Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 32   Go Down

Author Topic: Climate Change: Science and Issues  (Read 35230 times)

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2544
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #40 on: October 27, 2017, 05:26:46 PM »


There is a need if the descriptions accurately fit the circumstances. Denial is a recognized psychological condition which is an appropriate description in specific situations.

Alarm is a very common experience in the life of many people, but mostly relating to events in the present or near future.
Alarm about the devastating effects of future climate conditions, if we don't reduce CO2 levels, is alarm. How else would you describe it?

If a person meets a tiger whilst trekking in the jungle, he would probably become alarmed. Are you suggesting that such a description of alarm would be an ad hominem attack? If so, you're not making any sense.

The only need for such descriptors, from either side, is to suggest that their arguments are less or wrong because of the individuals' state of mind.  It ignores evidence, it ignores logic, it casts emotional doubt rather than reasoned debate.  All you need to do is to not use the terms.  You don't actually need to refer to anyone in any way.  Just present the science, present the reasoned logic, present the evidence.

You started your participation in this thread by calling your opponents names.   You have also failed to moderate the first post in the thread which immediately pushed a political line.

A person meeting a tiger in the jungle is potentially alarmed - that doesn't make them alarmist.  The overwhelming evidence is that they have an apex predator, capable of killing them, nearby.  If their amygdala creates a match to the received data before the neocortex (and it receives information several milliseconds faster and processes more quickly), it will trigger the hypothalmic-pituitary-adrenal axis and can induce fight or flight as an emotional response based on previous experience stored in the hippocampus.  If there is no match, then the neocortex will provide higher function, and reason and logic will be used to determine the course of action.  Either response is valid and neither makes them an alarmist even if they become alarmed at the current situation.  What we can say is that the person who avoids the amygdala response to sensory stimulation sent from the thalamus may have a deeper and more thorough understanding of the situation depending upon their experience and ability to use the data.  What we can also say is that someone who is frequently in the presence of tigers or other apex predators in such situations will be more likely to have that better understanding because they can make sense of the data through that previous experience.  Furthermore, if there are a lot of people experienced with dealing with apex predators is that if they mostly come to the same conclusion then there's a very strong basis upon which to accept their advice as being right.  That becomes even higher if they've had a chance for other experienced people to review their understanding.  Even if they can't guarantee you that you're going to be the next meal because you're covered in blood and you're the slowest runner and the tiger looks ravenous, if they tell you to clean yourself up pronto so you no longer present such a tasty option, it would clearly be a good idea to listen to them rather than insist that you once heard a case of a blood-soaked explorer meting a ravenous tiger who ended up just licking him clean and then befriending him.

There's nothing wrong with the amygdala response - it doesn't warrant calling people names, but the emotional response based on limited or poor evidence in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary also doesn't warrant name calling just because they have a different view.

Just saying.
Logged
Phil Brown

Alan Klein

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1817
    • Flicker photos
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #41 on: October 27, 2017, 05:34:15 PM »

Read the title and the first post I made.  The reason that some of these posts look familiar is that the old thread was vaporized because the discussion took a tangent.  I want this to focus of Science and Issues; I don't want to see the same stuff that was cluttering up the previous thread.  If that cannot be accomplished, I'll gladly shut this one down.  Going forward here's what I would like to see:

1) research findings and discussion of those and don't just say I don't believe it; we already know that this stuff is controversial on one level and just reposting stuff that you have said 100 times on the previous thread is not terribly productive
2) questions that pertain to the science so that someone who might know an answer will post it
3) issues related to climate change and it does not have to be just CO2; there are a lot of other things going on in terms of storms, drought, increased pestilence associated with warming, etc.
4) be civil

As I noted, this whole area affects photographers and offers opportunities; there was a great image of one of the large ice shelfs in the Antarctic in the Washington Post today; a photographer took that picture

Item 3 is why your list is biased and one of the reasons I feel the whole science is distorted.  You already made the assumption that there are only negatives to global warming.  You can't even see the possibility there are positive things that happen when the temperature goes up.  It seems you only want people to post things that support your beliefs.  So you're establishing the ground rules to fit your outlook.  That's "fake news".   You're better than that Alan G. I know that's not what you really want to do, is it?

