the increase over the period we have started takinginterest in what's going on is at best 100ppm. Roughly, doubling the level gives a50% increase in growth, so adding a third (real world) isn't going to show upmuch at the small scale level.Globally, however, the increase may be significant, although probablyunquantifiable

15. NewYorkJ at 07:14 AM on 5 January, 2009 A good book on this topic:

http://www.amazon.com/Six-Degrees-Future-Hotter-Planet/dp/142620213X

6
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#2103http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0603-can_carbon_dioxide_be_a_good_thing.htmhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#2233http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#2233http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#2245http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#2265http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#2265http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#2305http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#2103http://www.sciencedaily.com/videos/2007/0603-can_carbon_dioxide_be_a_good_thing.htmhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#2233http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#2245http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#2265http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#2305


7/19

This book has hundreds of references to objective peer-reviewed studies on theeffects of global warming, at each degree C in global temperature rise.Essentially, costs immediately exceed benefits. With each degree of warming,the cost-benefit gap expands greatly.

16.

Mizimi at 01:34 AM on 20 January, 2009 Millions of years ago, climate conditions were such that plant life grew rapidly ona global scale. CO2 and WV levels were high enough to sustain this growth andduring this period much of the FF's we now burn were laid down. Plant lifesequestered CO2 and locked it up as FF, thereby reducing the CO2 levels,although at times, 'natural' events such as vulcanic erutions/forest fires wouldhave temporarily offset this sequestration.The end result is that CO2 levels hit (possibly) an all time low of around 200ppmand stayed there. As this level is close to the minimum C3 plants can tolerate,further growth and investment of new habitat were resticted. At this time, only C3plants existed (fossil records of C4 plants indicate their emergence around 8mya)and C3 plants, in order to prosper, require CO2 levels higher than 200ppm. If the

levels fall below this figure, then growth effectively halts as does sequestration.One can argue that the emergence of C4 plants was 'caused' by persistent lowlevels of CO2 - an adaptation of metabolic process to environmental pressures -and since they are more efficient in their use of CO2,(they had to be) they beganto colonise and modify habitats where C3 plants could no longer competeeffectively.C4 plants are grasses, and include the cereals. The rise of civilisation was madepossible only because of these plants and man's ability to husband them, so weactually owe our existence to low levels of atmospheric CO2.Current concern is directed at enhanced CO2 levels through burning FF's, andthe (modelled) effects this may have on climate, and the consequent impact onman's habitat.The current level of around 380ppm, whilst nearly double that during the periodC3 plants were dominant, is still towards the lower level of tolerance for them.It can therefore be argued that further increases of CO2 will be beneficial to thisclass of plants and not detrimental to C4's until levels exceed 1000ppm; in other words, our CO2 emissions are helping C3 plants, and quite possibly helping (insome small way) to offset the losses incurred by de-forestation.

Yes, they may be disadvantages to mankind and his preferred lifestyle/habitatfrom CO2 enhancement, but there are benefits to the biosphere at large.

17. Quietman at 09:29 AM on 11 February, 2009 High Carbon Dioxide Boosts Plant Respiration, Potentially Affecting Climate AndCropsScienceDaily (Feb. 10, 2009)"The leaves of soybeans grown at the elevated carbon dioxide (CO2) levelspredicted for the year 2050 respire more than those grown under currentatmospheric conditions, researchers report, a finding that will help fine-tuneclimate models and could point to increased crop yields as CO2 levels rise."

18. Bruce Frykman at 09:04 AM on 19 March, 2009 "This book has hundreds of references to objective peer-reviewed studies on theeffects of global warming, at each degree C in global temperature rise.Essentially, costs immediately exceed benefits. With each degree of warming,the cost-benefit gap expands greatly."

How much colder should the earth be to idealize the benificial ascpect for man.

7
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#2434http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#2434http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#2545http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#2545http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090209205202.htmhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090209205202.htmhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#2763http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#2763http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#2434http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#2545http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090209205202.htmhttp://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090209205202.htmhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#2763


8/19

Of course I am most intested as to what "peer reviewed" studies have concluded.Another thing I am most intersested in is what "peer revied studies" haveconcluded thet the DOW jones should be at by the year 2025.

Dont you alarmists have any sense of humility as to what you think you know.

For the record "peer review" is simply a call for rudimentary error checking - it isnot thesis confirming and it is by no means systematic, thorough, or evenunbiased. It has its place but it is neither an essential nor required component of sound science. Theory confirmation is derived by outcome - not opinions of self proclaimed "experts"

19. thingadonta at 16:17 PM on 18 May, 2009 Some of your pros and cons listed above and not correct.

