back to article Greenland ice did not melt in baking +8°C era 120k years ago

Scientists analysing ancient ice samples say that the Greenland ice sheet withstood temperatures much higher than today's for many thousands of years during a period of global warming more than 120,000 years ago, losing just a quarter of its mass. It had been widely suggested - by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Odd, I'm beginning to think Lewis has an agenda...

        No science here, Lewis must be paid to troll.

        And the antarctic stuff is wrong, it's losing ice rapidly.

        Hopefully the real science is good news, there probably was less soot in those days though.

        Time and again though the IPCC is shown to be too conservative, it's always worse than their predictions.

        The warming isn't stalled either, just the air temps, the seas are still warming just as fast as ever.

        The point of trying to do something about it is because the fallout will cost more money than we have.

        Remember there is enough food to feed everyone on the planet but people starve because they can't afford it.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          FAIL

          Re: Odd, I'm beginning to think Lewis has an agenda...

          'The point of trying to do something about it is because the fallout will cost more money than we have.'

          'Remember there is enough food to feed everyone on the planet but people starve because they can't afford it.'

          As Mervyn King and Ben Bernanke have proven, there is no limit to the amount of money available (it is a bit like there being no limit to the amount of runs a cricketer can make in a test innings)

          The reason some people starve despite a surplus is because some other people would rather artificially restrict the supply in order to make a personal profit.

          If there is enough food to feed everyone then its value is negligible (like air) and everyone gets to eat. (effectively free)

          You demonstrate you have absolutely no idea how basic economics works, I may not be alone in doubting you have any idea how climate works.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Odd, I'm beginning to think Lewis has an agenda...

            Perhaps you are an economist, I studied with some while doing my maths degree although they didn't stay around for any of the hard stuff.

            Generally it's just guesswork but I think one of the basics is that when you print money it becomes worth less. I was really meaning the concept rather than the quantity at any one time.

            So a cricketer can make as many runs as they want? after a hundred or so years I would expect them to slow down a bit but perhaps you know something I don't.

            I'm not sure you understand food supply either, even if there is a huge surplice it's not free, someone is making a loss. And suppose you manage to get some of the free stuff to sell if you are paying £100 a litre for you fuel to shift it it's still going to cost you. And if we run out of cheap (often dodgy) labour the crops just die in the fields.

            To me it's more like people starve because they are seen as disposable. In the past a lord\ clan chief would have some level of responsibility for the folk on their land and even slave owners would see the point of keeping their stock alive rather than replacing them. Now those people are just discarded and the taxpayer picks up the bill from the feckless capitalists.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Commentards

              Lots of judgement on this thread coming from people who can't write in sentences or spell the words they are trying to use.

              It's not as much irony as it is hypocrisy, really.

        2. veti Silver badge
          Terminator

          Re: Odd, I'm beginning to think Lewis has an agenda...

          Of course Lewis is paid to troll. It's the job of writers on a site like this to get pageviews. By any means necessary.

          That's a surprisingly fine line to tread. If you just start making sh*t up out of nothing, no-one will take any notice. Conversely, if you just report what everyone else is reporting, no-one will take any notice.

          One approach that does work, however, is to take stories that are true, and put a spin on them that will be hugely popular with one significant audience niche. It's what Fox News does, it's what Drudge Report and Media Matters and Huffington Post and basically all US political partisan blogs do. If you do it consistently, you can build up a fanatical loyalty with those people who are desperate to have their prejudices confirmed on a regular basis. And the debate in the Comments section is even better - that allows you to get people coming back multiple times to view the same page!

          So now Lewis has a fanatically loyal following of people who think AGW is a huge fraud, and look to him to explain why the latest story is nothing to worry about. To them, it's reassuring. To the rest of the world, it's trolling.

  1. Bluenose
    Facepalm

    Snowmen prevent flooding

    How interesting that this finding appears just after a senior scientist lik bloke from the Government announced that we should all build lots of snowmen to help reduce the risk of flooding. Apparently compacted ice and snow take longer to melt even under higher temperatures than the loose stuff.

