Here
and
Now

opinions

On climate, the elephant that's ignored

54 Comments
By Charles Hanley

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.

54 Comments
Login to comment

And China? Shouldn't they be more worried about the dragon in the room?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

while it would be nice to have America be a leader, they are not ever going to be any more and it's best if the world can learn to move onwards without them. If products are not penalized under the WTO for green taxes by nations who agree on a climate change fund to reduce pollution then that would be another area of negotiation. Once done then rogue climate change denying countries like China and America can be legally restricted

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is just wealth redistribution from American to the poor countries! If you cant see that then you deserve to have all your money taken.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is just wealth redistribution from American to the poor countries

Well that's ok. Just use oil wealth stolen from one of those poor countries.

If you cant see that then you deserve to have all your money taken.

Carry on, oh imperial aggressor overlord. Take our lives and inflict pain and suffering too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You have been watching too much CNN (Communist News Network)

If these countries want to go "Green", then go ahead by all means, but dont force others into your same lifestyles.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

As far as climate goes, its a win win situation for industry to clean up its act. Oh, I am terribly sorry it might not result in an economic boom for America right away, but there is no reason it cannot be more push than drag, such as companies shelling out massive amounts of money just to have Microsoft Windows on their computers, or companies putting filters on smokestacks creating more jobs.

But it seems these little Baron Harkonens of the internet world don't care how dirty and messed up this planet is, or how many countries vanish under the sea so long as there is profit and war.

I don't know how much man contributes to global warming. But I do know that if we can stop contributing, we should. Who knows if that will throw the process into remission or just buy island nations more time to build a sea wall? Who cares? Most everyone else is willing to make a little sacrifice to take a chance on doing the right thing.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

USNinJapan2 - And China? Shouldn't they be more worried about the dragon in the room?

Correct. China and India have no intention of turning over the regulation of their manufacturing to UN lackeys who are unable to prove their man-made CO2, global warming theory.

The senators said some findings of the U.N.‘s climate change panel “were found to be exaggerated or simply not true

All of the IPCC's expected results have overshot the actual global tempurature.

Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of Ethiopia, told a large gathering here, “The key thing for us is not whether the American Congress is controlled by this or that party,” but that richer nations help the developing world with financial support

That statement sums up the entire global warming/climate change debate, redistribution of wealth from those who earned it to those that didn't and the UN wants to decide who gets what.

I understand the tempurature in Cancun was 20 degrees colder than normal for this time of year.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the wikileaks docs that discredited the manufactured self-serving consensus among clamte scientists, that is the elephant in the room.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the wikileaks docs that discredited the manufactured self-serving consensus among clamte scientists, that is the elephant in the room.

of course I meant "climate" scientists in that

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The green movement is the biggest potential killer of jobs, destroyer of economies, and booster of world poverty than most people realize, particularly those in support of it.

That's the elephant in the room.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The biggest elephant that's ignored is the fact that global temperatures haven't increased since 1999, and have infact reduced. Instead of reducing carbon emissions we should be increasing them in order to reduce heating bills - ask the people frozen in Europe in November how much "global warming" there is. Of course they are all so indoctrinated into the "climate change" myth that they will still say to reduce carbon emissions.

Carbon emission reduction is a ridiculous idea, when most of the CO2 emissions are from volcanoes and animals - how about we get to the root of the "problem" then and fill in all the volcanoes on earth and while we're at it destroy all the other animals too. That'll bring down CO2 emissions by about 95%.

The very notion of "climate change" being man-made is ridiculous, and I cannot believe how many otherwise reasonable people become total zealots when asked about this. The climate has always changed, causing changes to geography and the makeup of species on the planet. Our advantage as humans was in being able to adapt to changes and alter the environment to suit our needs. What is needed is more factories pumping out CO2 to counter the effects of the global cooling which is currently going on, as a result of the actual source of warming on the planet, our local star, entering a solar minimum period. Prepare for the big chill that is about to come, and if you are a climate change alarmist, don't complain when your heating bills for the next decades skyrocket.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Anthropogenic Global Warming is just a LIE and a scam. This latest conference in Mexico was just another waste of money, a gathering of environmentalist nutcases who are just out to line their own pockets. Climate Change, when it happens, is a naturla phenomenon, and nothing to do with the activities of human beings. Thank God the Republicans are now back at the helm in the USA, before Obama and his Leftist comrades could sign up the USA to any more idiotic taxes based on lies and deceit.

