Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

A warming of two degrees is not about us noticing (as in, gee, time for a tshirt) but about the impact on the ecosystem.

Someone in reddit (http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/reo35/the_discus...) pointed to an article noting that a 7 degree warming would suck moisture from the ground and substantially inhibit plant/food growth.



Wasn't the term 'global warming' been deprecated in favor of 'climate change' precisaly because it is misleading?

From http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/climate_by_any_oth...

>> But temperature change itself isn't the most severe effect of changing climate. Changes to precipitation patterns and sea level are likely to have much greater human impact than the higher temperatures alone. For this reason, scientific research on climate change encompasses far more than surface temperature change. So "global climate change" is the more scientifically accurate term. Like the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we've chosen to emphasize global climate change on this website, and not global warming.


Thing is: if you look at the historic temp. record, seldom did temps ever make it to +7 from today's already high temps. Thus almost certainly something will provide feedback to negatively impact temps before that level is reached. Still we could lose all the arctic ice before then and live on a very different planet.


You must mean the recent past, because that's exactly what happened for 10s of millions of years during the late Cretaceous.

Edit: and of course a bunch of other times during the Phanerozoic - I just picked one.


I'm not sure you can draw that conclusion. Historically, there also did not exist 7 billion people burning fossil fuels.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: