Most of florida is not more than 20 feet above sea level.
If the ocean temperatures increase slightly they will produce more algae which makes more zoo plankton and more zoo plankton means larger planktivores and larger planktivores means larger sharks.
It is too cold here.
Ok from where I am sitting this looks pretty good.
actually ocean warming causes increased temperature stratification, meaning less upwelling from the deep ocean and hence less nutrients for algae. therefore in many cases less growth - and as per your point, less for the rest of the food chain. and certainly large changes in algal community composition, with unpredictable results through ocean ecosystems.
also, acidification of the ocean due to the diffusion of atmospheric CO2 into ocean waters is a major problem for algae and could cause widespread changes (damage) to ecosystems. on top of this, oceanic algae do about 50% of the total global photosynthesis - so if we lose them, we're in even deeper trouble with climate change. this is little discussed but biting right now.
Well interesting point you make. There have been times before when temperatures were higher. We had larger fish and reptiles. The mechanism to cause upwellings in the ocean would not go away because of a temperature increase. It should shift locations.
Besides the sharks which are cool, would you say we are better off with florida?
OK, now I realize Florida is merely the world's largest sandbar, overgrown with palm trees, pine trees (those grow well in that sort of "soil"), a septillion bugs, and disneyland, and in almost every way but the pine trees bears no resemblance to Colorado at all (we have actual rocks here, and no worries about minor 500 foot fluctuations in sea level), but it does have some uses.
Look, if we couldn't drive out to Key West, how could we thumb our noses (or make more emphatic gestures) at Castro?
(Tongue firmly in cheek, of course.)
I bet castro has a nice beach house.
New orleans, Houston would be gone also most likely due to a stronger hurricane.
BRB turning on my car.
Depends on your perspective I guess. Each state and region will be affected in different ways, so if you look from one point of view it's great. But from a person interested in the environment, whilst climate change is a natural part of life, due to high levels of fragmentation and decreases in habitat size, most of our world's species are kinda screwed. Economics wise, I know this is a problem in Australia, specifically those who rely on the income from tourists coming to see the Great Barrier Reef, because with increasing sea levels, coral bleaching has become an issue and no one wants to pay to see white coral.
I have repeatedly been told that global warming is a lie and a scam, by many illiterates... So there's no problem :P
|"Global Warming"- Pros & Cons|
|(farhan shariff, karachi)|
Advantages and Disadvantages of Global Warming
Positive and Negative Effects of Global Warming to People and the Planet
In February 2007, the United Nations released a scientific report that concludes that global warming is happening and will continue to happen for centuries. The report also stated 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 global warming 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 warming. First, we will look at the many disadvantages of global warming and then follow with the very small number of advantages of global warming.
Disadvantages of Global Warming
• Ocean circulation disrupted, disrupting and having unknown effects on world climate.
• Higher sea level leading to flooding of low-lying lands and deaths and disease from 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 catastrophic storms.
• 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 or higher 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, and avalanches.
• 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 from increasingly large disasters.
Advantages of Global Warming
• Arctic, Antarctic, Siberia, and other frozen regions of earth may experience more plant growth and milder climates.
• Northwest Passage through Canada's formerly-icy north opens up to sea transportation.
• 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 some local areas.
• Mountains increase in height due to melting glaciers, becoming higher as they rebound against the missing weight of the ice.
One of the problems is that both sides of the debate are dug into extreme positions to the point where, as with American politics, no real discussion can go on. On the one side, you have the skeptics who apparently believe that climate change either isn't true, or if it is it's simply a natural cycle of some sort. On the other side you have technicians who essentially have closed down debate to the extent that even to challenge their data, methods, or conclusions can be a virtually career ending activity.
As a result, someone in the middle ground, like Bjorn Lomborg, a Swedish thinker, hardly gets a public hearing, by which I mean in terms of exposure to the average person, who hears the arguments of the other extremes all the time. His point is that we can't concentrate on one problem at the expense of other ones like political oppression, poverty, disease, the dying oceans, allocation of petroleum in view of its being a dwindling resource, etc. He says that what environmentalists want to do will leave precious little in the way of resources for addressing issues like the aforementioned ones.
The release of emails between climate scientists seemed to indicate some tweaking of data to make it fit the climate change hypothesis. Whether or not it proved that, it proved that a lot of exchanges between scientists were personal, backbiting, humor mongering, political in nature. And while a British investigation found no intellectual dishonest, it's hard to be sure when the topic is so political and those on both sides given to extremes.
That goes for the responses to Lomborg's arguments as well.
In these senses, the argument over climate change is hardly settled.
I believe the issue raised was, assuming there is global warming, what are the pros and cons?
As to whether global warming is real and/or man-made, the following may be useful:
Uh, did you read the comments? Most of them go something like "Where the f*** is the skepticism?" That was my reaction when from the first sentences my eyes glazed over as I realized there was nothing new there. It sounded about as balanced as it would have been if Al Gore, who is heavily financially invested in the kinds of solutions he proposes.
Anyway, the comments are the best part.