Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: More Global Warming Debates

Posted 2 years ago on April 14, 2012, 2:58 p.m. EST by flip (6892)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

The battle over climate change has recently become more heated, at least in scientific circles. Just when those arguing for global warming and its potentially disastrous consequences seemed to be getting the upper hand, several scientists joined forces and presented what look like strong rebuttals.

This coterie of scientists, led by Princeton physics professor William Happer, published an Op-Ed piece in The Wall Street Journal (admittedly not known for its pro-warming stances) on January 27th titled “No Need to Panic About Global Warming.” And it did contain at least one piece of new and putatively strong factual information, viz., over the past 10 plus years global temperatures have not risen, but leveled off. While a hiatus of a few years might be consistent with prevailing global warming models, when you get into periods of a decade or longer those current models of warming and the concomitant effect of CO2 become stressed.

One of the strongest advocates of global warming and the pernicious effects of burning hydrocarbons is Yale scientist William Nordhaus. He attempted to refute Happer, et al’s arguments with a rebuttal in The New York Review of Books (a periodical not known for its conservative leanings or anti-warming stance) in a March 22nd article titled “Why the Global Warming Skeptics are Wrong.” Nordhaus’ reply to his critics amounts to an assertion that the longer-term changes in temperatures are still definitely higher, though he does not directly deal with the past decade.

Who is right? In effect they both are. While it’s true that the past decade has not seen a statistically meaningful rise in temperatures, it’s also true that the magic number for most climate models is closer to 15 years than to 10 years. The bottom line is that if the next two to three years do not show additional warming, then the climate skeptics will have gained a serious upper hand.

Or will they? Keep in mind the economic crux of the battle as usually framed is the question of whether it is safe to go on burning hydrocarbons, or should we make economic sacrifices that will limit growth and limit the release of CO2 into the environment.

But we view this current debate as a seriously distracting sidetrack to the real and most critically important issue: how do we live in a world without adequate amounts of energy? If anything, the debate over global warming gives people the impression that we have unlimited time to decide about energy – and we do not!

Ironically, in the next issue of The New York Review of Books (April 26th), which continues the global warming debate with a counter-rebuttal from Happer and two colleagues plus Nordhaus’ reply, there was a book review touching on the subject by Joel E. Cohen, one of the world’s most respected demographers. Cohen reviewed two books on “the energy crisis,” The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World by Daniel Yergin and Sustainable Energy – Without the Hot Air, by David J.C. MacKay. Both authors – and Cohen – assume a carbon-based economy for at least the next 20 years or so. And they all assume that climate change will motivate changes in our energy sources.

But neither of those books nor Cohen deals with the critical problem of the interrelationships among resources, and how much hydrocarbon-based energy it will take to build a new and at least partially renewable infrastructure – though MacKay comes relatively close when he states that Britain will have to spend over a trillion dollars to effect a meaningful change. The trouble is he does not convert that number into the specific resources and quantities that will be required.

The trouble with all of these arguments is that they focus on climate change, which may be many years away or may never even come – while the real issue is the scarcity of resources and how to apply them in making a new world with new energies.

For the moment we can only hope the U.S. wakes up in time. There are incipient reasons for hope. During the past six months, two major periodicals that previously approached energy from a climate perspective have hinted at changing their stripes. The British periodical Nature acknowledged the notion of peak oil and gainsaid the idea that fracked gas and oil or the tar sands could save the day. And they prioritized resource scarcity as a more critical threat than climate change. Then in a recent commentary in Science, the American counterpart to Nature, the case was made for the concept of peak metals, including gold and copper.

Even more recently, a group of MIT researchers prepared a report for the Club of Rome, whom you may remember having forecasted back in 1970 that the world was on a collision course between population growth and resource limitations. The update of the original Malthusian perspective received quite a bit of press but still has to overcome the scorn the original received because of the prosperity of the latter half of the 1980s and then the 1990s, The Club of Rome is still seen by many as “just another one of those doomsayers.”