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2647
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #42 on: October 27, 2017, 06:04:40 PM »

Item 3 is why your list is biased and one of the reasons I feel the whole science is distorted.  You already made the assumption that there are only negatives to global warming.  You can't even see the possibility there are positive things that happen when the temperature goes up.  It seems you only want people to post things that support your beliefs.  So you're establishing the ground rules to fit your outlook.  That's "fake news".   You're better than that Alan G. I know that's not what you really want to do, is it?
If you feel the science is distorted then find some links that prove that point.  I am not establishing any ground rules to fit any outlook.  I'm a scientist by training and that's what I look to for answers.  As Ray said on the previous thread (and found a number of links about it), CO2 may have a beneficial effect on plant life.  Perhaps this mitigates some problems associated with climate change but we don't know yet what the fractional contribution of higher levels of CO2 are particularly as compared to improvements in plant breeding.

Climate warming will open up some new regions to agriculture but even that is not the whole story.  Plants require sunlight to grow and the more northern regions that are today affected by early frosts also have a summer with very long days.  Can the plant breeders take advantage of this?  Here is something that is not a negative!!!

Again, I will note that I hope this new thread can serve as forum for the science, issues and thoughtful discussion accompanied by questions from all.  I will also say that I do not have the patience of Job and if things careen out of control we'll stop the thread. 
Logged

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1194
    • advantica blog
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #43 on: October 27, 2017, 07:05:48 PM »

It's all very confusing. On one hand, we read that more CO2 is good for plant growth, but other sources indicate that the Amazon rainforest is losing its ability to soak up carbon dioxide from the air. Over the past 2 decades, trees in the Amazon have been dying at an increasing rate, rendering the massive jungle a weaker absorber, or “sink,” of CO2, which plants take up during photosynthesis.

The good thing is that after a century of constant decline, the number of wild tigers is on the rise.  According to the most recent data, around 3,890 tigers now exist in the wild, compared with 3,200 in 2010.

Quote
It is a known fact that tigers and other carnivorous contribute a lot to the natural habitat and ecosystems. The services these animals offer are protection from natural disasters and soil erosion, medicinal plant genetic diversity, carbon sequestration, and blooming of natural diversity. Thus, the measurements taken to protect tigers in their natural habitats will automatically lead to global benefits. Since tigers feed on mammalian herbivores such as chinkara, chital, and sambar in their natural habitats or reserve area, they keep the herbivore population in check and thus help to preserve the forests. Saving endangered tigers will offer immense ecological services in terms of carbon storage value as well.

http://www.triplepundit.com/podium/tiger-jungle-can-influence-humans-living-cities/

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2015/03/amazon-rainforest-ability-soak-carbon-dioxide-falling

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10757
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #44 on: October 27, 2017, 07:09:23 PM »

...doesn't warrant name calling just because they have a different view.

Just saying.

Says the side with only three words in its political vocabulary: "racist, bigot, denier"

Just saying.

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6859
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #45 on: October 27, 2017, 07:16:39 PM »

look at the y-axis, it is deviation in temperature in Celsius with 1880 as the start date.  I don't know where this particular data set is from but we have seen data from temperatures recorded here in Washington DC that shows a similar trend.

The data/graph is from NASA: https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Descriptions of the various dataset sources and methodology are all available at the above link, including lots of reference document links.

Also from that site, a list of climate model forcings (amongst which CO2): https://data.giss.nasa.gov/modelforce/

Quote
We have no way of knowing what the trend was in the 900s and North America was only occupied by indigenous peoples; the European migration did not begin until the 1600s.  I don't think it is fair to say that it is a jump to say that there is a correlation with CO2 levels as there clearly is linkage.  The question is whether and how meaningful this linkage is.  Clearly there are difficult decisions to be made regarding this information and one option is to wait and see if sea level changes continue to progress.

The mechanisms that cause(d) Global warming are reasonably well understood, and reconstruction of the past is modelled if there are no actual observations available.

An excellent summary of the scientific understanding of the role of CO2 in global warming by Prof. Richard Somerville can be found here:
https://youtu.be/B4Q271UaNPo?t=447

And an up-to-date record of the CO2 levels, AKA the Keeling curve, at a reference location can be found here:

and here:
https://scripps.ucsd.edu/programs/keelingcurve/

They have added a 1 minute infographic animation on their site that summarizes what the Keeling curve shows. That should offer those who are less versed in the subject an opportunity to quickly get up to speed.

Cheers,
Bart


P.S.  And adding to the previous information, here's some more that shows the relation between CO2 (and CH4) and temperature:
https://youtu.be/Ujf6EIGRUdw?t=2199  and at about 41:35 the Radiative Forcings show a similar picture as already mentioned, CO2 being the major one that affects Global temperature.
« Last Edit: October 27, 2017, 09:42:30 PM by BartvanderWolf »
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2544
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #46 on: October 27, 2017, 08:36:26 PM »

Says the side with only three words in its political vocabulary: "racist, bigot, denier"

Just saying.