    From memory the ice in both Antarctica and Greenland is very compacted having been there for some multi-hundred thousand year period (if not millions) and therefore will take a long time to melt even if the temperature does increase. Of course if it doesn't go down again then there is a pretty strong probability that it will eventually all melt and we will (well unless you live on top of very high hill) be drowned.

    On that note I suggest that a)Greenpeace are right and b) that those who deny climate change are also right and that c) this all just goes to show that no-one really has a clue about anything so complex as the weather.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Thumb Up

      Re: Snowmen prevent flooding

      if snowmen do prevent flooding then why don't greenpeace go build loads of snowmen in the poles? problem solved

  2. Spotthelemon

    During the Eemian sea levels are known to have been 4 to 8 metres higher than now, if Greenland ice contributed less water to this higher level than previously thought then other areas must have contributed more.

    The rate of surface lowering in the Eemian was 6cm per year, and the research team estimate that the rate of mass loss from the Greenland ice sheet was likely to be on the same order as changes observed during the last ten years.

    “We were quite shocked by the warm surface temperatures observed at the NEEM ice camp in July 2012. It was simply raining, and, just as during the Eemian period, meltwater formed subsurface ice layers. While this was an extreme event, the present warming over Greenland makes surface melt more likely, and the predicted warming over Greenland the next 50–100 years will potentially lead to Eemian-like climate conditions."

    “The good news from this study is that Greenland is not as sensitive as we thought to temperature increases in terms of disgorging ice into the ocean during interglacial periods.

    -Professor Dorthe Dahl-Jensen Project Leader

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      So in summary

      "good news from this study"

      Or even just "good".

      It's not like the context of the quote is that important

  3. asdf
    Trollface

    long live El Reg

    Few other human climate change denial blogs have enough other non climate articles worth reading.

  4. This post has been deleted by its author

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    50-1 and going longer...

    What's the odds on this research being found in (the IPCC's*) AR5?

    I'll be pleased if I am made to eat my words when it's published though.

    *Please 'excuse my French'.

  6. Spoonsinger
    Coat

    8±4°C ?

    That's accurate then.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Thanks Lewis.

    This is the first time I've bothered looking at the Reg in about 4 months.

    Seeing this typical drivel from Lewis has quickly reminded me why I stopped visiting.

    Bye.

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

    2. Malcolm Weir Silver badge

      Re: Thanks Lewis.

      Yes, Something Should Be Done! Someone Should Call The Editor!

      Oh, wait, he IS the editor...

  8. dmcq
    FAIL

    Is God is going to stop global warming?

    Is God going to stop global warming? I don't think he will anymore than He stops people getting cancer when they smoke. You need to show what's wrong with the science.

    As to the ice did you read a bit further about why there might be more ice? That more fresh water in the top layer means it freezes more easily. Like to make a guess where did the extra fresh water in the water around the Antarctic come from?

  9. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge
    Facepalm

    We're

    still fooked anyway

    Partly because of our own stupidity(do people actually look to vote for the stupidist candidate on the ballot sheet?)

    But mostly because the same people who run around going "the earth is doomed the earth is doomed" are the same people who run around going "Ban nuclear power .. its even more evil than global warming"

    Actually I have a theory that the collective intelligence of humanity goes down as the number of humans in the group rises.

    Boris

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: We're [still fooked anyway]

      "the collective intelligence... goes down as the number of humans in the group rises"

      That is certainly true of Greenpeace and the CAGW lunatic fringe.

  10. Spoonsinger

    Re :- "That is certainly true of Greenpeace and the CAGW lunatic fringe."

    ref Quantity Theory Of Insanity. (Will Self).

  11. Herby

    We're

    ALL doomed. Life is a terminal disease!

  12. Jim Birch
    Meh

    Does Lewis Page use a pattern to alternate his articles between "climate change isn't happening" and "well it is, but it doesn't matter"? Or is it just random?

  13. amanfromarse

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-billionaires-secretly-fund-attacks-on-climate-science-8466312.html

    1. Loyal Commenter Silver badge

      Hello Elephant

      No, no need to stand up, we can all see you in the room.

