Global Warming for Dummies

Aji_de_Gallina · January 31, 2012, 10:48pm

So we started with “Great conspiracy to prevent people from learning the truth” to “Meh, it was just an example, of a recommended review BTW, once again it is only one item to notice and the book is amusing.”, aka my exact point.

septimus:

GIGObuster was not citing the “anonymous guy” on a matter of science, just showing an opinion.

But you are correct, Ají de Gallina, that understanding who you’re citing is important. That’s why I was surprised to see in another thread:

This was the only link I clicked in that thread; I thought a “dropped minus sign” might be something I could understand and save GIGO a click.

(BTW, Kudos to GIGO whose patience in these threads is inspiring!)

The screed you link to, Ají de Gallina, reduces my confidence in your arguments. Right off we see a cartoon poking fun at Al Gore. May I ask you, Ají, whether seeing such a cartoon enhances or diminishes your confidence in the site? Although seeing the cartoon “told me what I needed to know”, I did browse the rest of the page and discovered the fatuous blogwriter and his self-important writing just makes an (easily testable) guess about data. Are you suggesting, Ají, that scientists need to respond to every guess, however inane, put forth by an obviously ignorant layman? (I did see the blogger claimed to have won a Best Science Blog award :smack: )

Well, gigo’s favourite site has not one but twocartoons mocking sceptics, one book showing an ostrich wiht its heas in the sand, titles like “The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction”…so please, don’t give no “tone” talk.
He won something, are you saying it’s false?

JoelUpchurch · January 31, 2012, 11:07pm

Not in climate science. I’ve studied logic in both philosophy and computer science. Climate Science is analog not digital mathematics.

Lobohan · January 31, 2012, 11:23pm

New theories don’t make old data go away. Newtonian physics wasn’t destroyed by Einstein, it was refined.

And why isn’t science democratic? They don’t vote by ballot based on preference. They vote by peer-review and repeating experiments. The vast, vast majority of scientists in the field, who are much, much, better than you at assessing the information, are in agreement.

So whatever new theories come in the future, it will have to account for all the information we currently have. And the information we currently have paints a strong picture of a warming world.

It would be profoundly silly to assume what is the current state of understanding of the scientific world is wrong, because hey, it might change someday!

Someday we might find out that eating lead is good for you, that doesn’t me we should do it now.

JoelUpchurch · January 31, 2012, 11:36pm

The article was updated in 2011.

You quote an alarmist newspaper article from the The Guardian and you give people hell for using the Daily Mail. Here is the actual data.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/from:1960

One thing you need to learn about C02. Every year is a record year.

septimus · January 31, 2012, 11:40pm

No; I didn’t say that. I dismissed the site when I saw the silly cartoon and the self-important nonsensical writing.

But since you ask politely, I “researched” “Weblog awards”.

[QUOTE=bloggie.es]
In the vast universe of blogs, only a select few can be named the best. And that decision is now up to you. …
Who will your vote go to?..
E-mail addresses are required to vote. You must use your own address and confirm the verification e-mail…
200 randomly selected voters receive an invitation to choose the finalists from a list of the most-nominated weblogs in ten random categories…
Winners are announced and the Weblog of the Year receives a prize of 2,012 US cents (US$20.12)…
[/QUOTE]

I prefer the criteria used by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences for its Nobel Prizes. Perhaps you prefer bloggie.es as more “democratic.” To each his own.

GIGObuster · January 31, 2012, 11:47pm

As useless ones go…

Good thing I was not concentrating on the cartoon characters, oops, I forgot Monckton.

Anyhow, this is mostly an issue of who should one trust, and Skeptical Science has this reply to one of the links made by the OP:

The fact that only 16 scientists and engineers signed this letter casts serious doubt on this assertion. ** The fake skeptics were able to get ~100 signatories on a similar letter 5 years ago **- this seems more like a small and dwindling number of fake skeptics. It’s also worth noting that 255 National Academy of Science members (truly prominent scientists) signed an opposite letter, urging action to address climate change.

“We urge our policy-makers and the public to move forward immediately to address the causes of climate change, including the un-restrained burning of fossil fuels.”

Moreover, why should we care what these few self-proclaimed “distinguished scientists and engineers” think we should do about climate change? If I need heart surgery, I’m not going to allow a dentist to perform it, even if it’s the best dentist in the world. Virtually all of the climate science experts agree that actions to address global warming are needed. Their informed opinions are the ones we should heed when it comes to climate science, not those of astronauts and physicians.