You cannot base such important decisions on something that is just mythology. CO2 is a wonderful thing, and we need more of it and not less. Plants thrive on it, and need it, to survive. Human beings also produce it, and need it to survive. We should be increasing our output of CO2 gases, and not the opposite.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@gooddog

This is just wealth redistribution from American to the poor countries! If you cant see that then you deserve to have all your money taken.

Yes. It is unreasonable to have 2% of the population control the majority of the resources. It is unreasonable to make 40 to 100 times what the lowest employee makes. Wealth is in need of some redistribution should your country not wish to be attacked any more, either externally or more likely internally. It would be cheaper than supporting endless war and remove the requirement for Americans to be warmongers.

America imports a majority of its oil from lesser developed countries. It's not your oil either.

@realist

the science has been proven. The controversies were assessed through 4 or 5 different inquiries and amounted to a few line changes in a 500 page report with the conclusions unchanged. Unchanged.

Thus you have no rational basis for your conclusions and are endemic of the Loser American Boomer Generation that must simply die before we can move on.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the requirement of the reduction of CO2 is that it be below 350 ppm (parts per million) such that we then have a stable atmosphere and are able to grow our food as well. Not 0 ppm. Without it you cannot eat, but too much and the plants that our monoculture use for food are not hearty enough to manage swings between unstable drought and floods brought on by climate changes.

Food supply has thus been dropping worldwide over the last few years with shortages in India and elsewhere to become more endemic. ie: Australia harvest, and others.

Your way of life is ending. Is not sustainable, and thus people must suffer for its ignorance.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

India did a study where an increase of CO2 reduced wheat yield by 10%. The crop represents a large portion of the food supply. So, even without the drought in Australia the food supply is dropping. Without addressing the root causes this will continue.

Source: Plan B 3.0: Mobilizing to Save Civilization by Lester Brown (Note this book is now up to 4.0 and is a free download that you can read. Look for it at the earth policy dot org website.)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

we need to reduce population size over the world. Most western nations are not in substantial growth, except for America. This follows as America is a religious country whereas other western nations are less so and dropping. This is why it can't be taken seriously in the third world planning when not even America can heed it's own advice on family planning. If that were to change, not only would that help America stabilize but also help other countries respect American advice.

Other things to do:

Step one) End subsidies. Remake or disband the WTO, as it penalizes countries who want to control their own resources in a climate change responsible manner. Trade should be possible but at a lower energy cost without subsidies.

Step two) globalization died in 2008. Time to re-localize, make things and have local jobs. If I'm paying $100 for shoes shipped in from China, then I can make those locally, still pay $100 and have used local resources and not wasted all that energy. Do that with so many other things and people will have a purpose again.

Step three) read about Peak oil. We're not going to have the energy we have today forever. As it goes so does our ability to solve these problems.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sf2k - the science has been proven. The controversies were assessed through 4 or 5 different inquiries and amounted to a few line changes in a 500 page report with the conclusions unchanged. Unchanged.

No it hasn't. Having one global warming activist "create" a finding and having another global warming activist swear that the finding is true is NOT peer reviewed science. It's zealotry.

Copenhagen was a disaster for the climate zealots who can't prove global warming and couldn't deliver on their promises to rob first world countries to pay third world countries for their support.

sf2k - Thus you have no rational basis for your conclusions and are endemic of the Loser American Boomer Generation that must simply die before we can move on.

Interesting take on this situation.

sf2k - India did a study where an increase of CO2 reduced wheat yield by 10%.

What percentage of increase did they use? 50%? 75%? 150%? I understand that wheat doesn't do well in a pure CO2 environment.

sf2k - we need to reduce population size over the world.

