The only argument that the warmers have on this front is that the change is too quick which will cause some species to die out.
To this point I actually agree SOMEWHAT. Generally, the extinction of any species in an environment causes problem with that environment, due to interaction of life within that environment. Further I agree that there are a number of species that are rather sensitive to changes in the environment, so quick changes can cause them problems.
But I think most species have already adapted to be able to stand the more than 60 degree celsius temp swing that occur on a yearly basis. So when you are talking about a 0.8 degree to 5 degree temp change, the species are not going to be much affected by this. Now perhaps the polar bears lose their environment and some other things occur like ocean acidification, but I think that life is far more adaptable than the warmers generally do.
Further, there is just no way of getting around this. CO2, H2O in the atmosphere and warmer climates are great for plants and algae. Since plants and algae serve as the base of any ecosystem, I really doubt this "climate change" wil be nearly as negative for life as they presume.
In fact, I would firmly state that the only major problem is that mankind tend to congregate on the shore line and build cities in the shores. Now clearly 3 mm/year or whatever they think the increase will reach, is not life threatening as mankind can run a bit faster than 3 mm/year. But the cost of moving the locations inland could be large.
I note that some warmers are talking about extinction of animals, but are neglecting the cause. Pointing to animals losing their habitat due to the cutting down of the rain forest is much different than due to AGW.
C,
More water? You mean like the extra water that you assume will be in the atmosphere causing your positive feedbacks in the first place? That extra water??? Further you are suggesting an increase in insects which can only be the case if the insects have sufficient food. You are literally proving yourself wrong.
Further, you might want to look into your tree ring data. They assume that warmer climates lead to more tree growth even when water is taken into account.
It seems odd to me that you are arguing against the very same assumptions that you use to show warming is occurring in the first place.
Jim Z,
Awesome point. I would like to make one note to your point. Those extremes of extremely hot and extremely cold are seen in many planets. Planets without much of an atmosphere and without GHGs. GHGs are WELL KNOWN to moderate the temp, not make them extreme. Things like H2O in the atmosphere keeps Hawaii from getting extremely hot or extremely cold. Yet these warming "scientists" are actually making the claim that more GHGs will casue more extremes. This is what happens when politics and science meet.
Edit:
Thor proves my point of what the warmers will resort to. Can you imagine exactly what it takes to claim that mosquitos will become more prevalent AND water less prevalent in the same post??? Warmers constantly say crap that contradicts itself, and then pretned to be smart for having said it. I've got some dry swampland, and people who disagree with me are anti-science, durhurp.
Gary F,
Since you seem worried about dinosaurs taking over again, let me ease your mind. Stick with my tribe. I will make a deadfall to kill dinos that get too close and we will have plenty of food. Nice T-rex legs on the Bar B. OR we can come out of fantasy land and act like we have some sense.
>>Wow. I asked for natural benefits and almost all answers reflect the impact on humanity. Go figure.<<
Wow. Humans are the most generalized complex species and are at the top of the food chain. How can things be bad for humans unless they are bad for most other things? Go figure.
Direct comparisons of past climates when the continents were in different positions and the atmospheric chemistry was different with today's climate is not valid because it violates the assumption of system stationarity.
But, let’s do talk about the age of the dinosaurs and what that environment meant for other forms of life. At the time, the only mammals on the whole planet were little rodent like creatures that mostly were active at night when they could steal stuff to eat without getting smashed to death.
If the dinosaurs had not become extinct, there is not much chance that humans would have evolved.
Beneficial? hard to define.
Nature as we know it has stabilized to thrive in the present climate.
Changes will mean that nature as we know it would change.
Northern forests die due to ash borers, pine bark beetles, spruce bud worm? The more acid (actually less basic) seas change life as we know it in the ocean, as crustaceans can not make shells, and the food chain is disrupted?
More food for crops for humans in some locations, but less in others? Flooded counties like Bangladesh and some island nations? Do people go to war?
I don't think it has benefits!
We have been living within certain degrees of temperature. Changes to a warmer Earth bring negative consequences. Take for example animals. You can see in the news certain species are becoming extinct or near extintion. Species try to adapt to their surroundings, if not they die or they evolve. Many has been dying due to this recent climate change. Climate change can be natural (there are theories about global warming in the pre-historic era) or made by us humans (cause by deforestation, land & water contamination... etc).
On these days more animals die... more regions become arid and more forestal fires occur due to the heat. In additon, there are more violent storms and high and unbereable temperatures (specially for certain people like senior citizens).