To us, criticism is more appropriately directed toward the West in its continuing shortsightedness. The recent study from MIT has not yet been released in its entirety, but a summary has been issued, and not only does it suggest that the earlier, original study was more or less on track, but if anything, it was optimistic. Specifically, it points to sometime in the year 2030 as the likely day of reckoning, in which food shortages, energy shortages etc. will pose an almost insurmountable threat to human civilization.

Neither the original study nor, we suspect, this new one as well, takes into account the interrelationships among resources. We’ve made this point before, but it’s worth restating: scarcities of any critical resource (and we’re talking about profound scarcities) can short-circuit the entire system.

One thing we take from these various studies on resource scarcity is that we are finally focusing (or at least, the scientific community is finally focusing) on a more immediate threat than climate change. And that’s at least a critically necessary, though not sufficient, condition to get the attention of America and the West.

Again, for now it seems clear that China is the only country that really gets it. No surprise here. Remember Deng Xiaoping’s comments from the 1970s in which he compared China’s grip on rare earths to the Middle East’s grip on oil? This is not a culture that thinks about or defines its progress in nanoseconds… or days, months or even decades. Long term, they get it. And they’ve been preparing for probably more than a generation or so.

55 Comments

55 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Funny thing though, is there's nothing to debate; as will be seen again during tornado and hurricane season this year. It's gonna be pretty hard to debate the issue with a telephone pole is stuck through your front door.

Of course we could blame the wrath of God for the hypocracy of the Bible Belt. Take your pick.

[-] 2 points by flip (6892) 2 years ago

not sure but it seems you missed the main point which is this - "The trouble with all of these arguments is that they focus on climate change, which may be many years away or may never even come – while the real issue is the scarcity of resources and how to apply them in making a new world with new energies. - then this - One thing we take from these various studies on resource scarcity is that we are finally focusing (or at least, the scientific community is finally focusing) on a more immediate threat than climate change. And that’s at least a critically necessary, though not sufficient, condition to get the attention of America and the West.

[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

Climate change is real, it's happening right now, and we may already be beyond the tipping point.

[-] 1 points by flip (6892) 2 years ago

thanks for your opinion

[-] 0 points by liam77 (1) 2 years ago

How are you so sure. There are thousands of scientist who disagree with the idea of man-made global warming. Why shut out alternative views. I can no longer call myslef liberal since the "new left" seems to be as bad as the old right in their rigid beliefs. Look i'm not defending all the conspiracy theories but there is alot of money behind global warming and that to me is a red flag.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Stop reading all the hype.

I can remember seeing an article in the paper years ago, stating that GE could now back global warming, because they figured out how to profit off of it.

So once they all incorporated that into their business models, either pro or can, is when the pure propaganda really hit the presses..

It's still quite real, they just like to blur the lines, for fun and profit.

Here's a place for actual information.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

[-] 1 points by GypsyKing (9780) 2 years ago

You can be sure by using a thermometer.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

There is a lot of money behind cancer research worldwide, that doesn't mean that a one should be leery of research. Great strides have been made.

The actual physics behind global warming is solid, and has been flushed out for over 150 years. Even some of the staunchest deniers like MIT's Richard Lindzen does not disagree with the physics behind the phenomena, but argues about how great an effect there will be. To me that answer lies not in computer projections, but observational data. We can measure the effects right now.

While global atmospheric temperatures have plateaued for a decade, major ocean currents have been found to be heating up faster than the globe as a whole. The oceans are also acidifying, another issue associated with increased carbon emissions. For the first time in recorded history the Northwest Passage is now ice free. Permafrost is melting throughout the Arctic. For the most part glaciers have been in retreat. The Greenland ice cap is melting faster than ever.

