- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Ah, but the tree huggers don't call it 'global warming' anymore; it's now 'climate change' :
Global Warming/Climate Change Super Thread
- Thread starter Cdn Blackshirt
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
xo31@711ret said:Ah, but the tree huggers don't call it 'global warming' anymore; it's now 'climate change' :
Yes. Global cooling is caused by global warming. ???
Magnitude of global warming uncertain: Survey
There is more than a 10 per cent chance the planet could undergo dramatic warming even if humanity manages to curb emission in coming decades, according to a survey of leading climate experts.
"The possibility of really dramatic climate outcomes is significant," says engineer David Keith, of the University of Calgary, whose survey highlights the large but seldom discussed uncertainty in climate change scenarios.
It is known the climate will warm as a result of the billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide bumped into the atmosphere each year through the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels. But it is still not clear how much, says Keith, director of the U of C's Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy.
To gauge the risks Keith and his colleagues canvassed 14 leading climate scientists, including two in Canada. Most are on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The scientists were asked for their expert advice on how the climate system will respond to different emissions scenarios. Their responses are detailed in a report published Monday in the U.S. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Keith says the most significant finding is that it is "still very uncertain" how the climate will change.
The "risk of rapid or extreme warming are larger than what you would get by reading the IPCC" reports, he says. The UN reports are used at international talks aimed at reducing global CO2 emissions.
But on the flip side, Keith says the survey also found a higher than expected chance of seeing less warming than expected.
In a "medium" emissions scenario, which Keith says will be hard to meet given the increasing global emissions, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere climbs to 550 parts per million by 2200 and stays there.
"It's still technically possible but it'd be pretty darn hard," Keith says of the "politically optimistic" scenario.
"More than half the experts think there is a more than 10 per chance we'll get five degrees C warming under that scenario," he says.
"And five degrees C is gigantic," says Keith, noting it is enough to "knock out" the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. The meltwater would eventually raise sea level by as much as 100 metres.
Keith says the level of CO2 will likely climb beyond 550 ppm since emissions keep rising despite years of talk and promises to reduce emissions. Unless humanity puts on the brakes, he says atmospheric concentrations of CO2 could hit 1,000 ppm by 2200.
The experts surveyed said this scenario carries a "substantial probability of the climate warming eight to 10 degrees C" — a heat wave that Keith says would be "stunning."
Given the danger, he stresses the need to cut emissions now.
"The risk just builds with every extra kilogram of CO2 we put in the air," says Keith, who likens CO2 to nuclear waste. "Even if we stop emitting CO2 completely the impact will still be with us for thousands of years."
The report says the science community needs to focus more on reducing the uncertainty in global warming predictions.
Meantime Keith says policy-makers need to acknowledge the uncertainty and risks. Just like engineers must be aware of structural weaknesses in bridges, he says policy-makers need to come up with strategies for dealing and managing the "worst-case" climate scenario of dramatic and rapid warming.
Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Magnitude+global+warming+uncertain+survey+finds/3212837/story.html#ixzz0sCglnBFk
(Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act
There is more than a 10 per cent chance the planet could undergo dramatic warming even if humanity manages to curb emission in coming decades, according to a survey of leading climate experts.
"The possibility of really dramatic climate outcomes is significant," says engineer David Keith, of the University of Calgary, whose survey highlights the large but seldom discussed uncertainty in climate change scenarios.
It is known the climate will warm as a result of the billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide bumped into the atmosphere each year through the burning of coal, oil and other fossil fuels. But it is still not clear how much, says Keith, director of the U of C's Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy.
To gauge the risks Keith and his colleagues canvassed 14 leading climate scientists, including two in Canada. Most are on the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
The scientists were asked for their expert advice on how the climate system will respond to different emissions scenarios. Their responses are detailed in a report published Monday in the U.S. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Keith says the most significant finding is that it is "still very uncertain" how the climate will change.
The "risk of rapid or extreme warming are larger than what you would get by reading the IPCC" reports, he says. The UN reports are used at international talks aimed at reducing global CO2 emissions.
But on the flip side, Keith says the survey also found a higher than expected chance of seeing less warming than expected.