Of course, then what do the experts are saying?

But is there really so much scientific dispute over the facts of climate change?

One way to resolve this is to ask a simple question. If Carter and company hold different views to those expressed in the majority of the peer-reviewed, scientific literature, then have they submitted their ideas to independent and objective peer-review?

This is a critical process that sorts opinion and rhetoric from scientific knowledge and consensus.

If the answer is “yes”, there are legitimate grounds for concern over the report’s conclusion.

If the answer is “no”, the arguments against the Climate Commission’s report fall away as unsubstantiated opinion.

The Web of Science is maintained by Thomson Reuters and covers 10,000 journals across the sciences, social sciences, arts and humanities.

You can search this database for papers by different authors within reputable, peer-reviewed journals.

I used the Web of Science to see if Carter, Evans, Franks and Kininmonth were legitimate experts in the areas in which they claim superior knowledge.

Given such strong opinions, you would expect that the four individuals would have published extensively in the peer-reviewed, scientific literature on subjects like climate change, oceanography, and atmospheric physics.

After all, if they have such strong opinions, then surely these ideas have been treated like all other valid scientific ideas?

The Climate Commission and its scientific advisory panel survive this type of scrutiny extremely well. For example, Climate Commissioner Professor Lesley Hughes has at least 39 peer-reviewed publications since 2000.

Many of these articles focus on the terrestrial ecosystems on climate change, an area for which Professor Hughes is internationally recognised.

Similar conclusions can be made for Professors Will Steffen, Matt England, David Karoly, Andrew Pitman and the others associated with the Climate Commission.

Searching for peer-reviewed articles by “R. M. Carter”, however, revealed plenty of peer-reviewed articles on unrelated topics within geology.

Only one paper turns up that could be remotely related to climate change.

This paper, however, was found to be seriously flawed by an internationally recognised group of Earth scientists.

This brings us back to zero for the number of credible papers published by Carter on climate change in the Web of Science.

Aji_de_Gallina · February 1, 2012, 12:21am

Is it OK to dismiss website due to cartoons? Most alarmist one have cartoons too.

[QUOTE]

Sure it’s ueselss, it’s your own cite, the smoking gun on the (metaphorical) thought-police.
As usual you cites go from earth shattering –> good –> Ok –> meh –> useless, by your own admission.

Good thing I wasn’t aswering to you.
You’re still hung up on Monckton? Do I have to show how you were wrong again? haven’t you suffered enough?

When they misrepresent (the magical changing chart - sceptics don’t view it like that) so much and ad hominem (the he’s a denialist or a member of a denialist group obsession, poisoning the well right at the beginning) so much it doesn’t say “science” it says “whoohoo, we teh kuhl”

The guy is right about “let us hope we listen carefully to the experts and not the unsubstantiated opinions of those that are not.”
He is surprisingly misleading saying “submits some climate “sceptics” to peer-review and finds them wanting”, he din’t submit anything, submit meaning he tried to get them published". He doesn’t mention which sceptics he searched for.
And then (I give it toMr. Hoegh-Guldberg that he allows fully disenting opinions on his site, that’s good science) Sr. Walter Starck creams him despite his later responses.

The sycophants are full of ad hominems.

septimus · February 1, 2012, 12:33am

Seems unlikely. Cite?

But I’d still appreciate hearing an answer to my implicit question. I’ll make it explicit:

When you see an anti-Gore cartoon at a webpage (or hear that “Al Gore is a hypocrite” from a person) does that make you more or less likely to value the opinion expressed at the site, or by the person?

The question is sincere, and I would like to hear an answer. (I know that if I somehow got caught up in the scientific debate about water-vapor feedback, and decided that AGW wasn’t going to happen, I’d still continue to believe the lambasting of Al Gore is buffoonish.)

GIGObuster · February 1, 2012, 12:42am

Well thank you again for showing all how unreliable you are at checking information,

Even there you are not correct, Walter Starck gets creamed.

Ove Hoegh-Guldberg

Director, Global Change Institute at University of Queensland

Thanks Walter. A few quick responses:

YOU: 1. You dismiss any credibility of Carter et al. without ever addressing the evidence they offer. This is decidedly unscientific.

This is exactly my point. There are two ways for Bob Carter to have his ideas taken seriously.

