Important new research on Greenland’s ice sheet. “On average, the fjords in this region are about 200 to 300 meters deeper than previously thought in some areas, he added. Glaciers undercut by warm water can melt twice as fast as those in colder waters, all other things being equal.” Author Eric Rignot’s research is always highly respected, which probably means sea level models will need to be revised.
As an expectorant: Garlic reduces viagra sildenafil canada increased kapha. http://downtownsault.org/about/volunteer/ purchase generic viagra Type 2 Diabetes is the most common sexual problem men are complaining about. The pharmaceutical online offers this drug at least expensive on the grounds that they accumulate the solution, straightforwardly from the sachet order cialis online http://downtownsault.org/ozone-of-the-north/ or dissolving in fluids). Benefits of Using Ashwagandha Herbs Ashwagandha herbs buy cheapest cialis not only help to reduce stress from your lives.
—–
Surface melting on Greenland is also having a bad year. It has been well above average for the past month, covering a good part of the seasonal peaking period. The video clip from CBS News has some stunning photography.
—–
Gloomy new sea level forecast from James Hansen. Expectations of a 10-foot rise over several centuries are now fairly standard. Barring really drastic action, Hansen believes a gain of that size can happen by the end of this century. He has to be taken seriously because of his long past record of forecasts that have turned out to be correct. Further, he has always insisted that a global temperature increase of 2C was much too dangerous to be accepted as a safe limit, and this would be one example of a reason why.
—–
Why Hansen’s basic way of thinking is the only way that makes sense. A new book has been published which questions policies that take unnecessary chances with a prospect of catastrophe. That means, for any possible course of action we should pay close attention to the worst possible outcome, which is often ignored or set aside because of multiple uncertainties. “But the real power of their book is its explanation of the right way to think about climate change. Do we really want to take an 11 percent gamble with the planet?” Keep in mind, as well, that whenever climate models are changed because of new findings, such as those in the first story above, the change is almost always one of an adverse nature.
—–
The relationship between climate change and human health. This recent story from the New York Times takes an objective approach to a difficult subject, one that easily lends itself to errors of bias. There are at least a few situations where the linkage should be quite clear, because it is certain that climate has actually changed, but even then there can be outside factors that go unrecognized. I think it is much more productive to look for the direct effects on health from air pollution due to burning fossil fuels rather than the effects due to CO2 emissions, which can only be secondary since CO2 itself is ordinarily harmless.