In a "medium" emissions scenario, which Keith says will be hard to meet given the increasing global emissions, the level of CO2 in the atmosphere climbs to 550 parts per million by 2200 and stays there.
"It's still technically possible but it'd be pretty darn hard," Keith says of the "politically optimistic" scenario.
"More than half the experts think there is a more than 10 per chance we'll get five degrees C warming under that scenario," he says.
"And five degrees C is gigantic," says Keith, noting it is enough to "knock out" the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets. The meltwater would eventually raise sea level by as much as 100 metres.
Keith says the level of CO2 will likely climb beyond 550 ppm since emissions keep rising despite years of talk and promises to reduce emissions. Unless humanity puts on the brakes, he says atmospheric concentrations of CO2 could hit 1,000 ppm by 2200.
The experts surveyed said this scenario carries a "substantial probability of the climate warming eight to 10 degrees C" — a heat wave that Keith says would be "stunning."
Given the danger, he stresses the need to cut emissions now.
"The risk just builds with every extra kilogram of CO2 we put in the air," says Keith, who likens CO2 to nuclear waste. "Even if we stop emitting CO2 completely the impact will still be with us for thousands of years."
The report says the science community needs to focus more on reducing the uncertainty in global warming predictions.
Meantime Keith says policy-makers need to acknowledge the uncertainty and risks. Just like engineers must be aware of structural weaknesses in bridges, he says policy-makers need to come up with strategies for dealing and managing the "worst-case" climate scenario of dramatic and rapid warming.
Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Magnitude+global+warming+uncertain+survey+finds/3212837/story.html#ixzz0sCglnBFk
(Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
57Chevy said:
Is this someone's idea of humour? Haven't the IPCC "experts" pretty much been discredited for faking data and supporting fake data?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
I'm just going to throw this in here if it hasn't been posted yet.
Carbon Dioxide is a PRODUCT of temperature change, not a cause. Greenhouse gasses form together at the troposphere, in theory, the rate of warming should be highest at this point, however, this is not the case. The vast majority of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor, which is impervious to temperature changes, not carbon dioxide.
The Thermal capacity (or specific heat) of CO2 (about 0.8 J/(g*K)) is lower than that of air (about 1'ish J/(g*K)), meaning that pumping CO2 into the air will bring the thermal capacity down as the percentage of CO2 rises, not up. This is why in the 60's hippies tried to tell everyone industry would cause a big freeze in the 90's, and we all know how that turned out, don't we?
Pretty much anyone who does scientific research to question global warming gets blacklisted, unfunded, and/or attacked by green groups. So its not really science. Science functions from always trying to prove AND disprove a theory.
Also, it appears both the Arctic and Greenland(One of Greenland’s largest glaciers has already doubled its rate of advance, moving forward at the rate of 12 kilometers (7.2 miles) per year. OH SNAP!) didn't get the memo.
Oh hey look at this, most of the planet didn't get the memo!
In other news...
Carbon Dioxide is a PRODUCT of temperature change, not a cause. Greenhouse gasses form together at the troposphere, in theory, the rate of warming should be highest at this point, however, this is not the case. The vast majority of the greenhouse effect is caused by water vapor, which is impervious to temperature changes, not carbon dioxide.
The Thermal capacity (or specific heat) of CO2 (about 0.8 J/(g*K)) is lower than that of air (about 1'ish J/(g*K)), meaning that pumping CO2 into the air will bring the thermal capacity down as the percentage of CO2 rises, not up. This is why in the 60's hippies tried to tell everyone industry would cause a big freeze in the 90's, and we all know how that turned out, don't we?
Pretty much anyone who does scientific research to question global warming gets blacklisted, unfunded, and/or attacked by green groups. So its not really science. Science functions from always trying to prove AND disprove a theory.
Also, it appears both the Arctic and Greenland(One of Greenland’s largest glaciers has already doubled its rate of advance, moving forward at the rate of 12 kilometers (7.2 miles) per year. OH SNAP!) didn't get the memo.
Oh hey look at this, most of the planet didn't get the memo!