Firstly, if he were an atmospheric physicist with a bonus side peer-reviewed science record of publishing within this area, then I would be willing to listen to his input on these parts of the climate change issue. But as you see, exploring the objective scientific record (within the ‘gold standard’ for this Thomson Reuters - see link in original article) we find that he is not published a single article in these fields.

Secondly, if he is not an atmospheric physicist but is pointing to peer reviewed science to support his particular position (based on the findings of relevant experts) then I would feel comfortable in accepting an argument which is well backed up with this literature.

But he is neither a well published atmospheric physicist, or making reference to the peer reviewed literature relevant to the subject. The references at the end of the Quadrant article do not have a single peer reviewed publication in a credible journal that would support the conclusion that the four authors (Carter, Evans, Franks, Kininmonth) had regarding the conclusion that anthropogenic climate change is not happening.

Besides getting a devastating responce from the author, others are not impressed at all.

TriPolar · February 1, 2012, 12:43am

If I need to see if their is a statistical correlation in collected data I can ask a statistician to determine that. I don’t need to understand statistics, and the statistician doesn’t need to understand what the data points are. As a matter of fact, it’s better science if the statistician doesn’t know what they are. The heart of understanding is the relationships between factors to determine cause. That is the logic.

Peer review is a reflective process in science. Science isn’t democratic. When Einstein was the only person who thought relativity explained gravity (he probably wasn’t the only one, lets pretend he was), everyone else was wrong, and they were an overwhelming majority. Einstein proved his case. He didn’t do it through a vote.

Scientific conclusions are supposed to be wrong until new theory is proven (if there is such new theory). Science should be based on the best known data, not the possibilities in the future. You do not assume the current theory is wrong, you assume the new one is, until it has been proven with a strength that overrides prior theory.

IMHO, the causes and results of global climate change haven’t been proven to that strength yet. Please prove me wrong. I am not a denier. I am a skeptic for the purpose of requiring rigorous proof.

Hilarity_N.Suze · February 1, 2012, 12:49am

I was actually in favor of global warming until I found out that the increase was only going to be about four degrees. I don’t even know if it was four degrees F or C, although I guess that makes a difference.

I guess that sucks if you’re an iceberg and your current temp is 31F, but hey, if you melt, then you melt.

But I’m against pollution, because who wouldn’t be?

It’s too bad it’s not all as simple and obvious as the pooping-in-the-well example. Clearly, people can affect the climate, anyone knows that who’s walked through a parking lot on a summer day.

But I’m not convinced that four degrees is going to lead to disaster. Things change, the earth endures, people adapt.

My problem with the AGW people is that they don’t want me to drive my car. But they want to drive THEIR cars.

GIGObuster · February 1, 2012, 1:02am

Ah, then you have to look at history, which oddly enough if where I do have most of my experience like Naomi Oreskes.

To begin with, the theory has more than 100 years of being created, dismissed by erroneous assumptions and mistakes in early experiments and then confirmed and accepted by most around the 50’s-70’s and even more evidence was found to support it in the last decade.

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm

Like the geologists against Wegener and his continental drift many physicists pointed out very good counterpoints to Arrhenius and the theory was mostly seen as a curiosity, but the critics, as it is usually the case, were making several blunders then.

Experts could dismiss the hypothesis because they found Arrhenius’s calculation implausible on many grounds. In the first place, he had grossly oversimplified the climate system. Among other things, he had failed to consider how cloudiness might change if the Earth got a little warmer and more humid. A still weightier objection came from a simple laboratory measurement. A few years after Arrhenius published his hypothesis, another scientist in Sweden, Knut Ångström, asked an assistant to measure the passage of infrared radiation through a tube filled with carbon dioxide. The assistant (“Herr J. Koch,” otherwise unrecorded in history) put in rather less of the gas in total than would be found in a column of air reaching to the top of the atmosphere. The assistant reported that the amount of radiation that got through the tube scarcely changed when he cut the quantity of gas back by a third. Apparently it took only a trace of the gas to “saturate” the absorption — that is, in the bands of the spectrum where CO2 blocked radiation, it did it so thoroughly that more gas could make little difference.(7*)

Still more persuasive was the fact that water vapor, which is far more abundant in the air than carbon dioxide, also intercepts infrared radiation. In the crude spectrographs of the time, the smeared-out bands of the two gases entirely overlapped one another. More CO2 could not affect radiation in bands of the spectrum that water vapor, as well as CO2 itself, were already blocking entirely.(8)
These measurements and arguments had fatal flaws. Herr Koch had reported to Ångström that the absorption had not been reduced by more than 0.4% when he lowered the pressure, but a modern calculation shows that the absorption would have decreased about 1% — like many a researcher, the assistant was over confident about his degree of precision.(9*) But even if he had seen the1% shift, Ångström would have thought this an insignificant perturbation. He failed to understand that the logic of the experiment was altogether false.

