Varis Lux

This conversation is closed.

Positive thinking about Global Warming

In every day life we usually look at the positive as well as the negative of everything. Why are we not doing this about Global Warming? I can think of obvious positives.

For the Earth's Frigid and Temperate Zones:

1.Halving of energy consumption for N.America, Europe, Russia, and thus less pollution. Think about difference between summer and winter heating bills. Imagine it was summer all year!
2. Longer summers, less severe winters. Increased commerce, tourism, agriculture during the winter months.
3. Mitigation of cold weather diseases. We know that when winter comes, people suffer greatly die from a host of "cold diseases" such as influenza and pneumonia.
4. Shipping lanes open all year across oceans that freeze shut. When we are rid of the polar ice cap, we can send ships directly from USA to Europe over the top. Massive savings in fuel and time.
5. Permafrost areas of tundra will become forest and farmland. Forest areas have more biodiversity than tundra.
6. No cold wave deaths, eg 590 people died this year in Europe.

Positives in the Arid Areas:

1. Tropical zones will expand with tropical seasons and increased rainfall. Areas such as the Mediterranean will become tropical and biodiversity will increase.
2. Rainfall patterns will change and arid areas become fertile, as we have seen in central Australia.
3. Wars will decrease as arid areas become tropical.
4. More clouds as more water vapour is evaporated due to warmer atmosphere. This means that skin cancer will decrease, and heat exhaustion from working in the sun. This will help industry and agriculture.

Other Positives.

1. Population relocation from old cities to new cities with new infrastructure, as most old cities are in low-lying coastal areas.
2. Population relocation from temperate to frigid zones.
3. Oceans will be less salty.
4. Glaciers will melt, and free up area for biodiversity.
5. Increased CO2 will provide more food for plants.

  • thumb
    Apr 3 2012: Have you ever noticed how all the noise about global warming comes from countries that are currently in the temperate zone. As the tropics broaden the sub-tropical arid zones move into what is now the temperate zone. The temperate zone moves toward the poles. I guess if I lived in the best house on the street I'd be upset if they told me we were all swapping houses too. Losers North America, Europe,Japan. Winners Australia, North Africa, Mexico, Scandanavia
    What do those in the losers list have in common?
  • thumb
    Mar 30 2012: Wha? The IPCC predict 7.1 to 23 ins (18-59cms) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level_rise,
    I was thinking of those figures.
    Seriously not sure of what the NASA study is about, but somebody is really out of whack. Obviously a differently funded computer model at work, lol. So many computer models, which one to believe?
    But even if we accept that 82 metres, there are many places in Europe and USA above 82 metres. Punch in any place in Wikipedia and it gives you the elevation. Traditionally big cities are low-lying to get access to the sea, and to fresh water supply. So we may have to move those cities, which is good, as then we can build perfectly designed new cities according to latest theories of energy efficiency, recreation, services, utilities and so-on. These old cities are hundreds of years old, and the constant upgrading is getting difficult. Better to install a new version. Maybe we will do away with big cities and live in a close network of villages over a wide area in the countryside. A bit like the present German model as opposed to the American model.
    • thumb
      Mar 30 2012: Yeah that's what i thought when i saw it but i think it was if both caps go at once and i saw it from a ufo video from heimi maussan(Poor bugger was discredited from kids playing video tricks on him)It was the part about new zealand gaining land that had me interested as it's true about it's actual size.

      http://www.global-warming-forecasts.com/sea-levels-rising.php

      I prefer worst case scenario then work back from there,then there is no surprises.
  • thumb
    Mar 30 2012: Theres only one hitch with what you said.

    Sea levels.

    I saw a supposedly nasa projected outcome if we lose the poles.There is no europe,canada.africa has an inland sea as does the u.s,indonessia is gone,so is japan and hawaii,india has almost disappeared but surprisingly australia only loses it's low lying coastal regions,though all it's cities are gone.New zealand gains it's true size but that's only after the low level countries flood so it goes under for a time.

    270 ft of water above current sea level,82 meters.

    Tibet looks pretty good at the moment.

    The others only took into account the artic but if one goes the other will follow eventually.I'm hoping for a iceage event but who knows.I would say Aussie would be the place to be in the future.It's extreme as there is the hope the warming will trigger a refreeze of the artic,well i'm hoping it does,so on the up side using this scenario what will be the benefits?