http://www.livescience.com/28406-arctic-tundra-turning-green.html Warming Tundra allows more things to grow and good for people.
Did you actually bother to read the whole article? I'm asking because your stated conclusion is a bit different than what the article says:
Real effect
The findings match forecasts for Arctic greening predicted by various other methods, and they foreshadow effects that will strike closer to home later, Forbes said.
"What's happening now in the Arctic is a faster version of what will be happening at lower latitudes," Forbes told LiveScience.
That could worsen extreme weather events like Hurricane Sandy in the future.
"The snowstorms in Washington, D.C., and New York, and the flooding and the freezing on the River Thames — the extreme weather will continue to be extreme but it won't be so uncommon," Forbes said.
If that's your idea as something that is "good for people", I think we live in different realities...
Look, I live in Chicago...this winter we had no measurable snow in Jan & Feb. First time in 147 years...we also set a record for 5 days above 65º in Feb. Is that a good thing? Well, for Chicago I suppose...it means we spend less on snow removal and salt for roads. But I would trade that for the climate to be stabilized...
Here are some articles that point out some of the risks of ignoring what climate scientists tell us:
Climate Security: Building National SecurityClimate change is a national security threat that America’s military, and militaries around the world are taking seriously. The science around climate security is definitive enough for action: the military knows that you cannot have 100% certainty before acting.
Climate change alone will not cause wars, but it serves as an “Accelerant of Instability” or a “Threat Multiplier” that makes already existing threats worse. The threat of global warming for security will manifest through a range of effects: resource scarcity, extreme weather, food scarcity, water insecurity, and sea level rise will all threaten societies around the world. Too many governments are not prepared for these threats, either because they do not have the resources or because they have not planned ahead. How societies and governments respond to the increase in instability will determine whether climate change will lead to war.Global Drought Information SystemAt the end of September 2016, La Nina conditions are expected during the Northern Hemisphere fall and winter, according to the NOAA. According to NOAA, September 2016 was the second hottest September in the 137 year record at 1.29C above average. In Europe, drought conditions expanded through Central Europe and up to the North Sea. For the second month in a row, the European Union’s crop monitoring service lowered the corn yield forecast for this year. In Asia, drought continues throughout central Russia and a ring from the Indian sub-Continent around eastern China and Mongolia. In China, drought in the northwestern Gansu Province led to implementation of the government’s level-IV emergency response plan. In Africa, short-term drought eased slightly in the western part of the continent while continuing to strongly impact South Africa. In South Africa, there has been a culling of hippo and buffalo herds due to the poor condition of vegetation. In North America, drought remains entrenched along the western coast as well as through New England and the US Southeast. In the US Northeast, the apple crop has suffered due to the drought with noticeably smaller fruit produced this year. In South America, drought continues in Brazil as well as from the equator down along the Andes. Irrigation water for farms was restricted in Espirito Santo, where rivers were largely dry. In Oceania, drought continued nearly unchanged.Bacteria, Methane, and Other Dangers Within Siberia’s Melting PermafrostFOR HUNDREDS OF thousands of years, the Siberian permafrost has been a giant freezer for everything buried within it. But global warming has put the frozen ground in defrost mode, and the tundra is now heating up twice as fast as the rest of the planet. “Permafrost is a silent ticking time bomb,” says Robert Spencer, an environmental scientist at Florida State University. As it thaws, the dirt could release a litany of horrors. Beware: The ice-beasts cometh.
The Great Barrier Reef is bleaching yet again, and scientists say only swift climate action can save itLast year the Great Barrier Reef — the largest coral structure on Earth — saw unprecedented bleaching due to extremely warm ocean temperatures. In major parts of the remote northern sector of the reef, two-thirds of the corals ultimately died.
This was the reef’s third and worst severe bleaching event — prior events occurred in 1998 and 2002. But now, scientists say, yet another event is unfolding that is also quite severe, meaning that the reef is experiencing its first back-to-back bleaching in two successive years.
“This one won’t be as bad as 2016, but it could be more comparable to 1998 or 2002,” said Terry Hughes, the lead author of the new study and director of the ARC Centre of Excellence in Coral Reef Studies at James Cook University in Townsville, Australia. “It’s an open question whether it’s the third- or second-most-severe.”[/i]
Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Flooding of Coast, Caused by Global Warming, Has Already BegunNORFOLK, Va. — Huge vertical rulers are sprouting beside low spots in the streets here, so people can judge if the tidal floods that increasingly inundate their roads are too deep to drive through.
Five hundred miles down the Atlantic Coast, the only road to Tybee Island, Ga., is disappearing beneath the sea several times a year, cutting the town off from the mainland.
And another 500 miles on, in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., increased tidal flooding is forcing the city to spend millions fixing battered roads and drains — and, at times, to send out giant vacuum trucks to suck saltwater off the streets.
For decades, as the global warming created by human emissions caused land ice to melt and ocean water to expand, scientists warned that the accelerating rise of the sea would eventually imperil the United States’ coastline.Greenland's huge annual ice loss is even worse than thoughtThe huge annual losses of ice from the Greenland cap are even worse than thought, according to new research which also shows that the melt is not a short-term blip but a long-term trend.
The melting Greenland ice sheet is already a major contributor to rising sea level and if it was eventually lost entirely, the oceans would rise by six metres around the world, flooding many of the world’s largest cities.