The longer geological record contradicts statements made by the IPCC and other climatologists, because the IPCC and other climatologists don't usually bother toconsult the longer geological record, and the usual argument from climatologists

is that 'geologists are not climate scientists', which is false; climate is a subset of geology (earth science), not the other way around, (with both ultimately a subsetof astronomy).

The longer geological record has much to say about the lists you have givenabove, for eg:

-Increased desertification corresponds to globally cool periods, NOT warmperiods, in the geological past, (which is the opposite of what the IPPC projects).This genrally means that African and the US, and some Asian crop yields willincrease with warming, not decrease. Globally, there is more rainfall.

Africa, for example, began to become drier with the onset of glacial periodsseveral million years ago, with larger areas of savannah and reduced rainforestcover, (which may well have led to the evolution of the savannah-ape line-that'sus).-Warm periods do not correspond with increased extinction in the geologicalrecord, rather, biodiversity increases (which is the opposite of what the IPCCprojects)-Coral reefs thrive during sea level rise, whilst sea level falls produce extinction.-Coral reefs thrive during warmer periods, and oceans do not become acidic fromgreatly increased C02; there were many periods of thriving corals and other marine life in the geological record when C02 was much higher than today.-Polar bear populations have survived the many warm interglacials in the lastseveral hundred thousand years, warmer periods do NOT promote their extinction. The bigger threats to polar bears are ecotourists, bureaucrats, andhunters.-The Tibetan plateau began to rise around 30-40 million years ago; changes inshort -term climate are paradoxical and not thought to greatly affect water supply/runoff in this region as much as longer period changes in elevation; asduring globally warmer periods snow (and rain) precipitation increases along withseasonal meltwaters-particularly on the Chinese (cooler) side, whilst in cooler periods ice and snow cover increases but overall precipitation and seasonalmeltwater generally decreases.

Other points:

8
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#3216http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#3216


9/19

-Crop yields at all latitudes increase with increased C02, (already an estimated15% since about 1850), the same goes for tropical rainforests,(the Carboniferousperiod had high vegetation levels and high C02-much higher than at present)-Both Europe and USA have thrived in warmer periods, both ecologically (in thepast) and economically during human occupation eg reduced energyconsumption for heating, increased rainfall, less droughts, less deserts (USA).-Lakes do no "vanish" on a global scale during globally warmer periods; if anything it is generally the opposite (point 1 above-lower desertification occursduring warmer periods).

I could dig up alot of other longer geological record indices, but again, whatsurprises me is the complete ignorance amongst many who promote variousglobal warming scenarios/projections on what the actual record of the earth itself has to say on these matters.

A similar thing occurs with creation scientists, and in various discussions anddebates within biology about evolution; the longer geological record is usually

ignored (other than the usual-'the fossil record is incomplete'), when it was thegeological record that formed the general foundation about thinking aboutevolution in the first place, and has alot to say about it.

Another related topic is the long history of debates around catastrophism anduniformitariaism-which also have much to say about current issues/debateconcerning global warming-but that is for another day and another thread.

In general, there needs to be more input/integration from the actual geologicalrecord on various climate change scenarios/issues, which directly contradictsome of the (surmised/projected) points in your list above.

20. Tom Dayton at 15:20 PM on 24 December, 2009 Plants can't grow any better than their limiting factor, which might be not CO2,but nitrogen, water, light,....

Some plants grow worse at higher temperature, offsetting gains from CO2spurring growth.

Even if they do grow "better," the betterment often is not to the advantage of farmers; for example, the extra mass can go into non-consumable woody stalk,which makes the crop more expensive to process than any extra grain/fruit value.

And weeds such as poison ivy and kudzu respond much "better" to increasedCO2 than do many crops, but "better" is not better for people, and not better for plants that those weeds compete with.

For details see the U.S. Department of Agriculture's report on climate change. 21. michaelkourlas at 05:51 AM on 26 January, 2010

I feel that the positives vs. negatives are somewhat biased toward the negativeside.

For instance, on negative, it says decreased water levels three times, andspecifies each individual area where the water supplies will decrease each time:

* Decreasing human water supplies... (Solomon 2009)

9
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#6716http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#6716http://www.usda.gov/oce/climate_change/sap_2007_FinalReport.htmhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#7612http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#6716http://www.usda.gov/oce/climate_change/sap_2007_FinalReport.htmhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#7612


10/19

* Decreased water supply in the Colorado River Basin (McCabe 2007)* Decreasing water supply to the Murray-Darling Basin (Cai 2008)

However, on positive, it only says:

Improved agriculture in some high latitude regions (Mendelsohn 2006)

It does not specify what countries or regions, which could inflate it to severalpoints. Seeing as that has been done with the decreasing water supply, I thinkthe same should be done for the positives.Response: This is solely because I'm referencing individual papers. I suggestyou take a leaf out of Shawnhet's book and find some positive papers focusingon benefits in specific regions .

