In a surprise to no one, descendants of plants that survived 350 million years of climate extremes, volcanoes, meteor impacts, mass extinction events and ice ages seem able to cope with moderate modern weather. Not only that, places where the weather varied a lot in the 1960s are still like that, and the plants that liked those conditions still like those conditions. I mean, really, give me your money.
Does this mean we can protect forests of the future by creating climate variability now?
Exposure to past temperature variability may help forests cope with climate change
Rachel Harper Institute of Physics
Close relatives of Ginkgo Biloba trees have been around for nearly 200 million years. | Photo Jean-Pol Grandmont |
A new study out today in the first issue of Environmental Research: Ecology assessed effects of past and current climate variability on global forest productivity. The work highlights sensitive regions where forests may be most at risk as the planet warms and temperatures become more extreme. The framework can help set conservation priorities, support forest adaptation efforts, and improve carbon accounting.
Lead author Winslow Hansen, a forest ecologist at Cary Institute of Ecosystem Studies, says that “global climate patterns are becoming increasingly variable. This means more extremes, which threaten forest health and productivity. They say adversity makes you stronger. Here, we were essentially testing that adage for trees. Are forested regions that experienced more variable conditions in the past better prepared to tolerate variable climate now and in the future?”
Get ready — places that used to have variable weather, still have variable weather, and the plants that live there tend to be the ones that don’t get killed by variable weather:
They found that regions where temperature was more variable in the past continue to experience more temperature variability today. Forests in these regions tend to better tolerate this increasing variability.
Hansen says that their “findings show that historic temperature variability casts legacy effects on current forest productivity. In places where historic temperature variability was 0.66°C greater than the global average, forests were 19x less sensitive to current temperature variability. This trend was true globally, with important distinctions among biomes.”
Someone needed a study to show this?
Meanwhile, in things we have known for decades: Sometime around 360 million years ago plants got very good at sucking CO2 out of the sky and they never looked back even though temperatures varied by 7 to 15 degrees Celsius. Tell the children…
Geocraft — Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya — 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period ). Temperature after C.R. Scotese. CO2 after R.A. Berner, 2001 (GEOCARB III)
REFERENCE
Winslow D Hansen et al, Global forests are influenced by the legacies of past inter-annual temperature variability, Environmental Research: Ecology (2022). DOI: 10.1088/2752-664X/ac6e4a
Looks like my work on climate effects on Saccharomyces pastorianus was a bit too early to make good money out. Unfortunately, my notes are a bit blurry for publishing now. I’m not sure what some of it even means. “Mate, I loves you”?
90
“past and current climate variability”
Say what?
90
There is plenty of evidence to show that we live in a time of rather benign climate.
Nearly all measures of extreme weather are level or trending downwards.
Temperature have beneficially risen slightly since the coldest period in 10,000 years but is still well below most of that period
And the basically variability of climate is showing nothing untoward happening at all.
260
Where did this idea come from, possessed by warmist anti-scientists, that the earth was, is, should be or has been mostly invariant in geological time or even in recorded history?
It certainly didn’t come from science.
Warmists lack even the most rudimentary understanding of science (including climate history) and the scientific method.
I learned about past climate variability in primary school, back in the day when schools actually taught truthful and useful knowledge and skills.
350
But David, don’t you know that the Climate started in 1979 (a very cold winter in the USA), anything before that isn’t worthy of mentioning.
Although I did notice one chart from NASA that said Warming started in 1962 (quite a very cold year in the Northern Hemisphere) which struck me was a little odd in that it meant that any rise in CO2 from 1878 hadn’t caused any warming at all.
That’s why they tried to ignore the Medieval Warming and other previous ones.
190
Graham I say it started around 1969. I WAS IN Canada from Oct 1969 to May 1970. I saw the Niagra falls frozen solid with no drop falling below. Also, The St Lawrence river at Quebec city and upstream to lake Ontario was frozen. In the annual race the canoes were carried across the river. It snowed a week after we got there and the snow only disappeared a week before we left and we lived by the lake in what they call the banana belt-Oakville was the town.
20
As Jo points out this is scientific drivel. Once again the bleeding obvious comes out from 3rd rate graduates who have to publish something. The superficial standards astounds me.
60
Generations who grew up in the stasis of air conditioned buildings haven’t stopped to think why air con became so desirable and useful. They just got used to existing in a physical and mental comfort zone, and fell prey to the narrative that weather shouldn’t “act up ornery”.
