Global climate change is a two-sided coin; the first argument is perhaps best overly dramatized by the recent movie The Day After Tomorrow, the preverbal we are all doomed aspect of it. The other argument although never made into a movie, is that we will be able to survive quite comfortable, with only some minor modification to our way of life. Although very few in the scientific community can deny the existence of global climate change the argument lies in whether it poses a threat or not. One highly significant aspect to look at would therefore be its effect on agriculture. As the world as a whole continues to struggle with starvation, especially in Africa and parts of Asia, the question at hand is whether or not global climate change
…show more content…
The third seemingly logical part to this argument is that the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere will be good for plants and agriculture. Considering that plants breathe CO2 like we breathe oxygen. Thus the explanation goes something like this if there is warmer weather, an increase in precipitation, and lots of CO2, the plants will not only survive but thrive at a level never before seen. This school of thought however is incredibly naive and has little merit.
More and more scientists are joining the line of thinking that believes global climate change will have an incredibly harmful negative effect on agriculture. The previously stated, overly positive argument is quite easily refuted by using common sense. If the temperature increases, and the precipitation increases then the rain will evaporate faster because of the warmer climate. We would need an increase of more than the estimated 7% just to have the same amount of water available for use as we do today, negating the perceived positive effects of global climate change.
There will also be a dramatic change in weather compared to the weather of today. This can be explained by the occurrence of the "dreaded" El Niño. Previously this mysterious shifting of the ocean currents only occurred every three