Politics & Stuff

[Vesper 28,850]

Debunking eight common myths about climate change

https://www.unep.org/news-and-stories/story/debunking-eight-common-myths-about-climate-change

The world is warming at a record pace, with unseasonable heat baking nearly every continent on Earth. April, the last month for which statistics are available, marked the 11th consecutive month the planet has set a new temperature high.

Experts say that is a clear sign the Earth’s climate is rapidly changing. But many believe – or at least say they believe – that climate change is not real, relying on a series of well-trodden myths to make their point. 

“Most of the world rightly acknowledges that climate change is real,” says Dechen Tsering, Acting Director of the Climate Change Division at the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). “But in many places, misinformation is delaying the action that is so vital to countering what is one of the greatest challenges facing humanity.” 

This month, delegates will be meeting in Bonn, Germany for a key conference on climate change. Ahead of that gathering, here is a closer look at eight common climate-related myths and why they are simply not true. 

Myth #1: Climate change has always happened, so we should not worry about it. 

It is true that the planet’s temperature has long fluctuated, with periods of warming and cooling. But since the last ice age 10,000 years ago, the climate has been relatively stable, which scientists say has been crucial to the development of human civilization. 

That stability is now faltering. The Earth is heating up at its fastest rate in at least 2,000 years and is about 1.2°C hotter than it was in pre-industrial times. The last 10 years have been the warmest on record, with 2023 smashing global temperature records.   

Other key climate-related indicators are also spiking. Ocean temperatures, sea levels and atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses are rising at record rates while sea ice and glaciers are retreating at alarming speeds. 

Myth #2: Climate change is a natural process. It has nothing to do with people. 

While climate change is a natural process human activity is pushing it into overdrive. A landmark report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which draws on the research of hundreds of leading climate scientists, found that humans are responsible for almost all the global warming over the past 200 years.  

The vast majority of warming has come from the burning of coal, oil and gas. The combustion of these fossil fuels is flooding the atmosphere with greenhouse gases, which act like a blanket around the planet, trapping heat.  

By measuring everything from ice cores to tree rings, scientists have been able to track concentrations of greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide levels are at their highest in 2 million years, while two other greenhouse gases, methane and nitrous oxide, are at their highest in 800,000 years.  

As the Earth’s climate changes, hurricanes and other superstorms are expected to become more common in many parts of the world. Photo: APF/NOAA

Myth #3: A couple of degrees of warming is not that big of a deal. 

Actually, small temperature rises can throw the world’s delicate ecosystems into disarray, with dire implications for humans and other living things. The Paris Agreement on climate change aims to limit average global temperature rise to “well below” 2°C, and preferably to 1.5°C, since pre-industrial times.  

Even that half-a-degree swing could make a massive difference. The IPCC found that at 2°C of warming, more than 2 billion people would regularly be exposed to extreme heat than they would at 1.5°C. The world would also lose twice as many plants and vertebrate species and three times as many insects. In some areas, crop yields would decrease by more than half, threatening food security. 

At 1.5°C of warming, 70 per cent to 90 per cent of corals, the pillars of many undersea ecosystems, would die. At 2°C of warming, some 99 per cent would perish. Their disappearance would likely lead to the loss of other marine species, many of which are a critical source of protein for coastal communities. 

“Every fraction of a degree of warming matters,” says Tsering. 

Myth #4: An increase in cold snaps shows climate change is not real. 

This statement confuses weather and climate, which are two different things. Weather is the day-to-day atmospheric conditions in a location and climate is the long-term weather conditions in a region. So, there could still be a cold snap while the general trend for the planet is warming.  

Some experts also believe climate change could lead to longer and more intense cold in some places due to changes in wind patterns and other atmospheric factors. One much-publicized paper found the rapid warming of the Arctic may have disrupted the swirling mass of cold air above the North Pole in 2021. This unleashed sub-zero temperatures as far south as Texas in the United States, causing billions of dollars in damages. 

Some experts believe that climate change could spark cold snaps in unusual places, like the American state of Texas, which was hammered by a historic snowstorm in 2021. Photo: AFP/Matthew Busch 

Myth #5: Scientists disagree on the cause of climate change. 

