Is Climate Change BAD?

[JerrySeinfeld]

Isn't it kind of CONVENIENT (sorry Fat Albert) that all the news about the earth's temperature is BAD news?

Isn't it CONVENIENT for the ex-politicians-turned-movie-stars who are making a killing and nominated for academy awards by the oh-so-objective hollywood crowd?

Isn't it CONVENIENT for those who recieve endless government and UN funding to research the terrible aspects of climate change?

Isn't it CONVENIENT for the eco-nazis who's alterior motive is to hijack the issue and use it as a premise upon which to build a new global socialist wealth redistribution?

Is climate change the eco-lefty's WMD, but on a massive global scale?

Think about it for a minute. Is it reasonable and scientific to assume that global warming will be a net negative for humankind?

As an example, I saw a report that said a warmer world will be very positive for Canada, resulting in higher yielding cash crops like corn for the prairies. As well, the boreal forest would expand northward to areas which are currently tundra wasteland.

As PJ O'rourke once said: People who's mission it is to save the world want the world to seem alot worse than it actually is, so their mission will seem much more important.

or, to quote an article (whose entire link is below):

Objectively speaking, any environmental change should have both positive benefits and negative effects. For example, theory predicts and observations confirm that human-induced warming takes place primarily in winter, lengthening the growing season. Satellite measurements now show that the planet is greener than it was before it warmed. There are literally thousands of experiments reported in the scientific literature demonstrating that higher atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations -- cause by human activity -- dramatically increase food production. So why do we only hear one side about global warming?

Perhaps because there's little incentive for scientists to do anything but emphasize the negative and the destructive. Alarming news often leads to government funding, funding generates research, and research is the key to scientists' professional advancement. Good news threatens that arrangement.

This is the reality that all scientists confront: every issue, be it global warming, cancer or AIDS, competes with other issues for a limited amount of government research funding. And, here in Washington, no one ever received a major research grant by stating that his or her particular issue might not be such a problem after all.

Link to the whole piece.

This really should even be a political debate. If we're really critical-thinking creatures, we should all be asking this question: Is climate change BAD?

[Shakeyhands]

wow... are you serious?

[marcinmoka]

Isn't it CONVENIENT for the eco-nazis who's alterior motive is to hijack the issue and use it as a premise upon which to build a new global socialist wealth redistribution?

Not really. Letting the market in on the solution (such as trading caps which are auctioned off) and development and selling of new, more efficient technologies ain't IN NO WAY redistributing wealth, well, only to new engineering firms in that case.

[GostHacked]

As PJ O'rourke once said: People who's mission it is to save the world want the world to seem alot worse than it actually is, so their mission will seem much more important.

It's like he tooks this out of a pagebook written by the Neo-Conservatives (aka your current USA Administration)

Fear sells.

Global warming is not something we really need to worry about. The earth will balance itself out long after we are gone. Maybe the earth is sick. Maybe it wants to purge us from the planet for we are making it sick. Mother nature will deal with us eventually.

Climate change will always happen. The Sun is the major factor in all our weather. Ice ages have come and gone. Not worries too much about this.

Why is the left the ones who are ECO-NAZIS. Wealth distribution?

[marcinmoka]

--------------------------

When it comes to dealing with climate change, I don't think anyone would disagree that in "the least", it is venturing into the UNKNOWN.

Some will say it is natural, which I agree, but it is equally coupled, though no one knows to which proportion, with man made results.

It is on that point alone, that it is worth taking action. I liken it to INSURANCE. Sure, the chances that your house will burn down are rather small, but if it does, you're covered. But in this case, it's much more serious than the destruction of one house.

While output economic output may be slightly impacted, it is a moderate cost compared to the risk of an ecological disaster taking place.

We should take into consideration the worst scenarios and how they would impact our economic situation, and possibly creating a geopolitical nightmare. The Stern report figured something around a 5% chance of global warming resulting in a 20% reduction in output. Sure it's only 5%, but that 20% reduction scares me.

