Quote:
Originally Posted by redpoint5
Of course, net-benefit to humanity is quite subjective, but so too is climate catastrophism.
Is less polar bears a negative for humanity? 99.9% of us don't interact with them.
Anyhow, I'm sure I linked it somewhere in The global warming thread.
|
The polar bear loss is just a symptom of the sea ice loss, which is the deal-breaker.
The algae which lives underneath the sea ice IS the beginning of the entire marine food chain.
As we go to 'blue-ocean' all sea life dies, by default.
All the millions, or billions of humans who rely on ocean fisheries will lose that food supply.
Since photosynthesis 'stops' at 104-F, land-based agriculture will go the way of the sea ice, even if it isn't rained to death, hailed to death, droughted, real estate developed to death, insect-plagued to death, or wind-erosioned to death, etc..
Also, as we lose the north and southern polar ice, we lose the largest solar reflectors on the planet. There's additional global warming built into the loss of albedo. It's one of the non-linear feedback loops observed as early as with Benjamin Franklin in the 1800s.
As sea level rises, there's less arable land for farming and ranching.
Salt water intrusion destroys municipal water supplies.
The Atlantic Meridonal Overturning Current ( AMOC ) [ The Gulf Stream ] has already slowed by 30% because of polar ice melt, which is accelerating, which at some point may re-introduce ice-age conditions to northern Europe.
There won't be any new 'green revolutions.'
The entertainment value is endless!