No, says me, based on this thread - a thread in which you can easily see who is calling people names and making political statements and who isn't.
Logged
Phil Brown

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2471
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #47 on: October 27, 2017, 10:34:47 PM »

No, says me, based on this thread - a thread in which you can easily see who is calling people names and making political statements and who isn't.

Well said, Phil.
Logged

Ray

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 9770
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #48 on: October 27, 2017, 10:47:58 PM »

There's nothing wrong with the amygdala response -

Of course there isn't. Alarm is a natural human response to any perception of a threat, whether the threat is real or imagined. If a person has a fear of snakes, for example, or a phobia about snakes, which is technically called ophidiophobia or herpetophobia, they are more likely to misinterpret any perception of something that looks similar to a snake, such as a coil of rope on the ground.

Ascribing a name to people and groups of people who subscribe to and agree with a specific point of view on a specific issue or a general issue, is a necessary process of communication.

I'm a Caucasian, for example. If someone were to call me a Negro, that would be incorrect

If we didn't have technical terms for a phobia about snakes, would you object to naming an 'herpetophobiac' a 'snake alarmist'?  ;)

If you don't like the term 'alarmist' as it applies to a group of people who appear to believe there will be a catastrophic change in climate if we don't significantly reduce our CO2 emissions, then what name would you recommend?
 
Quote
..the emotional response based on limited or poor evidence in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary also doesn't warrant name calling just because they have a different view.

I'll repeat, everything requires a name in order for a discussion to take place. I consider myself to be a skeptic on the issue of CAGW (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming). I have no problems being called a skeptic, and I can justify my skepticism in rational terms relating to the methodology of science.

I would object to being called a 'climate change denier' because I accept that climate is always changing to some degree, in one direction or another, for a multitude of reasons which are not always understood. The term denier is therefore incorrect and misleading.

The issue for me relates to the fundamental necessity for the application of the most sound and rigorous principles of the scientific method, before certainty about a particular theory can take place.

The climate of our planet does not lend itself to the application of these fundamental principles of repeated experimentation under controlled conditions, changing one variable at a time, observing the results in real time, and being able to devise experiments which could help falsify an existing theory if one is skeptical about its truth, which a good scientist always should be.

We are surrounded by products which have undergone such rigorous testing during the various stages of their development, whether cars, TVs, cameras, or pharmaceutical drugs. As the saying goes, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating."

For further clarification, I'm actually in favour of the development of different methods of producing energy. This is scientific progress. Our modern life styles are totally dependent on sources of energy. The more efficient and cheaper our energy supplies, the more prosperous we become (potentially). The more inefficient and expensive our energy supplies, the poorer we become, on average of course.

If producing energy from solar, wind, hydro, tidal power, and so on, becomes more efficient than getting power from the latest and cleanest coal-power technology, taking reliability of supply also in consideration, then that's reason enough to abandon all coal production.

However, during this process there needs to be sensible planning. Emotional alarm and mischaracterizations of CO2, as a pollutant for example, can lead to bad decisions, as has happened in Australia with our soaring energy prices.

Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10757
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #49 on: October 27, 2017, 10:57:37 PM »

... calling people names...

Which people? For ad hominem, you need a homo. Who is it in this case?

As for calling the referenced article's statement "alarmist" I agree it is a mistake. It is a mistake because it is an understatement, to be precise. It isn't just alarmist, it the mother of all alarmist statements.   Incredibly laughable, utterly ridiculous statement. "Seas are going to rise 1.3m (!?) if we don't kill coal!"?  It may or may not (rise that much), but to link the whole global warming to a single cause, like coal, is simply not to be taken seriously.

Keep peddling statements like that and no wonder people are not taking it seriously. And to start a "scientific" thread around such a bombastic, ludicrous statement?
Then immediately call PC police when Ray rightly called it out as "an example of alarmist news."? Where is homo in that Ray's statement?

Btw, don't bother reminding me that ad hominem might have a broader meaning, conceptual, not necessarily directed toward an identifiable individual, because, for the purpose of this forum, what owners do not want to see are ad hominem attacks on identifiable members of this forum, not newspaper concepts. For years, media and politicians are using terms like "deniers" and "sceptics" derogatively. And in the now-deleted thread, those words were numerous times used against Ray, Alan K., me, etc. Nobody bothered to ask perpetrators to "moderate" their language. But of course, now, a single use of one word ("alarmist"), provokes a cry for mommy, even if it was not directed toward any of the thread participants personally.