The greenhouse effect will in fact operate even if the absorption of radiation were totally saturated in the lower atmosphere. The planet’s temperature is regulated by the thin upper layers where radiation does escape easily into space. Adding more greenhouse gas there will change the balance. Moreover, even a 1% change in that delicate balance would make a serious difference in the planet’s surface temperature. The logic is rather simple once it is grasped, but it takes a new way of looking at the atmosphere — not as a single slab, like the gas in Koch’s tube (or the glass over a greenhouse), but as a set of interacting layers. (The full explanation is in the essay on Simple Models, use link at right.)

The Theory Restored (1950-1958)
The complacent view that CO2 from human activity could never become a problem was overturned during the 1950s by a series of costly observations. This was a consequence of the Second World War and the Cold War, which brought a new urgency to many fields of research. American scientists enjoyed massively increased government funding, notably from military agencies. The officials were not aiming to answer academic questions about future climates, but to provide for pressing military needs. Almost anything that happened in the atmosphere and oceans could be important for national security. Among the first products of these research efforts were new data for the absorption of infrared radiation, a topic of more interest to weapons engineers than meteorologists.(23)

The early experiments that sent radiation through gases in a tube, measuring bands of the spectrum at sea-level pressure and temperature, had been misleading. The bands seen at sea level were actually made up of overlapping spectral lines, which in the primitive early instruments had been smeared out into broad bands. Improved physics theory and precise laboratory measurements in the 1940s and after encouraged a new way of looking at the absorption. Scientists were especially struck to find that at low pressure and temperature, each band resolved into a cluster of sharply defined lines, like a picket fence, with gaps between the lines where radiation would get through.(24) As Hulburt and Callendar had claimed, the most important CO2 absorption lines did not lie exactly on top of water vapor lines. Instead of two overlapping bands, there were two sets of narrow lines with spaces for radiation to slip through. So even if water vapor in the lower layers of the atmosphere did entirely block any radiation that could have been absorbed by CO2, that would not keep the gas from making a difference in the rarified and frigid upper layers. Those layers held very little water vapor anyway. And scientists were coming to see that you couldn’t just calculate absorption for radiation passing through the atmosphere as a whole, you had to understand what happened in each layer — which was far harder to calculate.

Digital computers were now at hand for such calculations. The theoretical physicist Lewis D. Kaplan decided it was worth taking some time away from what seemed like more important matters to grind through extensive numerical computations. In 1952, he showed that in the upper atmosphere, adding more CO2 must change the balance of radiation.(25)

But would adding carbon dioxide in the upper layers of the air significantly change the surface temperature? Only detailed computations, point by point across the infrared spectrum and layer by layer down through the atmosphere, could answer that question. By 1956, such computations could be carried out thanks to the increasing power of digital computers. The physicist Gilbert N. Plass took up the challenge of calculating the transmission of radiation through the atmosphere (he too did it out of sheer curiosity, as a diversion from his regular work making calculations for weapon engineers). He nailed down the likelihood that adding more CO2 would increase the interference with infrared radiation. Going beyond this qualitative result, Plass calculated that doubling the level would bring a 3-4°C rise. Assuming that emissions would continue at the current (1950s) rate, he expected that human activity would raise the average global temperature “at the rate of 1.1 degree C per century.”(26)

The Computer Models Vindicated (1990s-2000s)
By now there were a dozen teams around the world using computers to integrate every advance in observation or theory. As the 21st century arrived, the growing agreement among the rival teams, and the consistency of their models’ results with many different kinds of observations, became overwhelmingly convincing. No model that could simulate the Earth’s climate — and some of the simulations had become very good indeed — failed to show warming if its greenhouse gas level was raised. Scarcely any expert with a record of contributing to climate science now doubted that CO2 and other greenhouse gases were at least partly responsible for the unprecedented warming all around the world since the 1970s.