      I'm always amazed how easily people's opinions can be swayed by those who not only have a clear agenda, but go out of their way to hide it, and also how easy it appears to be to smear the hard work done by people who don't want to play that game.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Please just stop, Lewis

    Climate change hit piece? Check. Completely misrepresents the referenced report? Check. Lewis Page? Check.

    We desperately need another Armed Forces review for Lewis to rant about so he can stop making up stuff about climate change.

  15. Joe Gurman

    Missing one fairly major factor

    Other than during years when explosive volcanoes (e.g. Pinatubo) deposited lots of dust worldwide, the Greenland ice cover was probably much freer of dark particulate pollution than it has been the last century or so. It might be interesting to determine what effect that has on thermal energy absorption and consequent melting.

  16. Mikel

    The ice will be back

    In something like 6,000 years the Milankovitch Cycles will take over and plunge the Earth back into the ice. Maybe a little less. Right about then mankind will die out if it hasn't already, or at least revert to stone age culture. We need not worry about warming.

    If not for this recent spate of global warming the scales might have been tipped already and we would be on our way back into the ice. It was getting dangerously close.

  17. kdh0009
    Thumb Up

    Climate Change - really brings out the El Reg voting public

    Always provokes a nice feisty debate!

    General problems with the debate though.

    1. Can the impact of various causes of climate change be accurately identified? Nope

    2. Are we on the path to destruction? Nobody knows

    3. In the face of huge global industrialisation and the refusal to play ball by the US and China in particular, can anyone make any difference? Unlikely

    4. Is re-using/recycling a good idea and worth doing - even if it has no impact on the climate? Yes

    5. Should be try to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels - even if it has no impact on the climate? Yes

    It's not really a yes/no debate. We don't know the end result/we don't know what effect we are having. Might has well just get on with life, and if we can make any changes to reduce waste and consumption on the way. Bonus.

  18. Tom 7

    Well who'd have thought it

    http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-billionaires-secretly-fund-attacks-on-climate-science-8466312.html

    Lewis: step away from the Porche!

  19. Andrew van der Stock
    WTF?

    Is there a way I can filter out crap posts?

    I'm sick of Lewis Page's articles. Deliberately, trollingly, click baitingly, presenting wholly factually inaccurate or misrepresentative quotes and factoids. These "articles" would make Faux News blush, and indeed I suggest Lewis look there for his kind if he needs new employers.

    I don't mind it when new data or research comes to light that shows us how to improve our models or understanding of how things work. That's science. But to wilfully and continuously disparage the scientific method, 99.98% of all qualified climate scientists, and 50+ years of research with a wide range of funding sources and tenure beggars belief. What is Lewis' qualification to write these articles? If it's a B.A. in journalism, then none. He is not a climate scientist. The Register, must not take the easy path of bashing science.

    Governments would LOVE climate science to be fake. Governments would love to continue growth at all costs and continue business as usual. The fact that all major governments of all stripes have stopped feigning ignorance and starting to move on this should speak volumes to the doubters. It's not rocket science to work out what's happening - it's now CHEAPER to do something than to do nothing. It really is that simple.

    The scientific question has moved from "the climate might be changing" to the "climate is changing pretty darn fast especially compared to the many historical records we have". We have hydrologists who run flood models to determine what is going to go under with varying levels of increase. We have economists who work out roughly how much it will cost, and it's a terrible, terrible cost. Plus we're crapping where we sleep. Even if it's not right, surely you want to have clean air and environment? We have tropical islands like Kiribati already essentially flooded and unproductive as they have no fresh water table.

    The economic and political has become "how much will that cost in human life, treasure, and war" and "what can we do about it to minimize the misery?" Doing nothing is not an option, and keeping that position deals you out of any solution. If you hate how you feel dealt out of the mainstream today, wait for another 30-40 years.

    If The Register is not going to present alternative solutions to mainstream thought (which I disagree with, ETS are cheap for governments, but ineffective at creating necessary change), then get someone else to write a 99 times more articles than Lewis to balance out "articles" such as this waste of electrons. I don't come to The Register for factual inaccuracy, I come for funny and moderately unbalanced tech editorial, based largely in fact. These articles are siding with the folks at World Nut Daily in a way that does not reflect well on the Register.