In other news...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Dennis Ruhl said:
They haven't been discredited at all, actually. An extensive study of the so called climategate scandal (which incidentally involved the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia) basically stated that the science held, and most of the allegations revolved around taking things said in emails completely out of context.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/susanwatts/2010/07/climategate_scientists_honest.html is a good synopsis with a lot of links. Including this one http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8618024.stm
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Sure - total honesty. Saying that you will lose your research data if required to produce it is normal. Coincidently the data seems to be missing. Discussing the change of basis of temperaure calculation from tree rings to recorded data at a point in time to "hide the decline" Normal science - sure. That's Mike's Nature Trick - makes great hockeysticks.
So this is scientific research:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/20/mike%E2%80%99s-nature-trick/
Penn State University had a cover-up inqury to "prove" themslves legit and so did the British. It was all simply more BS.
So this is scientific research:
http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/20/mike%E2%80%99s-nature-trick/
Penn State University had a cover-up inqury to "prove" themslves legit and so did the British. It was all simply more BS.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Yes, that's the quote that was demonstrated to be taken totally out of context by those who attacked the research. Incidentally, your link feeds to another, http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/myths-vs-fact-regarding-the-hockey-stick/ - the host site seems to present a wealth of knowledge.
Also, there's this. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/science/the-earth-is-hotter-than-ever-global-warming-is-real-researchers/article1655436/
Thanks, but I'll trust the vast scientific consensus versus just about anything claimed by right wingers who seem to be in the pockets of so many lobbyists.
Also, there's this. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/science/the-earth-is-hotter-than-ever-global-warming-is-real-researchers/article1655436/
Thanks, but I'll trust the vast scientific consensus versus just about anything claimed by right wingers who seem to be in the pockets of so many lobbyists.
Global warming 'undeniable,' world report says:
The past decade was the warmest on record and, as glaciers melt, severe storms batter cities and heat waves increase, more than 300 scientists have concluded that global warming is "undeniable."
A new report, published by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Thursday and compiled by investigators from 48 different countries including Canada, identified 10 climate indicators that are clearly linked to changing surface temperatures and they "all tell the same story."
"Glaciers and sea ice are melting, heavy rainfall is intensifying and heat waves are more common. . . . There is now evidence that more than 90 per cent of warming over the past 50 years has gone into our oceans," said Deke Arndt, co-editor of the report and manager of the NOAA Climate Monitoring Branch.
The study suggests continued warming will transform how societies currently function, as coastal cities, water supplies, agriculture and infrastructure will all be threatened.
"People have spent thousands of years building society for one climate and now a new one is being created — one that's warmer and more extreme," the report says.
Each of the past three decades has been hotter than the decade before. At the time, the 1980s was the hottest decade on record but in the 1990s, temperatures increased every year and the pattern continued into 2000.
The past decade was 0.6 C warmer than the 1960s, and 0.2 C warmer than the 1990s.
Temperatures were the hottest between 2000 and 2009 and the first six months of 2010 were the warmest on record, according to the NOAA.
"The temperature increase of one degree Fahrenheit over the past 50 years may seem small, but it has already altered our planet," Arndt said.
The study, the most extensive in a series of reports, examines global warming but does not investigate a cause or a solution. The scientists used global data from satellites, weather balloons, weather stations, ships, buoys and field surveys.
The 10 climate-change indicators pointing to global warming included declining Arctic sea-ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere, and rising air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, air temperature over oceans, sea level, ocean heat, humidity and the temperature of the troposphere, the atmosphere closest to the earth's surface.
The scientists say the combination of factors was startling, as their "undeniable" conclusion became glaringly obvious.
The NOAA points to extreme weather conditions documented around the world in 2009. Flooding in Brazil killed 40 people and left 376,000 people homeless, three intense heat waves broke temperature records in Australia and the central north Pacific, near Hawaii, experienced tropical cyclones after years of calm.
The researchers say extreme weather events are unavoidable, but dangerous and erratic weather will be more frequent and more severe as global warming continues.
(Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)
The past decade was the warmest on record and, as glaciers melt, severe storms batter cities and heat waves increase, more than 300 scientists have concluded that global warming is "undeniable."
A new report, published by the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Thursday and compiled by investigators from 48 different countries including Canada, identified 10 climate indicators that are clearly linked to changing surface temperatures and they "all tell the same story."
