It would be good for fish, as millions of square miles of land would be under water.
If the temperature level is raised to that much amount it will have bad effects more. There may be some useful benefits on the increase. The ocean level increase to a very large value. The water can be utilized for different purposes. Also the increase in temperature will help some creations in the earth in a good way ie., thee may be some plants and small organisms which require high temperature for their growth in the earth.
The increase in temperature will destruct the life of many organisms on the earth. Because of the climate change the entire balance of the earth become lost.
Well (pat's poor maths aside) we do have some idea, as it was nearly that warm during periods when the Dinosaurs were around with a global average thought to be up around 25c.
Sea level was much higher, there where no glaciers, it's pretty simple physics that if glaciers melt then sea level rises.
Such things of course have no effect on cycles like the extend dark at the poles, in their respective Winters, when they would still have become quite cold but the Summer would have been much warmer with long periods of Sunlight, not giving glaciers much chance to exist in any real form.
During this period sea level was so high that what is the U.K. today was a group very small tropical islands in a shallow sea. Deniers would call this a benefit as they like tropical weather, but if that where the case now I guess they won't want to talk about the many millions that live on what was once sea.
On Pat maths and the 1.2% figure he quotes, if you take 0c as your starting point and the 1880 average temp as a little over 14c, and the current figure as ~15c (and, trying to keep this simple for Pat), 10% of 14c is 1.4c and half that is 0.7c (or 5%) how pat comes up with 1.2% is known only to him, but I gave up long ago on denier math skills.
In this question, please note pats 'scientific answer to the points I raised
http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/ind...
"These are all Global Elitists! You're too stupid to understand half of what I am saying because you don't want the search to stop!"
i.e. he has no answer but to hurl insults, this is about all denial can do and frankly as the insults get worse I know I have hit the mark. It's interesting to be called "stupid" by someone who can't even do a simple percentage calculation. I wonder how soon it will be before one of the other denier accounts post yet another question about how rude "alarmists are" deniers are nothing if not predictable.
If the Earth was warmer then the existing lives would have adapted it that way. May be some new species would have developed. Life exist even in roughest atmosphere on the Earth (For e.g. Sahara desert or Polar regions). And if you talk about benefits, I don't think there are any kind of profit or loss either.
That would be up to the planet.
Here's a # for you :
Let's give you the temperature increase of 0.8C since 1880. What is that in F? 1.44F roughly? Temperatures vary from season to season in the middle latitudes by as much as 120 F. Temperature increase of less than 1.2% in 133 years? We know that the population has increased almost 500% since the late 1800s. More life? We also know that biomass has increased 5% to 10% in many places since 1982 according to satellite data. Is there a direct correlation there somewhere? How much has the biomass of the planet increased since 1880? Let's investigate that instead of calling CO2 a villain. CO2 in our atmosphere may cause a little warming, but it also helps in producing more life and by a wide margin. I'll take the 0.8C rise in favor of more life. I've never seen it actually cause a death in its current state in our atmosphere. Have you?
It was 130,000 yrs ago during the eemian period, and Europe was sub tropical, and Greenland had forests.
nope
Lets say a 15 degree rise in average temperature occurred. What would it be like for life on Earth? Any benefits?