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6859
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #50 on: October 27, 2017, 11:01:10 PM »

If you don't like the term 'alarmist' as it applies to a group of people who appear to believe there will be a catastrophic change in climate if we don't significantly reduce our CO2 emissions, then what name would you recommend?

I'm not really interested in name-calling, but how about "realists", also given the scientific consensus they base their opinions on?
 
Quote
The term denier is therefore incorrect and misleading.

Unless one denies plain scientific evidence ...

Cheers,
Bart
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Online Online
  • Posts: 10757
  • When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.
    • My website
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #51 on: October 27, 2017, 11:06:42 PM »

... Unless one denies plain scientific evidence ...

What evidence? There is absolutely none. What you keep showing are individual measurements of something (C02, temperature), which is indeed an acceptable evidence that at a certain point of time (recent time) the temperature was this or that. Combining those measurements into a theory is not evidence, just a conjecture.

LesPalenik

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1194
    • advantica blog
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #52 on: October 27, 2017, 11:45:04 PM »

From the Ontario shooter's point of view, the unusually warm temperatures in September and October (warmest temperatures on record) messed up schedules of many fall photography outings and workshops. Normally, the fall colours peak in Ontario in the last September week, but this year the fall colour season has been delayed by almost a month.

 

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2544
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #53 on: October 28, 2017, 12:27:22 AM »

If you don't like the term 'alarmist' as it applies to a group of people who appear to believe there will be a catastrophic change in climate if we don't significantly reduce our CO2 emissions, then what name would you recommend?

How about "some people".

I would object to being called a 'climate change denier' because I accept that climate is always changing to some degree, in one direction or another, for a multitude of reasons which are not always understood. The term denier is therefore incorrect and misleading.

As is "alarmists" which suggests there is no basis for concern, then there is overwhelming evidence to support those concerns.

But what you want is not the issue.  You've been appointed as a moderator and I've asked you to moderate.  You can either do so or not, but make it plain and simple which it is you intend to do.
Logged
Phil Brown

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2544
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #54 on: October 28, 2017, 12:44:33 AM »

Which people? For ad hominem, you need a homo. Who is it in this case?

My statement was clear, I asked Ray to moderate his comment.

Btw, don't bother reminding me that ad hominem might have a broader meaning, conceptual, not necessarily directed toward an identifiable individual, because, for the purpose of this forum, what owners do not want to see are ad hominem attacks on identifiable members of this forum, not newspaper concepts.

You understand that calling someone a name isn't an ad hominem argument, right?  It's been made clear that calling people names won't be tolerated.  Ad hominem arguments are just an extension of that by way of a logical fallacy, attempting to win an argument without reason or evidence but instead saying that someone is wrong because they are whatever it is you've labelled them.  It shows a lack of credible argument, a lack of understanding of logic, and cannot further reasoned debate.

For years, media and politicians are using terms like "deniers" and "sceptics" derogatively. And in the now-deleted thread, those words were numerous times used against Ray, Alan K., me, etc. Nobody bothered to ask perpetrators to "moderate" their language. But of course, now, a single use of one word ("alarmist"), provokes a cry for mommy, even if it was not directed toward any of the thread participants personally.

Whilst the premise of your argument lacks real evidence on several fronts, the main criticism I have here is that you have missed the entire point.  Ray was appointed as a moderator yet his very first post was inflammatory.  In every subsequent post following my request for him to moderate himself, he has essentially defended his right to call people names.  He's argued that it's a requirement to label people, in fact.  Yet his entire post could have been made without doing it.  Sure, it would have been much shorter because without the emotional appeal of calling his opponents an inflammatory name there was no other substance to his post, but that's by the by.

What was done before was before.  The rules have been clarified.  And, actually, I seem to recall you were not at all impressed when you thought I was calling you a name.  I immediately apologised because it wasn't my intent and you had the good graces to accept that and we moved on.  That's as it should have been (well, it would have been better if I had thought through the name-shortening and made the obvious realisation (in hindsight) that it could have been taken in a derogatory manner).

Ray could have easily said, "OK" and just stopped using the term.  I wasn't looking for an apology, I was looking for a discussion (as requested by the OP and in terms of the clarified rules for the forum) free from such things.  Instead, Ray continues to insist on his right to name and, as I said, has even called it necessary.  Yet no one on opposing him has had to use any term or label in the discussion here so far.  Only Ray, Alan K., and you have had to do so.