22. Vinny Burgoo at 14:09 PM on 3 February, 2010 Re Glacier Melt, Barnett 2005, Kehrwald 2008 and 'Severe consequences for one-sixth of world's population dependent on glacial melt for water supply': Iwasn't going to bother with this tabulation any more (for reasons already given)

but I can't let this slide. Barnett's 'one sixth of the world's population' refers toboth snowmelt and icemelt - mostly the former, of course. Kehrwald's 'one sixth'is either a misattributed misrepresentation of Barnett or pure invention. Either way, it's gibberish. If you're genuinely interested in presenting a fair picture of thescience, the least you can do is remove the Kehrwald reference and addsomething that highlights the importance of snowmelt to this alleged one sixth.Personally, I'd remove the whole thing. Barnett was based on a very dodgyanalysis.Response: I notice Kehrwald 2008 cites the IPCC AR4 as their source so until Itrack down the IPCC's peer-reviewed source (most likely Barnett 2005 ), I'veremoved Kehrwald. I find it interesting that you'd 'remove the whole thing' - doyou think the whole issue of threatened water resources for such a largeproportion of the population is not worthy of concern?

23. Vinny Burgoo at 11:37 AM on 11 March, 2010 JC: 'I notice Kehrwald 2008 cites the IPCC AR4 as their source so until I trackdown the IPCC's peer-reviewed source (most likely Barnett 2005), I've removedKehrwald.'

Would that help? Kehrwald et al. offers several contradictory estimates of thenumber of people in South and East Asia who rely on water from meltingglaciers. Would a peer-reviewed source for any of them really confer legitimacyon self-evident nonsense?

Kehrwald's largest estimate: 'TP ice fields are a critical resource for one sixth of the worlds population'. 'TP' is 'Tibetan Plateau'. In Kehrwald, 'Tibetan Plateau'has at least three different meanings. Let's assume that this one was 'Himalayasplus Karakorams plus Hindu Kush plus Pamirs plus the Tibetan Plateau proper and the mountains on its western and northern rims'.

Are the glaciers in this large region a 'critical resource for one sixth of the worldspopulation'? Er, no.

Does any peer-reviewed literature say that they are? Probably.

Does Kehrwald's cited source say that they are? No. The 'one-sixth' claim was

attributed to AR4 WG2 Chapter 10, which says nothing of the kind. If not pure

10
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Peer-reviewed-impacts-of-global-warming.html#7619http://www.skepticalscience.com/Peer-reviewed-impacts-of-global-warming.html#7619http://www.skepticalscience.com/Peer-reviewed-impacts-of-global-warming.html#7619http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#8096http://www.wrq.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/surf/publikationen/2008_kehrwald.pdfhttp://www.wrq.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/surf/publikationen/2008_kehrwald.pdfhttp://meteora.ucsd.edu/cap/pdffiles/barnett_warmsnow.pdfhttp://meteora.ucsd.edu/cap/pdffiles/barnett_warmsnow.pdfhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#10268http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#10268http://www.skepticalscience.com/Peer-reviewed-impacts-of-global-warming.html#7619http://www.skepticalscience.com/Peer-reviewed-impacts-of-global-warming.html#7619http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#8096http://www.wrq.eawag.ch/organisation/abteilungen/surf/publikationen/2008_kehrwald.pdfhttp://meteora.ucsd.edu/cap/pdffiles/barnett_warmsnow.pdfhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#10268


11/19

invention, it was probably a misattributed mangling of Barnett, which claimed (onvery dodgy grounds) that 'more than one-sixth of the Earths population [relies]on glaciers and seasonal snow packs for their water supply'. Snow *and*glaciers. Worldwide, not just 'TP'. And note that Barnett's 'one-sixth' didn't includepeople living on the Gangetic plain. (He got something right.)

The only other attributed claim in Kehrwald (750 million seriously affected)comes, it is said, from the Stern Review via WG2 Ch10. Stern did say somethinglike that but its cited sources didn't support it. Things get complicated here, so Iwon't go further unless you insist.

JC: 'I find it interesting that you'd 'remove the whole thing' - do you think thewhole issue of threatened water resources for such a large proportion of thepopulation is not worthy of concern?'

I find it interesting that you are happy to accept that the water resources of sucha large proportion are threatened. Peer-reviewed crap is still crap.