A final nail in the coffin of scientific skepticism came in 2005, when a team compiled accurate long-term measurements of temperatures in all the world’s ocean basins. It was not in the air but the massive oceans, after all, that most of any heat added would soon wind up. Indeed natural fluctuations had kept air temperatures roughly the same since the late 1990s; the significant question was whether the oceans were continuing to warm. The team found that over many decades the planet’s content of heat-energy had been rising, and was rising still (this continued steadily after 2005 as well). There was only one remotely plausible source of the colossal addition of energy: the Earth must be taking in more energy from sunlight than it was radiating back into space. Simple physics calculated that to heat all that sea water required nearly an extra watt per square meter, averaged over the planet’s entire surface, year after year. The number was just what the elaborate greenhouse effect computations had been predicting for decades.

brittekland · February 1, 2012, 1:07am

Are you certain enough that we all should follow your example or continue doing what we were doing before we were ever aware of this “possible” problem?

TriPolar · February 1, 2012, 1:07am

Now you’ve made a good start. I’ll read these thing later this evening. Don’t know what they prove, but it looks like reasonable background information.

Michael63129 · February 1, 2012, 1:32am

Four degrees might not sound like much and may even sound nice on a cold winter day. But there is a very big difference between the globe simply warming by four degrees (and more likely than not more if current trends in emissions continue and if/when aerosols are reduced); it is well known that weather patterns are pretty sensitive to even small temperature changes (many scientists are starting to explicitly state that recent extreme weather is being exacerbated by warming). In fact, a recent paper that was used by skeptics to claim that warming was overestimated just makes things worse if it is correct- since it concludes that weather patterns are more sensitive than thought to temperature changes (thus the reduced warming for the same changes).

Here is one such example of how even a small amount of warming can have a big impact:

In other words, there is a critical temperature above which crop yields decrease dramatically (some other studies have found that other crops are even more sensitive and yields have already fallen with the warming so far, from what they would have been otherwise).

GIGObuster · February 1, 2012, 1:47am

Hilarity_N.Suze:

I was actually in favor of global warming until I found out that the increase was only going to be about four degrees. I don’t even know if it was four degrees F or C, although I guess that makes a difference.

I guess that sucks if you’re an iceberg and your current temp is 31F, but hey, if you melt, then you melt.

But I’m against pollution, because who wouldn’t be?

It’s too bad it’s not all as simple and obvious as the pooping-in-the-well example. Clearly, people can affect the climate, anyone knows that who’s walked through a parking lot on a summer day.

But I’m not convinced that four degrees is going to lead to disaster. Things change, the earth endures, people adapt.

My problem with the AGW people is that they don’t want me to drive my car. But they want to drive THEIR cars.

Ahem, you really need to check the MIT link made before, as for not worrying about a 4 degree increase:

http://news.discovery.com/earth/climate-change-four-degrees.html

Growing Food

Dry areas are likely to get drier, according to a study of water supply done by New and others, which could have severe implications for agriculture.

A team led by Peter Thornton of the International Livestock Research Institute used models to project the effect of a four-degree temperature increase on crop production in sub-Saharan Africa.

“The rate of crop failure in southern Africa increases to nearly one in every two years,” New said of the study. “You can’t continue to rely on your existing crops or practices. There’s going to have to be some kind of a transformation.”

“Most of these countries have low capacity to adapt,” he added.

Timing Is Everything

The timing of the temperature increase will be critical, as global population increases – predicted to peak later this century – will increase demand for food. “If you’ve got the peak in world population at exactly the same time when global temperatures peak, then clearly you’ve got a squeeze from both sides – the demand side and the supply side,” New added.

New’s colleague Fai Fung and others compared the projected global water supply at four degrees warmer with that at two degrees for the 120 largest river basins throughout the world.

“There’s already a lot of water stress, so what we’re saying is that in the future under these scenarios, it will probably get worse,” Fung said. In general, the team’s projections suggest that in a world that is two degrees warmer, population increases are more important than climate change in creating water stress, but once temperatures increase by four degrees, temperature increases become more important.

Some places, such as the Ganges river basin, may get wetter, the team’s models project, but it could be that the wet season gets wetter, rather than that the water is distributed evenly. “It may be more water at the wrong time.” Fung said.

Rising Waters

Sea level rise is another key consequence of a warmer world. Research by a team led by Robert Nicholls at the University of Southampton, United Kingdom, suggests that four degree warming would result in one-half to two meters of sea level rise, although the greatest increases are less likely.

“I can’t say we wouldn’t see a half-meter with a two-degree rise,” Nicholls said. “But it tends to make the likelihood of the really big changes a lot lower.”