What did you have in mind? Famine or a great big war?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

It is amazing to see these climate change alarmist zealots advocating human population reduction as the ultimate "solution" to their self created mythical "problem." But why they don't lead by example and begin by killing themselves first is anyone's guess...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@arrestpaul

"""...The inquiry by former civil servant Muir Russell into the scandal at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit found there was no evidence of dishonesty or corruption in the more than 1,000 emails stolen and posted to the Internet late last year. But he did chide the scientists involved for failing to share their data with critics....""" Source Toronto Star under title " ‘Climategate’ report vindicates researchers"

"""...It must be difficult, if not downright embarrassing, to be a climate change denier these days. After all, the scientists they’ve attacked have been exonerated, London’s Sunday Times newspaper ran a retraction and apology for an article deniers were using to discredit climate change science, and more and more denier “experts” are being exposed as shills for industry or just disingenuous clowns. (Naomi Oreskes’s excellent book Merchants of Doubt offers insight into how the deniers operate.) Meanwhile, evidence that fossil fuel emissions contribute to dangerous climate change just keeps building....""" Source Cnews.canoe.ca under "Science delivers repeated blows to deniers"

@Hashimoto

It will be amazing to watch all the buffoons picking up a shovel to tend to gardens. Are you even Japanese? Actually Japan fairs much better than the USA in almost every respect, so I have to assume you're American to make such a ludicrous desire for people to die.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Youtube search for "Arithmetic, Population and Energy" and you'll be watching a physics presentation of Dr. Bartlett in 1999 where he discusses these issues. Still holds up and is worth your time if you care to know. Don't worry, the math isn't too hard. Wait for the later vids and the example of the squares will drive the concept of exponential growth home.

If you still disagree in spite of the exonerated evidence noted before, the tutorial here, or just general common sense, then no one can really help you at this point.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Many Republicans dismiss scientific evidence of human-caused warming

What do you expect? Many Republicans dismiss evidence of anything.

That statement sums up the entire global warming/climate change debate, redistribution of wealth from those who earned it to those that didn't and the UN wants to decide who gets what.

Somebody who is so naive that they think countries "earn" their wealth is an expert on climate change and knows it is not happening. Good one.

The climate has always changed, causing changes to geography and the makeup of species on the planet.

Accuse people of being zealots and then write a sentence showing that somebody has no clue what the question is. "The climate has always changed". As we used to say in elementary school "like DUH!!!".

More high level rocket science please!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Thank goodness there aren't too many people like sf2k in positions of real power, lest they go crazy in their quest to save Mother Gaia.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

No, I just bill people. I'm not paying for your generation's mess after all. Thanks in advance

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Leave aside the apparently still debatable fact that our emissions hurt our planet. What I find incomprehensible is why we don't seem able to cooperate to reduce emissions seeing that the pollution we create hurts each and every one of us. We have polluted the air we breathe, the food and water that sustain us. Do we not care about our children's and grandchildren's health? Perhaps we could at least agree to cooperate for this pretty "selfish" reason.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

bipedal

I can see though how your suggestion would work if the metric was the health of a human being instead. That would most likely also solve both problems, particularly asphyxiation by air borne pollutants and the trace metals in the body.

However asking the fattest nation of people on the planet to shape up is about as difficult as having them admit their culpability in climate change. The two are related of course, excess energy used etc, versus actual human requirements. Comparing the two may help each solve the other rather than focusing on only one side.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Away from the hate, Japan could really get going on geothermal and hydrothermal technology since it's an island nation where the major cities are along the coastlines. Really ideal for the green tech needed to get off so many oil imports. I don't think Japanese want more nuclear power so it would be worth it to try. Given success in Japan on a limited scale already and in other countries, the lessons learned will serve it well for other export markets while improving self reliance and reducing emissions. A win-win-win.

That way even if Kyoto Accord is dead, the intentions need not be with the result in a more profitable and efficient industrial base.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sf2k - The inquiry by former civil servant Muir Russell into the scandal at the University of East Anglia’s Climatic Research Unit found there was no evidence of dishonesty or corruption in the more than 1,000 emails stolen and posted to the Internet late last year.