24. doug_bostrom at 14:23 PM on 11 March, 2010 Vinny Burgoo at 11:37 AM on 11 March, 2010

When assessing the importance of any single component of a population's water supply, it is important to remember that water needs to be available always , andthe available quantity required at any given time is bounded by definite lower limits.

I've seen a lot of criticism of water supply impacts based on the notion that "only"20%, 10% or 5% of a given total regional water supply is sourced by glacial andsnowpack meltwater. If during certain times of the year the component that isonly 20% of an annual supply represents 50% of the instantaneous availableflow, the perspective of persons depending on that supply will be rather differentthan for those of us sitting in our armchairs at safe remove, wondering what theproblem is.

Not to be repetitious, but tell an engineer that you're going to remove reservoirssupplying 20% of a water utility's capacity and he should not worry because theannual total amount of water passing by his system will remain the same and thatengineer will think you crazy.

As to the rather arbitrary separation of snow and ice meltwater sources, if as wecan expect glacier disappearance is accompanied by more rapid melting of snowthe current budgetary components of melt water sources are of less use inpredicting future impacts of glacier loss.

This hair-splitting about impacts of changes in regional water supplies resultingfrom warming is at the end of the day not very flattering to so-called skeptics.Rummaging around for minor flaws in citations is not a robust counter-argument.

25. Vinny Burgoo at 07:35 AM on 13 March, 2010 Robust counter-argument against what, doug_bostrom? It's certainly a goodargument against political overreaction. Does it really not concern you that bogusclaims are being made about the water supplies of one-sixth of the world'spopulation? (Yes, I did read your lecture about seasonal flows etc. Meltwater from Kehrwald's 'TP' glaciers mostly coincides with the monsoon, when the

glacial component is more like 2%, not 20%. So where is this one-sixth of the

11
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#10272http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#10457http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#10457http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#10272http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#10457


12/19

world's population? Not in the oases of Western China, which do rely to someextent in summer on glacial melt. That's most likely bad news for tens or scoresof millions who live there but 100 million is not 1000 million. Exaggeration isneither scientific nor big nor clever. Also, your conflation of snow- and glacier-melt was... unhelpful.) Like many of your stripe, you are hung up on the denial of the theoretical basis for AGW. Things have moved on. Impacts are what matter and the science of predicting impacts is demonstrably weak and overstated. Thewhole field is less than scientifically kosher and large areas of it are politicised. Itreally shouldn't be up to ordinary 'hair-splitting' citizens to sort this out. It takeshours and days for a non-specialist to track back a single claim to its source andevaluate it. The IPCC is supposed to have done all that for us. It hasn't. I'mpissed off. Don't be surprised that a lot of other people are pissed off. And if you're not pissed off too, that isn't very flattering to you, especially when you'reposting on a website called Skeptical Science. (Pre-emption: Yes, Kehrwald et alwas published post-AR4. Will it be in AR5, though? Let's bloody hope not.Barnett too.)

26. doug_bostrom at 07:52 AM on 13 March, 2010

Vinny Burgoo at 07:35 AM on 13 March, 2010

"The whole field is less than scientifically kosher and large areas of it arepoliticised. "

Mountains out of molehills, you illustrate my point nicely, thanks.

What about dehydration is political, anyway? I don't understand that.27. N/A at 05:44 AM on 18 March, 2010

Is warming good or bad? If it prevents an ice age it is good. In the ice age sectionit is said "we will not have an ice age because of the CO2 we have released."Well that may mean that in the future we do not get any warmer if the ice agemechanism continues and the CO2 effects cancel it out. So our greenhousegases do good. If the ice age factors are at work. An ice age is not the onlyoutcome, but the factors may be just as important as COP2.

OK?28. coloursoflife at 16:36 PM on 16 May, 2010

There is a element of presentation that tends to mislead. I will give an example.There is only one benefit listed for human health, but several detriments. Thisobscures the fact that in net, warming is benefit to human health. I am not sayingit is good for humans, I am saying that the higher temperatures themselves are abenefit. Where do people vacation? In Greenland, or in Crimea? Clearly, the

temperatures themselves are not the problem.Response: I'm open to adding more benefits - if you find peer-reviewed papersthat show benefits to health from global warming, please post them and I'll addthem to the list.

29. Riccardo at 00:47 AM on 17 May, 2010 coloursoflife,do you really think that the behaviour during vacations is an appropiate indicator of the overall benefit of a climate over another? I could agree only if you let mestay on paid vacation 365 days a year :)

30. indulis at 12:00 PM on 16 July, 2010 Agriculture negatives- More CO2 produces lower protein levels in the plants, so alarger quantity is needed to provide the same amount of protein."Despite the large body of research on the effect of elevated CO2 on primary

12
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#10460http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#10720http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#14114http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#14124http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#18606http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#18606http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#10460http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#10720http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#14114http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#14124http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#18606


13/19

productivity, few studies consider the overall nutritional value of plants."