A 2021 study revealed that 99 per cent of peer-reviewed scientific literature found that climate change was human-induced. That was in line with a widely read study from 2013, which found 97 per cent of peer-reviewed papers that examined the causes of climate change said it was human-caused. 

“The idea that there is no consensus is used by climate deniers to muddy the waters and sow the seeds of doubt,” says Tsering. “But the scientific community agrees: the global warming we are facing is not natural. It is caused by humans.” 

Myth #6: It is too late to avert a climate catastrophe, so we might as well keep burning fossil fuels. 

While the situation is dire, there is still a narrow window for humanity to avoid the worst of climate change.  

UNEP’s latest Emissions Gap Report found that cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 42 per cent by 2030, the world could limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C compared with pre-industrial levels.  

A little math reveals that to reach that target, the world must reduce its annual emissions by 22 billion tonnes of carbon-dioxide equivalent in less than seven years. That might seem like a lot. But by ramping up financing and focusing on low-carbon development in key transport, agriculture and forestry, the world can get there.  

“There is no question the task ahead of us is massive,” Tsering says. “But we have the solutions we need to reduce emissions today and there is an opportunity to raise ambition in the new round of national climate action plans.”  

To avert the worst of climate change, the world must embrace low-carbon technologies, like solar power, say experts. Photo: UNEP/Duncan Moore

Myth #7: Climate models are unreliable. 

Climate skeptics have long argued that the computer models used to project climate change are unreliable at best and completely inaccurate at worst. 

But the IPCC, the world’s leading scientific authority on climate change, says that over decades of development, these models have consistently provided “a robust and unambiguous picture” of planetary warming.  

Meanwhile, a 2020 study by the University of California showed that global warming models were largely accurate. The study looked at 17 models that were generated between 1970 and 2007 and found 14 of them closely matched observations.  

Myth #8: We do not need to worry about lowering greenhouse gas emissions. Humanity is inventive; we can just adapt to climate change. 

Some countries and communities can adapt to rising temperatures, lower precipitation and the other impacts of climate change. But many cannot.  

The world’s developing countries collectively need between US$215 billion and US$387 billion per year to adapt to climate change, yet only have access to a fraction of that total, found UNEP’s latest Adaptation Gap Report. Even wealthy nations will struggle to afford the cost of adaptation, which in some cases will require radical measures, such as displacing vulnerable communities, relocating vital infrastructure or changing staple foods.  

In many places, people are already facing hard limits on how much they can adapt. Small island developing states, for example, can only do so much to hold back the rising seas that threaten their existence. 

Without significant action to lower greenhouse gas emissions, communities will reach these hard limits faster and begin to suffer irreparable damage from climate change, say experts.  

[robsblubot 3,507]

1 minute ago, Vesper said:

Myth #6: It is too late to avert a climate catastrophe, so we might as well keep burning fossil fuels. 

I strongly disagree with this one and find it extremely naive to think this way.

"the world must"  There is no such thing. There are regions and countries with extremely different agendas and goals.

[Vesper 28,850]

What is ‘new denial?’ An alarming wave of climate misinformation is spreading on YouTube, watchdog says

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/01/16/climate/climate-denial-misinformation-youtube/index.html

If you’ve been on YouTube lately, you might have come across someone claiming wind and solar energy don’t work, that rising sea levels will help coral reefs flourish, or that climate scientists are corrupt and alarmist.

These are all false and misleading statements taken from a handful of thousands of YouTube videos analyzed by the nonprofit Center for Countering Digital Hate (CCDH), which has identified a stark change in the tactics of climate deniers over the past few years.

Where once climate deniers would outright reject climate change as a hoax or scam, or claim that humans were not responsible for it, many are now shifting to a different approach, one which attempts to undermine climate science, cast doubt on climate solutions and even claim global warming will be beneficial at best, harmless at worst.

The past five years have seen a “startling” rise in this “new denial,” according to a CCDH analysis published Tuesday, which also suggests this shift in narrative could also be helping YouTube video creators circumvent the social media company’s ban on monetizing climate denial.