There is no denying that the earth is warming. Warming faster than at anytime over the past 300,000 years in the Geologic Record. This is measurable. What is also measurable is the radiation budget from the Sun. The atmosphere is trapping enough excess thermal energy to be the equivalent of placing a 300 w light bulb in every square meter of the earths surface. (333 w/m^2 is the actual number http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/earth_radiation_budget.html )

Why is this warming happening? If you eliminate all of the natural reasons, the Sun, heating from the earth itself, increased radiation from sources in space... it does not explain the increase we are seeing in thermal radiation. The answer that does fit, both theoretically and experimentally is an increase in GHG's. The source of those GHG's is man. This can be determined isotopically. Carbon generated from natural sources has a different isotope ratio than carbon generated by human activities.

The data is out there in reputable journals. Research is being conducted by scientists in every field to fine tune the picture we are getting on this issue.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

I don't buy into the climate models. There is enough evidence in the Geologic Record, solar radiation budgets, carbon budgets to indicate that AGW is happening. The rate that it is happening at may be longer than current models indicate. I believe Hansen is on the extreme side... however, that doesn't negate that globally we have a problem. We may just have more time to deal with it.

Temperature plateaus are common in nature and demonstrated by science. If you heat a cup of water it will heat until boiling (100deg C) and remain at that temperature no matter how much more heat you add to the system, until the water boils off and becomes vapor. Then the added heat will cause the temperature of the vapor to increase.

With AGW, the air temperatures have plateaued but the steady input of excess heat energy is now warming the oceans. There have been quite a few studies released to confirm this. Key ocean currents are actually warming faster than the rest of the globe is. The heat is not going away.

But if we have learned anything from the past its this, even when mankind has additional time to act on a problem it seldom does.

PS. According to the USGS, Afghanistan has more rare earth minerals, and precious metals - over $1 Trillion dollars worth, than China does.... think we are there by coincidence?

[-] 1 points by flip (6892) 2 years ago

not sure but it seems you missed the main point which is this - "The trouble with all of these arguments is that they focus on climate change, which may be many years away or may never even come – while the real issue is the scarcity of resources and how to apply them in making a new world with new energies. - then this - One thing we take from these various studies on resource scarcity is that we are finally focusing (or at least, the scientific community is finally focusing) on a more immediate threat than climate change. And that’s at least a critically necessary, though not sufficient, condition to get the attention of America and the West.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

The fact is climate change has already happened. There are areas in the oceans where the methane hydrates on the ocean floor are melting and bubbling to the surface as methane. At 1 1/2 degrees warmer huge quantities will be released. This is much more worrisome than the resource question.

Check this:Methane release from the not-so-perma-frost is the most dangerous amplifying feedback in the entire carbon cycle (see “NSIDC bombshell: Thawing permafrost feedback will turn Arctic from carbon sink to source in the 2020s, releasing 100 billion tons of carbon by 2100“).

Methane (CH4) deserves attention it is such a highly potent greenhouse gas — 25-33 times more powerful than carbon dioxide (CO2) over a 100-year time-horizon, but as much as 100 time more potent over 20 years, according to the latest research!

Last year I reported on a major study in Science that found the vast East Siberian Arctic Shelf methane stores appeared to be destabilizing and venting. The normally staid National Science Foundation issued a press release warning “Release of even a fraction of the methane stored in the shelf could trigger abrupt climate warming.”

Now there is a new Geophysical Research Letters study on a paleoclimate analog that may be relevant to humanity today, “Methane and environmental change during the Paleocene”Eocene thermal maximum (PETM): Modeling the PETM onset as a two”stage event.”

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Nice post. I wonder about how technical to get on this type of forum, but you just answered my questions about that. Get technical. Methane released from methane hydrate melting may very well be a game changer.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Yes, like most game changers it is a double edged sword. I was excited about its energy potential at first. Then I started to wonder about how much CO2 that would produce. Then I found out that it is bubbling up out of the ocean in amounts in spots off of Siberia that may be flammable. Remember Lake Erie on fire? It would take such a small temperature change to set off a rapid (and unstoppable) change of state (solid to gaseous) that makes what we are throwing up there now seem like nothing.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Unfortunately, warmer ocean currents are making their way into the Arctic. While the atmospheric temperature has plateaued over the last decade, the ocean has been taking up the heat measurably. Quite a few papers have been written this year and last year on the ocean currents heating up faster than the earth in general, and the consequences of such heating.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Hold onto your hat. It could be an interesting ride.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

I don't think that we will be needing hats... just a little too warm for that....lol

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Keeps off the acid rain?