210
In my day, we ‘lived in the environment’, we had bare wood floors, we opened the windows when it was hot, we closed them in winter when it was cold, no fans, no heat, we survived ok.
270
I recall, back before we had split system air conditioning, houses were built to minimise the effect of heat. They had wide verandas and eaves for shade, and they had the vents high up on the walls and they might even have had a shade tree or two close by. Now, they have no eaves, small verandas, and a split system air conditioner powered by electricity. We keep hearing how double glazing on the windows can reduce the heat but it still gets hot.
So now we have many houses that rely on electricity to stay cool, and the electricity system is becoming more unreliable due to the use of unreliable energy sources.
290
People may wonder why my 15 year old home stays warmish in winter and coolish in summer.
Could it be 2.4m verandas on 3.5 sides, wall insulation and double ceiling insulation with an air cavity in between, more than a ton of bricks behind the wood heater?
or is it the two split system a/c-heating units?
20
This is a great “find” with enough basic science to allow common sense conclusions to be drawn, and swing our attention to the real driving force behind the planet’s ups and downs; Orbital Mechanics.
The graph points to the extreme variability of conditions on Earth over time periods unimaginable to any human, and helps reinforce the theme of this study: that any life form which could survive all of that must be Tough.
The core reason behind the study still lurks and speaks to human vulnerabilities; consider this extract and weep;
“The framework can help set conservation priorities, support forest adaptation efforts, and improve carbon accounting”.
140
Apart from orbital mechanics and cycles involving eccentricity (95k years), axial tilt (41k years) and precession (26k years) as per Milankovitch (and there are others) the sun is a variable star.
Others influences include the orbit of Jupiter and orbit of the moon (apsidal precession, change in inclination, and an 1800 year change in tidal cycle as per Keeling and Whorf).
This is very rudimentary scientific knowledge, not likely known by warmists or their slave army of useful idiots of the Left.
280
And on a larger scale again, doesn’t our solar system experience variations in our “environment” (love that word) as a result of us being in The Galaxy?
What’s a bit of extra radiation here and there.
150
Yes.
E.g. see https://inis.iaea.org/search/search.aspx?orig_q=RN:15071211
80
KK:
My favourite chart on this was from the New Scientist – hardly a nest of climate sceptics. But for some reason it isn’t readily available these days.
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/archive/2839/28392301.jpg
If it doesn’t appear try http://www.capoliticalreview.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/new-scientist-global-temperature-chart.jpg
Which should show it slightly annotated.
60
The first link didn’t work for me, the second did.
60
Yes indeed. New Scientist has taken down the chart.
Any idea where it came from?
50
The obsession with supposed anthropogenic global warming, and fraudulent alteration of data to “prove” it, as regularly documented by Tony Heller as well as our own Jo, and Jennifer Marohasy, is not going to end well.
The cooling signals are being missed. The near term future of the world seems to be cold, not warm.
The Western World will not survive the cold without proper power from coal, gas, nuclear and real hydro (not SH2) power sources. But I guess that is exactly the plan…
Europe is about to experience (just a taste) of their world without many of the traditional proper power sources.
What sort of insanity and evil is behind shutting down proper power generation of a country?
The Chinese know what’s happening. That’s why they are so strongly committed to real power generation and laughing as the West destroys itself (often with the aid of Chicomm agents or sympathisers).
230
And here we are, on the news this morning, predicting rolling blackouts,(load shedding) in the future as the stable generation from coal is departing faster than unreliables are hoping to replace it.
140
“Replacing” our current levels of energy production from fossils with intermittent boondoggles is physically impossible. We simply do not currently have the known reserves of exotic raw materials required for the renewables fantasy to misuse in the pursuit of thieving your wealth, health, and liberty.
Sooner (hopefully) or later (more likely) the grifters will be mugged by reality, and soon thereafter, an extremely unimpressed mob of the swindled will come looking for the culprits (of course, they mean to be long gone or suitably camouflaged by then).
70
It’s amazing to watch Western society destroy itself. But if you look around Maggie Thatcher’s predictions about “the socialists running out of other people’s money” are coming true at an alarming rate – see the health care systems, care systems, etc imploding, so one could assume the powers that be have population reduction by stealth in mind.