Researchers gathered transcripts from more than 12,000 videos posted between 2018 and 2023 across 96 YouTube channels that have promoted climate denial and misinformation. Transcripts were analyzed by artificial intelligence to categorize the climate denial narratives used as either “old denial” or “new denial.”

“New denial” content — attacks on solutions, the science and the climate movement — now makes up 70% of all climate denial claims posted on YouTube, according to the report, up from 35% in 2018.

Assertions that “global warming is not happening,” one of the main “old denial” claims the analysis focused on, declined from 48% of all denial claims in 2018 to 14% in 2023, the report found. Claims that climate solutions won’t work, however, soared from 9% to 30% over the same period.

‘Murderers’ and ‘criminals’: Meteorologists face unprecedented harassment from conspiracy theorists

Imran Ahmed, chief executive officer and founder of CCDH, said the report in some ways is a story of success.

“The climate movement has won the argument that climate change is real, and that it is hurting our planet’s ecosystems,” he told CNN. As the impacts of the climate crisis — from scorching heat waves to fierce storms — affect a broader swath of the global population, narratives that deny the existence of climate change are becoming less effective.

But, he added, it’s also a huge warning. “Now that the majority of people recognize old climate denial as counterfactual and discredited, climate deniers have cynically concluded that the only way to derail climate action is to tell people the solutions don’t work.”

“This new climate denial is no less insidious,” Ahmed said, “and it could hold enormous influence over public opinion on climate action for decades to come.”

It’s particularly worrying because of the young demographic attracted to YouTube, according to the CCDH. A December survey from Pew Research Center found YouTube to be the most widely used social media platform it analyzed among 13- to 17-year olds, used by roughly nine in 10 of them.

“Climate deniers now have access to vast global audiences through digital platforms,” Charlie Cray, senior strategist at Greenpeace, said in a statement. “Allowing them to steadily chip away at public support for climate action — especially among younger viewers — could have devastating consequences for the future of our planet.”

The shift in tactics to undermine climate action could also help creators get around YouTube’s policy banning them from making money on climate denial content, the report suggests. In 2021, the company prohibited advertising against content that “contradicts well-established scientific consensus around the existence and causes of climate change.”

Yet YouTube is potentially making up to $13.4 million a year from ads on videos the report found to contain climate denial, according to the CCDH’s calculations, including ads from prominent sportswear companies, hotels and international nonprofits.

“There aren’t many companies that would be happy about seeing their advertising appear next to clear climate denial content,” Ahmed said. “And I imagine they will be furious to find out that they are inadvertently funding climate denial content.”

In a statement to CNN, a YouTube spokesperson said, “debate or discussions of climate change topics, including around public policy or research, is allowed.”

However, the spokesperson added, “when content crosses the line to climate change denial, we stop showing ads on those videos. We also display information panels under relevant videos to provide additional information on climate change and context from third parties.”

YouTube said its enforcement teams work quickly to review videos that may potentially violate policies, then act on them.

‘An agenda to control you’: How climate solutions got sucked into a fevered culture war

The company said that after reviewing the CCDH report, it found some of the videos included did violate existing climate change policies and has since removed ads from them. However, it also said the majority of the videos in the analysis did not breach their policies.

Michael Mann, a leading climate scientist at the University of Pennsylvania who has studied the narrative shift in climate denial, said the findings were “disturbing.”

“It is extremely unlikely that this is the result of organic social media activity,” Mann, who was not involved in the study, told CNN. “It suggests that bad actors have made a concerted effort to weaponize social media in a way that is especially targeted toward young people, recognizing that they are the greatest threat to the fossil fuel industry status quo, as evidenced by the tremendous impact of the youth climate movement.”

Ahmed called on Google to boost its policies to deal with “new denial” content. “We’re asking Google to extend their ban on monetization and amplification of ‘old denial’ content to include ‘new denial’ as well,” Ahmed said, adding that other social media companies should also take note of the report’s findings.

“We’re asking other platforms that claim to be green in one breath not to profit from, to revenue share, and therefore, reward or to amplify clear climate denial content that contradicts scientific consensus,” Ahmed added. “You can’t claim to be green but then be the world’s biggest megaphone for climate change-related disinformation.”

