Why is global warming considered a negative?

Question

I believe the theory of excellerated global warming to be true, but no one really explains why it is considered a negative. It may very well have many positive impacts that have not been discussed. The earth produces greenhouse gases naturally and has for billions of years. These gases are what keep our earth in the state it is in. There is an opposite to global warming that does not get the attention it deserves, which is the "snowball effect". Essentially if the greenhouse gasses were to thin out or dissipate that would allow the suns energy to bounce off the earth and back into space. The earth would not retain the energy/warmth and could potentially begin to get colder to a point where the whole earth is covered in ice, oceans and all. I think it is bit cavalier for the human race to think that they have any control of the brilliant dnyamics and redundancy of the planet we call home. It would be much more procuctive if individuals took responsibilty for their own actions.

Answer 1

What we know: Blacktop (roads and parking lots) and buildings heat cities; Air pollution causes lung (And other) diseases, deforestation (causing more destruction -duststorms, hurricanes/cyclones all increasing deforestation) and destroys the ozone layer while heating earth surface; fires cause mud slides, deforestation and pollution-more heating surface temperatures; CFC's destroy the ozone layer raising skin cancer rates and killing off endanger species and increased surface temperatures; lighting produces ozone near the surface and raises air pollution levels-more heating, the suns increased magnetic field are causing increases in earthquakes (more destruction), volcanoes (wow), sun spots and more heating. Cars, airplanes, ships and most electricity production causes pollution, warmer temperatures and destruction...But most of this is in our control outside of the sun (Volcanoes and earthquakes are part of the sun magnetic strength): We need to fix it!

Answer 2

The real problem is the potential for "positive feedback" of greenhouse gasses, especially gasses other than CO2. If, for example, significant amounts of methane hydrate are released in the oceans as they warm, the result could cause the Earth's atmosphere to become opaque at over almost all of the infrared spectrum. If this happens, the total rise in average global temperature could be 30 C. That would melt all the ice on the planet, increasing sea level by 100 meters, and cause the temperature near the equator to approach the boiling point of water. This change would take several thousand years to unfold.

This is the worst-case scenario, but it is possible such a drastic natural response might be triggered by the "rapid" rise in temperature caused by man. No one knows how likely it is. Are you willing to take that risk?

Answer 3

What you are talking about is the lovely 2 degree temperature rise where everyone hangs out at the beach and enjoys a nice cool drink in the sun. This is not the reality, a rise in global temperatures could have many and varied effects including extended and more severe droughts in already drought prone countries. Changes in ocean currents, which could have dire effects on global temperature flow. Not to mention sea level rise! This year saw the arrival in Australia of the first climate refugees, because there pacific island is no longer an island.

Most importantly while we believe we have the ability to cope with these changes in the developed world. Real world countries may not have the resources to adapt.

I will also add its a bit cavalier to create this problem in the first place and then sit on our hands.

Answer 4

I'm sure there may be some positive aspects. But many animal species (1/4 of the world's species according to some scientists) will go extinct because they won't be able to evolve fast enough.

The polar ice caps are melting which means a rise in sea levels. Bad news for low lying coasts and islands. There will be an increase in heat related deaths and diseases. Drier summers, less rainfall for some parts and more rainfall for others. Already some parts of the world don't have enough water, imagine when there will be even less.

Also there will be a presumed 2.5 billion population rise by 2075, which means more resources are needed. Namely water. Receding snowlines and less rainfall for some parts of the world will no doubt be nothing but negative for some people.

Answer 5

Im in N.California.
When I first moved here winter was occasional snow, heavy winter fogs, lots of rain. I havent seen that in a couple of decades. Ive also seen the local plant life shift. What you can plant in your yard takes alot of work and water now unless you shift toward more southern plants.

Ive seen the local orchards go out of business because they cant afford the water to keep going.

Every year the wildfire season is longer and the big town-eating fires get farther and farther north (closer to us).

Ive considered moving farther north. Maybe Oregon or Washington. But I did some reading. In a couple decades the mid US will no longer be a farmbelt. And the area Im in will likely be underwater. You would be amazed at how close to sea level most of California is. It doesnt take much water level increase to make it a continual job to continue living here.

That means a LOT of people moving north. If I want to buy land to hand down to my kids I should look at Minnesota maybe (Ive always loved fresh water lakes). Or even Canada which will apparently replace the US farmbelt. Buying some cheap land in CA might be a good idea.

Of course if we hit a mini ice-age like hit Europe in mid 16th century then such plans could backfire.

Answer 6

There's a group in this world who expect to gain a whole lot of money with no work or effort other than treating the environment like religion. Al Gore is the pimp of this organization's attempt to hijack people's money by having governments pass law to force a carbon free life. Think about it, all they do is tell you about how many carbon's you release and have you pay them $99 so you can sleep at night because you are now considered carbon neutral. Your still releasing carbons yet you have $99 less money in your bank account. Why do they not just eliminate the products that make the carbons.....because they can't get rich off those who blindly follow. If giving your money to crooks makes you feel better about the world, then we have a global idiot problem.


How it works. In the U.S., a trading system for big players is operated by the Chicago Climate Exchange. If member companies can prove they’ve cut emissions below a cap set by the exchange, they can trade or sell the difference as “credits.” Polluters that can’t meet caps buy credits to balance their carbon budget. Other parties can buy credits, too--to remove them from the market and, in effect, reduce pollution.


Now individuals can reduce their carbon footprint. Organizations such as nonprofits Carbonfund.org and Drive­Neutral, and TerraPass, a for-profit group, let consumers reduce CO2 emissions by buying and retiring CO2 credits. They help calculate your carbon dioxide emissions, suggest how many credits will offset them, spell out what their credits mean, and identify the entity that verifies reductions. Prices vary. Carbon­fund.org says that a tax-deductible donation of $99 will eliminate 23 metric tons of CO2. Terra­Pass charges $50 to offset 5.4 metric tons.

Answer 7

It's considred a negative because we're enhancing the greenhouse effect by burning fossil fuels rapidly, and causing unnatural warming.

The problem is that our modern society, with massive coastal development and intensive agriculture, is very vulnerable to this change.

It won't be a Hollywood style disaster. Gradually coastal areas will flood and agriculture will be damaged. But it will be very bad. Rich countries will cope, but it will take huge amounts of money. In poor countries many people will die of starvation, but not all of them.

Most scientists say, in 20-50 years. But we need to start right now to fix it, fixing it will take even longer than that.

Really good website for more information here:

http://profend.com/global-warming/

Answer 8

The main concern is that global warming will cause more extreme weather conditions than before (hurricanes etc), force some wildlife to extinction (mediterrenean seals etc), and raise the sea levels 4-7 meters, meaning more than about 12-15 thousand cities are in trouble.

Answer 9

I feel humans pollute the very things we will need to survive, but as far as global warming goes I look at like this
weather people that have studied weather most of their lives can't even get a two day forecast right and now they want us to believe them on a 50 to 100 year forecast for the whole earth.
That is a bit much for anyone to swallow.

Answer 10

'cauz global worming is causing the earth's atmosphere to deplet. if u want to know more negative results of global warming then watch Al Gore's documentary for which he was awarded the Nobel Prize- THE UNCONVINENT TRUTH. this will answer ur question.