Climate Concerns

The "CLIMATE CONCERNS" group is dedicated to discussion regarding the topic of the ever present and serious issue of changes to our climate due to the introduction into the atmosphere of human induced effects which prove harmful to the environment and which eventually may prove destructive to our planet. 

Members: 55
Latest Activity: Jan 30

Reference/Research Sites

Discussion Forum

Reconstructing the Tunic from Lendbreen in Norway.

Started by Joan Denoo Jan 30. 0 Replies

Melting glacial ice in Norway revealed a tunic dating from AD 230 to AD 390.…Continue

Tags: to, 390, reconstruction, 230, AD

Odd results of Climate Change

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Jan 3. 78 Replies

Take an amusing quiz to learn about unexpected effects of Climate Change. After each multiple choice question, you see if you were right (and the right answer if you weren't).…Continue

Tags: odd effects of Climate Change

Arctic melting increases California drought

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner. Last reply by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Jan 1. 1 Reply

Remember the Ridiculously Resilient Ridge?...scientists have found that rapidly melting Arctic sea ice now threatens to diminish precipitation over California by as much as 15% within 20 to 30…Continue

Tags: Climate Change, California drought

Free Digital Content Hides Costs

Started by Ruth Anthony-Gardner Dec 14, 2017. 0 Replies

Is the digital economy a systemic driver of carbon emissions? We're so easily tricked by seemingly free services.Indiana University professor Nathan Ensmenger, environmental historian of the…Continue

Tags: carbon footprint, externalized costs, hidden costs, outsourced costs

Comment Wall


You need to be a member of Climate Concerns to add comments!

Comment by Čenek Sekavec on June 16, 2016 at 3:16am

Youtube video: Richard Lindzen on climate change

Even though I admit to a feeling of validation when I saw this video I'm more interested in what it didn't say... and the thoughts of you folks who disagree with my climate change conclusions.

Comment by Joan Denoo on May 28, 2016 at 5:54pm
Comment by Joan Denoo on May 22, 2016 at 7:55pm

Water sequestration is a viable option if there is water in the atmosphere and ground. However, when those go, so goes living things as we know them.  

There are some things I can do to slow the flow of water off the soils into ravines and rivers and ultimately into the ocean.  

*catch and store rainwater;  

*create hugelkulturs;  

*use gray water;  

*drip irrigation & soaker hoses;




Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on May 17, 2016 at 2:01pm

The 12-month running global temperature has increased to 1.246°C above preindustrial.

Arctic Sea Ice Blog

It’s not just that we’re seeing record global heat. It’s that 2016’s jump in global temperatures may be the biggest single-year spike ever recorded. It’s that the world may never again see annual temperatures below 1 C above preindustrial averages.

Last month was the hottest April in the global climate record. Not only was it the hottest such month ever recorded — it smashed the previous record by the largest margin ever recorded. [emphasis mine]

This compares global April temperature averages. That big jump at the end was last month.

NASA — World Just Had Seven Months Straight of Record-Shattering Gl...

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on May 3, 2016 at 4:23pm

Yes, CO2 based greening is encouraging. But greening is limited by water availability, and the plants contain proportionally more carbohydrate, less protein and minerals.

Comment by Grinning Cat on April 25, 2016 at 11:34am

Hopefully will get a few people's attention:

SAVE THE EARTH! IT'S THE ONLY PLANET THAT HAS CATS(More precisely, Earth will survive whatever drastic step changes happen to its climate, but keeping the planet habitable for humans and kitties would be a good thing!)

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on April 4, 2016 at 8:14pm

Wild weather? What wild weather?

from cheezburger

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on March 22, 2016 at 1:04pm

A new study indicates that, because our current rate of CO2 increase is an order of magnitude higher than during the PETM extinction, ours will have more severe ocean acidification and ecosystems will be hit harder.

What we’re doing to the Earth has no parallel in 66 million years, ...

Comment by Ruth Anthony-Gardner on March 20, 2016 at 12:15pm

Thanks, Čenek, for the detailed explanation. I wasn’t even aware of most of that. RobertScribbler says that the strongest greenhouse effect in the Arctic happens during the long night, during which the angle of incidence wouldn’t apply. Yes it’s been far hotter and colder before we evolved, but that doesn’t reassure me. Humanity wouldn’t fare well with Permian-Triassic mass extinction temperatures.

... the correlative data we have from earlier on all says it has been far far hotter (and colder!) in the past. I'm not worried. 

Human ingenuity!

We're pretty good at solving small scale technical problems, but whole-planet geoengineering is an entirely different scale. Part of the issue is depending on fossil fuels for the energy needed to implement technical solutions. Presupposing abundant energy just comes naturally, based on our previous experience. We're used to experimenting on the bench top, where long term planet-scale side effects can be discounted.

One study, for example, looked at the possibility of pumping sea water on to the Antarctic ice shield to freeze, to mitigate sea level rise. It wasn't remotely feasible.

Apparently, it's really easy to trigger positive feedbacks to raise temperature. One CFC plant could hold back the coming ice age. But trying to go cooler is a technical nightmare.

It's easiest to grasp this asymmetry by abandoning assumptions of linear change. Our planet has had two equilibrium states, the cool/oxidizing equilibrium to which we're accustomed, and a hot/reducing equilibrium (high temperatures and acidic anoxic oceans of most mass extinction events), responding to various positive and negative feedbacks. We're are increasingly far from the cool/oxidizing equilibrium, now subject to more forcings with extreme sensitivity to initial conditions toward the inhospitable equilibrium.

It seems that so far, we've not been hot enough, for long enough yet, to lose significant hydrogen to space from a heat-expanded atmosphere. One new study suggests that a 6°C rise would produce a runaway greenhouse effect, a slow one way trip to a lifeless planet. I guess our own Venus Syndrome would be a new third equilibrium state.

Yes, Donald, the planet was hotter during the Permian-Triassic mass extinction, and we do have flora and fauna today. But 95% of then-existing life was wiped out, followed by a 5 million year long "Dead Zone" before life began to recover.

Comment by Donald L. Engel on March 19, 2016 at 11:34pm

Think about it Joan, if the earth has been hotter and colder in the past, and we now have flora and fauna,  it must have survived in the past to be here now.


Members (53)




Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2018   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service