Study Links Pacific Coastal Warming To Changing Winds 207
tranquilidad writes: In a paper published by the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, two authors ascribe the majority of northeast pacific coastal warming to natural atmospheric circulation and not to anthropogenic forcing. In AP's reporting, Ken Caldeira, an atmospheric scientist with the Carnegie Institution for Science, says the paper's authors, "...have not established the causes of these atmospheric pressure variations. Thus, claims that the observed temperature increases are due primarily to 'natural' processes are suspect and premature, at best." The paper's authors, on the other hand, state, "...clearly, there are other factors stronger than the greenhouse forcing that is affecting...temperatures," and that there is a "surprising degree to which the winds can explain all the wiggles in the temperature curve."
Big Fans (Score:3)
What really need are some big fans to increase coastal winds and cool off the world. I recommend them in large quantities. We'll call them fan farms. Maybe power them from those reverse fan farms that generate electricity and drain our global wind supply causing global warming!
Quant Suff the scientific people roared. (Score:3)
Deniers! (Score:5, Funny)
Two new deniers are born... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If you don't think excess greenhouse gasses, (CO2, tc) are cause an increase in trapped energy, then you are an idiot. This is proven science.
anthropomorphic global warming (AGW) is a fact.
In fact, it's so simply even you could devise a test.
1) Visible light strikes the earth Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
2) Visible light has nothing for CO2 to absorb, so it pass right on through. Testable? Yes. Tested? Yes. Could anyone devise a test? Yes
3) When visible light strike an object,
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Proven in that the increase of CO2 has not had a statictically significant increase in temperature.
So, its settled proven fact, unless you actual observe the actual data of no warming for 18 years. So other than the predictions of your hypothesis not matching expected results, it is fact.
Whats it called when you perform an experiment, don't get the expected result, and call anyone who points it out names instead of modifying your theory and experiment?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying we'll run out of all known sources of fossil fuels fairly soon (even assuming a linear instead of geometric or exponential rise, that's ~25 years to reach 550 ppm and completely exhausting all known reserves), and should therefore move to other technologies as soon as possible to ensure a smooth transition. So without regard for whether the climate is changing or not, the results of pursuing policies which have tended to originate from the climate change movement and that would cap (and eve
Re: (Score:3)
The paper does not imply that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. Rather it implies that the estimates of the effects of CO2 may be overestimated. Since meteorologists tune their models based on past weather data, this would mean that the predictive models are tuned wrong and give too much weight to greenhouse gases in temperature predictions. The criticism of the paper also brings up valid points that should be investigated.
Re: (Score:2)
I wonder... do you actually believe your spiel [slashdot.org] or do you just keep copy/pasting it to karma whore? Last time, I pointed out that there are significant unknown sinks of CO2. [youtube.com] Yet here you are, lobbing the same half truths at the audience. So, tell us oh wise one... if you were in charge of the planet today, what would you do to reduce atmospheric CO2, given that the real climate scientists don't even know where it is all going now? I'd love to hear your plan, glorious leader.
Re: (Score:2)
The simple fact that we can't talk about this... (Score:5, Insightful)
... Underscores the real problem here. This is far too politicized to be judged scientifically anymore. There are very few open minds left and those few that are open are not listened to by anyone.
Consider for the sake of argument if everything you know about this issue is wrong. Just for the sake of argument. Now reexamine these little niche issues one at a time to see if they have anything interesting to say WHILE in that frame of mind.
This is something I do every time I get new information. I take all my opinions, convictions, and beliefs... and I put them in neutral. Then I read it all IN that frame of mind. Often I will be reading something that contradicts my previous understanding. And unless I kept that frame of mind I would probably prejudge and discount it without properly considering it.
Everyone does this from time to time. The best scientists in the world have been caught doing this occasionally. You never stop being human.
What is so distressing about AGW for me is that we're all so polarized on the issue that we can't even talk about it anymore without breaking into our little factional camps can calling each other names.
Re:The simple fact that we can't talk about this.. (Score:5, Insightful)
You are wrong. I am not a climate scientist. Almost all the people here are not climate scientists. However, if 97% of climate scientists [nasa.gov] around the world agree on something, it tends to sway me into their favor. Arguments to the contrary are always welcome but, from what I've seen, they aren't credible (because they are so easily debunked in ways I can understand). When the community of climate scientists is swayed, those of us with open minds will be swayed, too. Same goes with relativity, evolution, and whatever else. I have an open mind but if the overwhelming majority of the experts in a field agree on something, it gets my attention. It seems that what gets the attention of deniers is only what they want to hear.
