Social Links

Run of Site Leaderboard

6 responsesSubscribe to comments

  1. There have been about 14 temperature ups and downs during the past 10,000 years. The recent ones are the Roman Warm Period, warmer than at present, which aided the rise of the Roman Empire.
    This period was followed by a cold period, also called the Dark Ages, which coincided with the decline of the Roman Empire, migrations, such as of the Huns.
    This period was followed by the Medieval Warm Period, as warm as at present, which gave rise to the Renaissance.
    This period was followed by The Little Ice Age, ice up to 8 feet thick on the River Thames in the 1700s.
    This period was followed by the Present Warm Period starting about 1860, which has seen a temperature rise of about 0.8 Centigrade thus far, a population explosion from 1 billion in 1900 to 7 billion thus far, and unprecedented material wealth.
    During 13 of the ups and downs the CO2 varied less the 20 ppm.
    Food for thought.

  2. William Post comments, “During 13 of the ups and downs the CO2 varied less the 20 ppm.
    Food for thought.”
    So what? Yes, there have been climate changes without significant CO2 changes in the atmosphere. That has nothing to do with the fact that putting more CO2 into the atmosphere increases the rate and severity of climate change above and beyond whatever “natural cycles” may be occurring. His comment brings to mind the person who rationalizes doing nothing to take care of his health “because we are all going to die anyway”.
    Exercising no control because we do not have complete control is an abdication of our responsibility to act.

    1. That may be misinterpreting the post. If significant climatic changes and concomitant social upheavals have occurred without significant changes in greenhouse gases in the recorded past, how much greater, more rapid and longer lasting will be the effects of our current situation, in which other influences are being swamped by a dramatic influx of greenhouse gases? No one knows the answer. It could be cataclysmic, it could be survivable. The one thing we do know beyond a shadow of doubt is that what our grandparents had justification for saying, we do not, for changes now, unlike then, are overwhelmingly due to our influence and can only become cataclysmic with our permission.

  3. My grandparents used to say, “If ya don’t like the weather in New England, wait 5 minutes.” That’s still true. We humans keep expecting things to stay the same; but the very nature of nature is change and adaptation. There is no such thing as “settled” when it comes to understanding how our planet works. Get used to the new normal, because it’s going to change again in a few years, whether we like it or not, with or without our permission, our acknowledgement, and our influence.

  4. Carbon emissions have other impacts besides climate change.

    Our oceans are rapidly becoming more acidic and who knows what this is going to result in besides the loss of species and an important source of protein for our population of seven billion.
    http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2012/0302/Ocean-acidification-worst-in-300-million-years-study-finds-video

    Why not exercise the precautionary principle in respecdt to other life on earth and future generations of the human species?

  5. The EIA estimates a greater than 50 percent increase in energy use by 2035, including a greater than 50 percent increase in fossil fuels.
    The CO2 upward trend is ” baked in” for the rest of this century.
    CO2 contributes only a small percentage, about 2-3 percent, to global warming. It is not anywhere near what RE promoters would like you to believe for their business reasons. Water vapor contributes a much greater percentage, about 95 percent, to global warming.
    More serious problems are the population explosion and resultant overuse/misuse of the land for agriculture and overfishing of the seas, and the energy use per person or per $ of GDP.
    Increased energy efficiency and population reduction are more realistic measures, not producing renewable energy at 3-5 times annual average grid prices.
    China just announced a new 5-year plan that will de-emphasize wind and solar energy and increase the emphasis on nuclear and hydro energy.

Leave a Reply

Comment policy

VTD requires that all commenters identify themselves by first and last name. You may wonder why we don't accept anonymous comments. The short answer is: We want to keep the discourse civil.

You might rightly ask, since most online newspapers accept anonymous posts from readers, what makes VTD so special?

The long answer is: Anonymous comments don't support our mission. We are a nonprofit news organization dedicated to enhancing democracy through in-depth journalism. Our role is to foster a civil online discourse, and one very simple and effective way to do that is to require commenters to identify themselves. This isn't a new idea, of course. This is the way newspapers have treated letters to the editor since time immemorial.

As a result of our comment policy, VTD has created a safe zone for readers who want to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation.

Privacy policy

VTDigger.org does not share specific information about our readers with other entities. Email addresses we collect through our subscription list and comment submissions are kept private.

We use Google analytics to generate aggregated data regarding the size and geographic distribution of our readership. This information helps us gauge how many readers come to the website and what towns they live in. It does not include addresses or other identifying characteristics about our readers.

Donate Today

We're an independent nonprofit organization, your donation helps fund the digging, and, it's tax deductible.

Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "New hardiness zones show warming trend in Vermont"