[Vesper 28,850]

6 minutes ago, robsblubot said:

I strongly disagree with this one and find it extremely naive to think this way.

"the world must"  There is no such thing. There are regions and countries with extremely different agendas and goals.

there is only one planet Earth

it is called GLOBAL climte change for a reason

no area can 'opt out' as time flows on

all areas will be impacted in massive and varied ways

 

[robsblubot 3,507]

15 minutes ago, Vesper said:

there is only one planet Earth

it is called GLOBAL climte change for a reason

no area can 'opt out' as time flows on

all areas will be impacted in massive and varied ways

 

The same way that "the world" does not care about children dying, as it is posted here often, it does not care about climate change.

There is no unity until there is no choice, and given that climate change will affect different areas and countries differently, by the time most countries are driven to action it will be way too late. So, I have to disagree on this one.

[Vesper 28,850]

A Bumpy Ride Ahead

[Fernando 6,465]

2 hours ago, Vesper said:

climate change is being driven by anthropogenic causes, unlike anytime in the past

it is not being caused by natural cycles

CO2 levels have NEVER been higher (as I have shown) over the past 800,000 years

they have skyrocketed over the past 100, 150 years, caused by humans use of fossil fuels

these are driving an unprecedented rapid increase in global temperatures over such a short duration

this has been definitively proven, it is settled science

And I agree with that. What I'm saying is that man made global warming pales in comparison to the record of global warming in the past. We are not at the level where green land is no longer ice like in the past. 

[Vesper 28,850]

6 hours ago, Fernando said:

And I agree with that. What I'm saying is that man made global warming pales in comparison to the record of global warming in the past. We are not at the level where green land is no longer ice like in the past. 

We are very rapidly headed there, far faster (10 times faster on average in terms of global temperature increases) than any rate seen over the last million or so years.

The only truly major change in terms of interlocking systemic inputs over the past 150 to 200 years has been humans releasing CO2 to massive degrees via fossil fuels, etc. That release has been scientifically proven to be the prime, by far, reason for the ever-increasing global climate change we are witnessing.

[cosmicway 1,324]

There is no climate change.
It is a myth created by the commies to stall industrial progress and hopefully destroy the western economies.
Some western governments like it because it gives them the chance to increase taxes and apply new taxes.
The climate change is something that happens from geological period to geological period - it takes hundreds of millions of years.
We certainly have n't witnessed it.
What is true is that the atmosphere becomes foul in large towns because of bad planning and polluting factories allowed to exist inside the towns perimeter.
In Athens there is a mountain to the west called the Egaleo. If you go there you see the entire city infront of you. Straight ahead and slightly to the right you see the Acropolis.
Then a little to the right you see a neighbourhood to the west of the centrum where is the main railway station.
That area then looked black with smog, almost like as if there had been a fire there and smoke was rising.
But it was atmospheric pollution, not climate change.

[Vesper 28,850]

2 hours ago, cosmicway said:

There is no climate change.
It is a myth created by the commies to stall industrial progress and hopefully destroy the western economies.

🤪

[Fulham Broadway 16,858]

 

Bottom-of-the-class RFK Jr says he went to the top after he started taking heroin

RFK Jr said his foray into drugs began in the summer after his father, Robert F Kennedy, was assassinated in 1968. His older brother’s friend invited him to a party. Hitchhiking home, an “older boy” picked him up and offered him LSD. Later that day, after a 10-hour acid trip, he ran into some boys in the woods who offered him crystal meth. He took some, snorted it and “felt great,” he said.

“Within a month, I was shooting heroin and that was my kind of drug of choice,” RFK Jr said. For the next 14 years, cocaine and heroin became his drugs of choice, he said.

Independent

[Vesper 28,850]

The End of the Liberal West

Donald Trump’s reelection marks a critical moment for the global liberal order, forcing Europe to confront its vulnerabilities and redefine its future.

https://www.socialeurope.eu/the-end-of-the-liberal-west

 

We all think, speak, and write within certain intellectual frameworks that we largely take for granted. But, eventually, the passage of time renders familiar categories and ideas obsolete. For example, who still talks about the “Soviet Union” today, apart from historians? 