Re: (Score:2)
When the community of climate scientists is swayed, those of us with open minds will be swayed, too
That's not what is meant by being open minded.
Re: (Score:2)
You're just proving my point.
This issue can't be discussed rationally unless you're able to be unbiased for five seconds.
And no... science is not a democracy.
ONE scientist can be right and every single other one on earth can be wrong. Science is not a popularity contest and it is not a democracy. YOU are thinking politically. Science is not politics.
If you can't grasp that then you have no value to any scientific discussion because you don't know what science is in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
But that's not the way to bet.
Especially if you're not an expert in the field.
Re: (Score:2)
Answer me one simple question: How do you know one specific scientist is right, and the others are wrong?
Fact is, for any question outside our own fields of knowledge, only those suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect can answer that with any certainty, What may seem obvious to you or I could be completely wrong, if we aren't aware of other evidence, or of all the details and factors and nuances and caveats that underlay any moderately-complex scientific statement. This is why we rely on those who have sp
Re: (Score:2)
Clearly you don't know how science works.
Let me expand this a bit because you seem to think science only applies in some situations.
Lets say something is too complicated for the human brain to understand. Simply beyond us as a species. Then lets say scientists study this thing which is beyond us. Can they make up results or half ass it on the basis that they cannot understand it?
No.
See, if you actually valued science you wouldn't just accept what people say because they're experts. That isn't science. That
Re: (Score:2)
Seems to me that a single study, experimental result, etc. can overturn a whole field of knowledge. It's just that the majority of that field will take a while to understand that it's happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and think of all the money being channeled into funding anti-AGW theories. The fact that there's a LOT of special interests and few scientists to spend it on means they actually have a ton of money to throw around.
People are spending millions trying to find a sound scientific basis to deny AGW. If there are cre
Re: (Score:2)
97% of anthropologists thought piltdown man was the missing link and he turned out to be a human skull attached to a monkey jaw bone. The real missing link ended up being found by a guy those assholes mocked.
Re: (Score:2)
And now the 97% consensus have updated their models to include the new data. Prior to that discovery, their assumptions were based on what they previously knew or thought to be true. Once including that new information, their assumptions have been updated and the vast majority now assume differently.
But, most importantly, they are still aware the difference between what they hold as assumptions/beliefs and what has been observationally confirmed.
Re: (Score:2)
97% of anthropologists thought piltdown man was the missing link and he turned out to be a human skull attached to a monkey jaw bone. The real missing link ended up being found by a guy those assholes mocked.
Untrue in all particulars.
Almost from the outset, Woodward's reconstruction of the Piltdown fragments was strongly challenged by some researchers. [...] G.S. Miller, for example, observed in 1915 that "deliberate malice could hardly have been more successful than the hazards of deposition in so breaking the fossils as to give free scope to individual judgment in fitting the parts together."
There is, of course, no "real missing link".
Re: (Score:2)
You are wrong. I am not a climate scientist. Almost all the people here are not climate scientists. However, if 97% of climate scientists [nasa.gov] around the world agree on something, it tends to sway me into their favor.
That again? 72 people. Do you know exactly what it is those 75 people actually agree on [icecap.us]?
Re: (Score:2)
The catch 22 is in order to be a climate scientest you have to basically sign on to beleiving in AGW, so it is a bit like saying 97% of Catholic preists believe in god.
There are plenty of people and institutes that are willing to fund research to disprove AGW, so someone with a sufficiently convincing theory could easily have a good career as a climate scientist. So what's the catch 22?
Re: (Score:2)
have a good career as a climate scientist.
But one has to be ordained as a climate scientist first. Not many of their seminaries are going to graduate non-believers.
Re: (Score:2)
They're not ordained climate scientists, but many of them get published.
You're going to need a broader reason why all the climate scientists have come to agreement. (I suggest, that's what all the evidence shows).
Re: (Score:2)
have a good career as a climate scientist.
But one has to be ordained as a climate scientist first. Not many of their seminaries are going to graduate non-believers.
