Can people shed some light on the plus and down sides of global warming for me because i need it urgent?

What we do know for sure is warmer weather meens longer growing seasons, more fertile land, more food, reduced death rate and increased wealth.

As co2 increases tree have less stomata and grow larger and can live in drier or less fertile soils enabling plants to populate areas of desert (just as egypt was once fertile land during previous warmer periods). This results in more food for man and wildlife, and with that more money benefitting the third world and the poor directly. The timber industry will also benefit.

Warmer temps will mean less time stuck indoors spreading sickness to each other so less flu outbreaks etc... there will be less death from the cold, and increased death from heat (though this is much less than those saved through warming).

No studie has yet found empirical data proving weather is getting more extreme, infact many studies have found the opposite which fits with meteoligical principles such as reduced temperature gradient.

We can expect changes in weather patterns meaning some areas may get more or less rain than before.

Sea level will most likely rise at the average rate per centuary it has for the last 10,000 years which is around 180mm over the next 100 years, not much less than the IPCC's latest predicted sea rise.

Economists have calculated a net benefit from warming up to even 5 degrees.

There are other claimed scenarios aswell but these are either hearsay or based on un-verified models and hence are not reliable, particularly changes to rainfall which is not modelled well.

As we know it has also been warmer in the past we know the polar bears will be ok as will many other species and the corals will not be bleached or die as during previous warm periods they displayed increased calcification rates suggesting they actually thrived with warmer sea temps.

With a warmer climate we can expect to see higher humities in the temperate areas with less rain days but more short sharp storms. With this we could expect see less saturated and warmer soils (better for growing) which will lead to less large scale floods but increased flash floods or nuisance flooding.

Assuming the theory is right and further warming occurs I would expect only subtle changes to the weather, increased harvests and nature to flourish with the increased co2.

We often hear about the model projections (which are not reliable) but never hear about the known benefits as that doesnt scare people into action. During previous warm periods humanity flourished, great civilisations were born and there was great prosperity, not the image of disease, pestilence and flooding we are often presented.

The following report covers the points above and un-biasly covers the various issues and the facts that support them:

http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC_final.pdf

This doesnt however mean we shouldnt reduce our reliance on fossil fuels or pollute the environment.

If the earth were a few degrees warmer, then life could thrive in areas where it now doesn't, there would be more rain and longer growing seasons supporting more agriculture, the climates with the most biodiversity would grow while the most barren would shrink, leading to a more varied and richer environment. But there would be change, and people hate change.

Polar bears are doing great now. There are more today than there were ten years ago. The thing is, people are sad to see them swimming. What if they drown? And some do drown, and they have, for thousands of years, but if it happens now, its sad.

And places might be different. Some farmland would no longer be suitable. Sure, on average there would be more available farmland, but some places might no longer be suitable. That would be sad.

And heat waves. Heat waves cause lots of people to die each year. Of course, cold weather kills far more people each year, and milder winters would save far more lives than hotter summers would kill, but there would be those deaths, and people would be sad.

And the ice. Stacks of ice thousands of years old, and some of it might melt. I don't know why people care about this, but they do.

And the ocean might grow. Sea level could rise, which would change the coastline. It wouldn't change any cities, of course. Cities would have no problems creating levees to protect themselves. But it would be change, and change frightens people.

And there might be bad weather. And, sure, there is bad weather now, and has been for all of recorded history, and we presume there has been bad weather before that. But there would still be bad weather, and it would make people sad.

But, happily, global warming is a crock. Now people are trying to say global climate change, because what we are in for now is global cooling.

History shows that the planet is more prosperous during the warming periods. Animals and plants thrive better in warmer weather. Because of this extra activity, CO2 levels increase.

