|
On December 14 2011 15:05 lOvOlUNiMEDiA wrote:
@OP: Did the climate models being used around the year 2000 predict the temperatures for the next 12 years (up until the present?) How accurately? Which models? Which didn't (any)?
What is the role for economists in this issue? Global warming is bad because it hurts human beings right? But if helping human beings is the goal of policy then don't we have to weight how much it costs to cut carbon vs what we could do with that money to help those affected by whatever impacts global warming might have?
Thanks! Cool thread 8)
As I understood it, the whole idea discussed in international negotiations, that lead to the Kyoto Protocols and whatever other treaties there are, is based on economics. There seem to be predictions about the economy by economists that look at and compare the different future scenarios presented by climatologists. No one gives a serious weight to human life. People will migrate somewhere else, if they cannot support themselves in an area. So it is not so much about human beings, but purely about economics. The whole problem is basically about diplomacy and every group involved trying to not be ripped off by the treaties.
|
I can't believe TL mods have let you keep the topic's title lol
|
One of the big argument for environnement is: we have to protect our next generation. But its so false, our next generation is not in peril!
All the problems will happen in the third world. In fact if we have lower economie because we try to be more environnement friendly we'll have less money to help our health system and we'll kill us.
|
No consensus on IPCC's level of ignorance: As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) puts the finishing touches to its final report of the year, two of its senior scientists look at what the panel is and how well it works. Here, a view from a leading researcher into temperature change. by John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stm
Christy argues the IPCC is more a political body seeking to push an agenda than actually understanding the science behind climate change. Why these countries and "specialists" think they can control the climate is beyond me.
|
On December 15 2011 06:47 slytown wrote:No consensus on IPCC's level of ignorance: As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) puts the finishing touches to its final report of the year, two of its senior scientists look at what the panel is and how well it works. Here, a view from a leading researcher into temperature change. by John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stmChristy argues the IPCC is more a political body seeking to push an agenda than actually understanding the science behind climate change. Why these countries and "specialists" think they can control the climate is beyond me.
I would be wary of using John Christy as a main source of legitimate skepticism since he himself has credibility issues, however you can just read this article yourself and decide http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/
Furthermore authors here point out a serious data blunder by Christy in a controversial article (not known if intentional or not, more likely the the former) http://www.met.sjsu.edu/~wittaya/journals/CommentsonMethodology.pdf
|
On December 15 2011 07:33 forgottendreams wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 15 2011 06:47 slytown wrote:No consensus on IPCC's level of ignorance: As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) puts the finishing touches to its final report of the year, two of its senior scientists look at what the panel is and how well it works. Here, a view from a leading researcher into temperature change. by John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stmChristy argues the IPCC is more a political body seeking to push an agenda than actually understanding the science behind climate change. Why these countries and "specialists" think they can control the climate is beyond me. I would be wary of using John Christy as a main source of legitimate skepticism since he himself has credibility issues, however you can just read this article yourself and decide http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/Furthermore authors here point out a serious data blunder by Christy in a controversial article (not known if intentional or not, more likely the the former) http://www.met.sjsu.edu/~wittaya/journals/CommentsonMethodology.pdf[
I'm not in climate science, so I can't pick-apart these two articles but I can say how good academic journalism is done. For one, you can't debunk something without providing a correction and an argument. The first article merely pushes around the numbers of a model, rather than focusing on the science. Second, the other article from SJSU is on regional temperature variance at night. How does that have anything to do with global warming? I believe Mr. Christy has stated, among other authors, that regional variance can be human induced, but global variation is too complex and vast for humans to have a climate effect.