Who is telling you there is an advantage? It is a huge experiment. It "could" be good, and equally it could be bad. Kiss all the costal cities good-bye, for they will be underwater. The weather patterns will change, more stronger tornadoes and colder winters and hotter summers. Farmland which you rely on for the food you eat rely on natural rainfall patterns. What if the good rainfall patterns move to the mountains or to the ocean? Then you are talking starvation on a mass scale. The US breadbasket no longer exists. That is just for starters. Do some research. We cannot do a global experiment because turning it back to what it was is a real "witch"
Well to answer your question implies you think AGW is happening are you sure you want to do that.
There are of course places that will get warmer that are currently cooler, of course it's hard to miss that few currently live in such places as they are probably the last of are (almost) untouched wilderness for that very reason. Of course part of your benefit would be millions of people having to move to these regions if it where to be used as farmland and the years and enormous cost of recreating all the infrastructure needed is as always ignored in that claim of benefits.
Of course places that currently have frozen soil will not be very good places to live in a warmer world as they will turn to mud, this is already being seen in places like Siberia where houses built on permafrost are starting to sink. You of course want to ignore the obvious in your 'benefits' and that is sea level rise which is an inevitable consequence of a warmer world.
As for your update 3: Do some better research, 65m years ago Antarctic was still connected to South America and Australia preventing the formation of the Antarctic Circumpolar Current, it was only after they separated that Antarctic started to totally freeze in a process that took millions of years. Warmer conditions will not change the fact that the Circumpolar Current exists today and didn't 65m years ago.
You may also want to check when the Eocene was as it was not 65m years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eocene
But heh you where only out by ~10m years.
What you are trying to reference is the Paleocene
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene
Of course you miss another vital point in this claim of past biodiversity, many of the species post the end of the dinosaurs in this period went extinct due to a number of climate changes, the biodiversity you seem to be trying to refer to was the appearance of new species to fill the gaps created by these events.
I would also have thought that it was made pretty clear by the sea level rise estimates that very little actual land in Antarctica will be exposed, estimates of 1-2m (or up to 6m if you take the most extreme estimates) requires a very small contribution from Antarctica even at the most extreme 6m you are only talking about 6-7% of ice melting, if a total melt was being talked about then the number would be more like 65m.
As for this claim
"We are being told that global warming will cause irreversible environmental chaos. Where is the evidence of this occurring in the past when the earth was warmer and the air had more CO2 in it than it does now?"
I can only assume you are joking, there is ample evidence of past climate change causing massive changes, areas like Africa's Savannah where once thick forest, during the Mega fauna period Sabre Tooth Cats roamed Areas like California along with a host of other animals, the bones of South America Capybara are found in the areas of the U.S. that are now desert, this is an animal that lives in marsh and swamp land. The original horse which later also went extinct in the U.S. till the Spanish brought them back, giant ground sloths and literally hundreds of other animals that all went extinct.
I don't what 'evidence' you seem to have not even bothered to look for, but try look at the research of near perfect remains taken out of the Labraer Tar pits
http://www.tarpits.org/la-brea-tar-pits/...
This is just the local area of California, climate across across the U.S at this latitude was very different to what it is now and supported very different species to those it does today.
If you where looking for evidence, you don't seem to have looked very hard, if at all.
More mosquitoes for the birds to eat.
Malaria further from the equator so more people die off and land will be cheaper in the warmer areas.
I'll have ocean front property.
Maggots will have more to eat due to wars over water resources.
The only benefits from global warming are the same benefits that you will get if you move to a warmer climate.
There will be short term agricultural benefits, particularly for northern Canada and Russia as land becomes ice free.HOWEVER as seasons increase, so will insects and increased heat. insects will require more pesticides and the ground will require more fertilizers, bot destroying water resources and the heat will require more water for crops and in some places water is already limited
More food in a warmer world.
How will global warming benefit life on earth?
First we have to sort out the difference between has warmed and is warming. If it has warmed but is not warming then we wont get any benefit from it and we will enter a cooling phase. That is the time to cry global disaster but not as we are at present.
Well after a certain amount of years of having it, it'll melt Antarctica raising sea levels over 60 feet (a lot of low grounds) meaning we don't have to pay for swimming pools anymore because we're surrounded by the sea.
Insects are likely to be winners. Warmer winters and more disturbed ecosystems with fewer predators. Not a benefit for humans unless you like the crunchy zest.
Every bad creature and plant will increase and every good creature and plant will be harmed. It will only rain when it floods and it will only scorch the already scorched. This is the "science" we get from the self described science experts. You couldn't script a stupider bunch of predictions if you were joking.
Your question makes no sense, logiclly or grammatically
I won't have to buy a wet suit to go surfing.
none
