Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: NatCigg on July 02, 2013, 06:56:14 PM
-
This guys data says something else. :D
http://uwaterloo.ca/news/news/global-warming-caused-cfcs-not-carbon-dioxide-study-says
-
This guys data says something else. :D
http://uwaterloo.ca/news/news/global-warming-caused-cfcs-not-carbon-dioxide-study-says
Unknown, but maybe.
The fact is no one has done a study (or at least released one) what causes CO2. From what I was told termites are the largest contributors.
The other fact about global climate change is, the Earth has a natural wobble which cycles every 24,000 years. Right now we are in the global warming peak. In 12,000 years the Sahara desert will be a lush forest.
-
There's this report, among others, which purports to debunk Mr. Lu:
http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2013/05/31/qing-bin-lu-revives-debunked-claims-about-cosmic-rays-and-cfcs/
Then there are the graphs shown in the article the OP referenced and they were far short of the standards we're used to from Lusche. Look at the time period and it's mismatch with the article's claimed period!
I intended to take a wait and see view after peer review, but apparently that has already occurred.
Could Mr. Lu be correct? Possibly, but in my opinion, there is nothing in that article to support his claim. I haven't read the 38 pages of his published works referenced in the article, but apparently he hasn't divulged or discovered the process which he says is taking place. Until he publishes something to explain the process, that's accepted by his peers in that field of study, I'll stay with current explanations.
Additionally, Mr. Lu has an unenviable task before him. His peer professors and scientists are dependent upon their reputation and past publications for their government grants, tenure, and their livelihood. Acceptance would not come easily even if he can explain the processes, but apparently, he has not done so.
-
Sigh...
Ask yourself this question. Is Co2 more opaque in infrared than in the visible spectrum?
Yes it is. Google for the graph yourself if you doubt this.
Thus, does its presence in the atmosphere serve to trap heat?
Yes it does.
Thus, will putting more in the atmosphere trap more heat?
Yes, it will.
There is a lot more to consider, and CFC may well be another contributor, but the basic connection between CO2 emission and global warming is not rocket science. Alas, a lot of people find even ordinary science difficult.
-
Just a side note:
Trees take in CO2 from the air. That atmospheric CO2 is stored inside the timber. When that timber is turned into a forest product (lumber, paper, etc.), a lot of atmospheric carbon is still locked into the product. If the timber/forest product is burned, no new atmospheric CO2 will be returned to the air. (The net effect is 0 at worst. Think of drawing a bucket of water from a pond and then pouring it back in). Oil and fossil fuels, however, have been stored underground for centuries. When these forms of carbon are burned, new CO2 is added into the atmosphere.
Conclusion - use more forest products. Timber functions as a natural CO2 container. The more trees we grow, harvest and replant to start the cycle over again the better. The only new carbon from fossil fuels needed is to generate the chemical reactions and mechanical operations required to create the wood product. Fortunately, many paper and lumber mills can take off some of the strain by combusting scrap wood for energy.
-
Wow... there's some big words in this thread, I'm going back to General Discussion.. biggest words in there are noob and pwned :uhoh :headscratch:
-
Reading his brief it seems to be based on correlation of statistics, no actual science in what the CFC's are actually doing.
-
This guys data says something else. :D
http://uwaterloo.ca/news/news/global-warming-caused-cfcs-not-carbon-dioxide-study-says
I dont know. I only know that when i was a little kid (in the mid-90s), there was a lot of snow in the winters. From early December, it did not really melt til early March. In '99, we got 3 yards of it in January, couldnt get out from the village for 3 weeks. I will never forget that, 3 weeks of silence, peace, was something unique.
There was absolutely no snow in 2007-2008, 2010-2011 and only a very little in the rest of the time, except this year. Mostly rain.
If this rings the bell.
-
Has North Korea invaded yet?
Its the same theme but different colour :rofl
Someone has a bigger car than me, paid for by me :rofl
-
Alas, a lot of people find even ordinary science difficult
Apparently including scientists. There is no argument about whether or not Co2 is a greenhouse gas. There is no argument about climate change which is a natural cycle anyway. The real argument is whether or not human factors are causing global warming. The popular villain is Co2 even if it's becoming clear there are other factors not all of them man made.
A lot of careers have been made from the basic belief that Co2 is the main cause. Unfortunately for Professor Lu, he's like a priest telling the Vatican they're worshipping the wrong God.