It does take more effort and it's not as thought I'm suggesting that I have never had robust conversations with people here and I have used labels at times, though I've always sought to provide supporting evidence and I have never dismissed their proposed arguments on the basis of the qualities I have attributed to them.  But, again, that was the last thread.  That's out of bounds now.  Except, it seems, if you're Ray as a moderator or someone who agrees with him.

Personally, I'm disappointed.  You are more reasonable and open minded that your last few posts here would suggest, but on this topic you just wave your hand in broad dismissal and refuse to engage in a reasoned manner.  I with it were otherwise.
Logged
Phil Brown

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2647
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #55 on: October 28, 2017, 07:48:32 AM »

From the Ontario shooter's point of view, the unusually warm temperatures in September and October (warmest temperatures on record) messed up schedules of many fall photography outings and workshops. Normally, the fall colours peak in Ontario in the last September week, but this year the fall colour season has been delayed by almost a month.

 
Great Documentary Photography; this is what we need!!!!!!
Logged

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2647
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #56 on: October 28, 2017, 07:51:07 AM »

From today's Washington Post:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/27/world-wine-production-just-hit-a-56-year-low-thats-not-even-the-worst-part/?utm_term=.543947737791   Still not clear whether climate change is having an impact here or not.  Interesting statement about winemaking perhaps moving to Quebec if the climate there warms sufficiently.
Logged

BartvanderWolf

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6859
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #57 on: October 28, 2017, 07:56:14 AM »

What evidence? There is absolutely none. What you keep showing are individual measurements of something (C02, temperature), which is indeed an acceptable evidence that at a certain point of time (recent time) the temperature was this or that.

Yet there are those who even deny the fact that global temperature is rising.

Quote
Combining those measurements into a theory is not evidence, just a conjecture.

Why do you call it a conjecture?

There is an abundant amount of research that links CO2 (a known greenhouse gas) to Temperature. In fact, it's impossible to explain the temperature changes without adding the contributions due to CO2 to the models. If you have a link to lots of good research that shows the opposite, I'm sure that Scientists would be interested.

While waiting for your scientific evidence, here's some science that shows/supports the connection between CO2 and temperature rise, and a simple explanation how we know the current rise is caused by human behavior:
A historical overview of the connection between Co2 and temperature, by Richard Alley
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RffPSrRpq_g
It is Us!
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PrrTk6DqzE&t=13s

In addition to burning fossil fuel, there are other human caused contributing factors, like deforestation and other land use changes.

The "Greenhouse effect" is explained in simple terms here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HS0So6lOE-8
What it doesn't mention is that rising temperatures due to CO2 also increase the amount of water vapor in the air, and water vapor is another even more potent greenhouse gas. But rising CO2 levels will stay in the atmosphere a lot longer, while watervapor eventually rains out when there is too much of it.

Cheers,
Bart
« Last Edit: October 28, 2017, 08:24:47 AM by BartvanderWolf »
Logged
== If you do what you did, you'll get what you got. ==

RSL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10065
    • http://www.russ-lewis.com
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #58 on: October 28, 2017, 08:34:04 AM »

look at the y-axis, it is deviation in temperature in Celsius with 1880 as the start date.  I don't know where this particular data set is from but we have seen data from temperatures recorded here in Washington DC that shows a similar trend.

Fair enough, Alan, but when I looked at the chart there were no values on the Y axis. And you admit you have no idea where this particular data set is from. But you're convinced by similar stuff from Washington DC where the temperature is rising at a great rate because of political hot air. For a contrary view check https://conservativetribune.com/scientific-papers-global-warming.

Quote
We have no way of knowing what the trend was in the 900s and North America was only occupied by indigenous peoples; the European migration did not begin until the 1600s.  I don't think it is fair to say that it is a jump to say that there is a correlation with CO2 levels as there clearly is linkage.  The question is whether and how meaningful this linkage is.  Clearly there are difficult decisions to be made regarding this information and one option is to wait and see if sea level changes continue to progress.

No, we have no way of knowing what the "trend" was in the 900's, but we do know that Leif was able to farm in areas that now are too icy, so we know that there must have been a "trend" in order to get the temperatures to that level -- unless you assume the temperature suddenly jumped over night.

And I'd certainly agree that it would be wise to wait and see -- to wait until this panic passes, as have many similar politically-driven panics in the past.

Alan Goldhammer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2647
    • A Goldhammer Photography
Re: Climate Change: Science and Issues
« Reply #59 on: October 28, 2017, 08:36:07 AM »

Good podcast on the possibility of rising ocean levels and the impact on American cities:  http://www.npr.org/2017/10/24/559736126/climate-change-journalist-warns-mother-nature-is-playing-by-different-rules-now
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 32   Go Up