|
On December 15 2011 08:59 slytown wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2011 07:33 forgottendreams wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 15 2011 06:47 slytown wrote:No consensus on IPCC's level of ignorance: As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) puts the finishing touches to its final report of the year, two of its senior scientists look at what the panel is and how well it works. Here, a view from a leading researcher into temperature change. by John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stmChristy argues the IPCC is more a political body seeking to push an agenda than actually understanding the science behind climate change. Why these countries and "specialists" think they can control the climate is beyond me. I would be wary of using John Christy as a main source of legitimate skepticism since he himself has credibility issues, however you can just read this article yourself and decide http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/Furthermore authors here point out a serious data blunder by Christy in a controversial article (not known if intentional or not, more likely the the former) http://www.met.sjsu.edu/~wittaya/journals/CommentsonMethodology.pdf[ I'm not in climate science, so I can't pick-apart these two articles but I can say how good academic journalism is done. For one, you can't debunk something without providing a correction and an argument. The first article merely pushes around the numbers of a model, rather than focusing on the science. Second, the other article from SJSU is on regional temperature variance at night. How does that have anything to do with global warming? I believe Mr. Christy has stated, among other authors, that regional variance can be human induced, but global variation is too complex and vast for humans to have a climate effect.
Thank-you!
For a rebuttal to be valid, it has to be on the same level as the original claim.
Both of these articles are just trashy attempts to justify inaction.
|
On December 14 2011 07:44 dabbeljuh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2011 05:28 liberal wrote:On December 14 2011 04:58 frogrubdown wrote:
This thread has taken a sharp turn toward the ignorant since the OP left. Hopefully he'll return before it becomes a complete waste of time like so many other discussions on this topic. Actually, it will be a waste of time either way. In fact, even if we were able to convince every single person that ever visits this thread that man-made global warming is real, it would still be a waste of time because there truly isn't a legitimate solution to the problem yet. So long as population increases, so long as more nations industrialize, so long as we don't have a severe global economic depression, CO2 emissions worldwide will simply continue to increase. The real denial is believing government can do anything to stop it. Hi Liberal, I will take your post as one representative of all the "it just doesnt matter" posts It is not true. Climate Change is a global challenge, and we have to try to prevent the powers that be of manipulating us. IF you guys, as educated young people in rich countries dont believe that climate change is happening, there is no change in hell that the governments of 2020 or 2030 will be more rational than now. It is a fair point to say, you do not see the politicl system to react in time, I partially agree. I still believe it is our responsibilty to talk about this. We are changing EArth in many ways, Climate Change is one of them. Most are not sustainable. Most of them are bad for us and those that follow us. If humanity wants to claim to be sentient in a global sense, at one point we HAVE to change strategy. This can be government guided, could be consumer based, could be a big ethical swingback, who knows. I just think, everybody should get their facts straight. I repeat something from my OP: the reaction of society is not the responsibility of science, it is your responsibility, our responsibility as citizens. In my opinion as citizen: do we like the way Earth is operated right now, in our western, liberal, rich countries? Cheers, W
You haven't really addressed his point - that global warming is inevitable. Even you admitted yourself that you have a huge carbon footprint, as does almost everyone that lives in the first world. Unless you can convince everyone to live like nomads or seriously alter their way of life, I don't see how you can stop this problem. Especially as the China and India economies start to take off, our carbon footprint is going to continue to grow every generation. Why hurt our economy if our best effort probably won't be enough anyway? I think even the best that an optimist can hope for is to slow down the increase in our carbon emissions. Instead of our great grandchildren being screwed it will be our great great great grandchildren.
I know you said that we have to change how we think about global warming in order to find a solution. How about instead you find a solution and then maybe I will change how I think? I don't think these small symbolic steps like enforcing higher fuel standards on vehicles are going to cut it.
|
On December 15 2011 09:05 Carson wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2011 08:59 slytown wrote:On December 15 2011 07:33 forgottendreams wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On December 15 2011 06:47 slytown wrote:No consensus on IPCC's level of ignorance: As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) puts the finishing touches to its final report of the year, two of its senior scientists look at what the panel is and how well it works. Here, a view from a leading researcher into temperature change. by John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7081331.stmChristy argues the IPCC is more a political body seeking to push an agenda than actually understanding the science behind climate change. Why these countries and "specialists" think they can control the climate is beyond me. I would be wary of using John Christy as a main source of legitimate skepticism since he himself has credibility issues, however you can just read this article yourself and decide http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/Furthermore authors here point out a serious data blunder by Christy in a controversial article (not known if intentional or not, more likely the the former) http://www.met.sjsu.edu/~wittaya/journals/CommentsonMethodology.pdf[ I'm not in climate science, so I can't pick-apart these two articles but I can say how good academic journalism is done. For one, you can't debunk something without providing a correction and an argument. The first article merely pushes around the numbers of a model, rather than focusing on the science. Second, the other article from SJSU is on regional temperature variance at night. How does that have anything to do with global warming? I believe Mr. Christy has stated, among other authors, that regional variance can be human induced, but global variation is too complex and vast for humans to have a climate effect. Thank-you! For a rebuttal to be valid, it has to be on the same level as the original claim. Both of these articles are just trashy attempts to justify inaction.