Time will tell but there's one basic reality. The has been no global warming since 1998. This isn't even disputed by either side except that warmist side are desperately scrambling to try and explain how it's happening when all their predictions say otherwise.
I have a feeling that in few years time. Our kids will be wondering what got into everyone to make us believe we could control the Earth's climate.
I think the word hubris is relevant here.
-
Let's see...10,000 years ago most of the northern hemisphere was covered in ice. It's been warming ever since. What caused that? Caveman farts?
Over the last 600 million years, there have been at least five global extinctions, nearly wiping out every living thing on the planet. What caused that? Can't blame the dinosaurs or the fish (or man).
The earth's climate changes naturally. It's been this way for millions of years. It heats up and it cools down. To think man has anything to do with it is a galactic sized ego talking.
-
You need to watch Earth From Space. The O2/CO2 exchange doesn't work like we thought.
http://video.pbs.org/video/2334144059/
-
Wow... there's some big words in this thread, I'm going back to General Discussion.. biggest words in there are noob and pwned :uhoh :headscratch:
:rofl :cheers:
-
Cars are to blame, especially big ones :old:
-
It snowed in May here this year. Iowa sucks so bad even global warming doesn't want to visit. :bhead
-
We are fortunate to live in a world where we all have in our desktop systems the processing power of what would have been a supercomputer not so long ago. So if you doubt that human CO2 emissions are warming the planet, or if you doubt that this will have drastic long term effects on the climate, please download and run NASA's climate model software for yourself, play with the inputs, outputs and baseline assumptions, and understand for yourself the various forces at play, the timescales they operate over, and the impact they have.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelii/ Columbia university has a more user friendly version at http://edgcm.columbia.edu/software2/edgcm-climate-modeling/
If you think NASA faked the moon landings and are faking this too, then I can't help you.
-
The earth's climate changes naturally. It's been this way for millions of years. It heats up and it cools down. To think man has anything to do with it is a galactic sized ego talking.
More of a planet sprawling ego thinking man's massive output won't effect the earth's climate. Yes earth's climate changes naturally, and dramatically throughout it's 4.5 billion year history. Tiny microbes causing the most dramatic change of all pumping the atmosphere full of oxygen one molecule at a time. But the problem isn't the earth. The problem is that humans have to live in earth's climate. Climate change has a long history of natural occurrence, so have extinction events due to climate change. You may think that the human brain will make us immune to extinction, but what about the plants and animals we need to eat to fuel that brain. What about the fresh water needed to cool and keep it working.
-
Trash is a huge problem :old:
we should dump it into a vollcano :banana:
-
Volcano's spew more C02 and sun blocking ash into the atmosphere than all vehicles/factories on the earth combined.... Significant tectonic plate movement could drastically change the planet in a short amount of time and have long lasting effects. (climate change)....
Now, saying humans are not impacting our environment is silly, but at the same token, saying we are the end all be all of climate change is a joke! Anyone notice that the politically correct term has changes from global warming to "climate change"?
WE ARE JUST ALONG FOR THE RIDE! This planet can purge itself of the human infection fairly easily... Humans need to stop projecting onto our environment and crying the "sky is falling!" when we don't like what we see.
I may not be that old but I still remember in the 80's scientists were convinced that we were heading for the next ice age.... Guess that didn't happen.... :eek:
-
Let's see...10,000 years ago most of the northern hemisphere was covered in ice. It's been warming ever since. What caused that? Caveman farts?
Over the last 600 million years, there have been at least five global extinctions, nearly wiping out every living thing on the planet. What caused that? Can't blame the dinosaurs or the fish (or man).
The earth's climate changes naturally. It's been this way for millions of years. It heats up and it cools down. To think man has anything to do with it is a galactic sized ego talking.
when I first moved to los angeles in 1980, there were days during the summer when it was hard to see from one of the park to the other. and this is a small park next to our high school. even in the football field you could see the smog from one end to the other. PE was cancelled many days because we couldnt run outside for more than a couple of minutes.
I remember my first winter after that hot summer when one day I was walking to school and happened to look north and was amazed that we had mountains just a few miles away. mountains were probably about 20 -25 miles away and reached what 10 or 12k?
I had moved from a small city where smog was seen when the buses drove by and that was about it. not sure what is causing the global warming, but I am pretty sure cars, factories, airplanes, forest fires... things like that have nothing to do with it. yeah it's the cow's belching. so I say save the planet, let's get rid of all the ex-wives.
semp
-
what about the plants and animals we need to eat to fuel that brain. What about the fresh water needed to cool and keep it working.