I also object to calls which put "environmental awareness" and "capitalism" in opposition. I want to see a Green Capitalism, were technology progresses, and those who implement and invent this technology are compensated, and nicely.

[Slavik44]

Listen on this forum, I cannot call Bush a moron, I cannot call Stephen Harper a baby-eater, I cannot call the CPC the CONservatives, I cannot call the Liberals the Fiberals, I cannot direct insults at third parties on this forum, so why are you running around calling environmentalists eco-nazis. I think the use of the term nazi is so over done that it is more reflective of the individual using the term than person or group the term is being applied to.

I cannot help but percieve this post as being nothing but flame bait, it is about as creative, original and as factualy based as the term eco-nazi itself. Hey, I have my problems with Kyoto aswell, but lets get real here.

* You have for these questions assumed that Global warming is real, so I will also use this liberty in answering these questions.

1. Why is it always bad news?

Well lets see, the affect of changing water levels, water temperatures, and salinity content can be absolutely disasterous...so if global warming melts enough ice and present ocean currents go down the crapper...we would have a very real problem...when people talk about the affects of global warming, it has little to do with those damn Canadians being able to wear t-shirt and shorts year round, it is the affect these tempature changes could have on other climatic phenomen, and a bloody Bannana is not going to make it all better.

2. Isn't it CONVENIENT for the ex-politicians-turned-movie-stars who are making a killing and nominated for academy awards by the oh-so-objective hollywood crowd?

Yeah and wasn't Aparthied in South Africa really convienent for Nelson Mandela?

3. Isn't it CONVENIENT for those who recieve endless government and UN funding to research the terrible aspects of climate change?

Isn't it convienent for the USGS that Earthquakes are seen as deadly?

4. Isn't it CONVENIENT for the eco-nazis who's alterior motive is to hijack the issue and use it as a premise upon which to build a new global socialist wealth redistribution?

And wasn't fighting World War Two highly convienent for western governments seeking to expand their power?

5. Is climate change the eco-lefty's WMD, but on a massive global scale?

Well given that we started this post with the assumption that global warming was real, than we would have to point out that these Weapons of mass destruction actually exist.

6. Think about it for a minute. Is it reasonable and scientific to assume that global warming will be a net negative for humankind?

Well you clearly haven't thought about it. Because you are stuck up on looking at the bloody tempature gauge and assuming that is all it is, the red reaches a little higher....you are still not actually looking at the impact of the red reaching a little higher.

7. As an example, I saw a report that said a warmer world will be very positive for Canada, resulting in higher yielding cash crops like corn for the prairies. As well, the boreal forest would expand northward to areas which are currently tundra wasteland.

I once saw a report, I once wrote a report too, actually I am in the middle of writing one now...relavence? Any Jack ass can write a report.

8. As PJ O'rourke once said: People who's mission it is to save the world want the world to seem alot worse than it actually is, so their mission will seem much more important

As Slavik44 once wrote: People who have spent their lives destroying the world want that destruction to appear alot more postively than it actually is, so their life seems much less evil.

9. If we're really critical-thinking creatures, we should all be asking this question: Is climate change BAD?

No if we were really critical we wouldn't be asking the question, we would be looking for information to answer that question, rather than trolling internet forums.

* Again I want to clearly remind you, that your post called on the assumption to be made that global warming is infact a very real phenomenon.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Isn't it CONVENIENT for the eco-nazis who's alterior motive is to hijack the issue and use it as a premise upon which to build a new global socialist wealth redistribution?

Not really. Letting the market in on the solution (such as trading caps which are auctioned off) and development and selling of new, more efficient technologies ain't IN NO WAY redistributing wealth, well, only to new engineering firms in that case.

You obviously have no understanding of the Kyoto protocol.

[JerrySeinfeld]

1. Why is it always bad news? Well lets see, the affect of changing water levels, water temperatures, and salinity content can be absolutely disasterous...so if global warming melts enough ice and present ocean currents go down the crapper...we would have a very real problem...when people talk about the affects of global warming, it has little to do with those damn Canadians being able to wear t-shirt and shorts year round, it is the affect these tempature changes could have on other climatic phenomen, and a bloody Bannana is not going to make it all better.

