5 ms·

totally! however US and Canada are big w/ relatively small populations. People can move around, they can adjust. India doesn't have the same luxury

by bryanwb 11y ago

eloff 11y ago
I think it could be argued that some global warming could be a net benefit for Canada. As long as it stays below the level that would cause global catastrophe. Sea level rise will cause some issues, but Canada really has very few large cities on the coast and there are (expensive) ways of dealing with that, just like all other coastal cities will need to do in the coming century. But on the other side of the equation it would extend growing seasons and increase the amount of arable and forested land in the vast interior of the country. Changes in rainfall will be a mixed bag, bringing adjustment, but likely not ruin. Maybe this is a very simplistic way of looking at it, but as a Canadian I've always selfishly looked at global warming and said "bring it on". Of course global warming could reach a point where it causes serious catastrophe on a global scale, e.g. releasing methane deposits on the sea floor and going into a feedback loop. That's a losing scenario for the entire planet, and there's no guarantees yet that we will avoid that fate.
- devdas 11y ago
  Global warming just means there's more energy in the atmosphere. Hotter summers, colder winters, more powerful storms, ...
  - eloff 11y ago
    Where do you get colder winters from? I don't see that as a likely outcome. Yeah the Earth's climate is a complex system, and global warming produces complex and sometimes unexpected effects. But you can't say colder winters just "because complexity". The likely effect, unsurprisingly, is warmer, shorter winters.
    - mjevans 11y ago
      I am not educated in this field, but anecdotally, I believe it comes from the more energetic movement of the atmosphere drawing coldfronts down from the polar regions more frequently. I also prefer to use the phrase 'Global Weather Chaos' rather than 'Global Warming'. Much like I also prefer the term 'Waste Reducing Reactor' to 'Breeder'.
      - eloff 11y ago
        I don't think weather chaos is that bad. Us humans are adverse to change, but that change will be both good and bad. Between that and the sea level rising it will cause a lot of resettlement and moving around, but hardly the end of the world in itself.
melling 11y ago
Almost 40% of the US population lives near a coast. http://stateofthecoast.noaa.gov/population/welcome.html http://stateofthecoast.noaa.gov/population/welcome.html What's your guess to what part of the economy that represents? I don't think you thought this through. Katrina cost over $100 billion. The damage to the economy will be in the trillions. Put your million dollar CT home, put it on a truck to Montana, where it's worth 75% less?
- adventured 11y ago
  How much of Katrina's cost was due to their wildly incompetent government failing to allocate even a modest amount of infrastructure spending to upkeep the walls that should have held back that flooding (which caused most of the damage)? Obvious answer: the majority of it. The US hasn't been hit by a major hurricane in a decade at this point.
  - melling 11y ago
    Sandy. $75 billion in 2012. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Sandy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Sandy Are you an American? I've gotta know how you could possibly be that wrong. I guess by the time it hit the north east it was only a big storm? $75 billion is the second costliest "hurricane".

totally! however US and Canada are big w/ relatively small populations. People can move around, they can adjust. India doesn't have the same luxury

by bryanwb 11y ago

totally! however US and Canada are big w/ relatively small populations. People can move around, they can adjust. India doesn't have the same luxury

eloff 11y ago

I think it could be argued that some global warming could be a net benefit for Canada. As long as it stays below the level that would cause global catastrophe. Sea level rise will cause some issues, but Canada really has very few large cities on the coast and there are (expensive) ways of dealing with that, just like all other coastal cities will need to do in the coming century. But on the other side of the equation it would extend growing seasons and increase the amount of arable and forested land in the vast interior of the country. Changes in rainfall will be a mixed bag, bringing adjustment, but likely not ruin. Maybe this is a very simplistic way of looking at it, but as a Canadian I've always selfishly looked at global warming and said "bring it on". Of course global warming could reach a point where it causes serious catastrophe on a global scale, e.g. releasing methane deposits on the sea floor and going into a feedback loop. That's a losing scenario for the entire planet, and there's no guarantees yet that we will avoid that fate.

devdas 11y ago
Global warming just means there's more energy in the atmosphere. Hotter summers, colder winters, more powerful storms, ...
- eloff 11y ago
  Where do you get colder winters from? I don't see that as a likely outcome. Yeah the Earth's climate is a complex system, and global warming produces complex and sometimes unexpected effects. But you can't say colder winters just "because complexity". The likely effect, unsurprisingly, is warmer, shorter winters.
  - mjevans 11y ago
    I am not educated in this field, but anecdotally, I believe it comes from the more energetic movement of the atmosphere drawing coldfronts down from the polar regions more frequently. I also prefer to use the phrase 'Global Weather Chaos' rather than 'Global Warming'. Much like I also prefer the term 'Waste Reducing Reactor' to 'Breeder'.
    - eloff 11y ago
      I don't think weather chaos is that bad. Us humans are adverse to change, but that change will be both good and bad. Between that and the sea level rising it will cause a lot of resettlement and moving around, but hardly the end of the world in itself.

melling 11y ago

Almost 40% of the US population lives near a coast. http://stateofthecoast.noaa.gov/population/welcome.html http://stateofthecoast.noaa.gov/population/welcome.html What's your guess to what part of the economy that represents? I don't think you thought this through. Katrina cost over $100 billion. The damage to the economy will be in the trillions. Put your million dollar CT home, put it on a truck to Montana, where it's worth 75% less?

adventured 11y ago
How much of Katrina's cost was due to their wildly incompetent government failing to allocate even a modest amount of infrastructure spending to upkeep the walls that should have held back that flooding (which caused most of the damage)? Obvious answer: the majority of it. The US hasn't been hit by a major hurricane in a decade at this point.
- melling 11y ago
  Sandy. $75 billion in 2012. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Sandy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Sandy Are you an American? I've gotta know how you could possibly be that wrong. I guess by the time it hit the north east it was only a big storm? $75 billion is the second costliest "hurricane".