If you have complaints about the way climate science is evaluated, you will have to be more specific than this. Abstract references to religious institutions are insufficiently clear to discuss and address such complaints.
Re: (Score:2)
If you have complaints about the way climate science is evaluated, you will have to be more specific than this.
I first heard of Johnstone and Mantua's study on NPR. The overarching response from other climate scientists was 'This is wrong since it doesn't support current dogma'. Not 'Gee, we had better look at adding wind data to our ocean temperature models'.
That something as critical as wind velocities effect on ocean evaporation and heat transfer have not been considered suggests to me that these climate models are nowhere near complete enough to provide any useful predictions.
It's back to the drawing board, fo
Re: (Score:2)
The catch 22 is in order to be a climate scientest you have to basically sign on to beleiving in AGW, so it is a bit like saying 97% of Catholic preists believe in god.
So Judith Curry is unemployed? John Christy is no longer at UAH? Richard Lindzen was forced to retire?
Re: (Score:2)
point
Re: (Score:2)
Of course, if the Forbes link is too "right wing" for you, you might prefer the get the 97% bubble popped by a left-leaning source [theguardian.com]
I'd hardly describe Richard Tol as a "left leaning source". Do you think that leftiness is catching? That just by getting published in the Guardian you become a lefty?
Richard Tol disagrees with the 97% figure, but what does he think the real figure is?
The consensus is of course in the high nineties. [wordpress.com]
So, not 97%, maybe it could be 95%, or 99%.
Re: (Score:2)
Consider for the sake of argument if everything you know about this issue is wrong. Just for the sake of argument. Now reexamine these little niche issues one at a time to see if they have anything interesting to say WHILE in that frame of mind.
This is something I do every time I get new information. I take all my opinions, convictions, and beliefs... and I put them in neutral. Then I read it all IN that frame of mind.
This is such a great idea.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
This is far too politicized to be judged scientifically anymore.
The problem is that Warmists have politicized the science almost from the word "go". You can tell this because prominent political organizations like Greenpeace say on the one hand that climate change could be a civilization-ending event, and on the other hand we must not ever even think about using nuclear power to solve it, even though nuclear is the only proven, sustainable, economic and practical alternative to coal (this is even more true since the Japanese demonstrated practical extraction of uranium
Re: (Score:2)
That isn't productive either. You can't just say "well those people did it first"... I don't really care.
Both factions can go fuck themselves. No one can have a rational discussion with those two four year olds poking each other, pulling each other's hair, and calling each other names. Its impossible to have a rational discussion on the issue with either group or possibly ANY group because if they are GROUPS they're not being scientists. They're fighting petty political battles at everyone's expense.
Re: (Score:2)
... two four year olds poking each other, pulling each others hair, and calling each other names.
Sounds like the majority of Slashdot discussions to me.
Re: (Score:2)
Heretics! (Score:2)
Global (Score:2)
Why is the word 'global' so hard for people to understand?
Hint: 'coastal' means something different from 'global'.
Re: (Score:2)
Wind farms are to blame! (Score:2)
So the winds are slowing down, are they? What has mankind done that could possibly be responsible for that? Well, we put up lots of wind-turbines to extract energy from the wind...and because of conservation of energy, the winds can't blow as strongly afterwards...and slowly, wind turbines grind our planet's winds to a halt.
Hey, I can dream...
Let's play (Score:2)
Spot the scientist that relies on climate grants.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"Belief" is not part of the scientific method (Score:3, Insightful)
You're right of course, it's terribly flawed logic. Just as flawed as the logic in "The greenhouse effect is demonstrable in a test tube, therefore it is the primary factor directly controlling the temperature of Earth."
Real scientists don't make such simplistic and unjustified steps in their logic. Unfortunately, because real scientists remain silent when they don't have verifiable mathematics and experime
Re: "Belief" is not part of the scientific method (Score:5, Insightful)
There is hardly a disconnect between theory, lab experimentation, and reality.
We know the greenhouse effect exists... if it didn't, we wouldn't be here.
Re:"Belief" is not part of the scientific method (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's the scientific method -- hypothesis, prediction, and observation.
Funny, I always thought "experiment" was in there somewhere.
Apparently, you should be at your most scientific (and smug) when you don't do experiments.