80
I was struck by the low temperature 450 mya and the very high, by our standards, concentration of CO2. I am concerned that that woman from the ANU has not seen that graph and when she does might have a medical episode. The hypothesis was not working then obviously.
20
From the article “ Our analysis indicates that tropical forests could be harder hit by effects of increasing variability than rising mean temperatures.” , “ The analysis also flagged sensitive “hotspots” across all biomes, indicating pockets of forest at greater risk” and “ the same was not true for forest responses to variability in precipitation and vapor pressure deficit. This may be due to physiological tradeoffs inherent in how trees cope with dry conditions.”
In short, those plant species which are adapted to variable conditions nevertheless will be risk from overall rising temperatures, while those species adapted to more stable environments will be at risk from increased variability.
326
So, plants “might” be vulnerable to climate fairy-stories and predictions from failed climate models..
Plants have existed, and FLOURISHED, through period of temperatures significantly higher than now and far greater variability.
The things that really hurts plant life is LACK OF CO2.. and too much COLD.
Thank goodness humans came to the rescue and released some extra “carbon” into the carbon cycle.
Thank goodness for the small rise in temperature since the LIA
These things have started to help plant life to flourish and expand.
250
“Overall”, yes.
50
Perhaps trees are smarter that believers in Climate Doom (is that the latest wording)?
90
Perhapstrees are smarter that believers in Climate Doom.Fixed it for you Graeme.
110
” … tropical forests could be harder hit by effects of increasing variability than rising mean temperatures.”
That is a reasonable assumption, temperatures in the midlatitudes during glaciation fell around 6 degrees C, but in the tropics it was only a few degrees lower.
More likely the variability came about through droughty conditions because of monsoon failure.
30
The point being that there are a multitude of species, each of which is very well adapted to a specific set of environmental values. if those values change then so does the ecosystem. A global example is the replacement of the Pteridophyta (ferns) by Coniferophyta (conifers) and then Magnoliophyta (flowering plants) as the dominant phyla on the planet. Raising levels of CO2, and global temperature will swing the advantage back towards. the Conifers and the Ferns at the expense of the flowering plants.
Of course, that detail seems to be lost in the bluster about CO2 being necessary
18
The gum tree is a good example of a species finding a large niche.
https://theconversation.com/a-detailed-eucalypt-family-tree-helps-us-see-how-they-came-to-dominate-australia-113371
10
Keep in mind that the Ice Ages began 2.4 million years ago, which produced greater resilience and diversity in Eucalypts.
10
But Eucalypts began 51 million years ago (in patagonia), Banksia 65 million years ago, acacias 54 million years ago. one event, 2.4 million years is not significant in that story. There are 700 species of eucalypts, each is specialised for a particular ecology.
Also remember that gondwana was breaking up (from about 110 million years ago), global average temperatures were higher (not so much in the tropics)
11
And my last birthday celebration was less than one year ago; makes me feel inconsequential.
00
‘ … 2.4 million years is not significant …’
The coming of the Ice Age cycle was highly significant, flora had to adapt or perish.
The last glaciation was the more severe than all previous glaciations and sensitive plant life retreated toward the equator for survival or found refuge insitu.
00
ALL species live within their preferred zone.
That has been known since Adam and Eve.
Environment is changing thing.. always has been, always will be
We live in a COLD period compared to the last 10,000 years
More warming will be BENEFICIAL.. so will extra atmospheric CO2.
10
So Peter, do tell us what the ideal global temperature is. And while you’re there, let us know how you determined that the current mix of flora and fauna is the ideal mix for ever?
20
Now, if I remember right, Darwin called it “Natural Selection”.
And in the area that I am familiar with, the biggest cause of change was not climate change, drought, fire or flood, nor even the work of man.
All of those acted in their turn, but the big mover on the scene was the arrival about 1900 of the rabbit, which dominated much of the country till 1080 (sodium fluoacetate) came on the scene in about 1960.
Rabbits didn’t just eat the grass, they dug up and ate the roots, which killed the grass and left the topsoil loose to be eroded by wind and water. In many places the topsoil was completely eroded, turning grassland into scrubland.
Scholars blame the cessation of indigenous burning for the reversion to “woody weeds”, but it was the rabbits that did it.