In a similar vein, this year’s presidential election in the United States was the most significant political event of 2024, and it will almost certainly be remembered as a historical turning point. The outcome will shape global events for decades to come. 

The effects will be felt on two levels. The first is the more immediate, practical, operational level of day-to-day governance. With Donald Trump back in the White House, the US will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, impose new tariffs on its trade partners, and launch a massive campaign to round up and expel millions of undocumented immigrants. Taken together, this all represents a fundamental shift in how the world’s most powerful country operates, and in what it represents. 

Then there is the global dimension, where many scenarios are possible – from major power shifts to the dissolution of long-standing alliances and the disintegration of the world’s governing institutions and norms. What will happen to transatlantic relations? What about Ukraine? Will the US develop closer ties to Russia and other authoritarian regimes at the expense of the European Union and other allies? 

Trump won decisively despite his contempt for democratic institutions, his efforts to overturn the 2020 election, and his subsequent 34-count felony conviction. Though voters know about his chaotic approach to governance, his habitual mendacity, and his sinister immigration policies, he won every swing state. Even with full knowledge of who Trump is, more Americans voted for him than for Kamala Harris. 

We must not mince words: liberal democracy in the US has suffered a lethal blow. It will be under increasing pressure on both sides of the Atlantic, and there is no guarantee that it will survive. After all, can there be any future for the liberal West without the US as its leader? I believe the answer is no. 

Trump will begin his second term with Republican control over both houses of Congress, and many observers expect the 6-to-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court to back him unequivocally. In June, the Court ruled, in a case brought by Trump, that presidents enjoy broad immunity from criminal prosecution for “official” acts. Thus, he will be able to govern – indeed, to rule – unimpeded. There is nothing to stop him from reshaping American liberal democracy into an illiberal oligarchy. 

Obviously, the pressure on European democracies to contribute more to their own security will intensify. But Trump has no interest in strengthening the EU – quite the opposite, in fact – and the EU’s capability to advance independently without the tacit support of the US is doubtful. Doing so would require a fundamental shift in Europeans’ political mentality, and such a change is currently nowhere in sight. Moreover, the Franco-German engine that has always propelled the EU is no longer operational, and no one knows when, or if, it will be restarted. 

Another major issue is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Will the current Israeli government now rush to annex the West Bank? What will it do about Iran, which has been amassing near-weapons-grade uranium? All signs point to a major war in the region – to a violent restructuring that will bring anything but peace or even a lasting ceasefire. 

That brings us to the final, all-important question: What will the world look like without a liberal West? For decades, the transatlantic alliance projected power (both hard and soft) and modeled the values that underpinned a cohesive global order. But now the global order is in the midst of a chaotic transition. 

If Europe fails to come together at this moment of tumultuous change, it will not get a second chance. Its only option is to become a military power capable of protecting its interests and securing peace and order on the world stage. The alternative is fragmentation, impotence, and irrelevance. The challenge is compounded by a massive technological shift toward digitalization and AI, as well as by Europe’s demographic crisis. Though the continent has too many elderly people and too few young people, it is increasingly opposed to immigration. 

So, what now? Will Europe prepare itself, or will it revert to a structure resembling the one that followed the 1814-15 Congress of Vienna, in which Russia’s influence was dominant and pervasive? Europeans woke up on November 6 to a result that will affect them more profoundly than all their own elections combined. Trump will not only change America (for the worse); he will also shape European history – if we let him.

[Vesper 28,850]

From Trump’s Win to Valencia’s Floods: Is Europe’s New Security Focus Putting Social Justice at Risk?

As Europe braces for mounting crises, a new EU agenda prioritizes security, but at what cost to social justice and climate action?

https://www.socialeurope.eu/from-trumps-win-to-valencias-floods-is-europes-new-security-focus-putting-social-justice-at-risk

Massanassa, Valencia, Spain. October 31, 2024 – After the floods, a person empties a bucket full of mud taken from his house into the street. Cars and debris in the street. (photo: Vicente Sargues/shutterstock.com)

Two significant events marked the beginning of November 2024, both of which may foreshadow what lies ahead for Europe in the coming years and decades. Firstly, a climatic catastrophe struck the Spanish city of Valencia, and secondly, Donald Trump secured victory in the US presidential elections.