"Glaciers and sea ice are melting, heavy rainfall is intensifying and heat waves are more common. . . . There is now evidence that more than 90 per cent of warming over the past 50 years has gone into our oceans," said Deke Arndt, co-editor of the report and manager of the NOAA Climate Monitoring Branch.
The study suggests continued warming will transform how societies currently function, as coastal cities, water supplies, agriculture and infrastructure will all be threatened.
"People have spent thousands of years building society for one climate and now a new one is being created — one that's warmer and more extreme," the report says.
Each of the past three decades has been hotter than the decade before. At the time, the 1980s was the hottest decade on record but in the 1990s, temperatures increased every year and the pattern continued into 2000.
The past decade was 0.6 C warmer than the 1960s, and 0.2 C warmer than the 1990s.
Temperatures were the hottest between 2000 and 2009 and the first six months of 2010 were the warmest on record, according to the NOAA.
"The temperature increase of one degree Fahrenheit over the past 50 years may seem small, but it has already altered our planet," Arndt said.
The study, the most extensive in a series of reports, examines global warming but does not investigate a cause or a solution. The scientists used global data from satellites, weather balloons, weather stations, ships, buoys and field surveys.
The 10 climate-change indicators pointing to global warming included declining Arctic sea-ice, glaciers and spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere, and rising air temperature over land, sea-surface temperature, air temperature over oceans, sea level, ocean heat, humidity and the temperature of the troposphere, the atmosphere closest to the earth's surface.
The scientists say the combination of factors was startling, as their "undeniable" conclusion became glaringly obvious.
The NOAA points to extreme weather conditions documented around the world in 2009. Flooding in Brazil killed 40 people and left 376,000 people homeless, three intense heat waves broke temperature records in Australia and the central north Pacific, near Hawaii, experienced tropical cyclones after years of calm.
The researchers say extreme weather events are unavoidable, but dangerous and erratic weather will be more frequent and more severe as global warming continues.
(Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act)
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
The Global Warming Superthread had hundreds of refutations from numerous sources to the idea that climate change was caused by human activity. Even some of the supposed "proofs" turned out to be embarrassing; melting glaciers in Greenland are exposing Viking farms which existed during the Medieval Warm period, and observations taken on distant planets show waring and cooling in concert with the Earth.
Whatever happened to that thread? I served as a great nonsense filter to the alarmist's cries.
Whatever happened to that thread? I served as a great nonsense filter to the alarmist's cries.
- Reaction score
- 4,224
- Points
- 1,260
Nowhere in that piece is it suggested that human activity has caused or even contributed to global warming. In fact, it is clearly stated that:
I applaud this kind of science, as it avoids the unnecessary politicization of the facts.
I applaud this kind of science, as it avoids the unnecessary politicization of the facts.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
PPCLI Guy said:
Hear, hear. Well said. Why is it that whenever the subject of global warming is brought up, the Left and the Right run screaming behind their respective barricades, plug their ears with their fingers, close their collective eyes and start chanting "SHUT Up La La La La SHUT UP La La La". What makes this issue so divisive and explosive? I mean, we don't beat each other up about earthquakes or hurricanes or other important natural events, so why this?
Cheers
"Glaciers and sea ice are melting" . . . well their first claim is bogus.
There is more Arctic Sea ice again this year . . . . the summer minimum has been increasing since the cyclical low in 2007.
And the Antarctic has been increasing in area & mass since accurate measurements beban in 1979.
So the first claim by these researchers is incorrect . . . let the slippery slope continue.
There is more Arctic Sea ice again this year . . . . the summer minimum has been increasing since the cyclical low in 2007.
And the Antarctic has been increasing in area & mass since accurate measurements beban in 1979.
So the first claim by these researchers is incorrect . . . let the slippery slope continue.
- Reaction score
- 26
- Points
- 430
;D
Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:
How Canada's Arctic once hosted alligators and turtles
LINK
It may seem hard to believe now, but dry, frigid Ellesmere Island in Canada's high North was once teeming with alligators, turtles and rhino-like mammals.
Scientists who have long wondered how the beasts could have survived so far north think they now have the answer. It turns out that the now-glacier-covered island in Nunavut was actually a pretty temperate place back in the early Eocene period, 52 or 53 million years ago.