80
This is a 2000 year old yew tree near me in Devon
https://escapetobritain.com/kenn-yew-tree-devon/
We know we have had hotter weather than today, colder weather than today, it has been windier, wetter drier calmer. In short we have had every type of weather imaginable with today not being out of the ordinary if you look at that sweep pf time
210
Thanks for that Tonyb. Very interesting.
Last year one of our daughters took us to Tasmania to see their big trees. The old ones were very hollow at the base. In the north west near The Dip falls near Stanley there were scattered old trees I’d estimate at 1,000 years old or more, and new growth probably less than 200 years old, mostly a lot less, and nothing in between.
On the Huon near Geeveston there were trees of all ages, but horrendous bushfire damage. Trees that must have been 400 or so years old killed by the fire. I missed out there on seeing the 99 metre tree, which is apparently close by and accessible.
I wondered if the environment at The Dip might have been created by such a fire 200 or 300 years ago.
30
Reminds me of the claim that the Aboriginals were in tune with the ENVIRONMENT. The facts are that their Environment was what survived their mistreatment of it. Forests etc. were turned into desert. ……. Plants elsewhere in the world are also what survived previous bad conditions. …… When the bad conditions return ( as they always do ) the plants that could not cope were already gone. …… Some-one wasted a lot of money on the above report to state some known facts.
150
re: “Someone needed a study to show this?”. Well, yes. It’s always a good idea to test the bleeding obvious, just in case there’s something that has been missed, but also to put citable science behind the bleeding obvious. Saying “we all know that X is true” in a scientific paper is likely to be less well received than “X (Smith 2022)”.
60
There are numerous studies showing a much warmer Holocene climate optimum and recent evidence of those much warmer Greenland temps that allowed large trees to grow at that time.
Check out the link.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2451640/Mendenhall-Glacier-melting-reveals-ancient-forest.html
70
https://notrickszone.com/2022/08/29/arctic-wide-glaciers-and-ice-caps-were-absent-or-smaller-than-today-from-10000-to-3000-years-ago/
We live in a rather COLD period of the Holocene, and extra warming would be of great benefit.
Pity all that CO2 released by China, India etc has absolutely no measurable warming effect ! 🙁
100
The oceans peaked out a long time ago and having been oscillating down in an undeniable trend for the last 7,000 years. The most recent fall over the last 2,000 years was 1.2 metres and confirms that the earth isn’t warming, it’s cooling.
Lower sea levels means bigger volumes of stored ice at the poles and this can’t happen with a warming planet.
80
AGAIN Willis Eschenbach checked out the Vinther study of Greenland temps during the Holocene and found that “Greenland is way cool today”.
In fact during the much warmer Holocene optimum Greenland was warmer (than today) for a period of 7,500 years.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/01/08/greenland-is-way-cool/
80
Erik the Red didn’t call Greenland by that name for no reason, although I notice warmists are claiming he called it that as a “clever marketing strategy” to attract settlers.
110
Thanks again Jo for your hard work over the years. Their ABC Catalyst program also highlighted this story about the Narrabeen Man death at Nth Sydney about 4,000 years ago.
They mention that SLs were about 1.5 metres higher then than today. This supports the much warmer Holocene climate optimum temps compared to today.
You can watch the video or read the transcript at the link.
https://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/narrabeen-man/11010512
40
I first saw the graph in this article in Michael Mann’s book (that’s ‘hockey stick’ Mann) “Dire Predictions” (2008). He glibly glossed over the ‘discrepancies’ between global temperatures and CO2 where they don’t fit the current narrative as ‘anomalies yet to be explained’. Fourteen years later we are still waiting for an explanation!
70
Every picture tells a story and that Graph tells a very long term story.
Looks to me as though the Average Global Temperature needs to go up along with CO2 levels.
So China, India, Russia and others keep burning the coal and oil and gas as you are doing the Planet a great service. All the Woke Nations (includes Australia) are just committing Suicide IMHO.
91
Speaking of trees
https://twitter.com/ClimateAudit/status/1564615946802708485
20
AGAIN here’s Ken Stewart’s numerous studies of our sea levels around Australia over a long period of time.
He calls this article “the world’s biggest thermometer” and he is correct. Check out the link to many studies that support their ABC Catalyst program that I linked to above.
https://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2021/08/23/the-worlds-biggest-thermometer/
60
It’s a pity the marks made on the sandstone cliffs on The Isle of the Dead near Port Arthur weren’t known more clearly, they would serve as a good tide height indicator.
