Grim reports on climate change say act now or be ready for catastrophe

[VincentRJ]

5 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Yes,  but you will need some background reading to understand exactly what they are talking about stabilising, which is not the climatic cycles that the earth goes through but the steep rising incline that we have unnaturally pushed our temperatures onto, these are very different things and conflating one with the other will make one seem very dumb indeed.

It is precisely because I have read some background information that I am able to express the view that the current rise in average global temperatures is not unusual within the historical context of the continual changes in climate of the past. There are long term trends, as in the major Ice Ages and inter-glacial periods where significant cooling followed by warming takes place over thousands of years; medium term trends where warming followed by cooling occurs during a few hundred years, and short term trends where warming or cooling can occur over a few decades. 

 

For example, there are a lot of genuine, peer-reviewed, scientific reports which estimate, from proxy records, that both the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm period were at least as warm as current temperatures, and probably warmer.
However, no-one can be as certain or as precise about temperatures of the past as they can be about current temperatures, because the past temperatures are based upon proxy data, such as tree rings, ice cores, etc, and/or reports in newspapers, whereas in the modern era we have more accurate thermometers and satellite coverage of the whole planet. 

 

Natural-climate-change deniers, often claim the Medieval Warm Period was not a global event, especially scientist such as Michael Mann, the creator of what is known as the 'Hockey Stick' graph, which didn't even show the existence of the Medieval Warm Period. A court case involving scientific fraud is still underway. Michael Mann was asked to produce the evidence on which his Hockey Stick graph was based, but he refuses to do so on the grounds that the evidence is his own intellectual copyright. Apparently, his concern for the planet and the welfare of its inhabitants is not as great as his ego. ?
 

http://www.cfact.org/2017/07/24/decision-looms-in-michael-mann-tim-ball-hockey-stick-lawsuit/
 

[Kieran00001]

22 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

It is precisely because I have read some background information that I am able to express the view that the current rise in average global temperatures is not unusual within the historical context of the continual changes in climate of the past. There are long term trends, as in the major Ice Ages and inter-glacial periods where significant cooling followed by warming takes place over thousands of years; medium term trends where warming followed by cooling occurs during a few hundred years, and short term trends where warming or cooling can occur over a few decades. 

 

For example, there are a lot of genuine, peer-reviewed, scientific reports which estimate, from proxy records, that both the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm period were at least as warm as current temperatures, and probably warmer.
However, no-one can be as certain or as precise about temperatures of the past as they can be about current temperatures, because the past temperatures are based upon proxy data, such as tree rings, ice cores, etc, and/or reports in newspapers, whereas in the modern era we have more accurate thermometers and satellite coverage of the whole planet. 

 

Natural-climate-change deniers, often claim the Medieval Warm Period was not a global event, especially scientist such as Michael Mann, the creator of what is known as the 'Hockey Stick' graph, which didn't even show the existence of the Medieval Warm Period. A court case involving scientific fraud is still underway. Michael Mann was asked to produce the evidence on which his Hockey Stick graph was based, but he refuses to do so on the grounds that the evidence is his own intellectual copyright. Apparently, his concern for the planet and the welfare of its inhabitants is not as great as his ego. ?
 

http://www.cfact.org/2017/07/24/decision-looms-in-michael-mann-tim-ball-hockey-stick-lawsuit/
 

 

Quote

It is precisely because I have read some background information that I am able to express the view that the current rise in average global temperatures is not unusual within the historical context of the continual changes in climate of the past. 

 

Great, so you should be able to link the current rises in temperatures, which are increasing faster than at any point in the past 65 million years, to another point in these continual changes in climate in the past, so when was that?

[Kieran00001]

31 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

It is precisely because I have read some background information that I am able to express the view that the current rise in average global temperatures is not unusual within the historical context of the continual changes in climate of the past. There are long term trends, as in the major Ice Ages and inter-glacial periods where significant cooling followed by warming takes place over thousands of years; medium term trends where warming followed by cooling occurs during a few hundred years, and short term trends where warming or cooling can occur over a few decades. 

 

For example, there are a lot of genuine, peer-reviewed, scientific reports which estimate, from proxy records, that both the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm period were at least as warm as current temperatures, and probably warmer.
However, no-one can be as certain or as precise about temperatures of the past as they can be about current temperatures, because the past temperatures are based upon proxy data, such as tree rings, ice cores, etc, and/or reports in newspapers, whereas in the modern era we have more accurate thermometers and satellite coverage of the whole planet. 