CO2 is essential for life. When photosynthesis really gets going it is most likely limited because of a lack of CO2. Some plants (C4) have evolved to cope with the low concentration of CO2 in the air. The more CO2 that is in the air the more it will be consumed in the carbon cycle. In turn producing more O2. This, the same process of "polluting" our air with the toxin oxygen that has been going on long before Al Gore. :old:
Stopping pollution is a good thing. We need to leave this world the same if not better for those that come after us. But we do not need some book learned dream believer telling us how to live our lives because his daddy never taught him how to throw a curve ball and is now emotionally attached to a seemingly endangered dolphin that in reality wants nothing more than to eat his Crest flavored tongue for a snack.
:O :bolt:
-
Water is essential for life, but you can still drown in it.
Run the software, test its assumptions, and your own, . I did. I learned a lot.
-
Even if Lu's findings can't be confirmed, CFCs are known to cause environmental damage and break down ozone molecules weakening our atmosphere. The net effect is that less CFCs will be pumped into the air (hopefully), which we can only benefit from.
-
Water is essential for life, but you can still drown in it.
Run the software, test its assumptions, and your own, . I did. I learned a lot.
So, what does the simulator output? Is the world going to end? :headscratch:
Does the software consider things that are not known? Like, whats this kid doing on my front porch? Or, I think id like to put in some shrubbery? And, where did all these bugs come from?
Then, OMG did you see that?
-
Dr James Hansen has admitted that there has been no global warming for the past 16-years.
Think about this. For all of the science back and forth; the 'hockey stick' computer models; the massive investments in green energy that was never sufficient; etc, etc, etc. In the end, no global warming. In fact, this was even noted in the now infamous email-gate exposing communications between top 'global warming scientists.' This is why we no longer talk about 'man made global warming' but instead 'climate change.'
In any case...the debate continues.
-
We are fortunate to live in a world where we all have in our desktop systems the processing power of what would have been a supercomputer not so long ago. So if you doubt that human CO2 emissions are warming the planet, or if you doubt that this will have drastic long term effects on the climate, please download and run NASA's climate model software for yourself, play with the inputs, outputs and baseline assumptions, and understand for yourself the various forces at play, the timescales they operate over, and the impact they have.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelii/ Columbia university has a more user friendly version at http://edgcm.columbia.edu/software2/edgcm-climate-modeling/
If you think NASA faked the moon landings and are faking this too, then I can't help you.
This is a classic excuse for global warming. I sat up all night to watch Neil Armstrong to step out of the Eagle. That was not faked. Neither is the idea of faked human Co2 emissions. It isn't faked. It's mistaken. That's the difference. The reality is that the world's climate has not changed according to the predictions of the warmist's since 1998. That reality cannot be escaped. The Earth's climate is not changing thanks to human actions. No amount of theory can change that. The real world proves otherwise
-
This is a classic excuse for global warming. I sat up all night to watch Neil Armstrong to step out of the Eagle. That was not faked. Neither is the idea of faked human Co2 emissions. It isn't faked. It's mistaken. That's the difference. The reality is that the world's climate has not changed according to the predictions of the warmist's since 1998. That reality cannot be escaped. The Earth's climate is not changing thanks to human actions. No amount of theory can change that. The real world proves otherwise
with the amount of pollution we have sent up into the atmosphere in the past 150 years, it is not stupid to think that it wont affect the world. perhaps we may not see it in our lives but if we keep doing the same for another 100 years they may not be much world left.
we are destroying the forests, polluting our air and the rivers. it doesnt take a brain to realize that.
global warming is not gonna happen over night. heck it may never happen at all, but are we really willing to take a gamble that it may not? when I go to work there's a permanent haze over the city the whole summer, unless it rains or it gets windy I cant see the mountains and they're only about 15 miles from where I live. there's days when the sun rise is covered by what I hope is clouds but to be honest sometimes I am not so sure. imagine you live in a city where the sky is gray 1/2 the day.
semp
semp
-
Just this morning I read an editorial written by a geologist from Australia by the name of Dr Ian Rutherford Plimer, University of Adelaide. He notes that the recent volcanic eruption on Iceland released enough CO2 into the atmosphere to negate every green effort on the face of the Earth over the past 5-years. He also notes that the year long eruption of the volcano in the Phillippines, which lasted roughly a year, released more CO2 into the atmosphere than all actions of man combined throughout world history.