? There is no substance or specifics at all in this comment. "go down the crapper" doesn't really specify what would be so wrong. Higher sea levels? It's not going to be a Tsunami. As it gradually occurs, we'll build higher seawalls.

Yeah and wasn't Aparthied in South Africa really convienent for Nelson Mandela?

So in your analogy, Al Gore and David Suzuki is a opressed prisoner unableto excape an overheated world? WOw. you really are delusional.

Well you clearly haven't thought about it. Because you are stuck up on looking at the bloody tempature gauge and assuming that is all it is, the red reaches a little higher....you are still not actually looking at the impact of the red reaching a little higher.

Yes I am:

Warmer evenings, warmer winters, lower heatnig bills, less need for fossil fuels, greener forests, longer growing periods, more food production, better crops, bigger forests, Fewer deaths due to cold....and on and on it goes!

As Slavik44 once wrote: People who have spent their lives destroying the world want that destruction to appear alot more postively than it actually is, so their life seems much less evil.

I'm glad to hear you don't drive.

* Again I want to clearly remind you, that your post called on the assumption to be made that global warming is infact a very real phenomenon.

I know that. The dinosaurs found that out the hard way. It's been giong on since the world began. In fact, it's cooler now than it was before fossil fuels wer even discovered.

[GostHacked]

Jerry

I know that. The dinosaurs found that out the hard way

Yeah, it was called a meteor. Some big rock from space smashed into the planet causing instant climate changes to the entire planet. So are we going to be wiped out by some large space rock? Is that how we find out the hard way as well??

When you use analogies like this, you really need to clarify how you are using that analogy. I think you just picked it out and stated it. Eventhough dinosaur extinction and global warming are two different events that have really nothing to do with each other.

[marcinmoka]

.

[marcinmoka]

You obviously have no understanding of the Kyoto protocol.

I actually do, but I'm not gonna argue with you on this point. Kyoto should be used a guideline, and not the rule, because developed nations will pay too much a price for something that affects US ALL and developing nations will use this as an excuse to go on polluting.

But your post wasn't necessarily about Kyoto, just climate change in general. And in particular this:

Is it reasonable and scientific to assume that global warming will be a net negative for humankind?

As an example, I saw a report that said a warmer world will be very positive for Canada, resulting in higher yielding cash crops like corn for the prairies. As well, the boreal forest would expand northward to areas which are currently tundra wasteland.

While this is true, it only focuses on the good things, but:

- Believe it or not, we have summer here in Canada as well, and it gets very hot already. We don't need a repeat of European heat waves and the casualties which ensued. It’s easier to die from heat than cold because its harder to escape from it.

- That which we would save on heating would be spent on cooling.

- Warmer climate = More bacterial activity = More carbon = More heating.

- Increased forest fires = More carbon = More heating.

- Vancouver, St. John's and Halifax would be progressively "screwed", albeit over a slow period of time. (People up in the hills of Vancouver though would become Insanely RICH, in case your thinking of good investments).

- The great lakes would be under attack. Decreased water levels would reduce the hydroelectric output

- The St .Lawrence seaway would be at risk, blocking one of the worlds major trade routes.

I'm an adamant believer in the market. Money talks, so let's ensure the Invisible Hand guides us to a cleaner world.

[Slavik44]

? There is no substance or specifics at all in this comment. "go down the crapper" doesn't really specify what would be so wrong. Higher sea levels? It's not going to be a Tsunami. As it gradually occurs, we'll build higher seawalls.

Well the idea was that I didn't have the time to write down all the specifics and given that you are trying to paint yourself as an inquisitive person I was just trying to give you something to look into. Its kinda tough for you to say, look at me I am an incquisitive person and then flip around and say I am to lazy to research the negatives affects of global warming. Again making the assumption that global warming is happening and is human caused, we could than point to wide spread wildfires, they already cause millions of dollars of damage every yearin British columbia alone. We could talk about 35,000 people dead in Europe as the result of a deadly heat wave, we could talk about how warming waters create more intense hurricanes, we could talk about how as waters warm the range that hurricanes can occur in would increase. We could talk about the economic cost of building a bloody wall around the world, and the cost if that wall fails. Or we could flip that around and look at changing ocean currents possibly resulting in the on set of an ice age. If you assume global warming is a fact, the list of negative affects is endless.