Right... "trashy" articles. The first one is an article that is explaining the initial errors on part of the temperature models that were later corrected by Spencer and Christy themselves after years of complaints and demonstration of the errors.
The second "article" is actually a peer reviewed journal that mentions Christy either failed to include an important set of data or excluded it entirely skewing the trend to show zero.
The point is if anyone were to use him as a source, not much credibility can be derived from his name because he either is simply a bad constructor of models or he is intentionally skewing the data on purpose.
|
It's raining in most of the southern areas of Canada.......
|
How about this one, from a genuine "skeptic" (yours truly). I'm only "skeptical" about some aspects of the science--my main gripe is with the policies advocated by most climate change people.
It's clear that the earth is warming, and from basic physics it seems likely that co2 is the cause. But that's not too interesting for policy. What matters is how much the warming will continue (say, global mean temperature in 2050), and what the environmental consequences will be. To answer these questions requires simulating the entire earth, which is basically impossible. The current models contain hundreds of fudge factors that must be fit to past data. They all do it in different ways, and their predictions diverge rapidly. Also, the predictions of a single model often changes wildly (well outside the statistical error bars of the previous model) when new physics is added. This is because--as everybody knows--the overwhelming source of error is systematic, in that the included physics is not correctly modeled and much physics known to be relevant is not included. In no other field of science (certainly not mine) would the quantitative results of such simulations be taken seriously, and yet in climate science policy documents you see statistical error bars slapped on results of whatever the latest simulations are (with some averaging over different models), and pedaled as scientific predictions to world leaders.
Here's what I would want to see before quantitative simulation results can be considered reliable. For each model, train on only 1/2 the available data, and then verify that the remaining half is reproduced before making predictions. Verify that all secondary aspects are reproduced as well (such as measured ice melt rates, etc.). For each code, verify that each time new physics is introduced, the results remain consistent with previous results. And across all codes, make sure that agreement remains within statistical error bars for each code. I have seen two climate simulation presentations made for physicists, and none of them showed any of this. I have also directly asked some experts and none could produce such tests. I therefore assume that these criteria are (roundly) not satisfied. In that case the simulations can be regarded as providing further evidence for the hypothesis that co2 caused and will continue to cause warning, but can not be used to infer anything quantitative about the future.
The bottom line is we know next to nothing about what the scope and impact of global warming will be. This should be straightforwardly communicated to policymakers so they can make the best decisions. In my own personal opinion, it makes no sense to spend tons of money on combating co2 emissions based on the idea that (e.g.) droughts and floods *might* cause food shortages for people in 50 years, when these same people *are* facing food shortages and many other problems right now. If we spent a tenth of what is proposed to be spent to combat global warming on current problems in the third world, it would be truly a testament to the charity and generosity of western liberalism and environmentalism. On a final personal note, I count myself both a liberal and an environmentalist, but not a gambler. Since the impact of co2 emissions is so incredibly uncertain and there are so many certain problems now, let's spend our limited money, time, and energy fixing the certain ones.
|
3 questions.
Are there any climate scientists who dispute AGW?
How can people who have no background in the study of climate change dispute the scientific consensus?
Why doesn't this happen with other scientific topics? (i mean it does happen with evolution but to a much smaller extent)
Sorry if these questions seem loaded but I am genuinely curious.
