My G-d,
the level of ignorance on this board is astounding. Wtf do they do in american schools? Because they sure as he** cant be teaching the kids anyting.
I have seen some studies that suggest that moderate global warming would actually be beneficial to mankind. A lengthened growing season would increase food supplies for the earth's burgeoning human and animal populations. Rising ocean levels would cause our major port cities the expense of rebuilding their dock areas. Otherwise, who else is it going to hurt, the well-to-do who own expensive beach-front properties?
I must admit, it is not often one gets to witness true stupidity, but here it is. Now, dont take it too personal, Im sure that you think you are right on some level here...just another victim of a poor education I suppose.
So...exactly what would "moderate global warming" be? And how do you get it to stop when it has reached "moderate" levels?
Rising ocean levels "would cause our major port cities the expense of rebuilding their dock areas. Otherwise, who else is it going to hurt, the well-to-do who own expensive beach-front properties? "? Brilliant.
And while the US is forced to rebuild some dock areas, lets see who else might "get hurt" shall we? Lets start with Bangladesh, that country will be pretty much submerged, China's Pearl River Delta will be depopulated (since it will now be below ocean level), kiss Holland goodbye, and say so long to the most populated parts of Egypt..but hey..who cares..right? (aside from the tens of millions of people who are displaced by water) And how much would the oceans have to rise to cause all that havoc? 15-30 inches. How much will the oceans rise if 10% of the polar ice caps melt? 3 feet.
On to the next idiot.
It's amusing how many dolts actually believe that man is the main reason for global warming. But hey, we humans need to feel guilty about almost everything we do, so I understand the psychology behind this issue as well.
Do you understand the basic physics behind global warming? In short, certain gasses (lets call them greenhouse gasses), such as CO2 are transparent to sunlight coming through the atmosphere, but they absorb heat radiation from the earths surface and radiate some of that heat back down, causing a heating of the surface.
Also, as the atmosphere becomes warmer (thanks to mr CO2 remember) it can hold more water vapor. Water vapor is another greenhouse gass (transparent to sunlight, absorbing heat radiation from the surface, radiating some of that heat back down). And so we are caught in a bad circle. More heat leads to more water vapor, more water vapor leads to more heat. You dont just turn that off.
Another factor is ice and snow. Ice and snow is a very good reflectant (its white, you know). Much of the sunlight that hits ice or snow is reflected back into space. When the earth's surface becomes warmer, areas of ice and snow are replaced by darker areas of ocean or land, which does not reflect sunlight as good as ice and snow. This means more heat is absorbed instead of reflected, leading to increased temperatures.
NOW
Carbon dioxide levels have increased by 31 percent over the past 250 years, reaching a concentration unseen on the planet in 420,000 years and perhaps as far back as 20 million years. But why blame man for that? (hint: the burning of oil, gasoline and coal, produces carbon dioxide)
I'm sure the people living in Siberia wouldn't mind some global warming.
Gee..how witty.
Lets see shall we?
More desert, more steppe, more drought,
less tundra, less forests, less rain, less animals
more swamps, more insects, more CO2 emissions...yup..sounds like exactly what anyone would want.
For boreal forests, which are mainly concentrated in the Russian Federation, climate models suggest large shifts in distribution (area reductions of up to 50%) and productivity. All components of boreal forest ecosystems would be affected, including water resources, soil systems, and wildlife, and the combined effect could be even stronger as a result of interacting factors.
Grasslands and shrublands in boreal regions would expand significantly, whereas the tundra zone would decrease by up to 50%, according to model projections. Climatic warming also would increase the release of methane from deep peat deposits, particularly from tundra soils, because they would become wetter. It is expected that the release of CO2 would increase, though not by more than 25% of its present level.
The most widely distributed coniferous forests in Siberia are the larch forests: West of the Yenissei River, Larix russica predominates; to the east, Larix gmelini prevails. The latter grows in the north of eastern Siberia, where the annual temperature range reaches about 100°C (-64°C to +38°C), as shown by mean long-term meteorological data from 1937 to the present from Yakutsk weather station. Larix gmelini has a specialized root system: Its apex central root dies off at the permafrost border, and a root system develops in the upper soil layers. The larch is vulnerable to damage by fires and insects, which occur more frequently in warmer climates. Increased steppe area also may be expected in the southern part of eastern Siberia
The biomass densities of larch (Larix sibirica), scotch pine (Pinus silvestris), Siberian pine (Pinus sibirica), and birch (Betula platyphylla) are projected to decrease by 27.7, 4.3, 28.5, and 2.6 t/ha, respectively. Such decreases seem to be caused by warming air temperature and reduced rainfall during the summer season. Gobi and steppe areas in Mongolia would therefore expand. Major alterations in vegetation could be expected, especially in the mountains of the northern boreal subzone and the subarctic forest-tundra ecotone in northeast Siberia.
Climate changes would affect the biodiversity in boreal forests of Temperate Asia through a myriad of processes and effects: local mortality of boreal species and replacement by northern hardwoods or prairies, depending on locale and soil type; migration of boreal species northward and coastward, also depending on locale and soil type; increased probability of fire; increased or decreased soil nutrient availability, depending on permafrost, soil water-holding capability, and locale; increased emissions of greenhouse gases—particularly methane—from wetlands; and increased probability of outbreaks of pests, particularly insects, to drought-stressed trees.