So in your analogy, Al Gore and David Suzuki is a opressed prisoner unableto excape an overheated world? WOw. you really are delusional.

So now you are resorting to directly insulting me? That was not the purpose of my analogy, my analogy was that if you view global warming as truth, then wether or not people recieve benifiets from spreading the truth is irrelavent. Recall that you started your tirade with the assumption global warming was the truth.

Yes I am:

Warmer evenings, warmer winters, lower heatnig bills, less need for fossil fuels, greener forests, longer growing periods, more food production, better crops, bigger forests, Fewer deaths due to cold....and on and on it goes!

And thats the problem you are ignoring the other side, ignoring the other factors, not recognizing that the human temperature tolerance band does not just have a floor (cold) but a roof as well (hot), hotter isn't always better. Tolerance works both ways....

I'm glad to hear you don't drive.

No problem, I take public transit

I know that. The dinosaurs found that out the hard way. It's been giong on since the world began. In fact, it's cooler now than it was before fossil fuels wer even discovered.

Yes natural cycles, Of course being incquisitve people, we might want to ask if what we see now fits a natural pattern? Are the rates of increase historically natural? Remembering that the dinosaurs roamed the damn earth for almost 200 million years. And the oldest Australapithicene fossil is 4-5 million years old, and the homo habilis half that. So while change may be natural, are the rates of change indicative of a SOLELY natural phenomenon?

[marcinmoka]

the rates of increase

The key term. Thanks for bringing that up.

[theloniusfleabag]

I shouldn't worry too much about replying to anything this 'seinfeld' says, it is almost always either flamebait, ad hominem attacks against broadest definitions of groups, or logic-defying partisan trolling bordering on the absurd. I don't even like writing this much in response...

Higher seawalls indeed.

[jbg]

Isn't it CONVENIENT for the eco-nazis who's alterior motive is to hijack the issue and use it as a premise upon which to build a new global socialist wealth redistribution?

Not really. Letting the market in on the solution (such as trading caps which are auctioned off) and development and selling of new, more efficient technologies ain't IN NO WAY redistributing wealth, well, only to new engineering firms in that case.

Solution to what problem? Cycles that run in seven, thirty and hundred year increments? Or perhaps the swings from Ice Ages to interglacial periods?

[JerrySeinfeld]

You obviously have no understanding of the Kyoto protocol.

I actually do, but I'm not gonna argue with you on this point. Kyoto should be used a guideline, and not the rule, because developed nations will pay too much a price for something that affects US ALL and developing nations will use this as an excuse to go on polluting.

But your post wasn't necessarily about Kyoto, just climate change in general. And in particular this:

Is it reasonable and scientific to assume that global warming will be a net negative for humankind?

As an example, I saw a report that said a warmer world will be very positive for Canada, resulting in higher yielding cash crops like corn for the prairies. As well, the boreal forest would expand northward to areas which are currently tundra wasteland.

While this is true, it only focuses on the good things, but:

- Believe it or not, we have summer here in Canada as well, and it gets very hot already. We don't need a repeat of European heat waves and the casualties which ensued. It’s easier to die from heat than cold because its harder to escape from it.

- That which we would save on heating would be spent on cooling.

- Warmer climate = More bacterial activity = More carbon = More heating.

- Increased forest fires = More carbon = More heating.

- Vancouver, St. John's and Halifax would be progressively "screwed", albeit over a slow period of time. (People up in the hills of Vancouver though would become Insanely RICH, in case your thinking of good investments).

- The great lakes would be under attack. Decreased water levels would reduce the hydroelectric output

- The St .Lawrence seaway would be at risk, blocking one of the worlds major trade routes.