While these events are distinct from one another, they underscore the uncertainties and, more importantly, the vulnerabilities of the European Union to both its internal and external environments. A recent study by the European Trade Union Institute examines these vulnerabilities and identifies six key areas of concern: geopolitical (the war in Ukraine, European defence and security), economic (protectionism in the United States, increasing trade conflicts with China), climatic (extreme events, delays in the industrial transition, etc.), energy (price fluctuations and security of supply), technological (dependence on critical technologies and materials), and health (the risk of new pandemics and shortages of medicines).

Each of these six areas presents its own unique threats. For instance, the EU’s chief diplomat, Josep Borrell, has referred to the ‘weaponisation’ of migration. Europe must now venture beyond its comfort zone. Over the past few years, the EU has been attempting to develop what could be called a ‘security agenda’. This agenda remains relatively fragmented and includes an economic security strategy, support for the military industry, an emergency instrument for the single market in the event of extreme events, a body to prepare for health threats, and stricter migration policies. This focus on ‘securing Europe’ is reflected in the composition of the new European Commission von der Leyen II (2024-2029). Key responsibilities include ‘technological sovereignty’ and ‘security and democracy’ for Commissioner Henna Virkkunen, ‘preparedness’ for Roxana Mînzatu, ‘industrial strategy’ for Stéphane Séjourné, ‘economic security’ for Maroš Šefčovič, ‘defence’ for Andrius Kubilius, ‘migration’ for Magnus Brunner, and ‘crisis management’ for Hadja Lahbib. It is notable that only the latter role existed in the previous Commission, highlighting a shift in context.

What implications might this changing environment — particularly one that is becoming increasingly hostile — have for the European social agenda, the climate transition, and the roles and strategies of social stakeholders? If these threats become reality — such as wars on the European continent, exacerbated climate disasters, new pandemics, and the rise of ‘AI extremism’ — what new issues and challenges will arise, and how will progressives respond? This is the question the ETUI publication aims to address. The emerging challenges could include the risk of transforming the objective of security into a security-driven Europe, prioritising it over fundamental rights. There is also the proliferation of new ‘socio-climatic’ risks, including forced displacement, housing shortages, health crises, and mobility issues. Additionally, energy poverty, the weakening of labour markets, rising inequalities, polarisation, and social unrest are pressing concerns.

Furthermore, the rise of the far right, the decline of international cooperation, and the closing of borders add to the social issues and challenges in these worst-case scenarios. How can we prepare for these developments? Currently, the priorities articulated by the EU’s heads of state and government centre on competitiveness and a return to fiscal discipline, if not austerity. If we also consider the more or less hidden agenda of enhancing European security, what space will remain for a just transition and social investment? This is not a theoretical question; it is one that Valencia currently poses. Security is a legitimate concern which serves as one of the primary missions of public authorities. In the more hostile environments that lie ahead, the major strategic challenge for social actors will be to demonstrate that security is also social.

Edited 2 hours ago by Vesper

[Fernando 6,465]

5 hours ago, Vesper said:

We are very rapidly headed there, far faster (10 times faster on average in terms of global temperature increases) than any rate seen over the last million or so years.

The only truly major change in terms of interlocking systemic inputs over the past 150 to 200 years has been humans releasing CO2 to massive degrees via fossil fuels, etc. That release has been scientifically proven to be the prime, by far, reason for the ever-increasing global climate change we are witnessing.

Well that could be in the cards. 

Then if that's true some place that was not able to be lived can be lived in like Greenland and other north parts of northern hemisphere. 

Sadly others will suffer as well. So that's bad but then the good to migrate northern. 

Greenland once truly green, scientists reveal

Greenland was once truly green, according to new research which shows that the southern highlands of the country used to be home to a lush boreal forest. The work, which was partly funded by the EU's Marie Curie programme, is published in the latest edition of the journal S...

