What if some global warming is a really good thing?

[Dr. Zaus]

In the low periods we see the ice sheet go as far south as New York.
https://xkcd.com/1732/

About 8k years ago we came off of a global maximum (+1c), slowly declining back down. Because of C02 it seems we've brought this back up despite the global trend down.

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle#section-6

The global trend should put us at about -5c in the next 10k years.

So perhaps some global warming is a good thing, to keep us at +1 or 2c. I recognize we've already seen an unexpected +3c shift in less than 100 years, so we're going at 7x the speed we should. But with that said:

What if some global warming is a really good thing?

 

[Jaskalas]

What if some global warming is a really good thing?

Define "some". We've already had that, wouldn't you say?
If all CO2 output stopped tomorrow, the temperature would still rise for more than 100 years to follow.

 

[agent00f]

In the low periods we see the ice sheet go as far south as New York.
https://xkcd.com/1732/

About 8k years ago we came off of a global maximum (+1c), slowly declining back down. Because of C02 it seems we've brought this back up despite the global trend down.

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle#section-6

The global trend should put us at about -5c in the next 10k years.

So perhaps some global warming is a good thing, to keep us at +1 or 2c. I recognize we've already seen an unexpected +3c shift in less than 100 years, so we're going at 7x the speed we should. But with that said:

What if some global warming is a really good thing?

Various environments both man-made and natural (eg agriculture, HVAC, reefs, etc) are meant for certain temp ranges, thus changes are disruptive and have some cost associated. Esp. in this case where some people are getting screwed more than others, basically like pollution where there are more limited beneficiaries compared to widespread and longterm damage.

 

[Moonbeam]

The disadvantage I see is that the whole cycle would be shifted upward so that at max maybe NY would be a desert. The major issue, however, is the speed of the change, hundreds, rather than thousands of years, making it difficult for plant and animal life to gradually alter according to the conditions.

Your question to me is only useful in the sense that we don't know what will happen with certainty because of the impossibility of testing climate models experimentally as we have just the one climate we have for better or worse. Since that is the case and things may be getting warmer due to human produced CO2, it is best to go not be too disruptive. We can hope then there may be some benefits, but we can't allow a belief that hope is certain take us down a riskier path, in my opinion.

 

[1sikbITCH]

In the low periods we see the ice sheet go as far south as New York.
https://xkcd.com/1732/

About 8k years ago we came off of a global maximum (+1c), slowly declining back down. Because of C02 it seems we've brought this back up despite the global trend down.

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle#section-6

The global trend should put us at about -5c in the next 10k years.

So perhaps some global warming is a good thing, to keep us at +1 or 2c. I recognize we've already seen an unexpected +3c shift in less than 100 years, so we're going at 7x the speed we should. But with that said:

What if some global warming is a really good thing?

To the current knuckleheads in power it would be like debating whether the tooth fairy is good or evil. They don't believe it exists at all so the point is moot.

 

[yllus]

The coasts of Canada will get hit hard, but we have a lot of northern territory that'd be opened up. Huge swaths of coastal America would be devastated by rising waters, though.

 

[mxnerd]

It's been proved it's absolutely not a good thing.

North pole & south pole ice melted into the sea causes higher sea level, which in turn causes heavy rain, flood, lost lives & economy damage around the globe.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

What if just smoking cigarettes a little was a good thing? eeeeesh....

 

[Victorian Gray]

What if just smoking cigarettes a little was a good thing? eeeeesh....

Not so many years ago

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Not so many years ago

big tobacco spent a bankload of money trying to squelch the idea that smoking just fucking kills you.

 

[Paratus]

Well MMGW has likely prevented the next ice-age from occurring over the next 100,000 years.

https://www.pik-potsdam.de/news/press-releases/human-made-climate-change-suppresses-the-next-ice-age

While that was possibly a benefit of warming it could have been achieved at a much slower rate and less of it. The rate at which we've warmed the planet is very damaging and we're not stopping yet.


Although for the third year in row global carbon emissions have remained flat while world GDP has increased by 3%. That's a good sign. The first step to stopping is to stop accelerating.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/global-carbon-emissions-continue-to-stabilize-us-has-3-drop/

It's also more evidence against the denier argument that you can't have economic growth AND reduce climate impact.

 

[cytg111]

In the low periods we see the ice sheet go as far south as New York.
https://xkcd.com/1732/

About 8k years ago we came off of a global maximum (+1c), slowly declining back down. Because of C02 it seems we've brought this back up despite the global trend down.

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle#section-6

The global trend should put us at about -5c in the next 10k years.

So perhaps some global warming is a good thing, to keep us at +1 or 2c. I recognize we've already seen an unexpected +3c shift in less than 100 years, so we're going at 7x the speed we should. But with that said:

What if some global warming is a really good thing?

Cause besides from siberia, that is russia, everyone else is gonna get hit pretty hard.
Let that sink in for your long distance geopolitical considerations for a moment.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
What if some global warming is a really good thing?

Like seeing China's artificial and militarized islands becoming submerged? Yeah, that would be good.