    My question stands to the moderators: until Lewis moves on or decides to post what he'd like to see change instead of the "Don't panic, it's fine to carry on defecating all over our planet and please feel free to turn up the aircon", is there a way I can block these ridiculous articles from appearing in my logged in version of the Register?

    1. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

      Re: Is there a way I can filter out crap posts?

      "I suggest Lewis look there for his kind if he needs new employers"

      I doubt it; he's the esteemed editor of this fine organ. And he's made his views clear on the subject of climate here, scroll down (or search) for 'full disclosure'.

      "But to wilfully and continuously disparage the scientific method"

      Yes! Of course! You're so right! We should just swallow everything we hear! There's only harm to come from questioning everything, testing ideas and challenging data! Let's completely forget that high-level decisions - the consequences of which could be devastating - are being made on the basis of alarmist predictions! It is so obvious that The Reg is completely derailing the entire scientific process, destroying millions - nay, billions - of lives and setting back engineering progress by centuries simply by reporting something you don't want to hear.

      "is there a way I can block these ridiculous articles from appearing in my logged in version of the Register?"

      No.

      C.

      1. speedjunky

        Re: Is there a way I can filter out crap posts?

        I like Lewis's style, he points out that this alarmist crap is not all cut and dried!

        If you dont like the posts, then DONT READ THEM!!!

        Simples!!

      2. DavCrav
        FAIL

        Re: Is there a way I can filter out crap posts?

        ""But to wilfully and continuously disparage the scientific method"

        Yes! Of course! You're so right! We should just swallow everything we hear! There's only harm to come from questioning everything, testing ideas and challenging data"

        Questioning everything, testing ideas and challenging data *is* is Scientific Method. This article, unfortunately, doesn't do that.

    2. EvilGav 1
      FAIL

      Re: Is there a way I can filter out crap posts?

      And therein lies the entire problem with the climate change "debate". If you don't agree that we need to make changes, you are wrong - that is not a debate.

      I actually find it quite refreshing to get to read climate stories that don't all conclude that it's worse than we previously thought (as I can on almost all other news services).

      The debate *should* still be going on, for the simple point of : is the current situation natural and we cant change it or is the current situation un-natural and we can do something? That is the actual debate and it's one that the doom-mongers (for want of a better name) don't want to have. It's either all mankinds fault or you are wrong.

      As you say, we have 50+ years of climate research. However, we only have good readings for Earth's temperature for a little over a century and accurate for a little over half that. Yet we're trying to model something on a 125,000 year cycle - we have some pretty good readings on a macro scale, but not on the micro. We have no idea if the temperature change from the last high point went smoothly or in fits and starts, with sudden (in this form, sudden can be considered any fraction of a century) changes. We don't know if we're in a sudden rise in temperature, that will plateau off for another century or two.

      These are the problems. The current philosophy seems to be to bankrupt the planet in a manner which may be the equivalent of farting in a hurricane. If the science cant get a hold on a model that stands up for more than 5 minutes without major changes (which is what has been happening, the various models have required major changes every 6 months or so), how can we possibly attribute a solution to a "problem" we don't understand?

      1. NomNomNom

        Re: Is there a way I can filter out crap posts?

        despite major changes to the models (mainly adding new processes) they still show significant warming from CO2.

        Humans are raising CO2 levels faster than any known period in Earth's history, with CO2 rise in the last 200 years bringing CO2 levels to highs not seen for millions of years.

        If this was something happening in their bloodstream rather than the atmosphere, people wouldn't take the cavalier attitude of assuming such an unprecedented change was going to be safe.

    3. Mad Mike
      FAIL

      Re: Is there a way I can filter out crap posts?

      @Andrew van der Stock.

      I think you're taking a rather extreme view. A lot of your comments are simply wrong as well. The reality is that nobody really knows what's happening. There simply isn't enough data over a long enough period and good enough models to really know. However, because of money, the overwhelming view is that we're the cause and we have to fix it. Is there evidence of this? Some. Is there evidence against this? Some.