Puts it all into perspective.
boo
-
People have caused Global warming :old:
-
Try a net search for Ian Rutherford Plimer and see if you get a different perspective. I did. His volcano claim is not new, and he gets it by willfully misrepresenting USGS data. Here he is on Australian TV getting nailed on this exact point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iEsygjXunTs
And here's a summary from the UK.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/dec/16/ian-plimer-versus-george-monbiot
A little more searching reveals that he's off by a factor of 135 (that is to say, human CO2 emissions are 135 times global volcano emissions), and is well known for loudly claiming climate change is a myth by using facts and figures he should know are wrong. The "There is no climate change in the last 25 years" claim is his too, and is also based on misrepresented research.
Of course, you'll find lots of people saying Ian Plimer is this brilliant maverick (who doesn't accept money from the coal lobby), but here's the thing. We live in the age of the internet. Why parrot some talking head you happen to agree with? You can get the data yourself, DIRECTLY, run the experiment yourself, DIRECTLY - and see where it leads you.
Skepticism is healthy and useful, and the best person to question is yourself. You'll either prove yourself right, or become right. It's win-win.
-
People have caused Global warming :old:
The industrial revolution MAY have caused an unnatural imbalance which we, as the catalysts, must attempt to stabilize. At the very least we as a species (not just particular areas or groups) need to be educated on our inputs and outputs. :uhoh
Perhaps when we realize that ~90% of useless trinkets sold in WalMart are manufactured in the east, and that the east has some of the worst air pollution, we won't buy useless trinkets... But alas, we are all self absorbed humans.... :noid
-
your talking gibberish!
Get off the forum and that will save a tree in Uganda.
The amount of electricity you have made me use to type this has killed nine polar bears :cry
-
I dont know. I only know that when i was a little kid (in the mid-90s), there was a lot of snow in the winters. From early December, it did not really melt til early March. In '99, we got 3 yards of it in January, couldnt get out from the village for 3 weeks. I will never forget that, 3 weeks of silence, peace, was something unique.
There was absolutely no snow in 2007-2008, 2010-2011 and only a very little in the rest of the time, except this year. Mostly rain.
If this rings the bell.
Everything gets smaller the older you get.
Was there really that much more snow? Or was it you were small and the snow seemed big? And was it that you remember specific snow events and those are the ones that stick in your mind.
My Mother and I were just talking about this a few months ago. she remembers thee being more snow when she was a kid.
I remember there being more snow when I was a kid. and together we wondered what I just discribed
I also remember when i was a kid a Cul de Sac that we used to play stick ball,kickball,touch football, etc on. It seemd huge. Large enough to chalk draw an entire base ball diamond comeplete with bases, pitchers mound (we used brown dirt clumps). Foul lines and a line to represent an outfield wall.
I happened to be in the area doing a job just before having that conversation with my mom (which is what prompted the conversation) And man that thing shrunk. The entire thing was only a few car lengths wide and I could have walked from where we had home plate to where we drew the outfield wall in less then 30 seconds.
Same area there is an old old cemetary with a patch of woods we would go into to play soldier.. Seemed very large and covered a alrge area when I was a kid. visited that too. Its only a couple hundred feet square.
Everything shrinks with age
-
I stopped reading newspapers and Wikidiot years ago :old:
I have more coin now :old:
-
Humans breathing creates more CO2 than ask our cats and factories combined. Just because they're so damn many of us
The fact of the matter is that if humans have in fact significantly impacted the climate, we would have done so at any technology level, and population control will be more effective than green technology.
Volcanic activity (combined) does in fact put our much more co2 than we do. So do cows, and pigs, and other farm animals.
The human impact alone is minuscule, and at most could only exacerbate or mitigate natural climate change. More than the thermometer, we should be watching how polluted our air and water are, and how much garbage we're burying, and how many trees we cut down.
-
Don't y'all know? There was a "scientific consensus" on this...from the same guys who brought us global cooling and the giant snowball theory in the 70s.
-
Just a side note:
Trees take in CO2 from the air. That atmospheric CO2 is stored inside the timber. When that timber is turned into a forest product (lumber, paper, etc.), a lot of atmospheric carbon is still locked into the product. If the timber/forest product is burned, no new atmospheric CO2 will be returned to the air. (The net effect is 0 at worst. Think of drawing a bucket of water from a pond and then pouring it back in). Oil and fossil fuels, however, have been stored underground for centuries. When these forms of carbon are burned, new CO2 is added into the atmosphere.