80
Years ago we were taught that tree genetics carried a large percentage of “junk DNA ” The theory was that because they do not need to move around, as animals do, they could afford to replicate unneeded DNA generation after generation. I always thought the inactive DNA was a set of instructions for surviving things like ice ages, thousand-year droughts, and diseases that appear once a millenium. Deep time stuff. Probably we humans carry some too.
100
Of course the latest 2020 Nature study has found no warming in Antarctica for 70 years.
And ditto for the Antarctic UAH V 6 satellite data since 1979.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-020-00143-w#:~:text=Abstract,atmospheric%20concentration%20of%20greenhouse%20gases.&text=To%20that%20end%2C%20we%20contrast,response%20with%20a%20flattened%20AIS.
80
So, CO2 and temperature at the lows of around 300 Million ago somehow precipitate unprecedented “Global Warming™”. Runaway “Global Warming™” even; a tipping point! (beyond redemption – repent sinners…and pay us money!).
There is no “Climate Emergency™”, there is most definitely an intelligence emergency, or at the very least a psychological emergency. Stupid, stupid people.
We used to institutionalise those with the sandwich boards prophecising the end of the world, and the world was better for it (and safer, for them and us).
Now, we indulge them, hand them pieces of paper as a veneer of sanity, listen to and heed their delusions, and even elect them to power to enable their fantasies to manifest as crimes against the sane.
When is that enlightenment thingy happening again?
110
And the Turner et al or UK BAS study has found that the Antarctic peninsula has been cooling since 1999.
Of course the Gore donkey also dined out for years about the “catastrophic warming of the Ant peninsula”.
https://oceanbites.org/cooling-antarctic/
70
Unfortunately, thanks to a now maths/science challenged population, the media and the green blob can create this illusion that all past climate was ideal. Like something from a Bambi movie. That all future climate will be variable due to cow burps and you hooning around in your V8 Commodore ute. Mankind has always existed in a variable climate- variable is normal. It’s what happens when climate is described by averages or means, which are an extremely poor describer of any climate. Particularly for things like rainfall and even temperatures. There is no such thing as an “average” year in climate – its like the Yeti, a mythical creature that no-one has ever seen.
110
Actually, I was taken to see ‘Bambi’ when I was a small child. I was terrified by the forest fire; it wasn’t all sweetness and light even then!
50
It wasn’t this Bambi movie was it? Harrowing.
00
F. Salten, ‘Bambi’, 1923: better than Disney’s cartoon.
Anthropomorphic, both, for sure; but Salten covered more ground, according to memory.
00
At 360 million sqkms, and 71% of the planets surface, it’s gonna take a hell of a lot of icemelt to raise the ocean level by even one mm.
50
I find it remarkable that a lot of (naïve) people think politicians actually “care” for them. With certain extremely rare exceptions, this is never the case.
80
Most politicians are basically narcissists and don’t care for anybody but themselves.
60
And Iceland’s temperature is cooler today + more ice compared to the last 8,000 years. See a number of recent studies at the link.
https://notrickszone.com/2020/12/14/modern-icelands-climate-is-colder-with-more-ice-than-any-other-time-in-the-last-8000-years-except-the-1800s/
60
Don’t forget that we’re now decades into the warm phase AMO that could change to cool phase within a decade or so.
When that cool phase occurs I don’t think we’ll have many loonies screeching about their global warming nonsense anymore.
Just a pity that we’ve wasted all those trillions $ for ZERO change to climate or temp and stuffed up our electricity grids across the OECD countries for nothing.
https://energyeducation.ca/wiki/images/b/b3/AMO_and_TCCounts-1880-2008_0.png
100
Nice graph. the AMO has a clear 30 year phase, that means it could flip at anytime now.
30
Do we need to insert this fallacy every time? By this logic I’ll be planting my banana plantation on the slopes of Mount Ainslie.
18
What fallacy? The idea that plants have dealt with millions of years of climate change, far worse and more severe than any one-degree-rise-in-one-hundred-years?
How long has the climate been perfectly stable for Gee Aye? Why shouldn’t we assume that the whole ecological genomic pool has tools to cope with the kind of “climate variability” that has always been there (and which is almost entirely beyond our control?).
