What interested me about that article was the bit about the bridge. It never would have crossed my mind.
I'm wondering, though, why the article doesn't address what I consider the best argument of those who don't think climate change is entirely (or even primarily) driven by greenhouse gas emissions. According to an article in Scientific American (I'm too lazy to find it right now, but I think it was last winter), there's a longer cycle at work, and climatic patterns right now fit pretty closely with a warming trend that happened a Way Long Time Ago -- at least 30K years, but I can't remember the number. Anyway, their conclusion was that human activity might have jump-started or accelerated a trend that was already in process. That would explain the warming from 1900-1940 that one person quoted in your reference mentioned.
I'm coocoo for cocoa puffs where paleoclimatology is concerned, can you tell? Ask me about Noah's Flood. Go on, ask me. ;P
no subject
Mind you, if it's closer to us than usual (as it is right now) then it's closer to the sun than usual.
no subject
I'm wondering, though, why the article doesn't address what I consider the best argument of those who don't think climate change is entirely (or even primarily) driven by greenhouse gas emissions. According to an article in Scientific American (I'm too lazy to find it right now, but I think it was last winter), there's a longer cycle at work, and climatic patterns right now fit pretty closely with a warming trend that happened a Way Long Time Ago -- at least 30K years, but I can't remember the number. Anyway, their conclusion was that human activity might have jump-started or accelerated a trend that was already in process. That would explain the warming from 1900-1940 that one person quoted in your reference mentioned.
I'm coocoo for cocoa puffs where paleoclimatology is concerned, can you tell? Ask me about Noah's Flood. Go on, ask me. ;P
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)