Conclusion - use more forest products. Timber functions as a natural CO2 container. The more trees we grow, harvest and replant to start the cycle over again the better. The only new carbon from fossil fuels needed is to generate the chemical reactions and mechanical operations required to create the wood product. Fortunately, many paper and lumber mills can take off some of the strain by combusting scrap wood for energy.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :O OMG lol. I lose faith in our species every second lol
-
Humans breathing creates more CO2 than ask our cats and factories combined. Just because they're so damn many of us
The fact of the matter is that if humans have in fact significantly impacted the climate, we would have done so at any technology level, and population control will be more effective than green technology.
Volcanic activity (combined) does in fact put our much more co2 than we do. So do cows, and pigs, and other farm animals.
The human impact alone is minuscule, and at most could only exacerbate or mitigate natural climate change. More than the thermometer, we should be watching how polluted our air and water are, and how much garbage we're burying, and how many trees we cut down.
Yeah, and we should start "bleeding" people who are sick too !!!
-
Yeah, and we should start "bleeding" people who are sick too !!!
You rather miss the point....
-
You rather miss the point....
Actually, no, I didn't miss the point, I was just being obstinate & obtrusive.
-
Sigh...
Ask yourself this question. Is Co2 more opaque in infrared than in the visible spectrum?
Yes it is. Google for the graph yourself if you doubt this.
Thus, does its presence in the atmosphere serve to trap heat?
Yes it does.
Thus, will putting more in the atmosphere trap more heat?
Yes, it will.
There is a lot more to consider, and CFC may well be another contributor, but the basic connection between CO2 emission and global warming is not rocket science. Alas, a lot of people find even ordinary science difficult.
The part I boldfaced is not exactly correct and most climate models get wrong. CO2 absorbs light at specific wavelengths and almost non between these wavelengths. This effect is called absorption lines. Once these lines are saturated, i.e. all photons very close to the lines wavelengths are absorbed, absorption of more photons, between these wavelengths becomes very inefficient - meaning, a very large additional column of CO2 is required.
How much more, involved a bit more complicated physics and knowledge of the detailed vertical structure of the atmosphere - temperature and pressure, that itself is affected by the radiation transfer through the atmosphere. The basic connection between CO2 and global warming is far from trivial and this is why it is debated. I have seen detailed 3D atmospheric calculations that claim that increasing the abundance of CO2 by factor 50 will result in barely 0.1 degree (centigrade, 0.18 F for the Americans), assuming all other conditions are constant.
We are fortunate to live in a world where we all have in our desktop systems the processing power of what would have been a supercomputer not so long ago. So if you doubt that human CO2 emissions are warming the planet, or if you doubt that this will have drastic long term effects on the climate, please download and run NASA's climate model software for yourself, play with the inputs, outputs and baseline assumptions, and understand for yourself the various forces at play, the timescales they operate over, and the impact they have.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelii/ Columbia university has a more user friendly version at http://edgcm.columbia.edu/software2/edgcm-climate-modeling/
The basic problem with using computers to solve very complicated problems is referred to as "garbage in - garbage out". Models need to make a very large number of simplifying assumption and choose which physics to model and how. So yes, the code runs and spews out an answer, but did you ask the correct questions? As we all know the correct answer is 42, but what was the question?
More than the thermometer, we should be watching how polluted our air and water are, and how much garbage we're burying, and how many trees we cut down.
I can't believe this, but I actually agree with Tank-Ace.
Something HAS gone wrong with this world!!
-
The part I boldfaced is not exactly correct and most climate models get wrong. CO2 absorbs light at specific wavelengths and almost non between these wavelengths. This effect is called absorption lines. Once these lines are saturated, i.e. all photons very close to the lines wavelengths are absorbed, absorption of more photons, between these wavelengths becomes very inefficient - meaning, a very large additional column of CO2 is required.
But CO2 is not the final heat sink this seems to imply. The CO2 absorbs photons coming from the earth and then re-radiates a photon in a random direction, so it is once again free to absorb another photon. It's the re-radiation in a random direction that decreases the cooling of the surface, since some photons that would have radiated out to space get re-radiated back to the surface. If CO2 absorbed and re-radiated the entire visible spectrum then cooling would be a massive problem since significantly less energy from sunlight would reach the surface. But the reality is that visible sunlight warms the surface, the warm surface radiates infrared, and some of that infrared is the frequency that CO2 will absorb and then re-radiate.
