What might the US look like because of global warming?

Answer 1

The answer is that rising sea levels might change the coastline of the US markedly, moving it many miles inland from its current position, and drowning much of the Eastern and Gulf States. The local flora and fauna of each region of the continent might change, as new species thrive where the older ones falter. If the thermo-saline pump of the Gulf stream is actually stopped, the stable climate that makes large-scale agriculture possible might end.

------------------

We may not have Alaska anymore, or at least not the snow-covered Alaska we know now. Every state will slowly have higher temperatures than before. All the places that were once cool will become warmer than usual. The US might not look like a dried up wasteland, but it will become hotter than usual. And most plants and animals will die because of this. THE QUESTION IS: Yes, the question is what might the U.S. look like because of global warming and the answer in question answers that question by describing the political landscape which is far easier to predict than climate change. The next answer given is finally an answer that at least tries to be intelligent but in the end still only offers an apocalyptic vision that has not been seen in the history of civilization and what is described is all to similar to the Great Flood and the Noah's ark myth. This answer only proves the opposing views argument. The advocates for stopping global warming behave more like religious zealots than they do social scientists. The answers that predict doom and gloom are fine and just as the answer describing the political landscape forged because of global warming they predict what mighthappen. This is not the problem and not why this page has been flagged. The answer that asks for reasoned debate is not offensive because it attacks anyone, it is offensive because it challenges conventional wisdom and demands a higher standard than panic be used in attempting to prevent disaster. It saddens me that anyone would be offended by such a plea.

The answer that implies our climate has been the same for the past 50,000 years is incorrect, at least as far as conventional wisdom amongst geologists are concerned. The last ice age began approximately 70,000 years ago and ended approximately 10,000 years ago. Since the end of the last ice age the Earth has been in a stage of global warming. There are many theories as to what causes ice ages and it certainly possible that human activity could bring about the next ice age before Mother Nature gets around to it. The answer that asks for cooler heads to prevail in this global warming concern is no more one sided than the answers that offer nothing more than anguish and despair. The answer that asks for reasoned debate insisted that we as people must stop destroying our habitat, the planet we rely on. The answer that asks for reasonable answers in dealing with global warming has not advocated anything other than a reasonable debate and perhaps considering more than averting this one disaster, if it is an inevitable disaster, and learning how to survive a dangerous universe. What might the U.S. look like because of global warming? The truth is nobody really knows. Should opposing views to apocalyptic visions be flagged as one sided, offensive and inflammatory? What makes you think those who agree with the opposing view to Armageddon would not be offended by this arbitrary use of power? What makes you think selling doom and gloom isn't inflammatory? What is so multi sided about all the other answers? What the scientist who disagree are saying:"As far as the science being 'settled', I think that is an obscenity. The fact is the science is being distorted by those who are not scientists." Dr. Paul Reiter (Former U.N. scientist who resigned in disgust over deceptions caused by the IPCC report.) "I see neither the developing catastrophe nor the smoking gun proving that human activity is to blame for most of the warming we see. Rather, I see a reliance on climate models, (useful but never 'proof'), and coincidence that changes in Carbon Dioxide and global temperatures have loose similarity over time." "The recent CNN report "Planet in Peril", for instance, spent considerable time discussing shrinking Arctic sea ice cover. CNN did not note that winter sea ice around Antarctica last month set a record maximum, (yes, maximum), for coverage since aerial measurements started." John Christy (Another former U.N. scientist who resigned in protest.) "I have not seen any sort of definitive, scientific link to man made Carbon Dioxide as the root cause of the current global warming, only incomplete computer models that suggest this might be the case." John W Brosnahan (Research Physicist who develops remote sensing instruments for atmospheric science.) "First, temperature changes, as well as rates of temperature changes, (both increase and decrease), of magnitudes similar to that reported by IPCC to have occurred since the industrial revolution, (about 0.8c in 150 years or even 0.4c in the last 35 years), have occurred in Earth's climate history. There is nothing special about the recent rise." Nathan Paldor (Professor of Dynamical Meteorology & Physical Oceanography at Hebrew University in Jerusalem.)"Even if the concentration of 'greenhouse gases' double man would nto perceive the temperature impact." Oleg Sorchtin (Institute of Oceanology Russian Academy of Sciences.) "I find the doomsday picture Al Gore is painting, a six meter sea level rise, 15 times the IPCC number, entirely with out merit. I protest vigorously the idea that the climate reacts like a home heating system to a changed setting of the thermostat: Just turn the dial, and the desired temperature will be reached." Hendrik Tennekes (Netherland's Royal National Meteorological Institute) "The media and many scientists are ignoring very important facts that point to a natural variation in the climate system as the cause of recent global warming." Eugenia Hackbart (Chief Meteorologist at the MetSul Meteoroligia Weather Center in Sao Leopoldo, Brazil.) "We appear to be overplaying this global warming issue as global warming is nothing new. It has happened in the past, not once but several times, giving rise to glacial interglacial cycles" B.P. Radhakrishna (President of the Geological Society of India) "Most of the climate changes we have seen is largely natural." Dr. William Gray (Hurricane forecaster) "The climate system is more robust than conventionally claimed...Many factors cause climate changes particularly on regional and local scales." Dr. Kiminori Itoh (Environmental Meteorologist) "Climate change skeptics appear to be expanding not shrinking" Juliet Eilperin (Who is not a scientist but a staff writer for the Washington Post who has covered global warming extensively.)

Answer 2

It's not possible to say accurately what will happen to the US in the future.

Global warming is happening all over the world. Some places will be drier than before. Other places will be wetter than before. Warming causes weather, so more warming is certainly going to affect the weather.

Low lying countries and Coastlines and cities will be in danger from rising sea levels. Warming oceans expand, and this is causing the rise firstly. Melting glaciers and ice caps are a secondary reason.

Places too cold for agriculture may be able to be farmed, but much of the present croplands may have to adapt or be abandoned if global warming continues.