Fern

 

[DarthKyrie]

The higher the CO2 levels go the more trees will start to repopulate areas that have been stripped of trees, but before that happens we will see sea levels rise and have a lot of our coastlines move inland. Hopefully, the amount of fresh water dumped into the seas by melting ice won't shut down the ocean currents that keep the northern hemisphere land masses ice free.

 

[Victorian Gray]

big tobacco spent a bankload of money trying to squelch the idea that smoking just fucking kills you.

And they're still fighting.

 

[K1052]

Although for the third year in row global carbon emissions have remained flat while world GDP has increased by 3%. That's a good sign. The first step to stopping is to stop accelerating.

https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/03/global-carbon-emissions-continue-to-stabilize-us-has-3-drop/

It's also more evidence against the denier argument that you can't have economic growth AND reduce climate impact.

Yes, this substantially undercuts the argument that deploying clean energy will hurt us economically and retail rates have been rising at lower than inflation. Two thirds of the new generation being added in the US this year will be renewables and coal is slated for 5 gigawatts worth of retirements. There will be no going back.

 

[Commodus]

Yes, this substantially undercuts the argument that deploying clean energy will hurt us economically and retail rates have been rising at lower than inflation. Two thirds of the new generation being added in the US this year will be renewables and coal is slated for 5 gigawatts worth of retirements. There will be no going back.

The industry bit is one of my consolations while we're made to endure Trump. Even with all his efforts to hurt the environment in the name of pleasing the fossil fuel industry, he can't change that coal is failing, renewable energy is on the rise, and electric cars are rapidly approaching the mainstream. He can still do some damage, but not as much as he wants to.

 

[Meghan54]

One of the problems is you just cannot turn of the effects of CO2 like a spigot. Doesn't work that way.....the effects, even if we quit spewing CO2 into the atmosphere in the amounts we currently are doing, will last for decades upon decades, well after your grandchildren's grandchildren have passed on.

In the low periods we see the ice sheet go as far south as New York.
https://xkcd.com/1732/

About 8k years ago we came off of a global maximum (+1c), slowly declining back down. Because of C02 it seems we've brought this back up despite the global trend down.

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/natural-cycle#section-6

The global trend should put us at about -5c in the next 10k years.

So perhaps some global warming is a good thing, to keep us at +1 or 2c. I recognize we've already seen an unexpected +3c shift in less than 100 years, so we're going at 7x the speed we should. But with that said:

What if some global warming is a really good thing?

 

[pmv]

I'm sure there are some upsides, but the big issues would be (a) the unprecedented speed of the change (rapid change is likely to have more downsides and fewer upsides) and (b) that the world as it is now, hugely populated and developed, is not as adaptable for such things as it was in the distant past.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Neither reactionary politicians nor their chucklehead following admit to what has been going on for 250 years.

First, fossil fuel is RENEWABLE! You only need to wait 100,000 years for the next batch.

Second, the earth is finite, the oil supply is finite. As extraction costs increase, so do the environmental costs of just the mining. Oh. The Deep Horizon -- golly -- that was ancient history seven whole years ago.

Third, there is the problem of alternative energy sources -- you cannot easily replicate the energy contained in a single ounce of petroleum.

Because the costs are collective, individuals, groups and special interests will defer addressing the problem as long as they can. The costs can merely be estimated, so they include uncertainty: estimates are just as likely to fall short as they are to exceed future reality.

Consider the mindset in its unspoken view of this. "Wah-aaaah! Wah-aaah! I don' wanna pay the expense imposed by 250 years of dead people! there ain't no global warming -- because I don' wanna pay for the collective short-sightedness of dead people! Wa-aa-a-ahah!!"

 

[Lash444]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis

Might want to read about how thawing permafrost will release more greenhouse gases and may cause an unstoppable runaway warming period.

But hey, when partisanship means you don't read anything into potential adverse affects, I can see why Donald Trump looks like a good Presidential candidate.

 

[Ajay]

When an essential species (Krill) in the marine food chain (and ours) is threatened, it's pretty bad news. Do the Krill already have it in their DNA (from long past climatic shifts) to adapt to the sudden changes, so far it does look to be the case .

 

[BonzaiDuck]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis

Might want to read about how thawing permafrost will release more greenhouse gases and may cause an unstoppable runaway warming period.

But hey, when partisanship means you don't read anything into potential adverse affects, I can see why Donald Trump looks like a good Presidential candidate.

To people who can read and do so often, the methane seeps are old news. It was fairly clear what was happening back in 2001, when LA Times published an article on the "new Northwest Passage."

 

[Gryz]

What if trickle-down economics really works ?
What is Jezus really exists ?
What if I won the lottery ?

 

[brycejones]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis

Might want to read about how thawing permafrost will release more greenhouse gases and may cause an unstoppable runaway warming period.

But hey, when partisanship means you don't read anything into potential adverse affects, I can see why Donald Trump looks like a good Presidential candidate.

Lies, fake news! If this happens just set the tundra on fire and convert it to CO2. We had to burn the arctic to save the planet.

I for one am looking forward to us finally saving the Norwegian and Siberian orange groves. Dirty liberals don't care about the poor orange growers in those areas constantly having to battle the cold to save their crop.