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Most of the resource threats that are immediate are not a 'scientific' problem per se, but more of an economic problem, distribution problems.

[-] 1 points by flip (6892) 2 years ago

we disagree - our society cannot run without many of these scarce resources

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

I agree with that, our society can not function without these scarce resources, but what I am saying is that the cause for many of the scarcities is a resource allocation problem, based in politico/economics... not a scientific one.

A great example of this is food. In many areas of the world there is starvation, food is scarce for them, not because there isn't enough food in the world... there is. Its a resource allocation problem.

[-] 2 points by flip (6892) 2 years ago

i think you are right but that is not the whole story - water is not an allocation problem and neither is oil or copper - in those areas all the low hanging fruit has been picked

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Again, you are correct. I guess this is the problem when one generalizes. I'll keep that in mind, and try to be more specific.

[-] 1 points by flip (6892) 2 years ago

i imagine we mostly agree on this - for sure there are allocation problems with food. i have read (fox piven i think) that the problem with food is a problem of democracy. my understanding is that resource scarcity is coming sooner than most want to admit. it includes everything we need to run our modern world - from coal and copper to iron ore and oil. we will see but i think we all need to start thinking about how to help - the transition movement is a good start.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

Sea level has risen 400 feet in the last 25,000 years. In the last hundred years, just one foot. Global warming is occurring, but at a relatively slow rate. Current sea level rise is 1/8" per year. If it was warming as fast as they say, Florida should be flooded by now. Somehow life on the planet managed to survive a 400 foot rise and will continue to survive.

Sea level rise is the only reliable indicator because it rises uniformly worldwide as the earth warms.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

That's not entirely correct. The rising sea level we are seeing is caused by the thermal expansion of the oceans the 1/8" per year you are quoting. When the ice sheets start to melt in earnest you will see the flooding as predicted. This projected rise in sea level isn't a linear extrapolation. It does not rise uniformly as you state.

Also, 400 feet over 25,000 years is a very, very slow rise.. plenty of time for plants to adapt. When the ice sheets melt there is going to be a very quick rise. Huge difference.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

"It does not rise uniformly as you state." Pour a bucket of water in one side of a lake and the the whole lake will rise uniformly.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The 1/8" per year rate has been steady for the last 100 years. You can't have just thermal expansion and no melting of ice.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

The majority of the earths glaciers.... Greenland especially, which has an ice sheet 1 mile thick, have not started to melt significantly yet. Many of the smaller ones have retreated, but Greenland and Antarctica still have not lost any real volume.... so yes, the rise we are seeing is from thermal expansion.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

If you look at the charts, sea level has been rising relatively steady for the last 5000 years, long before man was able to cause any significant global warming. Was this due to the water expanding or the ice melting?

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Which charts are you talking about? Sea level has been rising and falling, temperature has gone through many changes since the Holocene.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

Global warming in the Holocene 5,000 years ago has been steady due to 'natural' processes. This time period of sea level rising is mostly due to thermal expansion.

If you look at the time frame of 8,000 -> 16,000 years ago, that very steep rise in sea level is due to rapid temperature increase and ice melting. There is even a few melt pulses that can be associated with this time with one of them labeled. You can see how much sharper the gradient is for ice melting.... this is what our future will look like.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

The meltwater pulse was due to relatively rapid ice melt, not to expansion. Another interesting side note I just learned. Water actually contracts from 32 degrees F to 39 degrees F.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meltwater_pulse_1A http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/water-thermal-properties-d_162.html http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem03/chem03335.htm http://physics.info/expansion/

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

I agree, thats what I was saying... melt pulses giving rise to large values of ocean level rising. What we are witnessing today, and over the last 5,000 years is thermal expansion so far. Earlier than this the sea level rose quickly because of melting ice.