More CO2 also produces more cyanide in the plant, while at the same timelowering protein in the plant. Animal and human tolerance to cyanide is reducedby lower levels of protein. Coupled with reduced protein levels per plant, thismakes plants more toxic.

Paper "Changes in Nutritional Value of Cyanogenic Trifolium repensGrown at Elevated Atmospheric CO2"Overview of this research from Monash UniversityAudio and transcript from ABC Science Show interview with Roslyn M. Gleadow

31. indulis at 12:02 PM on 16 July, 2010 PS Trifolium repens is clover, sort of an important crop

32. indulis at 12:06 PM on 16 July, 2010 A bit more from the summary at the end of the paper

"Protein content of food crops such as wheat and rice are predicted to contain to

1520% less protein by the end of this century (Taub et al. 2008)."

"Insect studies have shown that animals compensatefor the lower protein content of plants grown at elevated CO2 by eating more(Lincoln et al. 1993). If this is also true of grazing mammals, then they wouldingest more cyanogenic glycosides along with the rest of the plants in mixedpastures."

"...it is possible that pastures rich in T.repens could become unsuitable for livestock if atmospheric CO2 continues toincrease."

33. cynicus at 00:10 AM on 17 July, 2010 A bit far fetched maybe, but AGW is causing more space junk to threatensatellites and spacestations.

The cooling of the stratosphere causes the atmosphere to contract which lowersthe density of the upper atmosphere. This reduces drag on debris whichtherefore stays longer in orbit.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627663.000-climate-change-is-leaving-us-with-extra-space-junk.html

34. eagleds at 06:46 AM on 20 August, 2010 The link to the skeptic argument is broken.

35. Johngee at 07:22 AM on 15 September, 2010 Hello all,Just to throw this into the mix...

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/u/1/uE6at2IEUOU36. Johngee at 07:30 AM on 15 September, 2010

and this

http://www.uoguelph.ca/news/2010/08/bbb.html37. Johngee at 07:39 AM on 15 September, 2010

and why not...

http://www.youtube.com/user/greenman3610#p/a/u/2/g093lhtpEFo

13
http://www.biolsci.monash.edu.au/staff/gleadow/docs/2009-clover-cg-co2.pdfhttp://www.biolsci.monash.edu.au/staff/gleadow/docs/2009-clover-cg-co2.pdfhttp://www.monash.edu.au/news/monashmemo/stories/20090916/more-uni-news1.htmlhttp://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/2943500.htmhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#18607http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#18607http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#18608http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#18608http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#18636http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#22155http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#24714http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#24715http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#24717http://www.biolsci.monash.edu.au/staff/gleadow/docs/2009-clover-cg-co2.pdfhttp://www.biolsci.monash.edu.au/staff/gleadow/docs/2009-clover-cg-co2.pdfhttp://www.monash.edu.au/news/monashmemo/stories/20090916/more-uni-news1.htmlhttp://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2010/2943500.htmhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#18607http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#18608http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#18636http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#22155http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#24714http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#24715http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#24717


14/19

38. Daniel Bailey at 08:54 AM on 15 September, 2010 Re: Johngee (37)

Dude, ya gotta warn people when posting a link to a video with Moncktontestifying in from of Congress!!!

You owe me a new keyboard. ;)

Re: Johngee (36)

Another game-changer; Caldeira has been predicting this for some time (don'thave the links handy, but Lord Google Scholar finds much). Tropical forests willcontinue to be carbon sinks, but temperate & boreal forests transition to netcarbon emitters with rising temps (multifactoral reasons).

A suggestion: links to papers are appreciated, but it is customary (and just goodform) to preface with a summary of understanding of what to expect. This goes

double with videos with Monckton...

Re: Johngee (35)

See above comment about good form (and remember: always book good moneyon the T-Rex vs people).

Make sure to watch the entire Alley CO2 Biggest Control Knob lecture.

The Yooper 39. Johngee at 05:00 AM on 16 September, 2010

All taken on board Dan. Watched the lecture. Very good indeed! I'd like tocomment on Monckton/congress thing myself but everytime I try my voice getslost in a scream of discombobulation.

40. Daniel Bailey at 06:47 AM on 16 September, 2010 Re: Johngee (39)

Welcome aboard. There's room for all here. At Real Climate, Climate Progress,Deep Climate, Rabett Run, Open Mind, Only In It For The Gold (the list of qualityscience blogs is very long).

