编辑-地球科学江南体育网页版堆栈交换江南电子竞技平台

你不是登录。你的编辑将被放置在一个队列,直到同行评议。

我们欢迎编辑,使读者更容易理解和更有价值。因为社区成员审查编辑,请尽量使文章更好比你怎么发现,例如,通过修正语法或添加额外的资源和超链接。

为什么全球变暖是坏事?(关闭)

我有一个和我的同事讨论这个。看来全球变暖(甚至到+ 6 k)优点:

植物生长增加:增加光合作用效率
更多的水从海洋蒸发这将导致更多的降雨,即使在干燥的地方像非洲
温暖的冬天,让人类种植更多的粮食。格陵兰岛将成为绿色了

只有我能找到缺点:

功耗在夏天交流,得到补偿少功耗在冬天变暖
强烈的蒸发和温度差异会带来强风和暴雨,但它会导致更多的雨在遥远的地方哪个更好。构建先进的城市排水系统对城市像在日本可以缓解这个问题
海岸线变化由于水位上升。现代工程允许建设群岛,与技术进步,技术可能会提高江南登录网址app下载
在电气线路的功率损耗增加。对铜/ K只有0.393%,也可以减轻使用先进的现代的绝缘体,使更高的电压能量转移

缺点看起来小到我,我还描述如何得到补偿。有更多的吗?

为什么全球变暖是不好的?

回答

水资源短缺= =现在,冰川的融化/撤退也许是最行之有效的气温变暖的证据,不管你相信什么气象卫星和温室效应。尽管冰川不直接提供淡水,它们是冬季平均降雪和临时工的直接证据。冰川萎缩明显意味着更少的降雪,这意味着更少的融水,这意味着更少的淡水饲养小溪和河流。大量的农业不仅取决于雨,但在这些水源,并降低水可用性是他敏锐地感觉到,这样的情况(阿尔伯塔省,CA) [1]。不仅仅是在农场作物的痛苦。牛广泛依赖天然饲料,所以当没有足够的水来野草和灌木,它影响整个食物链和生态系统。这不仅仅是一个或两个农场有困难。全省宣布进入紧急状态,因为极端干旱条件。如果有其他的农民正受益于更好的天气,他们肯定不是吹嘘它的新闻周期。投资者先令其股票也捏造的需求。 There is certainly no talk of a Greenland farming boom. Wildfires == Fires need fuel. Trees work very hard to pull water out of the ground, transpiring it into the air as part of photosynthesis. This also has the secondary effect of lowering the average temperature around them (as anyone who has walked by a tree on a hot day can tell you vs. standing under a manmade shade). Healthy trees with a good water supply thus make for bad firewood and are very resistant to wildfires. On the other hand, hotter weather often means less rainfall, and more importantly, dehydration of all plants, as the higher temperatures increase the water capacity of the atmosphere and thus reduce the relative humidity. For dead plant matter normally undergoing natural composting, this means instead of being food for bacteria and fungi, it becomes food for wildfires. [NOAA][2] assesses that climate change has been the primary driver of increased fires in the recent record years. It's quite amusing that you call greater evaporation a *good*, when it's quite obvious that it's a *serious bad*. Thawing Permafrost == You mention higher winter temps as a positive effect, which totally ignores the fact that both humans and nature depend on cold winter temperatures. Normally, the fossil fuel industry would support the "warming isn't bad" argument, but anyone who lives in Alaska can tell you that the oil industry relies heavily on permafrost for arctic drilling. The year-round ice makes for a reliable and sturdy surface for roads and buildings. When it melts *the [oil industry][3] is negatively impacted*. On top of that, organic matter that was frozen for possibly thousands of years now releases methane into the atmosphere as the permafrost melts, further accelerating climate change. Decreased Nutrition == While elevated CO2 will indeed cause plants to grow larger, on average, what it mainly does is increase the carbohydrate content and cause larger leaves. What it doesn't do is increase the nutritional content of the plants. So carb-heavy crops like wheat get a net gain, but most other crops become *less nutritious* because they are bigger, but with the same amount of nutrients (like protein and vitamins). That's because nutrient production is usually limited by soil composition, and higher CO2 doesn't magically cause increased nitrogen or trace minerals in the soil. You might have to eat 20% more watermelon or orange to the get same nutrients you do today, which is wasted metabolic energy for digestion. Not a win. As far as increased wheat productivity, with the rise of gluten sensitivity, I hardly think that increasing our carb production is the pathway to a healthier society. We are already overflowing with carbs, and an excess of carbs could easily be described as the primary driver of obesity. Conclusion == Literally all of your "pros" are actually "cons" when you take a closer look. We don't have to wait 50 years to tell whether climate change is going to be a net positive or not. We can see it in action today. And the only beneficiaries of it that I have seen so far are mining interests that want to explore the Arctic (Russia in particular) now that there are so many more ice-free days (and perhaps it will become permanently ice-free). [1]: https://globalnews.ca/news/9773852/drought-alberta-stettler-county-agricultural-disaster/ [2]: https://www.noaa.gov/noaa-wildfire/wildfire-climate-connection [3]: https://www.epa.gov/climate-indicators/climate-change-indicators-permafrost

编辑总结

取消

2

\ begingroup美元一个永久无冰的北极没有预见到,但一个无冰的北极每年夏天是可能的。北极,不仅挖掘还航运业的好处。温和的冬天已经帮助中欧在天然气短缺和能源价格高企的时期。但当然,整体的长期影响是相当负面的。 \ endgroup美元
- - - - - -gerrit ♦
6月20日在北京

添加一个评论 |

正确的小错误或错误
澄清的意思,而不更改它
添加相关资源或链接
总是尊重作者的意图
不使用编辑与作者回复

创建代码用引号”或式子~篱笆
' ' '
像这样
' ' '
添加语言标识符来突出显示的代码
”“python
def函数(foo):
打印(foo)
' ' '
把段落之间的回报
在结束linebreak添加2个空间
_italic_或* *的* *
报价将>开始的
做链接(尽量使用https)
< https://example.com >
(例子)(https://example.com)
< a href = " https://example.com " > < / >示例
MathJax方程罪\ \ ^ 2θ美元

格式帮助»
回答帮助»

MathJax帮助»