In future,Many countries will affect by global warming...How true it is?

Question

Global warming related to hot temparatures...some research shown it may cause wild threat after 25years...which country will face major disaster in future days....

Answer 1

None - "Global Warming" is natural heating of the Earth. The Earth will either heat or cool, as there is no such thing as a static climate.

Answer 2

Revised Temp Data Reduces Global Warming Fever ---

By Marc Sheppard --- The American Thinker Blog --- 9 August 07

1998 was not the hottest US year ever. Nor was 2006 the runner up.

Sure, had you checked NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS)
website just days ago, you would have thought so, but not today. You see,
thanks to the efforts of Steve McIntyre over at
http://www.climatea udit.org/ , the Surface Air Temperature Anomaly charts for
those and many other years have been revised - predominately down.

Why?

It's a wild and technical story of compromised weather stations and hack
computer algorithms (including, get this - a latent Y2K bug) and those
wishing to read the fascinating details should follow ALL of the links I've
provided. But, simply stated, McIntyre not only proved the error of the
calculations used to interpret the data from the 1000 plus US Historical
Climatology Network (USHCN) weather stations feeding GISS, but also the
cascading effect of that error on past data.

You see, as Warren Meyer over at Coyoteblog.com (whose recent email
expressed a delight we share in the irony of this correction taking place
the week of the Gore / Newsweek story) points out:

"One of the interesting aspects of these temperature data bases is that
they do not just use the raw temperature measurements from each station.
Both the NOAA (which maintains the USHCN stations) and the GISS apply many
layers of adjustments. "

It was the gross folly of these "fudge factors" McIntyre challenged NASA on.
And won.

Today, not only have the charts and graphs been modified, but the GISS
website includes this acknowledgement that:

"the USHCN station records up to 1999 were replaced by a version of
USHCN data with further corrections after an adjustment computed by
comparing the common 1990-1999 period of the two data sets. (We wish to
thank Stephen McIntyre for bringing to our attention that such an adjustment
is necessary to prevent creating an artificial jump in year 2000.)"

But, as only the Gorebots actually believe the hype that recent year to year
temperature shifts are somehow proof of anthropogenic global warming, why is
this significant?

As explained by Noel Sheppard over at Newsbusters:

"One of the key tenets of the global warming myth being advanced by
[GISS head James] Hansen and soon-to-be-Dr. Al Gore is that nine of the ten
warmest years in history have occurred since 1995."

Additionally, as broken by Rush Limbaugh on his radio show this afternoon,
Reuters is now reporting in a piece entitled Scientists predict surge in
global warming after 2009 that:

"A study forecasts that global warming will set in with a vengeance
after 2009, with at least half of the five following years expected to be
hotter than 1998, which was the warmest year on record."

As so deftly observed by El Rushbo, who wonders how long NASA has been aware
of the errors, many greenies have spread their nonsense using 1998's bogus
distinction to generate angst amongst the weak-minded.

Yet - thanks to a Blogging Scientist -- that's all changed now - check the
newly revised GISS table.

1934 is now the hottest, and 3 others from the 1930's are in the top 10.
Furthermore, only 3 (not 9) took place since 1995 (1998, 1999, and 2006).
The years 2000, 2002, 2003, 2004 are now below the year 1900 and no longer
even in the top 20.

So, we're not really on a roller-coaster to hell, then?

Of course, eco-maniacs will argue that it's the global readings that count,
not those of the USA alone. Nuts to that. It's nearly impossible to
believe that when put to similar close scrutiny, global mechanisms will
stand the heat any better than ours.

Besides, as GISS hosts the reference database of choice for all manner of
enviro-mental- cases, one would think such a significant content correction
itself would spark huge news and greenie-card reevaluation, right?

Well -- as Noel asked and answered his readers:

"Think this will be Newsweek's next cover-story? No, I don't either."

Perfect.

Answer 3

You're right. Proof here, from the source below:

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Rich countries can cope but the effort will cost them hundreds of billions of dollars, and damage their economies.

Poor countries already struggling to feed themselves will face major disaster - damage to agriculture will cause food shortages and starvation. It may lead to war as desperate people flee to neighboring countries not as hard hit.

Perhaps worst off is Bangladesh, with large amounts of agricultural land only a small distance above sea level. Storms will flood the land with salt water, ruining it.

More details about the damage threatened here:

http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL052735320070407
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM6avr07.pdf

Answer 4

I agree with Jello