The East Anglia University investigated the East Anglia University's Climate Research Unit and found nothing that would embarress East Anglia University. I'm shocked.

After twenty years, the global warming zealots still can't prove that the global tempurature is increasing. The UN's IPCC can't falsify their data fast enough to explain the failure of the IPCC's expected results to match actual global tempurature. Maybe it's time they changed their "computer modeling" computations to something more truthful.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@arrestpaul

I see, so upon reading my comment and discovering the name Muir Russell you went to wikipedia and found out that.... he's a noted Scot, who was principal of the University of Glasgow and a former civil servant for the Scottish secretary.

East Anglia University is actually not in Scotland but I'm sure you looked that up as well.

Upon asked to do the inquiry he exonerated the science but took exception to the scientists handling of the public requests to that information. No outcome thus changed in the climate science has been reported.

I must accept therefore that your comments against me are a massive typo or a typical distraction technique beknownst by the denier trolling minions and not otherwise consistent with a rational person we all know you to be.

Note as well that in Cancun no country said the facts are unproven otherwise they'd not be agreeing to commit billions of your country's dollars to a collective developing nation fund to help low lying areas and other regions predicted to be affected.

Climate change is proven. I would suggest seeking guidance on by what metric you can accept basic facts, and if not, a vacation from this topic.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If neuroscience was run the same way climate science is, people would probably still think the brain is just used to purify blood.

Come on guys, the science is not all there. Do some hard work and study before making everyone swallow your premature conclusions and plunging the world into a new dark age.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

arrestpaul

Agreed, the blatant corruption displayed in the revelations from the leaked emails clearly show that this whole climate alarmist enterprise - and that is exactly what it is, an enterprise aimed at enriching a few otherwise unemployable failed scientists to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars of global taxpayer funding - must be stopped, and its perpetrators prosecuted for their criminal acts. They have brought science itself into disrepute, and lowered its standing against religion with their climate zealotry and fanatiscism.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Governments of the world are uniting to fund the project, albeit slowly as noted in the article, to fund a developing nation climate change fund, and ultimately your tax dollars are supporting this. (Hey, thanks!) That's what the article is about, not your misguided illogical opinions. Title does not read "Some guy is bitter about change".

It's not about you or me and given the attitude never can be. Solving problems is not for complainers, it's for doers. That's where the fun is.

Japan I see as a vast opportunity of geothermal and hydrothermal. I forgot to mention one project here in Toronto Canada that would transplant well. It's called Deep Lake Water Cooling. Basically a giant tube in the water that saves this city a ton of money in air conditioning costs for the downtown area. Without it we'd need a natural gas plant downtown. Thinking about all the cities around Japan along the coasts, this is doable. Water is colder the deeper you go so you don't need the equivalent energy to make it that way. Yes some energy is needed to shunt the water exchange through it too, but the overall savings are there, and proven.

Don't see why more can't be done. Others want nothing to be done. If one saves money and the other not, then it doesn't matter what view you have of climate change. If the solutions save money and have a business case then they will get done.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Could you imagine if a climate change scientist had to answer any of the deniers here? He'd never get any work done because no one would question what they're saying. So while it cannot be condoned in denying public access to the works, which is now available btw, it is certainly understandable if all he/she has to go by is the level of comment here which are two bit conspiracy theory of the day raving nutter level diatribes.

Really now, who else would want to talk to you?

Why I do is because this is free writing practice to pull together all the fallacies of argument and show them up for what they are. And I thank you for it.

Back to work for me

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sf2k - Climate change is proven.

Yes, it happens every spring, summer, fall and winter.

sf2k - Note as well that in Cancun no country said the facts are unproven otherwise they'd not be agreeing to commit billions of your country's dollars to a collective developing nation fund to help low lying areas and other regions predicted to be affected.