 

Natural-climate-change deniers, often claim the Medieval Warm Period was not a global event, especially scientist such as Michael Mann, the creator of what is known as the 'Hockey Stick' graph, which didn't even show the existence of the Medieval Warm Period. A court case involving scientific fraud is still underway. Michael Mann was asked to produce the evidence on which his Hockey Stick graph was based, but he refuses to do so on the grounds that the evidence is his own intellectual copyright. Apparently, his concern for the planet and the welfare of its inhabitants is not as great as his ego. ?
 

http://www.cfact.org/2017/07/24/decision-looms-in-michael-mann-tim-ball-hockey-stick-lawsuit/
 

 

Quote

For example, there are a lot of genuine, peer-reviewed, scientific reports which estimate, from proxy records, that both the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm period were at least as warm as current temperatures, and probably warmer.
However, no-one can be as certain or as precise about temperatures of the past as they can be about current temperatures, because the past temperatures are based upon proxy data, such as tree rings, ice cores, etc, and/or reports in newspapers, whereas in the modern era we have more accurate thermometers and satellite coverage of the whole planet. 

 

Show me these studies, all I see are people demonstrating that it was nowhere near as warm, but I am happy to see the evidence, if there actually is any.

 

[Kieran00001]

39 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

It is precisely because I have read some background information that I am able to express the view that the current rise in average global temperatures is not unusual within the historical context of the continual changes in climate of the past. There are long term trends, as in the major Ice Ages and inter-glacial periods where significant cooling followed by warming takes place over thousands of years; medium term trends where warming followed by cooling occurs during a few hundred years, and short term trends where warming or cooling can occur over a few decades. 

 

For example, there are a lot of genuine, peer-reviewed, scientific reports which estimate, from proxy records, that both the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm period were at least as warm as current temperatures, and probably warmer.
However, no-one can be as certain or as precise about temperatures of the past as they can be about current temperatures, because the past temperatures are based upon proxy data, such as tree rings, ice cores, etc, and/or reports in newspapers, whereas in the modern era we have more accurate thermometers and satellite coverage of the whole planet. 

 

Natural-climate-change deniers, often claim the Medieval Warm Period was not a global event, especially scientist such as Michael Mann, the creator of what is known as the 'Hockey Stick' graph, which didn't even show the existence of the Medieval Warm Period. A court case involving scientific fraud is still underway. Michael Mann was asked to produce the evidence on which his Hockey Stick graph was based, but he refuses to do so on the grounds that the evidence is his own intellectual copyright. Apparently, his concern for the planet and the welfare of its inhabitants is not as great as his ego. ?
 

http://www.cfact.org/2017/07/24/decision-looms-in-michael-mann-tim-ball-hockey-stick-lawsuit/
 

 

As for cfact.com - ever heard of a biased source?  That climate change denying organization is funded by fossil fuel companies, Exxon and the Koch brothers, to be honest I am astounded that anyone could be so foolish as to believe them, but hey ho.

[Kieran00001]

47 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

It is precisely because I have read some background information that I am able to express the view that the current rise in average global temperatures is not unusual within the historical context of the continual changes in climate of the past. There are long term trends, as in the major Ice Ages and inter-glacial periods where significant cooling followed by warming takes place over thousands of years; medium term trends where warming followed by cooling occurs during a few hundred years, and short term trends where warming or cooling can occur over a few decades. 

 

For example, there are a lot of genuine, peer-reviewed, scientific reports which estimate, from proxy records, that both the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm period were at least as warm as current temperatures, and probably warmer.
However, no-one can be as certain or as precise about temperatures of the past as they can be about current temperatures, because the past temperatures are based upon proxy data, such as tree rings, ice cores, etc, and/or reports in newspapers, whereas in the modern era we have more accurate thermometers and satellite coverage of the whole planet. 

 

Natural-climate-change deniers, often claim the Medieval Warm Period was not a global event, especially scientist such as Michael Mann, the creator of what is known as the 'Hockey Stick' graph, which didn't even show the existence of the Medieval Warm Period. A court case involving scientific fraud is still underway. Michael Mann was asked to produce the evidence on which his Hockey Stick graph was based, but he refuses to do so on the grounds that the evidence is his own intellectual copyright. Apparently, his concern for the planet and the welfare of its inhabitants is not as great as his ego. ?
 

http://www.cfact.org/2017/07/24/decision-looms-in-michael-mann-tim-ball-hockey-stick-lawsuit/
 

 

I just read some unbiased info about the Hockey Stick Graph, I suggest you do the same, what you have posted is just plain drivel, not based on any resemblance of fact, look it up, you are currently blindly repeating what the lobbyists for fossil fuel have told you, no scientists agree with them, they agree with Mann.  What he was asked to produce was not the evidence it was based on, but the exact code that was used for the simulation, that is what he will not give up because that is his intellectual property and they have no right to demand that he gives that up, he has given the evidence from the start, and that is the problem with listening to lobbyists with vested interests and then pretending you have read about the actual subject.