Much better than the cooling periods which cause many more deaths due to freezing.

with reference to the international Warming delusion. an identical scientists who have been paid by utilising the U. S. government to habit that learn claimed after basically 2 years of a particularly warmer then person-friendly international temp it replaced into the beginning up of the tip for us all. Now that replaced into 8 years in the past....the previous 5 years the person-friendly international temp has decreased, went down, grew to grow to be decrease yet they do no longer look to be screaming that we are headed for an ice age. 2years of a million degree warmer temp equals the tip for us all yet over 5 years of below person-friendly temps seems to get skipped over....yeah i'm conscious there is aspects of the international having severe droughts and better temps however the international person-friendly temp is reducing no longer increasing.......... no longer so. an identical scientist who have been screaming the international warming delusion are actually saying it incredibly is greater beneficial than in all probability a factor of a organic cycle that has handed off until eventually now and could ensue lower back. yet i nonetheless ask your self why no person is screaming ice age.. i'm freezing my

Plus: agricultural yields will likely increase in Canada with more rain and a longer growing season (climate zones move north).

Minus: agricultural yields will likely decrease in the US with less rain and higher temperatures in the southwest. Canada will need a border fence (based on the US-Mexico border design) and vigilante patrols to keep economic migrants from the US out.

Your question demonstrates just how idiotic you truly are. The down side of global warming is obvious, and is happening all around you. But you probably don't notice it because you're too goddamned busy shoving that grease-laden shitburger you call food down your throat while you watch pre-recorded thirteen channels of **** on TV.

There is no plus. Rapid global warming will send the Earth into another ice age. If the oceans warm up too much, the wind patterns will change. Warm water will no longer be brought north to england and it's temperature will plunge.

Nothing really positive about that.

Plus: Warmer temperatures for the people of Alaska and Greenland. Naturally made swimming pool in my backyard.

Minus: Too hot to go skiing in Alaska and Greenland.

Downside- Ice age

Plus- america will feel the effects of global warming before the rest of the world because they are the main contributors along with china.

The theory of global warming is that in addition to making earth warmer, the actual process of warming causes climate changes that we may prefer to avoid. Warming means less persistent cloud cover. We sill get intense cloud cover, heavy precipitation, and clear sky. The heavy precipitation will give flooding and run away to the oceans. The clear sky will produce widespread drought.

As the arctic areas warm, large arctic deposits of methane stored in ice and muskeg will be released into the atmosphere, killing all in the area. Yet mankind globally will survive that.

Rising ocean levels in the north may undo promise of more farm land in the north. And drought, flooding would remove many hectares of land from productive farming globally.

Yet mankind will mostly survive that. There may be significant loss of life, but we will not all perish.

The widespread drought will reduce terrestrial plants ability to absorb CO2, thus increasing global warming. The warmer air will hold more water vapor thus increasing global warming. This is what is called global warming induced global warming.

The warming itself will not only remove glaciers from places like Greenland, a mixed blessing, but will have a measurable impact on coastal flooding around the globe. People will fight a losing battle with rising ocean levels, then move inland further. Greenland itself will be able to provide homes and food for some.

But what happens over a few hundred years with that reduced cloud cover is that the oceans become warmer, deeper. That warmer ocean scenario will eventually be followed by a slight cooling that will cause a sudden worldwide increase in cloud cover, with a sharp downtrend in temperatures. The oceans will have enough energy to go on evaporating even without getting more sunlight. This then is the set up for a major ice age.

We will in effect have an ice age if we get enough global warming to heat up our oceans.

An ice age will begin with global rainfall that will create forest growth everywhere. Our CO2 levels will drop, our temperatures will drop, and then large parts of the earth will be covered with ice, not because of global warming but because the oceans have built up heat as a result of global warming.

When the ice is covering large areas, the oceans will have dropped, we will discover large areas of continental shelf to farm, but we will have rainfall to water our hot deserts. So part of our loss of land in the north will be offset in the south.

We will survive the ice age, but clearly some countries will not.

Were it not for the following ice age we would still want to avoid too much global warming because of drought and flooding. We would be forced to make adjustments to store flood waters for irrigation, or go hungry. We would make those adjustments, so we would mostly survive. But in irrigating we may reverse some buildup of CO2 and heat, we may in effect mitigate the harm of global warming and its cause. It is only by providing plants with water that we can have a significant effect on existing CO2 levels. Reducing emissions can go only so far.

The oceans can continue to absorb CO2 and that would correct the CO2 problem if we stop adding more AND our plants reverse their trend to consuming less and less CO2. (the drought effect)