I'm an adamant believer in the market. Money talks, so let's ensure the Invisible Hand guides us to a cleaner world.

This is ridiculous.

Warmer climate = larger forest growing area up north = more trees = less carbon

Your sea level argument is the oldest and perhaps the stupidest one of the climate change fanatics. These models all assume humankind will just stand by passively while the sea swells up around them over a period of decades. The seawall in vancouver already provides for a few extra feet of sea level rising - its not like they built it down to the millimeter. Even if the sea rises the 3-4 feet in the worst case scenario, you could simply build a higher wall.

As for your comments about hot days and air conditioning - you obviously haven't even read the literature posited by the CC crowd, because if you had you'd know that even the alrmists predict the warming will mostly occur at night, during winter months and close to the poles. How this affects hot days is beyong me.

The facts state historically even by the alarmists that the average daytime summer temperature in the world has dropped, and that the warming has largely occurred at night, during winter and close to the poles.

Please tell me how the st lawrence seaway would be "at risk"?

If anything you'd think a few more feet of water would be a good thing for a "seaway".

[marcinmoka]

Please tell me how the st Lawrence seaway would be "at risk"?

If anything you'd think a few more feet of water would be a good thing for a "seaway".

Yes. But warmer temperatures would REDUCE the seaways. Think about it.

Maybe you and Newbie have the same knowledge of Geography, but water runs FROM the great lakes TO the oceans.

A) More trees = more water absorption = Less flow into the great lakes.

Warmer temperature = Increased evaporation.

C) The Tundra is also one of the major carbon sinks. That means it takes in more oxygen than it releases. The plants there, due to to long periods of cool, just freeze and do not decompose but are stored in the permafrost. Can you guess what happens once it melts?

*Jeopardy Music*

But than again, what does science know. The CATO institute knows best!

[JerrySeinfeld]

Yes. But warmer temperatures would REDUCE the seaways. Think about it.

Maybe you and Newbie have the same knowledge of Geography, but water runs FROM the great lakes TO the oceans.

A) More trees = more water absorption = Less flow into the great lakes.

Warmer temperature = Increased evaporation.

C) The Tundra is also one of the major carbon sinks. That means it takes in more oxygen than it releases. The plants there, due to to long periods of cool, just freeze and do not decompose but are stored in the permafrost. Can you guess what happens once it melts?

*Jeopardy Music*

But than again, what does science know. The CATO institute knows best!

You're assuming the water system in the great lakes is as simple as a one way flow. WHere do you think the water ni the great lakes comes from? Perhaps runoffs from melting ice? Perhaps increased precipitation (a cited effect of global warming)? You obviously havenm't factored in all of that.

Besides, on the outside chance that the seaway DID lose a few inches of depth, that wouldn't kill anyone or harm anything. We could dredge the seaway same as many other canals in the world if it ever (doubtful) came to that.

As for your comment about TUNDRA I find it hard to believe that frozen TUNDRA absorbs more carbon than an entire forest of photosynthesizing TREES in a boreal forest.

[marcinmoka]

I find it hard to believe that frozen TUNDRA absorbs more carbon than an entire forest of photosynthesizing TREES in a boreal forest.

You can believe in Santa Claus if you want to! But it doesn't change the principles of chemistry.

The primary reason for the net C losses in these treatments was an increase in respiration relative to photosynthesis, with a consequent decrease in the ecosystem C:N ratio. However, when we simulated the elevated temperatures in the greenhouse treatment without the confounding effects of decreased light intensity (an artifact of the greenhouse structures), there was a long-term increase in ecosystem C stocks because of increased photosynthetic response to the temperature-induced shift of N from soil to vegetation. If our simulated changes in ecosystem C storage are extrapolated for the 43 Pg C contained in arctic tundras globally, the maximum net gain or loss (0.3% per yr) from tundra would be equivalent to 0.13 Pg C/yr. Although fluxes of this magnitude would have a relatively minor impact on current changes in atmospheric CO[2], the long-term impact on tundra C stores could be significant. The synthesis and insights provided by the model should make it possible to extrapolate into the future with a better understanding of the processes governing long-term changes in tundra C storage.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2769869