The National representatives at Cancun only agreed to "ask" their respective nations to support the $100 billion giveaway that the global warming/climate change zealots are requesting.

sf2k - Could you imagine if a climate change scientist had to answer any of the deniers here? He'd never get any work done because no one would question what they're saying.

??? Actually, I am questioning what they are saying. Since most climate change "scientist" just seem to parrot what other climate change "scientists" and the UN's IPCC are saying, they should have plenty of free time to answer questions here.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Has anyone seen the youtube of COP16 delegates and NGO's in Cancun signing a petition entitled “Petition to Ban the Use of Dihydrogen Monoxide (DHMO)”?

It was designed to show that if official U.N. delegates could be duped by college students into banning water, (that's right Dihydrogen Monoxide is good ol' H20) that they could essentially fall for anything, including pseudo-scientific studies which claim to show that global warming is man-made.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Hashimoto - Agreed, the blatant corruption displayed in the revelations from the leaked emails clearly show that this whole climate alarmist enterprise - and that is exactly what it is, an enterprise aimed at enriching a few otherwise unemployable failed scientists to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars of global taxpayer funding -

I like the Climategate email by "climatologist" Kevin Trenberth, when he wrote, "The fact is, we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it's a travesty that we can't."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This joke is from 1990 and gets recycled every so often by denier PR. So people are stupid and scientifically illiterate. Quell surprise.

Thus if this petition goes through your hope is that it will infer the meaning that thus all scientific documents are also scientifically illiterate. Fallacy of Association.

ie: If I can't do math, I failed, thus all math is wrong! Or, I found a math mistake, all the reports use math in their findings, thus all findings are wrong.

What childish nonsense and not the scientific method. Maybe useful in the pre Renaissance era of religious persecution but people today at least still have an education. For now, anyway.

Sorry to read about this popping up again, but it's not altogether shocking. I expect deniers to do everything possible to muck up the works, paid for by industries who don't want change, and expelling so much energy in the effort, that if they had bothered to just clean up after themselves they'd be better off.

Typical Boomer do nothing attitude.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sf2k - This joke is from 1990 and gets recycled every so often by denier PR. So people are stupid and scientifically illiterate. Quell surprise.

Only the people who signed the petition.....

Quell surprise to you too.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Proof of scientific illiteracy doesn't make problems go away. The problems for the captain of the Titanic didn't disappear just because he looked away. Obfuscating the problem is not a solution. QED

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If too little is done, the U.N. science network foresees temperatures rising by up to 6.4 degrees Celsius (11.5 degrees F) by 2100.

This is the same U.N. science network that foresaw that the global tempurature would be much higher than it is today. They have been wrong so far, why not believe this latest fabrication?

Have the U.N. scientist been able to explain how the recorded history of CO2 fluctuations do NOT match the recorded history of tempurature fluctuations?

If CO2 levels went up and global temps went up and CO2 levels went down and global temps followed, the U.N. scientists might be able to prove their case for man-made CO2 causing global warming. It doesn't and they can't.

Don't forget to tip your global warming representative. They want $100 Billion dollars.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This is mindless and pointless to present counter information because you automatically reply with indignation, no matter how many times you are proven wrong. This thread is done.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Apparently not.

The senators said some findings of the U.N.‘s climate change panel “were found to be exaggerated or simply not true” and said that at a time of record U.S. budget deficits, “no American taxpayer dollars should be committed to a global climate fund based on information that is not accurate.”

Why would any country want to fund any organization that will not or can not provide accurate information?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sigh.... yes and? Look, the 500 page IPCC report had a few line changes, but the overall report conclusions didn't change. All East Anglia researches were exonerated.

get a grip

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sf2k - Look, the 500 page IPCC report had a few line changes, but the overall report conclusions didn't change. All East Anglia researches were exonerated.

The IPCC used it's private and secret "computer modeling" to produce 6 predictions that global temps would be higher than they actually are. Every one of them overshot the actual global tempurature. Each and every one was wrong. They could go back and reconfigure their "computer modeling" inputs to correct for whatever flaws there were in their "science" but they refuse and stand by their, now proven wrong, results.