-
The direction of the emitted photons is not the issue. A small amount of CO2 will already absorb all photons near its molecularlines wavelengths. The energy is re emitted , some as similar photons and some at different wavelenghts. It may as well be directed back to earth, but the point is that this is only a small fraction of all the spectrum emitted as cooling radiation from the earth. It order to absorb the photons at wavelengths not aligned with the absorbtion lines, a significantly larger column of CO2 is required.
-
Humans breathing creates more CO2 than ask our cats and factories combined. Just because they're so damn many of us
The fact of the matter is that if humans have in fact significantly impacted the climate, we would have done so at any technology level, and population control will be more effective than green technology.
Volcanic activity (combined) does in fact put our much more co2 than we do. So do cows, and pigs, and other farm animals.
The human impact alone is minuscule, and at most could only exacerbate or mitigate natural climate change. More than the thermometer, we should be watching how polluted our air and water are, and how much garbage we're burying, and how many trees we cut down.
Nonsense.
I mean, its certain that we are in a natural warming up period, but the human impact, industrial activity is enforcing, enlarging it as greatly, the Earth have never been warming up this quickly before.
You can deny it - you wont get anywhere.
Everything gets smaller the older you get.
Was there really that much more snow? Or was it you were small and the snow seemed big? And was it that you remember specific snow events and those are the ones that stick in your mind.
Look, youre right, i was a kid and 3 yards seemed unbelivably huge, as the average was about 1 yard in the previous years. That was a LOT too.
But there is a difference between winter after winter with snow that does not melt for months and no snow at all for many years.
-
(http://bravenewcommie.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/globaltempgraph.jpg)
-
But there is a difference between winter after winter with snow that does not melt for months and no snow at all for many years.
Prolly global warming. You should bury all you possessions and drink filtered urine water so you can start saving the world. When you done give me a call and I will take the train to your place and we can go skiing at a environmentally friendly ski resort. :rofl
-
Humans have caused the ice caps to melt and threaten the martian countryside. :old:
We have to send a spaceship with our top scientists there (including Al Gore) for an extended stay.
-
The problem with people like Stellaris who insist we should jet check the data ourselves is that the data that is available has been tampered with, and the original readings destroyed. Why anyone would believe "climate science" after "Climategate" is beyond me.
-
The problem with people like Stellaris who insist we should jet check the data ourselves is that the data that is available has been tampered with, and the original readings destroyed. Why anyone would believe "climate science" after "Climategate" is beyond me.
The winner!! Couldn't agree more. The climate scientists themselves admit it.
Dredilock, excellent graph. Have sent it to my friends and family as food for thought. I wish it were better sourced but good info.
boo
-
As I have posted on another forum
For a moment let us say that Global warming is occurring. What will happen?
Humankind will do as it always has done. Adapt and exploit it. Yes. some areas will get less rain. Others will get more. so we will stop farming in areas that are getting the less rain. and start more farming where it is getting more. There may have been a drought in texas. But here in NJ we have had the first real spring I can remember in years. the kind my mother says we used to have. And our rain and climate this year has been perfect for crops. In fact our blueberry crops are just now ready and are some of the best we've had in years.The early season harvests of spinach, collards, beets, radishes, escarole/endive, Swiss chard, lettuces and herbs such as parsley, dill, coriander, and cilantro also have gone very well.
If the seas rise we will...move back. I dont know about anyone else but if Im in an area of rising water and that water threatens to go over my head. I either move to shallower water or get out entirely. Course based on the number of people who insist on building homes over and over again along rivers that have been flooding for thousands if not millions of years. I cant say that everyone is so intelligent but some people are just natural born masochists I guess. I just dont happen to be one of them.
The coastline was getting boring to look at anyway. Time for a change. Think if it as more of a redecorating. It was getting too full of high rises anyway. I certainly wont miss them.
Yes. some species will die out. Others will adapt such as the Polar bears starting to mate with Grizzlies.http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/polar-bears_2.html
And yet other and newer ones will yet emerge better suited to the new climate. New species are being discovered all the time. In fact. Researchers have been discovering new species at a record pace — 16,969 in 2006 alone.
If this climate change is happening. Its not the end of the world. It only means things will be different. But that has been going on for billions of years.
(http://www.tony5m17h.net/IapetusOcean.gif)
(http://www.tony5m17h.net/JurWorld.gif)
(http://tornado.sfsu.edu/geosciences/classes/lwhite/climate_files/image002.jpg)
C'mon. People arent fearing "global warming" As much as they are fearing change. People hate change