In response to Capook even if the effects are uncertain this in no way means we shouldn't act. There are plenty of risks that are uncertain like accidents, fire, how much we need to save for retirement ect. Just because we cannot accurately predict them does not mean that we do nothing about them. As a poker player I am never certain what my opponents cards are but I can put them on a range of possibilities and make an intelligent decision even in the face of uncertainty. I don't just through up my hands and say things are uncertain, nothing can be done.
To "climate sceptics" in general to be honest these arguments remind me of all the smoking arguments. The jury is still out, we can't definitely link smoking to cancer, their are a whole lot of other factors to be considered ect ect. In Science you are never going to be 100% certain, asking for ever increasing levels of certainty before acting is not being sceptical, quite frankly its being an idiot. Being open to new evidence is a good, never acting because you aren't 100% convinced is not.
|
On December 13 2011 07:47 ~SiC~ wrote:
Also, since Global Warming is still a theory, you as a scientist should be working to disprove it. Scientific method is not defending something, but try to tear it down until there is only fact remaining. It is terrible that climate science has become such a pop culture thing, that proper scientific protocol isn't followed. Instead it has become a witch hunt for the unbelievers. All research on the topic is done with the intent to prove it. I can prove anything if I apply that scientific method. Scientists proved horribly fallacious things under that premise. You even doing this post shows you have no respect for science and the pursuit of knowledge.
A little harsh, but do you see the point?
I'm likely to play to the opinion of many people who claim to know the whole picture by reading articles about climate change, but as a fairly educated fellow in a fairly conservative part of the world (when it comes to this issue, Alberta ftw) the quote is pretty much what I think of the entire charade known as climate change 'science'.
However, this thread was quite intriguing and I learned some stuff that I haven't cared to research myself. It didn't change my opinion that Earth goes thru warming and cooling cycles (apart from volcanic and meteoric impacts) and as the equilibrium changes and ecosystems are adjusted at some point ecological buffers will stabilize or revert changes. The Human race is a powerful force but I do believe it is egotistical to think that we have the abilities we are attributed. Maybe in 30 years there is a huge die off because of coastal change, regardless humanity and our industrial technology will survive in one form or another.
|
On December 15 2011 10:04 Capook wrote:
The current models contain hundreds of fudge factors that must be fit to past data. They all do it in different ways, and their predictions diverge rapidly. Also, the predictions of a single model often changes wildly (well outside the statistical error bars of the previous model) when new physics is added.
To the OP: Are elements of climate models still adjusted "by hand", and is this in the initial conditions phase or the evolution phase? Also, the multi-model dataset used in the fourth IPCC assessment report seems to have a fairly well-constrained set of model results, at least in terms of mean temperature - were these results somehow sterilised to ensure that "rapidly divergent" results did not make it into the report?
Capook: do you know what 'diverge rapidly' means in the context you are using it in?
|
On December 15 2011 11:26 Gofarman wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2011 07:47 ~SiC~ wrote:
Also, since Global Warming is still a theory, you as a scientist should be working to disprove it. Scientific method is not defending something, but try to tear it down until there is only fact remaining. It is terrible that climate science has become such a pop culture thing, that proper scientific protocol isn't followed. Instead it has become a witch hunt for the unbelievers. All research on the topic is done with the intent to prove it. I can prove anything if I apply that scientific method. Scientists proved horribly fallacious things under that premise. You even doing this post shows you have no respect for science and the pursuit of knowledge.
A little harsh, but do you see the point? I'm likely to play to the opinion of many people who claim to know the whole picture by reading articles about climate change, but as a fairly educated fellow in a fairly conservative part of the world (when it comes to this issue, Alberta ftw) the quote is pretty much what I think of the entire charade known as climate change 'science'. However, this thread was quite intriguing and I learned some stuff that I haven't cared to research myself. It didn't change my opinion that Earth goes thru warming and cooling cycles (apart from volcanic and meteoric impacts) and as the equilibrium changes and ecosystems are adjusted at some point ecological buffers will stabilize or revert changes. The Human race is a powerful force but I do believe it is egotistical to think that we have the abilities we are attributed. Maybe in 30 years there is a huge die off because of coastal change, regardless humanity and our industrial technology will survive in one form or another.