Re: (Score:3)
Funny, I always thought "experiment" was in there somewhere.
Apparently, you should be at your most scientific (and smug) when you don't do experiments.
Sigh. Experiments would be part of "observation", as in you conduct an experiment and observe the results.
If you weren't so busy being a cynical jackass, you might actually have time to learn things.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
OK ... then how many spare earths have you run through climate change experiments?
I just find it ironically amusing that people are the most publicly smug about science that they can't experimentally test.
Re: (Score:2)
OK ... then how many spare earths have you run through climate change experiments?
The last one didn't go so well, so we are repeating the experiment here on this planet which is next in orbit and slightly more distant from the Sun.
Re: (Score:2)
So, we don't have a parallel where we can go run experiments, although I have had some interesting discussions with people about using Mars for this purpose.
-- Dr William Collins, before the American Physical Society climate change statement review subcommittee.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Belief" is not part of the scientific method (Score:5, Informative)
Except for the prediction part, which is pretty bad.
Stott el al, back in 2000 [sfsu.edu] performed a high profile attribution study using models. I remember the paper, because its the one in which I realized that AGW was a real thing that needed responding to.
You'll notice from figure 1, that they let one of the models run on into the future. The warming trend has been bang on the nose, and there is even a couple of decades of hiatus in that model's run. (Starting a bit later than the observed one, and ending about 2020, but demonstrating that events such as the current one are reproduced by models of even that time. (Being an early paper from HadCM3).
Do you have an example of a paper that demonstrates this poor prediction from climate science?
Re: (Score:3)
That and a cursory glance at the main spokesmodels for the pro-AGW crowd ('Litigious' Mann and 'Often Wrong' Al) should be more than enough to at least warrant a consideration that the science and political ramifications are not settled.
There are about 600,000 hits on google scholar to the search phrase "Global Climate Change", excluding patents.
Are you suggesting that Mike wrote them all, and you only know about them because Al Gore has publicized his work?
There are tens of thousands of primarily climate science researchers on the planet. You'll need a *much* broader ad hominem that that.
Straw men aren't part of the scientific method (Score:2, Insightful)
You're right of course, it's terribly flawed logic. Just as flawed as the logic in "The greenhouse effect is demonstrable in a test tube, therefore it is the primary factor directly controlling the temperature of Earth."
No one says the greenhouse effect is the primary factor controlling the temperature of the Earth. It is, however, a significant factor. Have you ever done the black body radiation calculation for the temperature of the Earth given the radiation from the Sun? It significantly undershoots the
Re: (Score:3)
You're right of course, it's terribly flawed logic. Just as flawed as the logic in "The greenhouse effect is demonstrable in a test tube, therefore it is the primary factor directly controlling the temperature of Earth."
Real scientists don't make such simplistic and unjustified steps in their logic. Unfortunately, because real scientists remain silent when they don't have verifiable mathematics and experiment to back a theory, we only get to hear the charlatans for whom contributory data is equivalent to understanding the whole thing.
Obviously the conundrum is that if you wait to do anything until you have such proof it may be far too late to do anything about the problem. Death for everyone. On the other hand, if you take early action and there was no justification then you wasted some money. Money spent in some "green" sector vs some other one.
The "conservative" choice is clearly to treat global warming as a legitimate threat.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"The "conservative" choice is clearly to treat global warming as a legitimate threat."
Very correct. And yet, we seem completely locked out of considering conservative solutions. Conservative solutions that actually make things better, even if AGW turns out to be NBD. Easy solutions that make us better off in either case, and nobody has to make do with less.
1. Carbon Tax. This is how to tell a true conservative from, what do you call them, 'Neocons'? Libs prevent a carbon tax from happening in two ways: The
Re: (Score:2)
The tax burden now is as high as the economy will sustain (a bit higher actually, as we see businesses flee the US, and the only real growth is from inflation.)
https://ibeconomics.wordpress.com/2011/04/ Other sources seem to indicate it as it historic lows, so maybe you're completely wrong. The only reason you see manufacturing leaving is because other countries have a slightly more lax attitude to slave labour. If it makes you feel better maybe you should campaign for that, at least you'd be being honest.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Belief" is not part of the scientific method (Score:4, Informative)
"The greenhouse effect is demonstrable in a test tube, therefore it is the primary factor directly controlling the temperature of Earth."