I lurked for about 18 months before I started chiming in.

There's a ton of basal and ancillary background material to digest. If you'reinterested, go to Real Climate to the Start Here tab & find your comfort level.

Any questions I can help with, just post.

Welcome aboard.

The Yooper 41. Vinny Burgoo at 21:39 PM on 1 October, 2010

'Severe consequences for over 60 million people dependent on ice and snowmelt for water supply (Barnett 2005, Immerzeel 2010)'

It's good to see that you update things, JC, but now you've understated the

14
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#24724http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#24724http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtmlhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#24818http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#24846http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#24846http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#26516http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#24724http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtmlhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#24818http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#24846http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#26516


15/19

problem. Immerzeel et al's 60 million is related to ice-melt alone (not ice andsnow) and is for only five river basins. Adding the inhabitants of the Tarim oasesin NW China might take the number that'll eventually be threatened with foodinsecurity because of vanished glaciers up to 70 million. (I've never found areliable number for the western China component. Thanks to Barnett et al, manysources say that 23% of China's population - all in Western China - relies onglacial melt but that's hooey. I suspect the claim originated with a journalist'sambiguous padding of a 2004 newspaper interview with Yao Tandong.) Adding aquota for ex-Soviet Central Asia might take you to... 100 million? The smallpopulations outside Asia... Dunno, but a wild guess: 150 million in all.

Or you could stick with ice *and* snow melt and reinstate Barnett's (dodgy) 1billion.

But at the moment you're using a partial number for ice and ascribing it to ice andsnow, which is no better than the earlier problem (Barnett's billion all down toice).

Response: Thanks for the feedback. I've gone for "at least 60 million peopledependent on ice melt" which is as weak as dishwater but Immerzeel is really thebest estimate we've got so far, even if it only covers 5 river basins. Where doesyour figure for NW China come from?

42. Vinny Burgoo at 06:21 AM on 5 October, 2010 JC: 'Where does your figure for NW China come from?'

From a very, very rough estimate of the total population of the Tarim oases.43. adelady at 17:26 PM on 5 October, 2010

This PNAS abstract shows decreasing rice yields under higher night timetemperatures if you're looking for non greenhouse based work on(dis)advantages of higher CO2 on crop growth.

44. hapivibe at 19:10 PM on 20 October, 2010 The amount of debate an attention to minutiae is unbelievable on this site. It isgood in a way but I am curious as to why the issues on this site evoke morediscussion than almost anything else I can think of.

The possible downsides to this arguing about AGW/climate change are that itovershadows other very important issues that affect people and planet. Other issues that are important irrespective of AGW are: Destruction of the rainforestwhich is needed for species diversityOur oceans are being overfishedWe use too much of the world's resources on average per person

Species extinctionPolitical apathy resulting in necessary change not happening quickly enough

Also, if fossil fuels are running out, does this timing coincide nicely with the needto reduce the use of fossil fuels?

Finally, I would love an assurance that the people on this site putting masses of effort into collating data and facts actually live in a sustainable way ie. youpractice what you profess.

45. JMurphy at 19:45 PM on 20 October, 2010 hapivibe wrote : "Finally, I would love an assurance that the people on this site

putting masses of effort into collating data and facts actually live in a sustainableway ie. you practice what you profess."

15
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#26992http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#27089http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#27089http://www.pnas.org/content/107/33/14562/http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#28437http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#28438http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#28438http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#26992http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#27089http://www.pnas.org/content/107/33/14562/http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#28437http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#28438


16/19

Why ? Would you disregard the opinion or diagnosis of a doctor who smokes,especially if you were being told that your cancer was caused by smoking ? Or if you were told to give up smoking because it is badly affecting your health ?

46.

doug_bostrom at 19:54 PM on 20 October, 2010 Witnessing myriad discussions focusing on whatever shreds of countervailingevidence are available as alternative explanations for what is at root a fairlysimple, bulky and ultimately powerful process leaves me completely unsurprisedthat you find discussions here dominated by minutiae, hapivibe. Bloating theimportance of little things by employing large rhetoric is the sharpest tool in the kitof people who for whatever reason wish to ignore the CO2 problem.

You're absolutely right that we're imposing a heavy load on the systems wedepend on. Getting a grip on the CO2 problem is a key part of not further exacerbating our failure to account for our impact on the planet. More, there'slittle reason to believe that solutions to the problems you mention are somehow

mutually exclusive, rather it's probably reasonable to suggest that integratedapproaches would be more beneficial. As you suggest, apathy is our enemy, anold human failing seemingly only overcome in moments of crisis.

