Imagine the engineering requirements to sort of do that...
Perhaps not the most doable idea ? Most times we just get the hell out of the way of cyclones !!
When did we start disputing the effect of burning fossil fuels ? The science on what happens when we release millions more tons of CO2 into the atmosphere was understood and accepted many years ago. At that stage it was a largely theoretical situation because the world hadn't yet jumped an extra degree. That was to come.
But have a read of this story to get a picture of what we knew and still know to be true - even if inconvenient.
Donald Trump's anti-climate plans won't fool nature
Back in 1983, well before the fossil fuel industry realised it had a climate problem, the physics and chemical impacts of burning coal, oil and gas were uncontroversial.
As US President Donald Trump unveils his plans to roll back his predecessor Barack Obama's climate change policies and end his "war on coal", it's worth a reminder the basic science has been settled for decades no matter what politicians do.
The Earth had an "effective temperature" that was a balance of solar radiation it received and what it radiated back to space, I learnt as a Harvard freshman in my Science A-30 atmosphere course.
Our atmosphere was "an insulating blanket" keeping the planet's surface at about 298 degrees Kelvin (25 degrees) compared with space's 3 degrees K, according to class notes I found while sorting some old boxes.
Alter the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere - back then it was rising at 1.2 parts per million a year or less than half the present rate - and you would warm it up.
Other consequences included melting tundra that would release the more potent greenhouse gas, methane, while oceans would become more acidic as they absorbed more carbon from the air.
'Exceedingly bad'
Among my notes was a 1983 paper by the US National Research Council that argued global warming impacts from burning fossil fuels on poorer nations "could be exceedingly bad news".
The paper warned of "claims for compensation as a matter of right may emerge" from affected populations, requiring "welfare aid".
Those lecture notes were unremarkable - if alarming - decades ago.
Since then, politicians in nations such as the US and Australia - often at the bidding of fossil industry donors and certain media outlets - have seeded sufficient voter doubt to stymie the introduction of consistent policies needed to curb carbon emissions.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/env...e-plans-wont-fool-nature-20170328-gv8lur.html
Yes, part of the dumb left. Stuff like that which is really propaganda feeds into the propaganda of the opposing forces. I would think Hannan never even thought this photo would be attached to his article and it was some work experience student that was asked by a sub editor to produce this rubbish.Well, it not take a lot research to find out Peter Hannam is the great pretender with false information.......He is most likely a good little Greenie who knows how to deceive the naïve.
http://notrickszone.com/2015/02/23/...assively-doctored-photo/#sthash.r8oOSbj0.dpbs
I'm all for hyperbole to win a an argument, but that chestnut is a pretty much over hyped and denial arguments deliberately pernicious. It also lacks a time stamp from both camps IMO.One Tim Flannery doth not a climate change argument maketh.
SALLY SARA: What will it mean for Australian farmers if the predictions of climate change are correct and little is done to stop it? What will that mean for a farmer?
PROFESSOR TIM FLANNERY: We're already seeing the initial impacts and they include a decline in the winter rainfall zone across southern Australia, which is clearly an impact of climate change, but also a decrease in run-off. Although we're getting say a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas of Australia, that's translating to a 60 per cent decrease in the run-off into the dams and rivers. That's because the soil is warmer because of global warming and the plants are under more stress and therefore using more moisture. So even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and our river systems, and that's a real worry for the people in the bush. If that trend continues then I think we're going to have serious problems, particularly for irrigation.
Nice work Tisme. I'm sure the actual words and context of Tim Flannerys original comment have been highlighted a number of times. But of course it is overlooked and completely ignored. Still doesn't stop the shrillness of deniers twisting a fairly obvious observation on the effects of global warming into a caricature - and then repeating and distorting it ad infinitum.
Who in their right mind would listen to anything Noco says when he repeatedly misrepresents what anynme else actually says?Who in their right mind would believe anything Flannery says with his history of dud predictions.......I ma surprised he still shows his face.
Who in their right mind would listen to anything Noco says when he repeatedly misrepresents what anynme else actually says?
If after reading the transcript of the original comment you can't see that Tim Flannery has been misrepresented there is no point listening to ya.
The curious thing is the copious posting of politically charged Guardian articles, somehow argues against the politicization of climate science.
Bas can call people name all he likes, but in the end there is the truth, and there it is.
By the way bas, can you please detail your main sources of income?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?