 

Greenland was once truly green, according to new research which shows that the southern highlands of the country used to be home to a lush boreal forest. The work, which was partly funded by the EU's Marie Curie programme, is published in the latest edition of the journal Science. The scientists reached their conclusion after analysing ancient DNA from the base of an ice core taken at the Dye 3 site in southern Greenland. The samples revealed the presence at the site of trees such as alder, spruce, pine and yew as well as invertebrates such as beetles, flies, spiders, butterflies and moths. The samples were dated back to between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, making them the oldest authenticated DNA obtained so far. 'Analysing ancient biomolecules from beneath glaciers and ice sheets is challenging due to the very low concentrations, but the information is worth the effort,' commented Dr Enrico Cappellini of the University of York, one of the authors of the paper. Knowing the environmental limits of the plants identified, the researchers believe that the average July temperatures at the time must have been over 10°C, while winter temperatures could not have been lower than -17°C. 'These findings allow us to make a more accurate environmental reconstruction of the time period from which these samples were taken, and what we've learned is that this part of the world was significantly warmer than most people thought,' commented Dr Martin Sharp of the University of Alberta. This ancient arctic forest disappeared and the land was covered in an ice sheet when temperatures fell during the subsequent ice age. However, when temperatures rose again some 116,000-130,000 years ago, the ice sheet remained in place, even though during that period, the temperature was 5°C warmer than today. 'If our data is correct, then this means that the southern Greenland ice cap is more stable than previously thought,' commented Professor Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen, who lead the study. 'This may have implications for how the ice sheets respond to global warming.' However, Professor Willerslev is quick to note that this does not mean we should stop worrying about sea level rise resulting from global warming. 'We know that during the last interglacial, sea levels rose by five to six metres, but this must have come from other sources additional to the Greenland ice cap, such as Antarctic ice,' he notes. 'I would anticipate that as the Earth warms from man-made climate change, these sources would still contribute to a rise in sea levels.'

 

https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/28003-greenland-once-truly-green-scientists-reveal#:~:text=journal S...-,Greenland was once truly green%2C according to new research which,edition of the journal Science.

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Fernando

[Vesper 28,850]

38 minutes ago, Fernando said:

Well that could be in the cards. 

Then if that's true some place that was not able to be lived can be lived in like Greenland and other north parts of northern hemisphere. 

Sadly others will suffer as well. So that's bad but then the good to migrate northern. 

Greenland once truly green, scientists reveal

Greenland was once truly green, according to new research which shows that the southern highlands of the country used to be home to a lush boreal forest. The work, which was partly funded by the EU's Marie Curie programme, is published in the latest edition of the journal S...

 

Greenland was once truly green, according to new research which shows that the southern highlands of the country used to be home to a lush boreal forest. The work, which was partly funded by the EU's Marie Curie programme, is published in the latest edition of the journal Science. The scientists reached their conclusion after analysing ancient DNA from the base of an ice core taken at the Dye 3 site in southern Greenland. The samples revealed the presence at the site of trees such as alder, spruce, pine and yew as well as invertebrates such as beetles, flies, spiders, butterflies and moths. The samples were dated back to between 450,000 and 800,000 years ago, making them the oldest authenticated DNA obtained so far. 'Analysing ancient biomolecules from beneath glaciers and ice sheets is challenging due to the very low concentrations, but the information is worth the effort,' commented Dr Enrico Cappellini of the University of York, one of the authors of the paper. Knowing the environmental limits of the plants identified, the researchers believe that the average July temperatures at the time must have been over 10°C, while winter temperatures could not have been lower than -17°C. 'These findings allow us to make a more accurate environmental reconstruction of the time period from which these samples were taken, and what we've learned is that this part of the world was significantly warmer than most people thought,' commented Dr Martin Sharp of the University of Alberta. This ancient arctic forest disappeared and the land was covered in an ice sheet when temperatures fell during the subsequent ice age. However, when temperatures rose again some 116,000-130,000 years ago, the ice sheet remained in place, even though during that period, the temperature was 5°C warmer than today. 'If our data is correct, then this means that the southern Greenland ice cap is more stable than previously thought,' commented Professor Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen, who lead the study. 'This may have implications for how the ice sheets respond to global warming.' However, Professor Willerslev is quick to note that this does not mean we should stop worrying about sea level rise resulting from global warming. 'We know that during the last interglacial, sea levels rose by five to six metres, but this must have come from other sources additional to the Greenland ice cap, such as Antarctic ice,' he notes. 'I would anticipate that as the Earth warms from man-made climate change, these sources would still contribute to a rise in sea levels.'

