Naked Science Forum
Life Sciences => The Environment => Topic started by: Refractor on 04/12/2008 03:29:38
-
Obviously predicting climate change is an uncertain business, and the last thing anybody wants to be doing is putting a positive spin on it, but does any of the current modelling suggest that some parts of the Earth will benefit significantly from global warming? Eg the Sahara receiving more rainfall, etc.
-
Is it really a benefit for the Sahara to receive more rainfall? How are the various ecosystems that are in place going to be affected when they are already adapted to a desert environment? How would they see it as a "benefit"?
Notwithstanding, this is why I prefer the term "Climate change" as opposed to "Global warming". The latter may infer that everywhere is going to get hotter, when in fact this isn't the case. On average, this may be so, but there will certainly be regions that get colder. CC provides a more realistic message, in that there is going to be change, rather than just heating, and this also applies to changing rainfall patterns, temperature fluctuations and so on. The upshot of this is that yes, there will be areas on which this is going to be detrimental, and most obvious on ecosystem boundaries where subtle changes will have the biggest effect. However, there will also be areas that "benefit" (for a given value of benefit) - from an ecosystem point of view, there will be areas into which species can migrate, for example in mountainous regions, increases in temperature allow various tree species to move into niches that were previously closed at higher altitudes. There are certainly "opportunities" as far as humans are concerned to take advantage of this change - increased growth capacity, increased growing season etc, but from a non-anthopogenic point of view, what "benefits" one ecosystem is probably going to be detrimental to another.
-
I would generally agree with what dentstudent has said.
We should not really refer to climate change in the way do. It should be qualified into the different forms of change.
Natural climate change has been going on for 100s of millions of years, but this is usually spread over long periods, giving plant and animal life the ability to change with it, to adapt with the changing circumstances.
Accelerated natural climate change, such as the result of a volcanic eruption or meteor collision with Earth can, and probably did cause climate change at a speed which rendered plant and animal life unable to adapt quickly enough. Examples of this could well be the mass extinctions of the Permian period and the Dinosaurs.
Man induced climate change, which we are seeing now, appears to be having an effect somewhere between the natural and accelerated natural climate change. The problem with Man induced climate change is that where natural & accelerated natural change can move one way or the other and can switch to reverse, Man induced change appears to be a relentless move in the same direction, unless we can find a way of backpedaling, or at least give nature a chance to catch up with us, we are in deep trouble!
-
Man induced climate change, which we are seeing now, appears to be having an effect somewhere between the natural and accelerated natural climate change. The problem with Man induced climate change is that where natural & accelerated natural change can move one way or the other and can switch to reverse, Man induced change appears to be a relentless move in the same direction, unless we can find a way of backpedaling, or at least give nature a chance to catch up with us, we are in deep trouble!
Hey Don_FOG! I also generally agree (isn't that lovely!), but could you elaborate the above? What do you mean by "switching to reverse"? Switching what? And how does change "reverse"?
Ta!
-
Good Moro to you fellow FOG! Although it's not such a good Moro here, a spot of global warming wouldn't go amiss, It's bloody freezing!
I was referring to the short periodical cycle which has been suggested by some meteorologists where by the weather is said to go in 8 year cycles and the long term changes where the entire planet goes into an ice age and then recovers.
-
I know that Norway and Denmark can now produce wine (though whether you'd want to drink it is another question). This I would consider to be a benefit.
-
Wrong question, I'm afraid. Different 'places' around the Earth will neither benefit or lose out as a result of Global Climate Change - the Earth will get over it. Some small groups of people will benefit from it, however, but the vast majority of people won't.
(The small groups of people who will benefit from it are those who are psychotically driven to achieve positions of 'authority' e.g. politicians etc, over everyone else, who would rather be having a laugh down the pub with their friends)
-
LeeE
A point of grammar – it is “neither” + “nor”, or “either” + “or”. (Nit-picking!)
If it is the wrong question, then please would you posit the correct one? I agree that “places” won’t inherently benefit or lose out, but certain organisms certainly will as their physiological niche changes. I agree that the earth will carry on regardless, but that wasn’t what the original question was (irrespective of what you want the question to be).
Your second statement, I think, is rather unhelpful. There will be plenty of people who will benefit from climate change and who are not “psychotically driven to achieve positions of 'authority” (sic). Also, psychotic behaviour is a form of mental illness. What you say here is that there is a group of politicians who suffer from psychosis. Which ones? (and yes it’s easy to make glib comments – I should know!). It does not follow that anyone who benefits from or tries to benefit from climate change is suffering from a mental illness.
-
LeeE
A point of grammar – it is “neither” + “nor”, or “either” + “or”. (Nit-picking!)
If it is the wrong question, then please would you posit the correct one?
Hehehe FOG FOG FOG(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fbestsmileys.com%2Flol%2F15.gif&hash=542cfd4ca9e8ca912a6f9ff13d396a18)
-
Wotcha - 'ere, are you questioning "posit"?
pos·it (pzt)
tr.v. pos·it·ed, pos·it·ing, pos·its
1. To assume the existence of; postulate. See Synonyms at presume.
2. To put forward, as for consideration or study; suggest: "If a book is hard going, it ought to be good. If it posits a complex moral situation, it ought to be even better" Anthony Burgess.
3. To place firmly in position.
Or highlighing the fact that I am now a full FOG? [:D]
-
You're a FOG
Come to think of it 'posit' is a very foggy word too (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freesmileys.org%2Fsmileys%2Flaughing014.gif&hash=1df58bbad715f369767d206a0dad1f87) (http://www.freesmileys.org)
-
You're a FOG
Come to think of it 'posit' is a very foggy word too (https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freesmileys.org%2Fsmileys%2Flaughing014.gif&hash=1df58bbad715f369767d206a0dad1f87) (http://www.freesmileys.org)
There is an essence of verisimilitudinosity about your position.
-
should I take that as a compliment?