Looking at the various graphs of depressing facts, what's the largest contributor to fossil fuel GHG emissions? Coal is the most abundant and presently activefeedstock for CO2. There's plenty of coal and we're burning more of it than ever.We're not going to run out of coal fast enough to rely on depletion of fossil fuelsas a solution to CO2 emissions. There's no data so far indicating we're going tostop burning coal. Depletion as a solution to CO2 emissions on the timescale of concern here seems a dead-end.

Your demand for assurances about sustainable living is of course impossible toanswer affirmatively, either for "the people on this site" in general or you yourself.In communicating via this site you and I and the rest of the gang here areemploying a myriad of devices and systems that are not presently built or operated in a sustainable way. What some of us may be able to say is that we tryto be mindful of those occasions as are available-- in the context we findourselves living-- which afford choices regarding making more or less of a mess.

Come to think of it, your demand for pledges of sustainability is rather curious.What is it that you think "people on this site" profess? I'm wondering, do youbelieve that subscribing to mainstream physics and the scientific method ingeneral is some sort of statement of moral superiority? Perhaps I misunderstand,though.

47. hapivibe at 20:01 PM on 20 October, 2010 Hito JMurphy:I would be pretty miffed if my doctor had lung cancer and continued to smoke.

to doug_bostromthe amount of activity this site has means that people are really bothered by thisissue(s) and I would have thought that people would want to take further, bigger action towards sustainablility than just writing on web site and I am wondering if this is the case.

48. Rob Painting at 20:03 PM on 20 October, 2010

16
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#28439http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#28439http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#28440http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#28441http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#28439http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#28440http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#28441


17/19

Hapivibe @ 44 - Destruction of the rainforest which is needed for speciesdiversity

Destruction of the rainforests will also negatively impact the climate. The Amazonalone has between 86 to 93 billion tonnes of carbon locked up in it's vegetationand soils.

Our oceans are being overfished

And acidified too, from the combustions of fossil fuels. Which will affect fishpopulations at some point.

So, as you can see, these issues aren't mutually exclusive.49. hapivibe at 20:05 PM on 20 October, 2010

Hi dappled water I know the issues are not mutually exclusive - I am proposing that they getovershadowed.

50. JMurphy at 20:19 PM on 20 October, 2010 hapivibe wrote : "I know the issues are not mutually exclusive - I am proposing that they get overshadowed."

sAnd what is the basis for your proposal ? In what way do you think those issuesare being overshadowed ? Is money, effort, etc. being taken away from thoseissues in some quantifiable way ? What's your evidence ?

By the way, my previous analogy of the doctor telling you about cancer or thehealth-damaging effects of smoking (while being a smoker him/herself) did notinvolve HIM/HER having lung cancer - it involved them telling you about thedetrimental effects on your life from smoking, especially if it had caused YOU todevelop cancer. Would you ignore/disregard that doctor's opinion or diagnosis

just because that doctor was doing something that he/she is advising you not to(anymore) ?

1 2 3 4 Next

Post a Comment

Political, off-topic or ad hominem comments will be deleted. Comments Policy...

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you'renew, register here .

GLOBAL WARMINGMar 2 2011

In February 2007, the United Nations released a scientific report that concludes thatglobal warming is happening and will continue to happen for centuries. The report alsostated with 90% certainty that the activity of humans has been the primary cause of increasing temperatures over the past few decades.

With those conclusions and the conclusions of innumerable other scientists that globalwarming is here and will continue into the foreseeable future, I wanted to summarize

the likely effects of global warming, into the advantages and disadvantages of global

17
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#28442http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#28443http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#28443http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=2&t=165&&a=50http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=3&t=165&&a=50http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=4&t=165&&a=50http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=4&t=165&&a=50http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=2&t=165&&a=50http://www.skepticalscience.com/comments_policy.shtmlhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/register.phphttp://geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/globalwarming.htmhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#28442http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-positives-negatives.htm#28443http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=2&t=165&&a=50http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=3&t=165&&a=50http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=4&t=165&&a=50http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=2&t=165&&a=50http://www.skepticalscience.com/comments_policy.shtmlhttp://www.skepticalscience.com/register.phphttp://geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/globalwarming.htm


18/19

warming. First, we will look at the many disadvantages of global warming and thenfollow with the very small number of advantages of global warming.

Disadvantages of Global Warming

Ocean circulation disrupted, disrupting and having unknown effects on worldclimate.

Higher sea level leading to flooding of low-lying lands and deaths and diseasefrom flood and evacuation.

Deserts get drier leaving to increased desertification .

Changes to agricultural production that can lead to food shortages.

Water shortages in already water-scarce areas.

Starvation, malnutrition, and increased deaths due to food and crop shortages.