Global warming is predicted to be most pronounced at high latitudes, and observational evidence over the past 25 years suggests that this warming is already under way1. One-third of the global soil carbon pool is stored in northern latitudes, so there is considerable interest in understanding how the carbon balance of northern ecosystems will respond to climate warming3, 4. Observations of controls over plant productivity in tundra and boreal ecosystems5, 6 have been used to build a conceptual model of response to warming, where warmer soils and increased decomposition of plant litter increase nutrient availability, which, in turn, stimulates plant production and increases ecosystem carbon storage6, 7. Here we present the results of a long-term fertilization experiment in Alaskan tundra, in which increased nutrient availability caused a net ecosystem loss of almost 2,000 grams of carbon per square meter over 20 years. We found that annual aboveground plant production doubled during the experiment. Losses of carbon and nitrogen from deep soil layers, however, were substantial and more than offset the increased carbon and nitrogen storage in plant biomass and litter. Our study suggests that projected release of soil nutrients associated with high-latitude warming may further amplify carbon release from soils, causing a net loss of ecosystem carbon and a positive feedback to climate warming

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/...ature02887.html

By the way, HOW LONG do you think that Boreal Forests take to grow to significant levels? ( I still got the Jeopardy music going)

[JerrySeinfeld]

I find it hard to believe that frozen TUNDRA absorbs more carbon than an entire forest of photosynthesizing TREES in a boreal forest.

You can believe in Santa Claus if you want to! But it doesn't change the principles of chemistry.

The primary reason for the net C losses in these treatments was an increase in respiration relative to photosynthesis, with a consequent decrease in the ecosystem C:N ratio. However, when we simulated the elevated temperatures in the greenhouse treatment without the confounding effects of decreased light intensity (an artifact of the greenhouse structures), there was a long-term increase in ecosystem C stocks because of increased photosynthetic response to the temperature-induced shift of N from soil to vegetation. If our simulated changes in ecosystem C storage are extrapolated for the 43 Pg C contained in arctic tundras globally, the maximum net gain or loss (0.3% per yr) from tundra would be equivalent to 0.13 Pg C/yr. Although fluxes of this magnitude would have a relatively minor impact on current changes in atmospheric CO[2], the long-term impact on tundra C stores could be significant. The synthesis and insights provided by the model should make it possible to extrapolate into the future with a better understanding of the processes governing long-term changes in tundra C storage.

http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2769869

Global warming is predicted to be most pronounced at high latitudes, and observational evidence over the past 25 years suggests that this warming is already under way1. One-third of the global soil carbon pool is stored in northern latitudes, so there is considerable interest in understanding how the carbon balance of northern ecosystems will respond to climate warming3, 4. Observations of controls over plant productivity in tundra and boreal ecosystems5, 6 have been used to build a conceptual model of response to warming, where warmer soils and increased decomposition of plant litter increase nutrient availability, which, in turn, stimulates plant production and increases ecosystem carbon storage6, 7. Here we present the results of a long-term fertilization experiment in Alaskan tundra, in which increased nutrient availability caused a net ecosystem loss of almost 2,000 grams of carbon per square meter over 20 years. We found that annual aboveground plant production doubled during the experiment. Losses of carbon and nitrogen from deep soil layers, however, were substantial and more than offset the increased carbon and nitrogen storage in plant biomass and litter. Our study suggests that projected release of soil nutrients associated with high-latitude warming may further amplify carbon release from soils, causing a net loss of ecosystem carbon and a positive feedback to climate warming

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v431/...ature02887.html

By the way, HOW LONG do you think that Boreal Forests take to grow to significant levels? ( I still got the Jeopardy music going)

Oh, so you're a short term thinker?

I thought enviro-kooks were supposed to think LONG TERM

[JerrySeinfeld]

Did you even read your own post?

warmer soils and increased decomposition of plant litter increase nutrient availability, which, in turn, stimulates plant production and increases ecosystem carbon storage6

Then you ask me about HOW LONG boreal would take to grow?