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

As for cfact.com - ever heard of a biased source?  That climate change denying organization is funded by fossil fuel companies, Exxon and the Koch brothers, to be honest I am astounded that anyone could be so foolish as to believe them, but hey ho.

Oh! I see! You're claiming it is the source of the funding which determines the truth. No need to examine the evidence and the rationality behind the interpretation of the data. Just work out who benefits economically from a particular point of view, then discard that point of view.

 

If that's the case, we should be seriously worried about the views of climate scientists who's careers and income are dependent upon government funding, and that the continuation of such government funding is dependent upon the continuing alarm generated about the dangers of rising CO2 levels. Surely you must agree. ?
 

[VincentRJ]

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

I just read some unbiased info about the Hockey Stick Graph, I suggest you do the same, what you have posted is just plain drivel, not based on any resemblance of fact, look it up, you are currently blindly repeating what the lobbyists for fossil fuel have told you, no scientists agree with them, they agree with Mann.  What he was asked to produce was not the evidence it was based on, but the exact code that was used for the simulation, that is what he will not give up because that is his intellectual property and they have no right to demand that he gives that up, he has given the evidence from the start, and that is the problem with listening to lobbyists with vested interests and then pretending you have read about the actual subject.

Well, that's interesting. Can you provide the source for that information? I've been under the impression that computer simulations are used for predictions of the future climate, sometimes referred to as 'projections'. Such projections are based upon the available records from the past. If the computer simulations match the climate or temperature changes in the past, they are then used to predict the future, but so far such projections have often proved to be wrong.

 

If it's true, as you suggest, that Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graph was based upon a computer simulation rather than hard evidence, then that should have been clearly stated when that graph was first published.

 

In case you missed it, the Hockey Stick is not just criticized for its projection of future temperature rises (the rapid rise of the graph at the extreme right), but mainly its failure to show the existence of the Medieval Warm Period when the Vikings flourished in Greenland, a thousand years ago, growing crops and breeding cattle in areas that are currently still too cold.

[utalkin2me]

On 9/17/2018 at 1:05 PM, DrTuner said:

Bring it on. Only 15 degrees more and Finland becomes livable.

This is actually an interesting concept not often brought up. No matter what happnes to the world's major capitals or temperatures, doesn't it stand to reason that whatever we "lose" we will gain in another location? This could include climate and biodiversity.

[VincentRJ]

15 hours ago, RicUSA said:

Condoms - not diapers is the best solution...  yet religions have fought hard to prevent any type of birth conrol for 100's of years (cuts down on the ministers weekly tithings which they need to purchase Gulfstream jets and million dollar mansions tax free of course) 

HUMAN POPULATION GROWTH AND CLIMATE CHANGE

The largest single threat to the ecology and biodiversity of the planet in the decades to come will be global climate disruption due to the buildup of human-generated greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. People around the world are beginning to address the problem by reducing their carbon footprint through less consumption and better technology. But unsustainable human population growth can overwhelm those efforts, leading us to conclude that we not only need smaller footprints, but fewer feet...

There's no doubt that the massive increase in the world population since the beginning of the industrial revolution, is having an environmental impact. Huge areas of natural forests have been slashed down for agricultural purposes , and most people on the planet now live in 'concrete jungles', instead of 'natural' jungles.

 

The concrete jungles, with black asphalt roads, absorb a lot of heat. During natural heat waves, which have always been a regular occurrence in the past, the cities and suburbs where most of us live, become hotter than the surrounding areas in the natural countryside. When news reporters claim that such heat waves are the hottest on record, they are sometimes right if the thermometer readings were taken in the city, or at the local airport. It's known as the Urban Heat Island Effect. Blaming such record temperatures on the minuscule, trace amounts, of CO2 in the atmosphere (0.04%) is the crazy part.

 

This aspect of blaming CO2 levels for the severity of every major weather event, such as the current Hurricane Florence in the USA, gets to the core of the problems that we face in the future; 'Fake News'.