      Scientists, governments and politicians, contrary to your belief, actually love climate change being mankinds fault. Scientists get lovely big, fat grants to go and research all this and are effectively being paid out of the money provided. Maybe not directly, but certainly indirectly. There are also tons of advisor, business positions being created out of it. So, scientists love it. Continued, gainful employment. If it was shown that mankinds impact on climate change was tiny and there was nothing we could do about, climate scientists would be in the dole queue in their thousands!! So, climate scientists have a very big vested interest in it being our fault and ours to fix.

      Governments and politicians love it as well for one simple reason. It gives a brilliant excuse for raising taxation. Just look at what's happening in the UK. Fuel duty escalator. Tax on fuel to power and heat your home etc.etc. Do you ever hear of a politician saying 'We'll tax that less because it's environmentally friendly?' Not normally. It's normally increase the taxation on the unfriendly things. So, they love it because it fills their coffers and gives them something to justify it. Yes, they have to spend some on research to justify that, but the tax take far outweighs the expense.

      Of course, companies have the reverse agenda, but they have a couple of simple options. If you pollute a lot, move to a country (or relocate manufacturing) that doesn't care of doesn't particularly tax according to pollution...say China for instance. Or, simply charge the customer more and blame climate change/taxes/the government etc.etc. Either way, win win. It's interesting that the greatest reduction in CO2 emissions in the USA has come about in the last decade and is largely due to their use of shale gas!!

      Generally speaking, when you don't actually know what's happening with any degree of certainly and/or the effects of such change, you shouldn't take a radical approach in any direction. You shouldn't go hell for leather against climate change, tax the population to death and cripple yourself and your country in an attempt to stop something which may not exist, or be preventable. Similarly, you shouldn't totally ignore it and do nothing either. What you do is keep going, implementing changes as you can where it is practical. Should we be encouraging recycling and stuff like that? Of course. Should we be encouraging people to drive less? Of course, for lots of reasons. Should we be building wind farms? No. They are useless, require massive subsidies and are actually very emissions expensive to build. On top of that, they're very, very unrealiable. In fact, in this country, wind farms tend to produce nothing when we need it most...i.e. during extremely cold spells in winter which normally come with a calm.

      It's anticipated that 15% of your energy bills is now made up of subsidies for 'climate change' and energy saving based technologies, like windfarms, solar PV etc.etc. This is silly. None of these technologies is particularly reliable and/or cost effective and/or efficient. Let's use that money (if we have to pay it) on something potentially sensible. e.g. wave and tidal power. They were pretty much ignored for years in the rush to wind power, yet are far more suited. They are predictable, reliable and hydraulic produces far more power than pneumatic. Rather than rush to wind, we should have waited a decade, perfected these other technologies and deployed them. We'd be in a much better position now.

  20. kakapo
    Thumb Up

    A few graphs

    http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/co2-temp-rss.png

    http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BBQxE5mCAAASsIM.jpg:large

    http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c017d3dfd834e970c-450wi

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1995/plot/rss/from:1996.83/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1996.83/normalise

    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/vostok-last-12000-years-web.gif

    1. NomNomNom

      Re: A few graphs

      just a few misleading graphs

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: A few graphs

        "just a few misleading graphs"

        Tell me more...

  21. Max_Normal

    Listen, I'm a scientist not an IT guy so.........

    Could someone come and fix my workstation in JMS building please? I'm struggling to connect to the network printer.

    1. Stiggy
      IT Angle

      Have you tried

      Turning it off and on again?

  22. Loyal Commenter Silver badge
    Boffin

    Fact checking

    From the paper in question (my emphasis):

    "On the basis of water stable isotopes, NEEM surface temperatures after the onset of the Eemian (126,000 years ago) peaked at 8 ± 4 degrees Celsius above the mean of the past millennium"

    That's right, those are the peak temperatures, not the usual temperature, and are measured relative to the mean. Since many parts of greenland remain frozen all year round, that mean is below zero degrees. So what they are saying is that at the height of summer, the warmest parts of Greenland that are frozen today may have reached less than 8 degrees centigrade.

    By inference, other parts of Greenland would not have reached this temperature, and the fact that only 25% of the ice melted suggests that in fact 3/4 of the bits that are currently frozen were still below zero then.

