Global Warming:Doesn't mankind flourish during Earth's warming periods and stagnate during cooling phases?

So based on your logic, we should just go live on the Sun, right?

There is obviously a point where if the planet gets warmer, it does not benefit humans. Since the planet hasn't been this hot in tens of thousands of years, we can't really compare to the climate in past human history.

However, we do know that if the planet continues to warm, it will cause increased heat waves, droughts, food and water shortages, etc. Not only is this bad for humans, but it's also bad for plants.

It's true that plants grow better with more CO2 available as long as all else is equal. But not all else is equal.

*edit* do you really think I'm going to waste my time trying to explain this to you when you clearly have no interest in learning?

You seem to think that all plants require to grow faster is more carbon dioxide. Yes, it does help increase growth rates but the plant growth will still be limited by Nitrogen and phosphorus concentrations along with numerous other trace elements (essentially what Dana meant when he said "as long as all else is equal). Without more of those nutrients, the effect of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide will be minimal.

"The earth gets warmer, people move away from the equator and closer to Hudson bay" and live where precisely? Regions close enough to the equator to be affected badly account for well over 1 billion people.

"if the Earth warms up, woulnd't that cause more water to evaporate from the sea and cause more rain to fall, thereby averting water shortages?" I know this question was aimed at Dana, but no. More water would be evaporated but the vast majority would fall in high latitudes which already receive enough rainfall. The ground wouldn't be able to absorb the water fast enough and regular severe flooding would be the result. So no it would not avert water shortages, it would create a flooding problem.

As far as your original question goes, historically yes mankind has tended to flourish in warmer periods. The problem recently is not warming per say but a rate of warming which doesn't allow time for natural ecosystems to adapt. Also, mankind hasn't been around in really major warm periods so we don't know how we would do. You may also want to ask the question of how much more can we flourish with a population in excess of 6 billion before we start killing each other over resources (more so than we are now).

Yes, historically , man kind has flourished when the temps increase. During the medieval warm period, the human race expanded like never before. As for some of the other posts, many have no idea what they are talking about. Higher CO2 levels have scientifically been shown to help plant life grow. Studies have shown higher Co2 can add up to 40% more plant growth.

Also, a warming earth is not inherently bad for us. Being that the poles are suspected to rise more than the equator, this would provide more areas for humans to exist. It will also increase the growing cycle.

That is exactly right. Only those with an agenda or the ignorant think it is harmful. CO2 helps plant up to about 5 times the current concentration where it no longer increases. CO2 moderates the temperature.

Storms need cold air to help power them. They basically work because when the vapor condenses it warms the air which rises like a hot air balloon. Warmer air aloft, which is the definition of global warming takes the steam (pun intended) out of the storms. That means the thunderstorms and hurricanes tend to be less severe rather than what common sense would tell you.

CO2 dramatically increases drought and pollution tolerance by allowing the plant to close its stomata much longer.

We are in a win/win with CO2 looking like the biggest stroke of luck we could hope for and some of these nimrods call it pollution.

Your assumption is so simple even a cave man could have thought of it. But, that's the problem, because it's too simplistic. It doesn't take into consideration feedback's and alterations to species and regional climates. The MWP warmed to a certain point then began to cool. If the present warming were to continue, the outcome will be quite different.

I think you've got it nailed. Longer growing season, healthier plants, more energy stored in the plants, better food for all herbivores, so better conditions for life. I see no downside.

As for the Cro Magnon, they disappeared during the ice ages. The Industrial Revolution started before the "little ice age". The upside was that of the Asian colonization of the Americas which occurred during the mid-glacial periods of the last Ice Age.

Well thankfully we're not heading into an ice age nor are we in a global cooling trend. The bad news is we have too many people on the planet and our planet is warming too quickly to be advantageous for our ecosystems or economy to adjust to the changes. We will loose agricultural land, and plants will become less nutritious due to increased atmospheric CO2. Diseases such as malaria and dengue fever will become more widespread. Wars for food and resources will become the greatest threat to global security and the governments of some nations will simply collapse.

No, this warming is not good for mankind

Edit- Plants may grow better assuming they get the water they need but they are not more nutritious. We now understand that an increase in atmospheric CO2 will decrease the nutritional value of plants, particularly C3 plants. C3 represent 95% of the earth’s biomass and the majority of plants we depend on for food such as rice, wheat, barley, soybeans, and potatoes.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/1194166...

http://www.eartheasy.com/article_food_bad_ugly.htm

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/co2plant.htm

There are other considerations too, such as decreased rainfall (drought) or increased evaporation and evapotranspiration that reduces moisture needed by plants. They may get enough CO2, but plants need other things as well such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and potassium. Phosphorus would be the main limiting factor. Any advantage gained by increased plant growth (though less nutritious) from CO2 could therefore not be realized without increased use of fertilizers. The need for increased artificial fertilization when combined with an increased cost in energy requirements will result in an increasing the cost of food at the supermarket . This increased cost could put commercially available food beyond the means of a large portion of the earth’s population.

No. The little ice age lead to the invention of things such as buttons, chimneys and many other things. Actually the stress of the cold weather forced people to adapt and invent. During warm times, things were too easy and people were lazy.

Cro-magnon man emerged during an ice age. The renaissance occurred during the little ice age. Europe colonized the world during the little ice age. The industrial revolution occurred during the little ice age. The United States was formed during the latter stages of the little ice age. There is ample evidence that you are talking out of your hat with this hypothesis.

Civilizations and species do just fine in colder climates. It's really a matter of whether they are resource limited at the onset of a change in climate, not whether the climate gets warmer or colder. As many civilizations have been wiped out by cooling as by warming. The ones that don't make it, no matter which way temperature goes, are the ones that are using resources at their maximal rates.

I think you are correct in terms of past history. Certainly a lot more needs to be done in terms of taking as much advantage as possible of predicted climatic consequences of global warming, particularly with regard to agriculture.