Researchers from University of Colorado at Boulder estimate that average temperatures back in the Eocene were about 20 degrees Celsius and fell only to about 0 to 3 degrees C in the winter -- which helps to explain how ancient alligators and giant tortoises were once able to thrive there.
Prof. Jaelyn Eberle, of the university's department of geological sciences, said her team came to these conclusions after analyzing the fossils of mammals, fish and turtles found on Ellesmere Island.
The team used a combination of "oxygen isotope ratios" from the fossilized bones and teeth enamel to estimate the average annual Eocene temperature for the site.
"Our data, gathered from multiple organisms, indicate it probably did not get below freezing on Ellesmere Island during the early Eocene, which has some interesting implications," she said in a news release.
"This is arguably the most comprehensive data set for the early Eocene High Arctic, and certainly explains how alligators and giant tortoises could live on Ellesmere Island some 52 to 53 million years ago," said Eberle.
Eberle explained that fossilized bones and tooth enamel contain biogenic apatite -- a mineral that is fossilized after death. This mineral can be used as a sort of "flight recorder" to draw conclusions about paleoclimate conditions.
She says her team looked at teeth from a large, hippo-like mammal known as Coryphodons, as well as bones from bowfin fish and shells and bones from aquatic turtles from the Emydidae family, the largest family of contemporary pond turtles.
They then used evidence found on the teeth to draw conclusions about the temperature of the water that the animals were drinking.
"When it comes to oxygen isotope values in tooth enamel, what we found for these creatures is that you are what you drink," she said.
They found that while Coryphodon and bowfins grew throughout the year, the turtles' shells appeared to grow only during summer months. That's similar to what turtles do today when they live in areas far from the equator.
They also found that Eocene alligators could withstand slightly cooler winters than their present-day counterparts. That's not too surprising, given what scientists know about alligators adaptability.
But the existence of large land tortoises in the Eocene High Arctic is still somewhat puzzling, said Eberle. She noted that today's large tortoises inhabit places like the Galapagos Islands where the cold-month average temperature is about 10 degrees C.
Eberle said the findings not only help to explain how species have evolved and migrated over the millennia, the research also offers "a deep time analogue" for today's rapidly warming Arctic region.
Evidence suggested that temperatures in the Arctic are rising twice as fast as those at mid-latitudes, as greenhouse gases build up in Earth's atmosphere, due primarily to fossil fuel burning and deforestation.
This new study foreshadows the impacts of continuing global warming on Arctic plants and animals, Eberle said.
"It's a means of being able to predict what's in store for Arctic ecosystems as the climate continues to warm, today and into the future," she said.
Reproduced under the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act:
How Canada's Arctic once hosted alligators and turtles
LINK
It may seem hard to believe now, but dry, frigid Ellesmere Island in Canada's high North was once teeming with alligators, turtles and rhino-like mammals.
Scientists who have long wondered how the beasts could have survived so far north think they now have the answer. It turns out that the now-glacier-covered island in Nunavut was actually a pretty temperate place back in the early Eocene period, 52 or 53 million years ago.
Researchers from University of Colorado at Boulder estimate that average temperatures back in the Eocene were about 20 degrees Celsius and fell only to about 0 to 3 degrees C in the winter -- which helps to explain how ancient alligators and giant tortoises were once able to thrive there.
Prof. Jaelyn Eberle, of the university's department of geological sciences, said her team came to these conclusions after analyzing the fossils of mammals, fish and turtles found on Ellesmere Island.
The team used a combination of "oxygen isotope ratios" from the fossilized bones and teeth enamel to estimate the average annual Eocene temperature for the site.
"Our data, gathered from multiple organisms, indicate it probably did not get below freezing on Ellesmere Island during the early Eocene, which has some interesting implications," she said in a news release.
"This is arguably the most comprehensive data set for the early Eocene High Arctic, and certainly explains how alligators and giant tortoises could live on Ellesmere Island some 52 to 53 million years ago," said Eberle.
Eberle explained that fossilized bones and tooth enamel contain biogenic apatite -- a mineral that is fossilized after death. This mineral can be used as a sort of "flight recorder" to draw conclusions about paleoclimate conditions.