    We also know for a fact that our planet was warmer in the past over various periods of time, the key being the fact that the changes occurred over thousands or tens of thousands of years, not decades like our current period of warming.

    But hey, don't let pesky things like facts get in the way of your agenda, just keep on warping those misleading statistics to sell a story...

    1. Mad Mike
      FAIL

      Re: Fact checking

      @Loyal Commentator.

      We also know as fact that the 'normal' conditions for our planet (i.e. most common in the past) is for no (or a lot less) ice. In most of history, the earth has either had no ice, or considerably less at the poles and other places. In geological time, the earth is 'odd' right now. That's why people believe there are masses of oil and gas etc. under the antarctic. The reason being this used to be dense jungle and forest!!

      So, what are we actually trying to achieve? Perhaps we're simply trying to keep the earth in a state that it doesn't want to be in. Maybe the ice should melt. Humans have been around for a tiny period of time and its only because we like this climate that we believe it should continue forever.

      Climates change over the centuries and millenia normally. There's nothing unusual about that. We know the coastline of India was once far further into the Indian Ocean than it is today because we've found settlements several miles out. So, we know the coastline has change over our (as in human beings) puny existence. You only have to look at Darwin to understand what we need to do. One of the characterstics most needed to survive is the ability to adapt. Animals that can't adapt tend to die out much quicker than those that can. It is, in fact, one of the reasons we still exist....because we could adapt!! So, that's simply what we need to do. If coastline changes, move with it and relocate the people. If the temperature changes, move, build differently, etc.etc. Don't try to stop the change, move with it. It's only governments, countries and politicians that prevent this from happening with artificial boundaries like borders etc.

      Don't forget, the big oil and gas reserves under the deserts of the Middle East didn't get there by magic. It's because they weren't once desert!!

  23. Dave 15

    All glaciers melting?

    I have to admit I thought I had read reports that some glaciers are getting bigger, snow packs in places getting significantly thicker.

    Before WW2 there were a lot of scientists, media and politicians believing that the human race was doomed due to the breeding of inferior subspecies. Any that disagreed were shouted down as being out of step.

    These thoughts led in large part to the Nazi death camps - and even Churchill was bought into the idea and was happy to suggest gassing large numbers of 'natives' in other parts of the world.

  24. The Grump
    Big Brother

    The real plan...

    is not about GW. GW is simply a trojan horse. Inside the trojan horse is packed with libtards, each believing in their hearts that the ONLY way to save the world is TOTAL GOVERNMENT CONTROL. Of everyone. Everywhere. All the time. All choices will be made by the world government leaders.

    All you have to do, as a citizen of the new world order, is simply OBEY. All your choices will be made for you. See, it's not that hard to understand.

    GW is simply a useful manufactured crisis to help get us there. England already has the gun issue taken care of - our libtards across the big pond are still working on it. Gradually, government will run private business out of business, and reopen them under libtard control - at least the businesses the libtards want to reopen. Private cars, restaurants, steak, shrimp, beer and spirits - will no longer be available. Why ? "if we cannot afford to provide it for EVERYONE, we cannot provide it for ANYONE". Well, except for libtard Party leaders, of course. Why ?

    DO NOT QUESTION !!! OBEY !!! Return to your housing block ! You will lose your food vouchers for one week, for questioning our glorious leaders.

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    We're DOOMED ! We're DOOMED ! Oh wait ......

    If you believe all the "climate scientists" sprouting this rubbish, I've got a bridge that I can sell to you cheap, cheap !

  26. Mikel

    Antarctica does not make up the difference

    http://m.phys.org/news/2012-07-offset-global-antarctica.html

    Antarctica is a desert. When global temperatures increase Antarctica gets more snow, not less, as the colder air normally there is too dry to cause significant precipitation. That snow does not melt as it is never warm enough there for snow to melt. Runoff in Greenland is balanced by accumulation in Antarctica. Increased snow in Antarctica increases the planet's albedo as well, counteracting warming according to this recent paper.

  27. FM_Furness

    Oh so it's all fine, then. Drill baby drill !

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.