The EAU global warming "research" wasn't examined. The aledged independent inquiries looked at how information was used and shared.

Once again, have the U.N. scientists (IPCC) been able to explain how the recorded history of CO2 fluctuations do NOT match the recorded history of tempurature fluctuations? If CO2 levels went up and global temps went up and CO2 levels went down and global temps followed, the IPCC might be able to prove their case for CO2 or man-made CO2 causing global warming. It doesn't and they can't.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

uh huh

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The Carbon Dioxide Information Analysis Center (cdiac orni gov) click climate and then temperature. There are dozens of such institutes online.

Ice core data for example shows glacial warming periods dating thousands of years old. By tracking isotopes in the trapped air bubbles, this correlates to temperature.

This provides a wonderful history and comparison point to our modern age. There is a natural planetary cycle, but we are mucking up the works and we could tilt the planet into runaway heating or cooling depending on how the planet reacts. Either way food crops fail and humans will die hence why the term was updated to climate change so people would stop bickering on terms and deal with reality instead.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Also check out Ocean CO2, we are acidifying the oceans. Plankton shells are decreasing in thickness because of this and we are in dnager of actively killing the ocean biosphere. As so much of human food comes from the oceans, we are also actively engaged in our own demise.

Follow the food.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Many Republicans dismiss scientific evidence of human-caused warming, citing arguments by skeptics that the large majority of scientists are wrong or that the consequences of warming are overstated.

That's because it's coast side--rather than the Midwest and the Great Plains-- climate change directly affects on the soil. You can easily dismiss their arguments saying that that's nothing to do with the impact on Americans life-- depending on gas guzzlers and fossil fuels. Texas and Louisiana are likely to face the challenges, since the BP's oil leak messed up their environment and local businesses this past summer.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

amerijap - That's because it's coast side--rather than the Midwest and the Great Plains-- climate change directly affects on the soil. You can easily dismiss their arguments saying that that's nothing to do with the impact on Americans life-- depending on gas guzzlers and fossil fuels. Texas and Louisiana are likely to face the challenges, since the BP's oil leak messed up their environment and local businesses this past summer.

Which has nothing to do with the overall level of CO2 and man-made CO2 in particular.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sf2k - Also check out Ocean CO2, we are acidifying the oceans. Plankton shells are decreasing in thickness because of this and we are in dnager of actively killing the ocean biosphere. As so much of human food comes from the oceans, we are also actively engaged in our own demise.

Acidifying the oceans. The new, evil twin of the evil CO2. The average ph level of sea water still remains over 8.1 for hundreds of years and shows no signs of going lower. Is OceanCO2 funded by the UN or the IPCC?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sf2k - Ice core data for example shows glacial warming periods dating thousands of years old. By tracking isotopes in the trapped air bubbles, this correlates to temperature.

This provides a wonderful history and comparison point to our modern age. There is a natural planetary cycle, but we are mucking up the works and we could tilt the planet into runaway heating or cooling depending on how the planet reacts. Either way food crops fail and humans will die hence why the term was updated to climate change so people would stop bickering on terms and deal with reality instead.

"Food crops fail and humans will die." Aren't you describing global cooling and the planets next eventual ice age? Maybe you're refering to the next caldera eruption?

The term "global warming" lost it's sensationalistic effect when the planet refused to follow the dictates of the UN's IPCC speculation. "Climate change" was the next best term the public relations firm could come up with.

The climate is changing. The climate is changing. We must do something NOW before the climate changes again. Oh, wait a minute, doesn't the climate always change? That's not scary......

0 ( +0 / -0 )

in the last ten years, ocean pH levels have increases in salinity by about 30%. You can't even Google

0 ( +0 / -0 )

scratch that. Since the industrial revolution, not ten years.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

sf2k - in the last ten years, ocean pH levels have increases in salinity by about 30%.

Salinity? Salinity = "acidifying the oceans"? Man-made CO2 is making the oceans more "salty"?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

looks like I've been made sorry. I was just hoping you'd look up acidification of oceans

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites