When it comes to greenies, logic goes out the door.
<
Because 35 million years ago there weren't 7 billion human inhabitants on this earth. There weren't mega-cities in coastal areas, there weren't huge extension of agricultural land needed to feed hungry human mouths, to name just a few.
<
Climate-discussion wise, your point is useless. No 'climate alarmist' refutes this. You too are missing the main risk which climate change poses: it's not the change itself. It is the rate, the speed, at which it is happening.
In any environment, in any natural habitat, be it warm or cold, evolutionary history has shown that life can only survive when the changes to the habitat are gradual. And boy, were they gradual during the Eocene!
<
No, it makes you look stupid because you are missing the entire point! But don't worry, so do 99% of climate 'skeptics'.
<< If the US became a tropical rain forest life there will adapt. >>
Not if the changes take place too fast. Evolutionary history is full with species which have become extinct because they could not adapt in time to a sudden change to their habitat.
Because your not allowed to say that, I mean if you do not have fear in the public how are you ever going to control them.
I mean it has been known since the mid 90's that the earth is getting greener and deserts are receding (satellite imaging) but it's not allowed by media for us to know that.
It is also known that periods when the Earth was warmer life flourished, (but you shouldn't talk about it)
Also known that most plants and animals are very adaptable, so lets pick out the odd ones that are not and focus on them.
It is easy to calculate that with the huge ice sheets we have (and the latent heat involved) no changes are going to happen quickly, so let us concentrate on local areas so we can exaggerate conditions.
It's best if we shout about extreme happenings and blame it on Climate Change so we have more control and can charge more taxes.
Deniers seem to lurch from the Co2 is plant food argument to the life flourished when it was warmer argument, what they seem to lack the faculties to understand is that in the Eocene.
You guys seem to try and drag out historical events you clearly have no real under standing of, the Eocene was marked (over it's 20 million or so years) by several changes in climate from warm to cold and the cold is linked to a decline in Co2.
The 'warm' by a lack of glacial ice and much higher sea levels, levels that would put modern cities under ~60m of water. I know you guys like to demonstrate your lack of knowledge but this is just getting silly.
Not sure how to try and make the message any simpler or the words shorter so you can understand but plant food is not and never has been the issue and the life you talk of in the warm Eocene was quite different to the life both before and after this period due to mass extinctions, but you don't (like a true denier) want to talk about those either.
"The ecology will shift northward as has occured in the past and wheat can grow further north in Canada where only tundra exists."
A fine example of denier BS "it's not happening but we can grow wheat further north" you knowledge of the world is astounding (in it's ignorance) the current wheat belt did not just happen over night it is over 150 years of development, even with modern machinery it would take decades at least to clear and build any sort of replacement in Canada and it's not just farms but infrastructure for storage and transport, as for tundra, as that warms it will turn first to mud (which is why houses in Siberia are sinking) it will by unusable for crop use for a very long time and just below the Tundra line you have the Taiga forest a biomass that stretches across Northern Europe, Russia and Canada, it provides more oxygen to the atmosphere than the Amazon.
Grow up and take a science class, you may actually learn something.
And dies in even warmer climates. Look at deserts. Moron
Science does not depend on the classes you flunked in it.
U.S. National Academy of Sciences, 2010:
http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record...
“Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for a broad range of human and natural systems.”
http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpine...
“Choices made now about carbon dioxide emissions reductions will affect climate change impacts experienced not just over the next few decades but also in coming centuries and millennia…Because CO2 in the atmosphere is long lived, it can effectively lock the Earth and future generations into a range of impacts, some of which could become very severe.”
http://www.physics.fsu.edu/awards/NAS/
“The Academy membership is composed of approximately 2,100 members and 380 foreign associates, of whom nearly 200 have won Nobel Prizes. Members and foreign associates of the Academy are elected in recognition of their distinguished and continuing achievements in original research; election to the Academy is considered one of the highest honors that can be accorded a scientist or engineer.”
Life also flourishes in colder climates. there is an abundance of lifeforms at the North Pole. Look up your facts and possible opposing view points before embarrassing your self like this.
Some life forms will do better than other life forms under a warmer climate. Some life forms will cease to exist under warmer climates.
