Slashdot Mirror
Climate Change is Turning Antarctica Green, Say Researchers (theguardian.com)
Researchers in Antarctica have discovered rapidly growing banks of mosses on the ice continent's northern peninsula, providing striking evidence of climate change in the coldest and most remote parts of the planet. Amid the warming of the last 50 years, the scientists found two different species of mosses undergoing the equivalent of growth spurts, with mosses that once grew less than a millimeter per year now growing over 3 millimeters per year on average, (the link could be paywalled; alternative source below) the Washington Post reported on Thursday. From a report: "Antarctica is not going to become entirely green, but it will become more green than it currently is," said Matt Amesbury, co-author of the research from the University of Exeter. "This is linking into other processes that are happening on the Antarctic Peninsula at the moment, particularly things like glacier retreat which are freeing up new areas of ice-free land -- and the mosses particularly are very effective colonisers of those new areas," he added. In the second half of the 20th century, the Antarctic Peninsula experienced rapid temperature increases, warming by about half a degree per decade. Plant life on Antarctica is scarce, existing on only 0.3% of the continent, but moss, well preserved in chilly sediments, offers scientists a way of exploring how plants have responded to such changes.
you must know that anyone can construct a pie chart claiming there was no majority of global cooling/new ice age predictions in 70s by simply selecting the inputs. unless all the predictions are taken into account, and they were not on your link which is pretty data and citation free, such a chart is useless.
all the major media in 1970s were predicting a new ice age. there were skeptics, as there are now.
may be in future, similarly, current climate change skeptics' writings, will be cited to rescue the reputation of science, from damage done by global warming alarmists in media.
... and that includes the climate scientists. I imagine it would be hard to find a climate scientist who would be willing to bet his house on a measurable and non-trivial prediction about the future -- one that he would make from his climate models in the span of a few years.
Because that's what it's all about: would you Mr. Scientist assert that A will follow B and vouch for it? Physicists and chemists would do it, biologists would do it for some things, medical researchers might do for some others, but sociologists, economists, and climate scientists wouldn't, it is just too complex. Engineers would do it: in England some centuries ago bridge builders were required to live and sleep under the bridge they'd just built along with their families. Afterwards you had less doubt the bridge was reliable and you could start planning to transport heavy stuff over it.
I may be wrong but outside of its models (and anyone can have models) climate science doesn't have enough to establish trust for making a major decision.