 

https://cordis.europa.eu/article/id/28003-greenland-once-truly-green-scientists-reveal#:~:text=journal S...-,Greenland was once truly green%2C according to new research which,edition of the journal Science.

 

 

why are you reposting the same article that you already posted 15 hours ago?

here is where you posted it before:

 

that article does not remotely counter what I have said

you can post it 50 times and it will still not be an effective counter

Of course there has been cyclical warming and cooling in the past

no one is disputing that, certianly not me

what I AM SAYING is that the RATE OF INCREASE in global temps is now FAR greater, moving FAR faster than it has at anytime over the past million or so years (it is increasing 10 times faster than the average rate of increase seen over the past million years)

the absolutely scientically proven consensus is that the unprecedented rats of increase we NOW are seeing is caused by human based activity, ie the massive increase in CO2 levels cause by the use of fossil fuels and other anthropogenic factors

your article does nothing to counter the scientific consensus on the current global climate change's causes

it simply is a historical documentation of a a forested Greenland during a warm period, one that occurred hundreds of thousands of years ago

also

your own article ends with this:

Edited 1 hour ago by Vesper

[cosmicway 1,324]

URBAN WARFARE, WHAT LIES BEHIND IT ?
--------------------------------------------------
You may have read that two weeks ago in Athens a terrorist bomb exploded inside a house.
It was the house of the terrorist himself. While he was putting it together it exploded in his hands.
He was killed and his female companion severely injured.
As a result 5-6 accomplishes -so far- have been arrested while the police investigation continues.
It is believed that they intended to place that bomb at some central building in Athens.
Whether they intended to cause human victims as well or not is unknown but it is believed the intended target was one of the central banks or some embassy.

It baffles me. The purpose baffles me.
I am of course positioned against it but I 'm also prepared to look at it from a neutral's perspective.
During the war we had such actions by the resistance. The resistance was a people's movement and its military wing bombed many places belonging to the nazis, also ships-trains.
Hamash, reprehensible or not, is another people's movement.
The recent right wing riots in Britain is a people's movement too - with aspirations to promote Faragism it appears.
But here where is the people's movement ?
Let's even suppose that the left wingers actually did tacitly approve some of of the actions of the urban terrorists in the past. It still does n't make it a people's movement.

So what is there behind it ? What is the hidden agenda behind such diverse groups as red brigades, Baader-Meinhoff, 17 November and offsprings ?

Edited 1 hour ago by cosmicway

[Fulham Broadway 16,858]

Good that there is a ceasefire in Lebanon - Israel seemingly getting their nose blooded and media blackout on the drones hitting Tel Aviv. Like all bullies they back down when people fight back, even though they have the most sophisticated military in the World. Back to massacring children and raping surgeons to death in Gaza then.

[Fulham Broadway 16,858]

4 hours ago, cosmicway said:

There is no climate change.
It is a myth created by the commies to stall industrial progress and hopefully destroy the western economies.
Some western governments like it because it gives them the chance to increase taxes and apply new taxes.
The climate change is something that happens from geological period to geological period - it takes hundreds of millions of years.
We certainly have n't witnessed it.
What is true is that the atmosphere becomes foul in large towns because of bad planning and polluting factories allowed to exist inside the towns perimeter.
In Athens there is a mountain to the west called the Egaleo. If you go there you see the entire city infront of you. Straight ahead and slightly to the right you see the Acropolis.
Then a little to the right you see a neighbourhood to the west of the centrum where is the main railway station.
That area then looked black with smog, almost like as if there had been a fire there and smoke was rising.
But it was atmospheric pollution, not climate change.

Perhaps you are right and every government and NASA are wrong. Though highly unlikely.