 

If a news reporter states that a particular flood or hurricane is the worst on record, he might be right in terms of the amount of damage to human dwellings it causes. But we shouldn't confuse the severity of the storm, from a climate perspective, with the economic cost of the destruction caused through human incompetence. These are two separate issues.

 

How many people, when making a decision to buy or build a house with a nice river view or ocean view,  take the trouble to search for the historical records of flooding and storms in that location? Usually, such records are available from the Bureau of Meteorology, through an internet search.
Most people seem to rely upon the local authorities. If the house was unsafe because it was situated in a flood plain, surely its construction would not have been allowed. Sadly, this is not the case. The economy rules. Very few local governments, perhaps none, would discourage property investment by imposing strict rules requiring that all houses be built above the levels of the worst previous floods, and/or that all dwellings be built to withstand the force of the worst previous hurricanes in the area.

 

It seems to be the norm to ignore the historical record for the sake of economic development, and pacify the worries and concerns of the populace by blaming rising CO2 levels on every extreme weather event, and offering policies that try to reduce CO2 levels as a solution. What a disaster! ☹️

[Chopperboy]

On 9/17/2018 at 7:42 AM, Bob12345 said:

CO2 levels are at their highest levels resulting in the best crop yields ever as CO2 is what plants and trees need to grow.

Correct, its why they pump CO2 into green houses to help the crop grow better. Just don't try telling the brainwashed Eco people that!

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

Oh! I see! You're claiming it is the source of the funding which determines the truth. No need to examine the evidence and the rationality behind the interpretation of the data. Just work out who benefits economically from a particular point of view, then discard that point of view.

 

If that's the case, we should be seriously worried about the views of climate scientists who's careers and income are dependent upon government funding, and that the continuation of such government funding is dependent upon the continuing alarm generated about the dangers of rising CO2 levels. Surely you must agree. ?
 

 

No, I am saying that any source that has clear bias, such as yours who are being paid by fossil fuel companies to present a climate change denying stance, needs to be scrutinized, which when done to yours reveals the fact that they are not scientists at all, they are mere lobbyists who claim that the scientists have it wrong, by misrepresenting facts, such as the ones you blindly re-posted, not actual scientists demonstrating any facts of their own. 

 

Show us the evidence, all you have shown us so far are corporate shrills telling you it is so and resorting to lying in order to make themselves sound more convincing.

 

As for you final comment, again, I am not stating that any source that is paid should be disregarded, I am saying that they should always be scrutinized if there is even the remotest chance that they might be biased, something you seem uneasy with regarding your own source, which makes sense seeing as just the first tiny little bit of scrutiny reveals them to not be scientists and instead to be lobbyists paid by the very companies they claim are not causing climate change.  A half wit could see their game, but not you, oh no.

[Kieran00001]

49 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

Well, that's interesting. Can you provide the source for that information? I've been under the impression that computer simulations are used for predictions of the future climate, sometimes referred to as 'projections'. Such projections are based upon the available records from the past. If the computer simulations match the climate or temperature changes in the past, they are then used to predict the future, but so far such projections have often proved to be wrong.

 

If it's true, as you suggest, that Michael Mann's Hockey Stick graph was based upon a computer simulation rather than hard evidence, then that should have been clearly stated when that graph was first published.

 

In case you missed it, the Hockey Stick is not just criticized for its projection of future temperature rises (the rapid rise of the graph at the extreme right), but mainly its failure to show the existence of the Medieval Warm Period when the Vikings flourished in Greenland, a thousand years ago, growing crops and breeding cattle in areas that are currently still too cold.

 

Just read about it anywhere other than your shrill site, try the newspapers, wiki, or any other referenced source.  I am not going to teach you how to find verifiable info, that is your problem.

[DrTuner]

46 minutes ago, utalkin2me said:

This is actually an interesting concept not often brought up. No matter what happnes to the world's major capitals or temperatures, doesn't it stand to reason that whatever we "lose" we will gain in another location? This could include climate and biodiversity.

Yes but there's a flipside. Every Somchai would be migrating to north and soon enough it would look just like the garbage dumps they left behind. Finland has a decent moat on the west side, really should start digging up at the Russian border.

[Kieran00001]

3 minutes ago, Chopperboy said:

Correct, its why they pump CO2 into green houses to help the crop grow better. Just don't try telling the brainwashed Eco people that!