[-] 0 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

You can't have thermal expansion for 5,000 years without also having 5,000 years of melting. It is a continuous process.

Does your ice in a glass of soda all of a sudden melt?

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I've had this argument over sea levels before, although that guy claimed there was no rise.

What I discover in research is that those graphs represent averages and those averages don't tell the full story.

What they've found with better measurements, is that sea levels rise at different rates in different locations. Here in the US, recent cuts made by (R)epelican'ts will limit our abilities to improve the DATA.

There's some things, it seems they just don't want us to know. I wondered who lobbied for the cuts?

[-] 2 points by DKAtoday (27996) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Lobbied for cuts?

All of the usual suspects - WallStreet Fossil Fuel other major corporations monopolies/syndicates.

Cut funding to institutions and you need not really pull their teeth you just watch as they get buried by the multitude of issues they need to look into.

Feeds into a working depression and a failure complex that poisons the institutions.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

There's is that.

It also "forces" them to work with either incomplete DATA, or DATA supplied by those very same corporations.

Past that, they will get some DATA to work with from foreign sources, which is easier to get dismissed here in the US.

It leaves the convenient ......Oh, that DATA came from those socialists in France, so it's just a plot against capitalism..........excuse.

I'm sure you've heard something similar before.

[-] 1 points by DKAtoday (27996) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Oh yes the ever present belittle attack. Usually hand in hand with a put down.

Same old shit different day.


[-] 2 points by shooz (6086) 2 minutes ago

There's is that.

It also "forces" them to work with either incomplete DATA, or DATA supplied by those very same corporations.

Past that, they will get some DATA to work with from foreign sources, which is easier to get dismissed here in the US.

It leaves the convenient ......Oh, that DATA came from those socialists in France, so it's just a plot against capitalism..........excuse.

I'm sure you've heard something similar before. ↥like ↧dislike permalink

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

'Does your ice in a glass of soda all of a sudden melt?'

If I turn up the heat real fast it does. The earth entered a period of several thousand years, where conditions were warmer and moister than today. The Saharan and Arabian deserts almost completely disappeared under a vegetation cover, and in the northern latitudes forests grew slightly closer to the poles than they do at present. This phase which is known as the 'Holocene optimum' occurred between about 9,000 and 5,000 years ago. It was during this time that the last of the ice from the Ice Age disappeared (with exception to Greenland and Antarctica) ... again as shown by the sea level rise graph you pointed out.

What I am saying is that the vast majority of the sea level rise we see today is due to thermal expansion.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Here ya' go Geo. Have some actual ammunition.

I gotta laugh wikipedia for science??? LOL

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

I'm a geologist and details on the Holocene are slowly coming back to me as I type. He used wiki for the sea level graph, which is all well and fine to me. It doesn't really change the outcome as the Holocene Optimum is the actual cause for rapid ice melting for the last ice age and large rises in sea level over that time period.

It's sometimes better to use an opposing debaters own material to explain where the logic is wrong.... but thanks. I'm well aware of that site.

[-] 1 points by jrhirsch (4714) from Sun City, CA 2 years ago

I've checked dozens of graphs showing the rate sea level rise over the last 100 years and they all agree that it has steadily risen about 1 foot. Can you provide evidence showing sea level rise that does not agree with this?

[-] 1 points by arturo (3169) from Shanghai, Shanghai 2 years ago

Interesting approach to the topic. Glad to see you favor the Chinese, so you must approve of nuclear power, which they are building more of as fast as they can. They are also building quite a bit of solar in areas like Tibet, where it makes sense, since it is a vast area of open spaces receiving lost of sunshine.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6806) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

“The trouble with all of these arguments is that they focus on climate change, which may be many years away or may never even come – while the real issue is the scarcity of resources and how to apply them in making a new world with new energies.”

Is it really more important that we be able to charge our Iphones than that we don’t change the very conditions of life on earth? The climate articles do not seem to address the issues brought up after 9/11 when temps rose quickly as the jet plane contrails declined, it is now believed that we have a great deal of “built in” increase that will occur as the air becomes clearer with newer planes.