Talking about banana plantations in Canberra is Reductio ad absurdum when there are headlines talking about the extinction catastrophe that’s coming.
Mostly I think this study is a sad example of how modern university research is captured by government funding into producing near useless banal headlines while the real history of life on Earth is buried.
150
you and I both know that we can assume exactly that. Evolution has a habit of wiping clean the past. There is no unused toolkit sitting waiting for its time in the sun. This is not the same as saying that nothing will survive or thrive. Life will go on but not because of some evolving that happened 200 million years ago. Just think of my banana example. It is a land based monocot. If you don’t get what I am implying blame whoever taught you evolution.
01
Based on the graph above we are clearly at a relatively cool time and approaching a possible ice age. For many millions of years temperatures have been 15 degrees C higher than at present. In addition CO2 levels have been multiples of present concentrations except as noted in the body of Jo’s article. In fact Ian Plimer has often noted higher CO2 levels in the past. This graph should put an end to the bunkum of anthropogenic climate change if it’s veracity can be supported by more researchers. Approximately 97% of scientists would do.
130
Remember the insanity we are now dealing with.
As per my post in Tuesday Open Thread, they are now blaming excessive Vitamin D tests on contributions to “climate change”.
70
Net Zero David. Every little bit helps.
People are very susceptible to this way of thinking if you moralise it enough. Maths was never people’s strong point if you remember school.
30
I object strongly to man made Climate Change. It is an invention, a complete fabrication of the UN in 1988 with the formation of a multi government committee for Climate Change.
The absurd idea that the United Nations is responsible for World Climates is completely beyond their charter and part of their unwarranted and illegal attempted expansion into a neo world government. The same for the EU which changed from the Common Market to the European Community and now a vast political organization which demands its own “Climate Army”. The damage done by a politicized WHO has cost millions of lives.
This UN/EU fantasy must stop. Whatever happens on this planet, there are real problems without the invention of new roles for the UN/EU which revolve around raising trillions of dollars in a ridiculous and vastly damaging foray into allegedly controlling world Climates. It is also scientific nonsense.
This must stop. It is utterly wrong. Undemocratic. Real theft using scare tactics to destroy democracies and create a world government.
Shut the UN/EU. Their 100,000 overpaid self justifying employees are now monsters who do no good and are wrecking world economies. And doing nothing for world peace.
140
Thanks TdeF.
That’s right where we should focus all our energy.
The crimes are undeniable, why are we still going around and around in circles trying to polish the truth which is bright and shiny already.
Crime must be followed by punishment!
Why is nothing happening?
50
Began before 1988. My geography teacher was running us through global warming because of co2 in 86. It was just a matter of simple science.
20
I was introduced to the theory of the “Greenhouse effect” of the atmosphere in 1983. I thought it was rubbish then and now I know its rubbish. How can the earth’s atmosphere behave like a greenhouse, when at the top its open to space?
30
Amazing that this kind of graph showing downward trend of global temperature makes it past the global censors on the internet. For sure an inconvenient truth if ever there was one…
50
Low temperature coupled with CO2 starvation in the one graph.
40
Pure genius study that one. Ive often remarked at various reports of science, “you needed a study to work that out?”
But my question is, what would the environment be like at that global av figure of 25 degrees ?
00
“In a surprise to no one……350 million years”.
As a young earth creationist, that’s a “surprise” to me.
And it’s not all that long ago (especially so considering the supposed time mentioned above) that the majority of people believed in a young earth.
https://www.amnh.org/exhibitions/darwin/the-world-before-darwin
Then along came “the Science”, and to survive, one had to comply with the new “mandate”.
Ben Stein’s documentary “Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed”, portrays clear evidence of that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VDVZ19wy5Q
A bit like “the Science” of Covid and Climate Change.
Nothing new under the sun.
00
Having a quick scan through the paper, one thing stood out for me – helpfully the references are in blue – is that bar a paper from 1985, every paper referenced is from 2001 and later. Most are from the last 5 years. There is obviously money in writing papers.
10
Shock? Get real
00
Winslow Hansen c.s. Could benefit from consulting the dictionary. I suggest to look up the meaning of ‘tautology’.
00
Everybody’s Talking, the theme song in the film Midnight Cowboy, has the line: “Going where the weather suits my clothes”.
Plants grow where the weather suits them. Who knew?
10
Wot? You mean there was climate change in the past?!?!?!?!
00