Comments on: Record heat sweeps Arctic Sea, ice in 2007
Blame the feedback loops: In 2007, Arctic ice hit a new low, Greenland ice melted for longer, and the Arctic Sea temperature was 'off the charts.'
Blame the feedback loops: In 2007, Arctic ice hit a new low, Greenland ice melted for longer, and the Arctic Sea temperature was 'off the charts.'
Web sites launch all the time, but they also shut their doors. We highlight 15 that bit the dust this year.
Let the debate begin: Was the iPhone more important than iTunes? Was anything bigger than Google finding a great business model? CNET offers its list of the 10 most important stories of the '00s.
This blog sheds light on digital photography subjects such as cameras, photo editing, and Web sites. Shankland joined CNET News in 1998 after a five-year stint as a science writer. He's a lab rat who grew up in Los Alamos, N.M., and graduated from Harvard.
Contact Stephen at Stephen.Shankland@cnet.com
Add this feed to your online news reader
But I have been doing a lot of reading this week about global climate change. I read a lot how the scientist have linked human activity to global warming. That seems clear. But what is not so clear is if the effects of global warming are good or bad. Coastal flooding seems bad. Polar bears and some other special becoming endangered seems bad too. Is there anything else that could be bad?
Some other effects that will happen do not seem that bad such as the Sahara dessert becoming a new rain forest, more plants and animals will thrive since plants love CO2, increase sun energy, and the added amount of rainfall and, of course animals love plants and forests. Countries closer to the arctic such as Greenland are now producing more crop and cattle/sheep output with shorter winters and more land to grow on. More energy will be entering our planet which will be converted into more biofuels production. We will be able to both power our vehicles, feed the hungry, and save endangered animals.
So what am I missing? There must be more bad effect because otherwise the good outweighs the bad and we should be increasing climate change not reducing it.
Can someone please help me??
That could be very bad. Think bus sized meat eating rabbits! Rabbits already freak me out. Why do they constantly twitch their nose??
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24732-2005Jan20.html
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/1018_051018_fossils.html
http://www.livescience.com/environment/050120_great_dying.html
Through pretty much all of history, climatic changes have occurred over hundreds of thousands of years, giving organisms plenty of time to evolve to new conditions. The exceptions -- whether from asteroid impact, volcanic activity, or whatever cause -- have been marked by massive waves of extinction, which generally have taken millions of years for life to recover. It's worth noting that apex predators (which means us) are the first to get wiped out in these events.
Technology can mitigate some of these problems -- we can move crops and livestock to any habitable locations -- but while we can nudge natural phenomena in one direction or another, we are far from being able to stand up to them directly. If the Amazon basin burns, or there is a massive die-off of photoplankton in the oceans, there's precious little we'll be able to do to recover.
BTW, has anyone noticed that most climate articles here are impossible to comment on?
presidency. "The More You Know."
- Magma may be melting Greenland ice
- by sanjong thapa December 14, 2007 4:44 AM PST
- http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22246005/
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(14 Comments)Magma may be melting Greenland ice