The new study reveals a more accurate estimate of the ice loss by taking better account of the gradual rise of the entire Greenland landmass. When the ice cap was at its peak 20,000 years ago, its great weight depressed the hot, viscous rocks in the underlying mantle. As ice has been shed since, the island has slowly rebounded upwards.E.P.A. Warns of High Cost of Climate ChangeWASHINGTON — In the absence of global action to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the United States by the end of the century may face up to $180 billion in economic losses because of drought and water shortages, according to a report released Monday by the White House and Environmental Protection Agency.
White House officials said the report, which analyzes the economic costs of a changing climate across 20 sectors of the American economy, is the most comprehensive effort to date to quantify the impacts of global warming.(Note: This was about the former EPA, not the EPA that will be decimated by Scott Pruitt)
And speaking of the orange one, global warming is not a plot by the Chinese to put American industry at a disadvantage as he tweeted in 2012 "
The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."
Heck, even Exxon knew about climate change SINCE 1981!
Exxon knew of climate change in 1981, email says – but it funded deniers for 27 more yearsExxonMobil, the world’s biggest oil company, knew as early as 1981 of climate change – seven years before it became a public issue, according to a newly discovered email from one of the firm’s own scientists. Despite this the firm spent millions over the next 27 years to promote climate denial.
The email from Exxon’s in-house climate expert provides evidence the company was aware of the connection between fossil fuels and climate change, and the potential for carbon-cutting regulations that could hurt its bottom line, over a generation ago – factoring that knowledge into its decision about an enormous gas field in south-east Asia. The field, off the coast of Indonesia, would have been the single largest source of global warming pollution at the time.And to add a touch of real weirdness, it now comes out that our current Sec of State Rex Tillerson used an alias email address while at the oil company to send and receive information related to climate change. Wait, what?
Tillerson used email alias at Exxon to talk climate: New York attorney generalU.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the former chairman and chief executive of Exxon Mobil Corp, used an alias email address while at the oil company to send and receive information related to climate change and other matters, according to New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.
The attorney general's office said in a letter on Monday that it found Tillerson had used an alias email address under the pseudonym "Wayne Tracker" from at least 2008 through 2015.
Wayne is Tillerson's middle name.
The letter was sent to a New York state judge overseeing Schneiderman's investigation into whether Exxon misled shareholders and the public about climate change.But why do people deny climate change is real, is being caused by human activity and will, eventually ruin the planet?
Well, an article in the same web site you pointed to has an interesting take:
Evolution, Climate and Vaccines: Why Americans Deny ScienceThe U.S. has a science problem. Around half of the country's citizens reject the facts of evolution; fewer than a third agree there is a scientific consensus on human-caused climate change, and the number who accept the importance of vaccines is ticking downward.
Those numbers, all gleaned from recent Pew and Gallup research polls, might suggest that Americans are an anti-science bunch. But yet, Americans love science. Even as many in the U.S. reject certain scientific conclusions, National Science Foundation surveys have found that public support of science is high, with more than 75 percent of Americans saying they are in favor of taxpayer-funded basic research. Kinda interesting to lump evolution, climate and vaccine deniers together, but it makes sense when you read the article and look at the research. A lot of the way people look at climate change is based on where they are. This is also an interesting take:
What the world thinks about climate change in 7 chartsThe 7 charts reveal the following...
1) Majorities in all 40 nations polled say climate change is a serious problem, and a global median of 54% believe it is a very serious problem.
2) People in countries with high per-capita levels of carbon emissions are less intensely concerned about climate change.
3) A global median of 51% say climate change is already harming people around the world, while another 28% believe it will do so in the next few years.
4) Drought tops the list of climate change concerns.
5) Most people in the countries surveyed say rich nations should do more than developing nations to address climate change.
6) To deal with climate change, most think changes in both policy and lifestyle will be necessary.
7) Americans’ views about climate issues divide sharply along partisan lines.
In the grand scheme of things, it's all very well and good to debate political viewpoints and argue about policies and economics and conservative vs progressive mindsets. Happy to do so in a civil manner, but I really REALLY will not "debate" the very real and serious problem facing humanity–probably the single most important problem which is climate change–for the worse. The science is widely accepted–even Exxon accepts it.
Yeah, some oddball and fruitcake scientists are climate deniers but oddly, there's an scary relationship between climate deniers and controls on tobacco and acid rain.
Climate sceptics are recycled critics of controls on tobacco and acid rainIf experts cannot agree that there is a climate crisis, why should governments spend billions of dollars to address it?
The fact is that the critics — who are few in number but aggressive in their attacks — are deploying tactics that they have honed for more than 25 years. During their long campaign, they have greatly exaggerated scientific disagreements in order to stop action on climate change, with special interests like Exxon Mobil footing the bill.
Many books have recently documented the games played by the climate-change deniers. Merchants of Doubt, a new book by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway set for release in mid-2010, will be an authoritative account of their misbehaviour. The authors show that the same group of mischief-makers, given a platform by the free-market ideologues of The Wall Street Journal's editorial page, has consistently tried to confuse the public and discredit the scientists whose insights are helping to save the world from unintended environmental harm.
Today's campaigners against action on climate change are in many cases backed by the same lobbies, individuals, and organisations that sided with the tobacco industry to discredit the science linking smoking and lung cancer. Later, they fought the scientific evidence that sulphur oxides from coal-fired power plants were causing "acid rain." Then, when it was discovered that certain chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) were causing the depletion of ozone in the atmosphere, the same groups launched a nasty campaign to discredit that science, too.So, are you a climate change denier? Do you deny that people are dying of starvation caused by severe drought? Do you deny that superstorms like Sandy cost billions of $? Do you deny the sea levels have risen? That coastal areas are at risk of disappearing? Do you deny that global warming and climate change is and will continue to be a bit problem for humanity? Or don't you give a crap?