I am also rather conservative, and about this problem, I would like to choose the safest route. Oil etc. will run out anyways, and a change to something else will be needed eventually. If a change to a renewable source for energy will be needed anyways, the safe decision would be to work to that end result as soon as possible without completely bombing the economy.
The climate change charade you see is in my opinion an invented debate of demagogues trying to twist what the mathematicians that have put in decades of their life of work into the subject matter say about the climate.
About how powerful the human race can be in regard to CO2 in the atmosphere, you have to keep in mind that what humanity is using for energy at the moment, was deposited by plant-life for millions of years, and humanity manages to release all that carbon back into the atmosphere in two hundred years or something along those lines. If I want to have an answer to what this means for the climate and for the economy, why would I not believe the academics that are working on that problem with real math and super computers and digging out ice in Greenland and whatever else they are trying to do for answers?
Scientists in between themselves also have a competition for producing results and getting famous, and I would guess this would be enough incentive to look at weird ideas to try to find something astonishing to get their name out there. This academic debate still does not produce anyone that honestly disputes global warming caused by humanity. The only ones still arguing are pop-science authors coming from different disciplines, and they are only debating and not actually working on answers.
|
On December 15 2011 10:04 Capook wrote:
How about this one, from a genuine "skeptic" (yours truly). I'm only "skeptical" about some aspects of the science--my main gripe is with the policies advocated by most climate change people.
It's clear that the earth is warming, and from basic physics it seems likely that co2 is the cause. But that's not too interesting for policy. What matters is how much the warming will continue (say, global mean temperature in 2050), and what the environmental consequences will be. To answer these questions requires simulating the entire earth, which is basically impossible. The current models contain hundreds of fudge factors that must be fit to past data. They all do it in different ways, and their predictions diverge rapidly. Also, the predictions of a single model often changes wildly (well outside the statistical error bars of the previous model) when new physics is added. This is because--as everybody knows--the overwhelming source of error is systematic, in that the included physics is not correctly modeled and much physics known to be relevant is not included. In no other field of science (certainly not mine) would the quantitative results of such simulations be taken seriously, and yet in climate science policy documents you see statistical error bars slapped on results of whatever the latest simulations are (with some averaging over different models), and pedaled as scientific predictions to world leaders.
Here's what I would want to see before quantitative simulation results can be considered reliable. For each model, train on only 1/2 the available data, and then verify that the remaining half is reproduced before making predictions. Verify that all secondary aspects are reproduced as well (such as measured ice melt rates, etc.). For each code, verify that each time new physics is introduced, the results remain consistent with previous results. And across all codes, make sure that agreement remains within statistical error bars for each code. I have seen two climate simulation presentations made for physicists, and none of them showed any of this. I have also directly asked some experts and none could produce such tests. I therefore assume that these criteria are (roundly) not satisfied. In that case the simulations can be regarded as providing further evidence for the hypothesis that co2 caused and will continue to cause warning, but can not be used to infer anything quantitative about the future.
The bottom line is we know next to nothing about what the scope and impact of global warming will be. This should be straightforwardly communicated to policymakers so they can make the best decisions. In my own personal opinion, it makes no sense to spend tons of money on combating co2 emissions based on the idea that (e.g.) droughts and floods *might* cause food shortages for people in 50 years, when these same people *are* facing food shortages and many other problems right now. If we spent a tenth of what is proposed to be spent to combat global warming on current problems in the third world, it would be truly a testament to the charity and generosity of western liberalism and environmentalism. On a final personal note, I count myself both a liberal and an environmentalist, but not a gambler. Since the impact of co2 emissions is so incredibly uncertain and there are so many certain problems now, let's spend our limited money, time, and energy fixing the certain ones.
You are raising some very interesting problems in climate science when it comes to data.treatment and your points are valid in so far it is possible to do what you want.
However, basic Monte Carlo-simulations really screws with data to a degree, that it can actually change the type of probability distribution. When that happens it would be wrong to represent the data with standard deviations as is the standard in much of science. Usually you make a sensitivity analysis instead, but having a ton of parameters would make a listing of those results after the numbers in question completely pointless as noone would be able to use those data without scrutinizing the data.