I think the line is more, from our knowledge of optics, discovered using experiments in labs, we know the optical properties of CO2. We would expect that increasing the atmospheric concentration of CO2 would therefore increase the global mean surface temperature.
Observations confirm this.
The proportion that the global mean surface temperature change is attributable to AGW is known from a very wide range of evidence.
We know from first principles that the greenhouse effect will cause warming, and we can compare that to the other things that change the radiative forcing on the surface of the planet and find that the greenhouse effect is the largest one [wikipedia.org].
We observe the effect of changing radiative forcing from volcanoes, and calibrate out understanding of how much changes in radiative forcing affect temperature.
We look at the distribution of the warming in time and space: We see a warming that is occurring mostly in winter and at night, showing the current warming to be a slowing of heat loss to space, not an increase in solar energy in. We can reach the same conclusion by observing the cooling of the stratosphere. We see greatly enhanced warming at the poles, and see the predicted feedbacks to greenhouse warming.
Climate models, too are an important tool for understanding and attribution of climate change, and these also provide evidence that the current warming is anthropogenic.
And even if you don't believe any physics whatsoever, and just throw all the observables into a neural net and get it to try to reproduce the global mean surface temperature by any functions of those variables, you still get that the current warming is primarily due to enhanced greenhouse effect. [springer.com]
Real scientists don't make such simplistic and unjustified steps in their logic.
Agreed. And they don't. Why are you making the simplistic and unjustified step of claiming that they do?
Re: (Score:2)
Denying AGW is not denying science. This is not a religion...
Re:Most rational people never believe in AGW (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like claiming at your murder trial that someone's death was natural, so therefore humans can't cause other humans to die.
While this isn't a bad way to put the Denialist reaction to this paper, it is worth pointing out that these guys have done more than produce one number: they have also produced predictions for regional variation that a) match the data and b) can't be replicated by a global forcing model. Since a critical component of the evidence for ACC is the regional variation of the predicted warming, this should at least give one pause.
Of course, letting it give one pause would be a disaster for members of the Warmist religion, whose mantra "The Science Is Settled" implies that any modification to the conclusion "almost all warming observed everywhere is the result of ACC" is equivalent to "the Denialists were right after all!"
This is nonsense, of course: the Denialists are wrong. Doubling the CO2 levels in the Earth's atmosphere are almost certainly increasing the effective insolation by about 1.6 W/m^2, which will likely have appreciable consequences on the climate.
However, how those consequences work themselves out is an extremely uncertain business, and no competent computational physicist puts nearly the trust in our unphysical climate models that Warmists do. This paper is a good example of how science (as opposed to politics and religion, which is what most of the public debate about ACC amounts to) works: they have squeezed a plausible hypothesis (that regional changes around the Pacific are explicable by global forcing) and found it questionable.
I expect we'll see a lot of work in the next decade on the interaction of natural variations and anthropogenic forcings, with Warmists continually playing a game of catch-up and Denialists continually repeating that the manifest uncertainty in our conclusions proves that "humans can't possibly have doubled the CO2 level" (or something like that... why Denialists believe humans can't have a global impact is beyond me.)
This is the damage to science done by Warmists: by claiming something that is not just false but actively anti-science ("the science is settled") they have encouraged their equally ignorant opponents to disbelieve science when it is working exactly as one would like it to.
Re:Most rational people never believe in AGW (Score:4, Insightful)
Since a critical component of the evidence for ACC is the regional variation of the predicted warming, this should at least give one pause.
Really?
When I looked at it, my understanding was that models reproduce the global mean surface temperature very well, but regional climate change is expected to be more affected by systems that originate on scales smaller than the cells of current climate models.
Where do you get this claim that the regional variation is a critical component of the evidence for ACC?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Has anyone taken into account the number of active underwater volcanoes?
Yes.
Next question?
Re: (Score:2)
Any day now, we may find that it is a lie. That's how science works. The proven always has the potential to be disproven.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Most rational people never believe in AGW (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Most rational people never believe in AGW (Score:5, Informative)
The winds are just moving the heat around a bit.