[-] 1 points by flip (6892) 2 years ago

this article is not focused on climate change but this - "The trouble with all of these arguments is that they focus on climate change, which may be many years away or may never even come – while the real issue is the scarcity of resources and how to apply them in making a new world with new energies. - then this - One thing we take from these various studies on resource scarcity is that we are finally focusing (or at least, the scientific community is finally focusing) on a more immediate threat than climate change. And that’s at least a critically necessary, though not sufficient, condition to get the attention of America and the West.

[-] 1 points by ShubeLMorgan2 (1088) from New York, NY 2 years ago

It's often asserted that the debate about climate change - what used to be called global warming- is over. This post says that it seems it isn't. So now the rhetorical shift is to limited resources and Malthusianism. But I've read that over the past thirty years or so we've consumed three times what were the known world oil reserves in 1976 and that there are new finds and new technologies all the time. What's an ordinary person without an axe to grind or an advanced science degree to believe?

[-] 3 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 2 years ago

There are many cross cutting issues. It is human nature to try to simplify, but this happens to be a complex problem. The physics involved with climate change is undeniable, and has been researched for 150+ years. The timeline as to when key 'tipping points' are reached where catastrophic events happen, or a point where taking action won't matter because we passed the point of no return.... is unsettled.

With a population of 7 Billion, resources are becoming limited as demand increases.

As for peak oil, the problem was not that we were literally running out of oil, the problem was that we are having problems meeting the increasing demand at a reasonable price point. Oil can be found, but it is getting more and more expensive to extract it.... and will continue to do so.

Clean drinking water is a commodity that is scarce in the world right now. Global Warming is making this commodity even scarcer as most of the clean water on earth is locked up and stored in ice. Global Warming will eventually affect what types of crops adapt or don't, or what happens to our fish stocks in the worlds oceans as the oceans continue to heat up.

What I suggest to 'ordinary people' as you put it, is to not get your information from blogs, or the media, but to read the major scientific journals as much as possible. Look up terms that you don't understand, or concepts that are hard to understand in textbooks, or websites from educational institutions. Try to educate yourself as much as you can so that you are making the decisions about issues, not someone whom you are reading. It's going to take work.

[-] 1 points by flip (6892) 2 years ago

you are spot on

[-] 2 points by flip (6892) 2 years ago

it is a big question and i have looked into it from many angles - this post is actually from an investment newsletter. if you are interested you could check out jeremy grantham -"time to wake up investors" - that gives a good overview. the peak of oil discoveries was 1964 if i remember correctly - the peak of world production was 2005 - our world runs on oil. the new discoveries are in the tar sands (very expensive to recover) and 5 miles under the ocean. seems to me that we are running out of everything partly because china and india are becoming richer and want more meat etc. you are right that there is much conflicting info - i can point you to what i know if you like.

[-] 1 points by epa1nter (4650) from Rutherford, NJ 2 years ago

Another source you may want to check out is here (it is written and maintained by leading climate scientists) :

http://www.realclimate.org/

As to the relative stability of global temperatures, it seems the global dimming effect of regular pollution (soot) is tamping the effects of what would otherwise be a far more accelerated warming trend. Despite that, glaciers have been melting at an alarming rate, and northern sea ice has been melting earlier each yearly cycle. There are apparently international talks, for the first time, occurring about navigation rights in the Arctic Sea in areas previously unpassable. And the oceans are also acidifying, killing coral and fish stocks. One minor finding: In Africa, mosquitoes are being found at record high elevations as those elevations are becoming warm enough to sustain them.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

yada yada yada - so what's your solution?

[-] 3 points by flip (6892) 2 years ago

yada yada what - well we can start by moving to more local economies - renewable energy of course. a shit storm is coming - yada yada - you can watch tv and eat cheese doodles if you like.

[-] -1 points by Dell (-168) 2 years ago

what kind of renewable energies? is that the cause of our economic problems? fossil fuels ? Local economies is a great idea. very Libertarian. Get the feds out of the way.