As for the very sound approach of calibration and validation, you need to have all significant effects on parameters you are modelling represented in both the calibration-data and validation-data. If the effects are not present in a sufficient degree in both data-sets, you cannot get a reliable result. As you are pointing out, there are enough parameters in these models to fit an elephant and capturing all effects on those parameters in both time series would seem to include more luck than anything else.
As for your opinion:
We know that the coral reefs are dying because of increased amounts of carbonic acid in the seas. It is irreversible and an effect of too much CO2 in the athmosphere. (I have never heard of anyone disputing that.)
We know that greenhouse gasses in the athmosphere has an effect on temperature. The higher amount of greenhouse-gasses, the higher retention of energetic particles. (See OPs explainations, it is very few disputing this fact at least in the scientific community)
We know that human actions are increaing the concentration of CO2 in the athmosphere. Look at carbon cycle and you will better understand why. (Scientifically it is again a hard to dispute those facts.)
How we should act upon those informations is however a very real debate: Kyoto-protocol is based on percentage decreases in none-neutral carbon-emission. From a scientific standpoint it somewhat makes sense, but from a practical standpoint it is unfair towards those that already do a lot and there are a limited amount of options for actually reaching those goals.
Carbontaxation is a symptom-treatment: It is trying to control the emissions of man by making an almost impossible to enforce law against too much none-neutral carbon-emission. The tax should be on the extraction of the sources and it would be infinitely easier to actually enforce the tax. However no sane politician would dare utter that idea.
Politics is politics and symptom-treatment is the name of the game.
What we truely need is:
a) A reasonable way to store energy for electricity to avoid having to rely on nuclear and worse coal- and oil-fired power-plants.
b) A good and relatively safe fuel-source. Electricity is only a solution if a) is met. Hydrogen is dangerous to handle with most modern technology(storage in none- or low-pressurised environments show promise). Methanol is toxic and relatively inefficient. Ethanol and butanol are still years in the future of research to actually be competitive (high temperature powercells are admittedly very interesting!). Mixed biofuels are generally very inefficient in use (cheap and easy to mass-produce and a good candidate for combining with the other techniques).
c) An efficient way of producing plastics, soaps and other convenience products. Algae is showing promise but oil is far too cheap for algae to compete at the moment. Other techniques exist but are far more expensive. The price of oil has been crushing this research since forever.
All of the above solutions take scientific progress to reach and generally the political solutions cannot change that.
Some of the more interesting solutions for helping against climate change is saving the rain-forests (somewhat controversial how much you get out of it, but climate is just another reason for preserving it.), preservation of wet-lands, swamps a.o. (A lot of trapped CO2 in those areas since the water keeps oxygen from helping degradation of the organic carbon, but how much it helps is controversial).
There are other legislative ways of curbing CO2, but most are scientifically purely theoretical and just meaningless in the long run.
What needs to be done is research in long-term practical solutions for electricity, fuel and to a lesser degree plastics. That is the way to go instead of just relying on improvements to deepwater drilling for oil and denying that climate change exists or curbing productivity by useless taxation and political theoretical number-jugling.
Science behind climate change is solid. Science behind how to reduce it in the long term is not. It is extremely important to make this destinction and ultimately what makes the difference between a serious sceptic and a denier of facts.
|
What about carbon dioxide sequestration? I know there have been a few prototype plants using this but I'm not sure how the results have turned out. I think it was quite cost ineffecient the last time I read about it.
|
whats the worse case scenario if the north pole melted forever
|
On December 15 2011 22:16 optical630 wrote:
whats the worse case scenario if the north pole melted forever
The absolute worst case scenario I heard of was, the gulf stream could stop sending warm water from the Caribbean to Europe, and Europe experiences some kind of Ice Age. Best case scenario is, nothing happens and new shipping routes from Europe to East Asia open up.
|
The worse outcomes of a Global Warming pales in comparison to an Ice Age. So I wonder why politicians aren't pushing instead towards an Ice Age that will happen, as opposed to Global Warming; the consequences of which are conjecture. Trying to prevent an Ice Age makes more sense to me instead of GW, which has been rather inconclusive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