You postulate about long term problems but complain about LONG TERM benefits. That jeopardy tune must be play and playing and playing in your contradictory little head.

It is a FACT that the earth, when [photographed from space, is in fact GREENER now as a result of increased carbon in the atmosphere.

And on top of all of this, you have (in typical lefty fashion) steered this debate to one about the possible problems of global warming, and completely ignored the benefits.

This isn't very scientific behavior at al my friend....(music still playing).

[shoggoth]

What about this one:

Warmer ocean surface: less carbon absorbed from atmosphere by ocean

[Charles Anthony]

I shouldn't worry too much about replying to anything this 'seinfeld' says, it is almost always either flamebait, ad hominem attacks against broadest definitions of groups, or logic-defying partisan trolling bordering on the absurd.

Whether the intensions of the Opening Post are as you suggest, I can not say. I believe the substance behind it can yield a valid discussion, albeit a short one: climate change is bad if you get the short end of the stick and climate change is good if you get the longer end. If there is "global warming" or "higher seawalls" or whatever, it will represent a redistribution. Period.

In Antarctica, we may be able to grow sugar and bananas and coffee. In other parts of the world, coastal areas may be submerged and people will be homeless. The only room for morality is in identifying a man-made origin of climate change.

Unless we are talking about anthropomorphic climate change, the concept of "good" or "bad" on a global scale is meaningless.

[GostHacked]

Ouch

You're assuming the water system in the great lakes is as simple as a one way flow. WHere do you think the water ni the great lakes comes from? Perhaps runoffs from melting ice? Perhaps increased precipitation (a cited effect of global warming)? You obviously havenm't factored in all of that.

Jerry has a point here (for once). Ontario has a large system of lakes and rivers. Enough that with all the current forest we have around us, there is still no shortage of water. Man made dams for hydroelectricity have more of an effect on water flow than trees that have been part of the ecosystem for centuries.

Besides, on the outside chance that the seaway DID lose a few inches of depth, that wouldn't kill anyone or harm anything. We could dredge the seaway same as many other canals in the world if it ever (doubtful) came to that.

Speaking of dams, the locks for the Great Lakes controls MOST of the water flow to the St. Lawrence river. Even if we took out the locks, you would not really see much of a change in the water levels in the Great Lakes at this current moment.

[marcinmoka]

Did you even read your own post?

warmer soils and increased decomposition of plant litter increase nutrient availability, which, in turn, stimulates plant production and increases ecosystem carbon storage6

Then you ask me about HOW LONG boreal would take to grow?

You postulate about long term problems but complain about LONG TERM benefits. That jeopardy tune must be play and playing and playing in your contradictory little head.

It is a FACT that the earth, when [photographed from space, is in fact GREENER now as a result of increased carbon in the atmosphere.

And on top of all of this, you have (in typical lefty fashion) steered this debate to one about the possible problems of global warming, and completely ignored the benefits.

This isn't very scientific behavior at al my friend....(music still playing).

Are you blind? Quoting me to make it seems as if it's good for the environment? It was in this sentance:

to build a conceptual model of response to warming, where warmer soils and increased decomposition of plant litter increase nutrient availability, which, in turn, stimulates plant production and increases ecosystem carbon storage6,

You suffer from EXTREME selective reading.

But thanks for calling me a lefty. It's a first I must admit.

Since you didn't even bother reading the post, the result will TURN INTO A CHAIN REACTION

More Carbon = More warming = More Carbon and so forth.

You seem to only think as if everything was independant of each other, i.e melting ice will both give us beautiful trees and increased water levels....and everyone will make smores and sing koombaya. And if theres too much water....we'll just build a wall. A big wall.

FIND ME A RESPECTED SCIENTIFIC STUDY STATING LONG TERM ECONOMIC BENEFITS AS OUTWEIGHING THE COSTS.

*Not a heavily edited 10 sentance resume put forth by oil firms, but an actual, independant SCIENTIFIC study.