Six Degrees, as the title suggests, is comprised of six main chapters (plus an introduction and a conclusion). Each of the main chapters examine what the earth might look like as we raise the planet’s temperature by 1o, 2o, etc. degrees Celsius, based on what the scientific literature has to say about it. Laying out the book this way makes for a good logical progression of ideas, and a fair bit of suspense. Very few people, Lynas says, have got “the slightest idea what two, four or six degrees of average warming actually means in reality, and I’m sure he is right.

In Chapter 1, at 1o, we have predictions of, for example, an annually ice free Arctic ocean. Yes, quite plausible and supported by the literature, and perhaps occurring a little sooner than expected. At 2o, we have, “so whilst southern China can expect more flooding as the two-degree line is approached, the oceanic time lag means that it may take much longer for the rain-bearing summer monsoon to reach the drought-stricken north.” Yes, certainly plausible based on the studies Lynas cites. At 4o, we have “with global sea levels half a meter or more above current levels, [the Egyptian city of] Alexandria’s long lifespan will be drawing to a close. Even in today’s climate, a substantial part of the city lies below sea level, and by the latter part of this century a terminal inundation will have begun. … a rise in sea levels of 50 cm would displace 1.5 million people and cause $35 billion of damage.” Alarmist? Hardly. A 50 cm rise in sea level, is well within the conservative IPCC projections, even for temperature rises less than four degrees.

At 5o and 6o, the book really does start to sound alarmist

TriPolar · February 1, 2012, 1:49am

I find it difficult to believe that other crops will not fare better, and some parts of the earth will become more fertile, and that we cannot breed plants that are well suited to the changed environment. If this is all you’ve got, it ain’t much to worry about. But I don’t think crops are the major concern.

GIGObuster · February 1, 2012, 1:49am

I have to mention that I linked to the index there by mistake, the chapter that has the quotes on CO2 is here:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

Aji_de_Gallina · February 1, 2012, 1:58am

What? He checked a couple of names? Why those names?
Still, misleading headline and suspect methodology.

Nope, he starts with ad hominems about people’s professions (Uve is a biologist, by the way).
reply 1) He isn’t published in the right magazines. Content-free
Reply 2) He, oops, omits “dangerous” and makes it a completely changes the meaning.
Reply 3) when he says “And as long as it is peer-reviewed, and it represents the consensus, then I’m happy to write well backed up and documented statements” he commits a scientific sin, he has to represent the consensus. No science will ever get done if you aim for consensus.
Reply 4) Stupid (for both) Climategate fight.
Reply 5) Again he says that if it isn’t consensus, it’s not good.
Reply 6) Although there is a body of evidence of climate change, it doesn’t point to catastrophe or the social change that is demanded,
Fail.

What professions “count”? Economist (Head IPCC)? B.A.? Masters Governance and Public Policy? B.A. and PhD in Buisness? (Top people at Uve’s Center)

GIGObuster · February 1, 2012, 2:16am

Latest reports point to the recent crop loss in Russia were caused or made worse thanks to the current temperature increase.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2011/10/18/1101766108.abstract

Now why should we had worried about that change?

This time one could say we were lucky in the sense that the Arab Spring was one of the results, but it was lucky in the sense that the shortages left exposed to all the unfairness of the dictatorships, the fear here is that if that happens again, and the chances are increasing, it could happen in worse levels so even the more advanced nations could get less desirable changes in their governments.

Another thing to consider is that it is not simple nor cheap or easy to predict the timing of the changes, a timing that will be needed to be prepare to cultivate in different locations with better conditions in a warming world, because before the climate stabilizes in the new patterns that will come, a lot of crops will be lost because during a transition there could not be a good grasp of when the correct times will come before it stabilizes. Unfortunately, many nations will not look nicely to all those people moving to those better locations.

Topic		Replies	Views
The Evidence Against Global Warming? READ BEFORE FLAMING! Great Debates	120	10016	March 25, 2009
Are There STILL People Who Deny Global Warming Is Happening? Great Debates	129	12332	October 4, 2009
"It's cold, so there's no global warming." Do they KNOW that's false? The BBQ Pit	316	27911	January 25, 2011
brazil84's Global Warming Thread Great Debates	353	11939	March 21, 2008
Explaining global warming In My Humble Opinion	20	2146	September 17, 2009

Global Warming for Dummies

Related topics