She says her team looked at teeth from a large, hippo-like mammal known as Coryphodons, as well as bones from bowfin fish and shells and bones from aquatic turtles from the Emydidae family, the largest family of contemporary pond turtles.
They then used evidence found on the teeth to draw conclusions about the temperature of the water that the animals were drinking.
"When it comes to oxygen isotope values in tooth enamel, what we found for these creatures is that you are what you drink," she said.
They found that while Coryphodon and bowfins grew throughout the year, the turtles' shells appeared to grow only during summer months. That's similar to what turtles do today when they live in areas far from the equator.
They also found that Eocene alligators could withstand slightly cooler winters than their present-day counterparts. That's not too surprising, given what scientists know about alligators adaptability.
But the existence of large land tortoises in the Eocene High Arctic is still somewhat puzzling, said Eberle. She noted that today's large tortoises inhabit places like the Galapagos Islands where the cold-month average temperature is about 10 degrees C.
Eberle said the findings not only help to explain how species have evolved and migrated over the millennia, the research also offers "a deep time analogue" for today's rapidly warming Arctic region.
Evidence suggested that temperatures in the Arctic are rising twice as fast as those at mid-latitudes, as greenhouse gases build up in Earth's atmosphere, due primarily to fossil fuel burning and deforestation.
This new study foreshadows the impacts of continuing global warming on Arctic plants and animals, Eberle said.
"It's a means of being able to predict what's in store for Arctic ecosystems as the climate continues to warm, today and into the future," she said.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
Climate: New study slashes estimate of icecap loss
Read more...
REALLY now? That's a pretty major thing to be brushed off as a "minor factor". Sweet lord, my 7th grade science teacher would be fuming. Is this another case of the 'researchers' spoofing the results?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
“Kiwigate” - NZ Crown Agency taken to Court Over Temperaturre Records
September 7, 2010: Critical Pacific Ocean subset of UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) temperature data now to be examined by New Zealand High Court.
In what is believed to be the first case of its kind in the world, the newly formed New Zealand Climate Science Education Trust has taken legal action against the National Institute for Water and Atmospheric Research (NIWA), a ‘Crown Research Institute’ contracted by the NZ Government to be its sole adviser on scientific issues relating to climate change. Instead of using the New Zealand Met Service temperature record that shows no warming during the last century, NIWA has adopted an “adjusted” record of seven surface stations that shows a 1 deg. C rise, almost 50% above the global average for that period.
Because there are very few long term temperature records in the Pacific Ocean, the NIWA record bears heavily disproportionate weight in determining multi-decadal trends in global average temperatures used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. However, the basis for the NIWA temperature adjustments is unknown, the data and calculations that underlie the adjustment method lost, and the originator of the technique of adjustment summarily dismissed from his position at NIWA.
Read more...
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Regardless of the heated debate about anthropogenic climate change (and personally, I don't see how some manner of AGW can be denied - it is clear that human activity alters environmental factors and doesn't take much to extrapolate that there is a reasonable probability that we are not helping the process at least.
The fact is that the climate is changing and even if it's some sort of great cyclical thing, the impact potential is very, very clear. There's a reason Viking settlements on Greenland failed, after all. The impact on food production and so on will be significant potentially.
Incidentally, on the Vikings and other civilizations including environmental impacts of climate change, I would highly recommend reading Collapse by Jared Diamond. Fascinating investigations of civilizations that have thrived or failed, and the factors that influenced those outcomes.
The fact is that the climate is changing and even if it's some sort of great cyclical thing, the impact potential is very, very clear. There's a reason Viking settlements on Greenland failed, after all. The impact on food production and so on will be significant potentially.
Incidentally, on the Vikings and other civilizations including environmental impacts of climate change, I would highly recommend reading Collapse by Jared Diamond. Fascinating investigations of civilizations that have thrived or failed, and the factors that influenced those outcomes.
The screaming hysterical eco grifting warmongering herd have been telling us for ten years we only have ten years left to avert eco-Armageddon.
Blah, blah, blah.
Just ten years left . . . so much beer left to drink and so little time to do it.
Blah, blah, blah.
Just ten years left . . . so much beer left to drink and so little time to do it.
Similar threads