 

Can I try telling you that actually it completely depends on the individual plants efficiency in using CO2 for photosynthesis and that for many plants, such as the most commonly grown plant on earth, which is corn, the yield suffers with any CO2 concentration increase, or are you a brainwashed anti-ecology person who won't listen to the actual truth?

[Kieran00001]

48 minutes ago, utalkin2me said:

This is actually an interesting concept not often brought up. No matter what happnes to the world's major capitals or temperatures, doesn't it stand to reason that whatever we "lose" we will gain in another location? This could include climate and biodiversity.

 

No, it doesn't mean that at all, for instance in the last ice age we lost 30% of land to ice, we also gained a little usable land in what had been deserts, but that was nowhere near 30%, more like 1%, so we just lost.  

 

Losses do not equal gains, what made you think they did?  As for increased biodiversity, perhaps in a million years, but we are actually concerned primarily with the relatively near future and so no, there will just be a loss.

[Nyezhov]

52 minutes ago, utalkin2me said:

This is actually an interesting concept not often brought up. No matter what happnes to the world's major capitals or temperatures, doesn't it stand to reason that whatever we "lose" we will gain in another location? This could include climate and biodiversity.

 siberian grasslands will be great. Bring back the Wooleys.

[VincentRJ]

4 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

 

Great, so you should be able to link the current rises in temperatures, which are increasing faster than at any point in the past 65 million years, to another point in these continual changes in climate in the past, so when was that?

 Wow! I missed that comment. Isn't that amazing! We're not sure if previous warm periods just a few hundred years ago were as warm as today, and we're not sure to what extent the Medieval Warm Period was a global event, but we are sure that the current warming is more rapid than any other period during the past 65 million years. Wow! What magic!  ?

[VincentRJ]

3 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

No, it doesn't mean that at all, for instance in the last ice age we lost 30% of land to ice, we also gained a little usable land in what had been deserts, but that was nowhere near 30%, more like 1%, so we just lost.  

 

Losses do not equal gains, what made you think they did?  As for increased biodiversity, perhaps in a million years, but we are actually concerned primarily with the relatively near future and so no, there will just be a loss.

I think you might have missed the point that sea levels were much lower during the last interglacial period which ended about 11,000 years ago. The last Ice Age began about 2.5 million years ago. The low sea levels were of great benefit because they allowed early humans to migrate to other regions. Modern humans are claimed to have walked out of Africa, crossing areas which are now covered by oceans, about 70,000 years ago. Australian Aboriginals were able to reach Australia, despite not having boats, and also walk from the Australian continent to the island of Tasmania about 40,000 years ago.

 

However, as sea levels began to rise, much more rapidly than current sea levels are rising, the Aboriginals in Tasmania became totally isolated from the rest of the human race about 8,000 years ago, until the British arrived.

 

It should also be mentioned that around 6,000 years to 10,000 years ago, the Sahara desert, currently the largest desert on the planet, was lush and green with tropical rains.
https://phys.org/news/2016-12-years-sahara-tropicalwhat.html
https://www.livescience.com/4180-sahara-desert-lush-populated.html

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, VincentRJ said:

 Wow! I missed that comment. Isn't that amazing! We're not sure if previous warm periods just a few hundred years ago were as warm as today, and we're not sure to what extent the Medieval Warm Period was a global event, but we are sure that the current warming is more rapid than any other period during the past 65 million years. Wow! What magic!  ?

 

We have a pretty good idea of how quickly the temperatures increased following the last ice age, there was a global average temperature increase of about 5C and we know that it took thousands of years, we don't know exactly how many years but we know it was thousands. We don't know of any other global temperature increases of 5C in history other than following ice ages.  There is nothing to suggest that any of the other ice ages within the past 65 million years happened at substantially faster rates than the last one.  Perhaps there was some period in history where the temperatures rose at the rate they are currently rising but there is no evidence of it whereas there is plenty of evidence that rises of this amount happened following ice ages and took thousands of years.  We also know that if we maintain the current rate of increase in the global average temperature seen in the past 100 years, we have already risen 2C since 1900, we will see a 5C rise happen within the next 100 years.  There is no evidence of a rise in temperature of 5C over a couple of hundred years since the extinction of the dinosaurs.

[DrTuner]

Past 65M years.. so that'd be right after the asteroid strike that wiped out dinosaurs, I'd venture to guess the temp went up a bit faster after the dust cleared than in the last couple of decades.