"Moving heat around a bit" has a tremendous impact on global climate. This is why ENSO in the south Pacific is so important: by moving heat around it changes global circulation patterns, which changes the overall energy balance of the Earth. This is why the simple achievement of getting reasonable agreement that anthropogenic CO2 is adding about 1.6 W/m^2 to the Earth's heat budget is such a huge scientific achievement, and while that conclusion is still subject to significant uncertainty: because adding heat changes the winds and currents which themselves influence the radiative balance. There are even (very unlikely) models in which adding sufficient heat causes global cooling due to increased transport of energy to the poles, where it radiates back into space more efficiently.
Climate is a non-linear, strongly coupled system. Treating it as if one could draw simple conclusions dismisses the complexity and difficulty of climate modelling. It also results in underestimating the uncertainties in models.
Any competent computational physicist (me, for example, but other people a lot smarter than me as well: http://online.wsj.com/articles... [wsj.com]) will tell you that climate models are far less certain than their public, political proponents are claiming. This does not mean that "global warming is a hoax" or any such Denialist gibberish. It means that models are uncertain, and we should not get bowled over when they are subject to correction, even significant correction.
In the meantime, we can do some pretty universally agreeable things, like shift income and corporate taxes toward carbon taxes. After all, income and corporate taxes apply to something that is basically good--making butt-loads of money--while carbon taxes apply to something basically bad: burning irreplaceable fossil fuels and dumping garbage into the atmosphere. I guess anti-capitalist crusaders might oppose carbon taxes, but I can't think of any other reason to do so. If anyone is really in favour of keeping income and corporate taxes high, do feel free to make your case, though.
Re: (Score:2)
In the meantime, we can do some pretty universally agreeable things, like shift income and corporate taxes toward carbon taxes.
(If by universal, you mean everyone in the EPA and those who plan to profit from hedges on carbon credits: then I might agree.)
But I digress, you said pretty universal, i.e. partially universal, which is pretty much a contradiction.
Re: (Score:3)
This is why ENSO in the south Pacific is so important: by moving heat around it changes global circulation patterns, which changes the overall energy balance of the Earth.
Not directly. To change the energy balance of the Earth you have to move energy on or off the planet. Not around the oceans.
Re:Most rational people never believe in AGW (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Thermal expansion, ocean currents, how the heat uptake/loss changes as the ice melts, salt concentrations, etc.
There are a LOT of variables here that we either have little to no data on or little to no understanding of how it will impact climate. The climate is very complicated. As with another poster I think the climate models are being a bit alarmist in their predictions but the fact is there is so much we don't understand about how it's going to be affected that we'd be remiss if they weren't alarmist be
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
no.
They have shown that a local effect, pacific northwest, might have had a bigger impact on local winds. The fact tat ther wind changes can be do yo e;levate GLOBAL energy trapping isn't addressed in any clear way.
The fact that they used global model and tried to apply them to a local event is suspect.
No matter, it's one study. Lets see follow up.
NOTHING in the study refutes the fact that the lower atmosphere of the earth is warming do to excess CO2 trapping energy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What I want to know... (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't find the reference right now, but if the average temperature of the planet increases by 4 degrees celsius, large swathes of this planet's real estate become uninhabitable. There's about 2 billion people living in that zone that have to get out, or die. Do you think an iron fence will stop them at the border? Not a chance.
And if the temperature rises enough to release the methane gas in the seas in the arctic, the whole process will accelerate beyond our power to control it.
Now, this may or may not happen. Chances are, if we do nothing it might not happen. The odds don't seem favorable though. In any case, gambling with the entire area of this solar system we can actually inhabit seems like a rather stupid proposition.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that it would be a good thing, but wouldn't the warming of areas that are currently less habitable due to cold offset some of that? Maybe portions of Canada, Greenland, Siberia?
Re:What I want to know... (Score:4, Funny)
What happens when you shut the air conditioner off in your house?
I save the fucking planet, that's what. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
STOP IT!
You can't TAX the WIND!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They tell us that
We lost our tails
Evolving up
From little snails
I say it's all
JUST WIND IN SAILS
Are we not men?
Re: (Score:2)
Oh Al gores' been blowing wind up our global skirts for a while.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is my experience that it is the believers that mostly try to not do anything to control the climate, they instead concentrate on efforts that will primarily cripple modern civilization.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't call me surely, ginger.
Ding ding ding
Re: (Score:2)