More extreme weather and an increased frequency of severe and catastrophicstorms .

Increased disease in humans and animals.

Increased deaths from heat waves.

Extinction of additional species of animals and plants.

Loss of animal and plant habitats.

Increased emigration of those from poorer or low-lying countries to wealthier orhigher countries seeking better (or non-deadly) conditions.

Additional use of energy resources for cooling needs.

Increased air pollution.

Increased allergy and asthma rates due to earlier blooming of plants.

Melt of permafrost leads to destruction of structures, landslides, andavalanches.

Permanent loss of glaciers and ice sheets. Cultural or heritage sites destroyed faster due to increased extremes.

Increased acidity of rainfall.

Earlier drying of forests leading to increased forest fires in size and intensity.

Increased cost of insurance as insurers pay out more claims resulting fromincreasingly large disasters.

Aggressiveness will increase , leading to an increase in the murder rate.

18
http://geography.about.com/od/physicalgeography/a/deserts.htmhttp://geography.about.com/od/urbaneconomicgeography/a/aggeography.htmhttp://geography.about.com/cs/hurricanes/a/hurricane.htmhttp://geography.about.com/cs/hurricanes/a/hurricane.htmhttp://geography.about.com/b/2010/04/04/will-global-warming-make-us-more-aggressive.htmhttp://geography.about.com/od/physicalgeography/a/deserts.htmhttp://geography.about.com/od/urbaneconomicgeography/a/aggeography.htmhttp://geography.about.com/cs/hurricanes/a/hurricane.htmhttp://geography.about.com/cs/hurricanes/a/hurricane.htmhttp://geography.about.com/b/2010/04/04/will-global-warming-make-us-more-aggressive.htm


19/19

Advantages of Global Warming

Arctic, Antarctic, Siberia, and other frozen regions of earth may experiencemore plant growth and milder climates.

The next ice age may be prevented from occurring. Northwest Passage through Canada's formerly-icy north opens up to seatransportation.

Less need for energy consumption to warm cold places.

Fewer deaths or injuries due to cold weather.

Longer growing seasons could mean increased agricultural production in somelocal areas.

Mountains increase in height due to melting glaciers, becoming higher as they

rebound against the missing weight of the ice. Boundary disputes between countries over low-lying islands will disappear .

More About Advantages and Disadvantages of Global Warming

The Next Ice Age?

Global Warming: An Overview

El Nino and La Nina

Related Articles

Global Warming - Controlling Global Warming is Cost-Effective andWithin Re...

Global Warming - Global Warming is Unstoppable and Humans are toBlame, say...

Global Warming - Serious Effects of Global Warming Already HaveBegun, says...

Global Warming Facts - Global Warming Evidence - Global WarmingStatistics ...

Global Warming and Allergies -- Do You Think Global Warming is

Worsening Yo...
http://geography.about.com/b/2010/03/24/another-advantage-to-global-warming.htmhttp://geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/nexticeage.htmhttp://geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/globalwarming.htmhttp://geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/elninolanina.htmhttp://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/ipcc_three.htmhttp://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/ipcc_three.htmhttp://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/ipcc_report.htmhttp://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/ipcc_report.htmhttp://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/ipcc_report_two.htmhttp://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/ipcc_report_two.htmhttp://usliberals.about.com/od/environmentalconcerns/a/GlobalWarm2.htmhttp://usliberals.about.com/od/environmentalconcerns/a/GlobalWarm2.htmhttp://allergies.about.com/u/ua/allergies101/globalwarmingua.htmhttp://allergies.about.com/u/ua/allergies101/globalwarmingua.htmhttp://geography.about.com/b/2010/03/24/another-advantage-to-global-warming.htmhttp://geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/nexticeage.htmhttp://geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/globalwarming.htmhttp://geography.about.com/od/globalproblemsandissues/a/elninolanina.htmhttp://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/ipcc_three.htmhttp://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/ipcc_three.htmhttp://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/ipcc_report.htmhttp://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/ipcc_report.htmhttp://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/ipcc_report_two.htmhttp://environment.about.com/od/globalwarming/a/ipcc_report_two.htmhttp://usliberals.about.com/od/environmentalconcerns/a/GlobalWarm2.htmhttp://usliberals.about.com/od/environmentalconcerns/a/GlobalWarm2.htmhttp://allergies.about.com/u/ua/allergies101/globalwarmingua.htmhttp://allergies.about.com/u/ua/allergies101/globalwarmingua.htm

55 Globalization and Challenges Before India-gen (Single Space)

Documents

Transcript of 55 Globalization and Challenges Before India-gen (Single Space)