[Kieran00001]

28 minutes ago, VincentRJ said:

I think you might have missed the point that sea levels were much lower during the last interglacial period which ended about 11,000 years ago. The last Ice Age began about 2.5 million years ago. The low sea levels were of great benefit because they allowed early humans to migrate to other regions. Modern humans are claimed to have walked out of Africa, crossing areas which are now covered by oceans, about 70,000 years ago. Australian Aboriginals were able to reach Australia, despite not having boats, and also walk from the Australian continent to the island of Tasmania about 40,000 years ago.

 

However, as sea levels began to rise, much more rapidly than current sea levels are rising, the Aboriginals in Tasmania became totally isolated from the rest of the human race about 8,000 years ago, until the British arrived.

 

It should also be mentioned that around 6,000 years to 10,000 years ago, the Sahara desert, currently the largest desert on the planet, was lush and green with tropical rains.
https://phys.org/news/2016-12-years-sahara-tropicalwhat.html
https://www.livescience.com/4180-sahara-desert-lush-populated.html

 

Take a look at this map, Glaciers of about 20,000 years ago are shown in blue, Red shows the extended land area due to low sea levels about 20,000 years ago, and green and yellow show areas favourable for human habitation in wet and dry periods, respectively. It should be clear to you from looking at this that there was a lot less habitable land lost than gained from the ice age.

The Times Atlas of World History (Times Books (4th ed) 1993)

[Kieran00001]

8 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

Past 65M years.. so that'd be right after the asteroid strike that wiped out dinosaurs, I'd venture to guess the temp went up a bit faster after the dust cleared than in the last couple of decades.

 

Yes, that was the last time we know of.

[DrTuner]

8 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Take a look at this map, Glaciers of about 20,000 years ago are shown in blue, Red shows the extended land area due to low sea levels about 20,000 years ago, and green and yellow show areas favourable for human habitation in wet and dry periods, respectively. It should be clear to you from looking at this that there was a lot less habitable land lost than gained from the ice age.

The Times Atlas of World History (Times Books (4th ed) 1993)

Scandinavia and a lot of northern Russia was under the ice completely (as evidenced by the sandy "harju" hills left after by the ice in Finland), that's a fairly big area. Bit hard to see using that map projection. Got an equal area projection one?

[Kieran00001]

2 minutes ago, DrTuner said:

Scandinavia and a lot of northern Russia was under the ice completely (as evidenced by the sandy "harju" hills left after by the ice in Finland), that's a fairly big area. Bit hard to see using that map projection. Got an equal area projection one?

 

No, just that one.  On the far left you can see the Bay of Biscay fringed by orange, and just to the North, where the English Chanel is now, is blue, so under the ice cap.  The UK and Ireland, all of Scandinavia and the Baltic countries as well as Northern Russia are within the blue area.

[DrTuner]

4 hours ago, Nyezhov said:

 siberian grasslands will be great. Bring back the Wooleys.

Getting there: https://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/harvard-woolly-mammoth-2018-update/

 

The migration of some animals due to climate warming in the north is already happening, mostly worms and beetles harmful for the scant crops up there, so you can spot the news about the farmers complaining quite easily. Bigger animals and mammals will follow, so I'd suggest fortifying the Great Wall - from the north side.

[kannot]

46 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

we have already risen 2C since 1900,

1c at best dont exaggerate pls

[Lacessit]

On 9/17/2018 at 10:23 AM, Vacuum said:

  Says it all about the intellect of these "scientists".

Your poster name is very apt.

If it was not for science, I would not be able to read the anti-science rubbish posted on this thread.

I think I get it. We'll agree with the science when it does not disagree with our own ideas.

[Lacessit]

3 hours ago, VincentRJ said:

 Wow! I missed that comment. Isn't that amazing! We're not sure if previous warm periods just a few hundred years ago were as warm as today, and we're not sure to what extent the Medieval Warm Period was a global event, but we are sure that the current warming is more rapid than any other period during the past 65 million years. Wow! What magic!  ?

Another person who does not understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

[VincentRJ]

35 minutes ago, kannot said:

 1c at best dont exaggerate pls

But that's what climate alarmists do. They are trained to exaggerate. They can't help it. ?

[DM07]

This is actually an interesting concept not often brought up. No matter what happnes to the world's major capitals or temperatures, doesn't it stand to reason that whatever we "lose" we will gain in another location? This could include climate and biodiversity.

Yeah...interesting! Let's say we "loose" most of Africa to constant drought and sandstorms, i guess, Europe will happily acommodate all the Africans, who need to live somewhere not as drought- stricken!
Oh...wait a minute...

Sent from my RNE-L22 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app