Many of our food crops are grown in cooler regions. One such staple crop is wheat. Wheat suffers under warmer conditions.
Many of our fruit trees require a certain number of freeze hours each year in order to produce the following growing season.
Plants and animal that existed 35 to 55 million years ago would have a great difficulty living under our current climate conditions just as much of our plant and animal life would have a great difficulty living under the conditions of 35 - 55 million years ago. Neither has adapted to live under these different conditions. The plant and animal life that has survived today from 55 million years ago have done so because they had time to adapt to the transitional stages of climate change. The climate change we are experiencing over the past 2 centuries is at a far faster rate of change than has happened before without resulting in mass extinctions of both plant and animal life.
I will address your "Added Details" and ask what do you mean by "climatically stable" tropical rain forest regions. The climate is very much changing in the tropical rain forests through the burning of the forests, clear cutting the forests and planting single species plants to replace the diversity of life that existed there before. Is this what you would consider "climatically stable"?
No one has said that coastlines would flood in an instant unless you are talking about a Katrina type event in a New Orleans like area. Nearly all of the world's commerce is shipped through coastal ports. It really does not take much sea level rise to doom some of these major ports, such as the Port of New Orleans and this can happen within this century.
A La Nina event can influence less precipitation in some areas of the country while increasing precipitation of other areas of the country. A La Nina event does not cause drought unless a strong and persistent La Nina event decreases enough of the precipitation of region as to induce drought like conditions. What is influences droughts more in the U.S. now is the Jet Stream becoming more elongated and becoming transfixed in regions for longer periods of time. This is due to the Arctic heating slowing the Jet Stream as the temperature difference between the Arctic region and the temperate regions becomes less pronounced. - Source: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/arcti...
Perhaps if you spent less time posting gibberish and more time learning the science then you will begin to look less like a denial industry puppet?
A lot of plants and animals do like the warmer weather but most plants especially farther from the equator (say california) need to have a rest period during the winter. It is how they evolved. Without it they expend too much energy blooming (this winter is temperate and a lot of plants have been blooming since fall) and the plants start to have smaller and smaller blossoms and their health starts to deteriorate ( more susceptible to diseases and pests). Animals aren't that bothered by the climate change, its their food that suffers. La Nina is relatively new compared to El Nino.
I think a lot of things will die as the temperature fluctuate with natures efforts to stabilize, but not everything will die. We may loose some bio diversity, but I believe that what ever is left will expand into areas that died off and evolve. Extinction is part of evolution. Climate change can be brought about with a large enough asteroid shower or cataclysmic volcanic activity, not just humans. We just fast track.
And higher concentrations of atmospheric CO2 just like it did during the Eocene era 35 to 55 million years ago and many, many times before that in history? Life flourished on even the most remote places on earth such as antarctica where evidence of a densely populated lush rain forest once thrived. Why is it that the rabid climate change alarmists now claim those same conditions that caused life to flourish in the past will devastate life in the future? Why can't climate alarmists concede that the density of living organisms are much greater in warm tropical climates like the amazon basin than the vast enpty cold ice deserts on the poles? Does this not make climate alarmists look stupid or what?
Major coastlines flooded,
Millions of animal species go extinct.
Deserts spread, losing farms and homes.
NOPE.
You're aware that the US has been suffering drought conditions for quite a while now?
http://www.lompocrecord.com/news/nationa...
Deserts are often quite warm. Are they lush paradises?
oh right "la nina." yeah we've have about 3 or 4 back-to-back "la ninas" since 2007 Funny how that works huh.
Because it's nowhere near that simple. Life doesn't flourish in warmer climates, it flourishes in the climate that it has evolved to flourish it. Yes, it can evolve and adapt, but this takes time, and there are people that suggest that rapid warming will happen too quickly for many species to keep up. As regards to the assertion that wildlife flourishes better in warmer climates, you only have to look at the Sahara or Ghobi deserts to know that this simply isn't true.
The issue isn't that things can't live in warmer climates, it's that they can't evolve quickly enough to keep up with changes.
Yeah, look at all the plants that grow when exposed to fire. they love it!
