- 04 Feb 2020 13:40
#15064253
"Published in the journal Nature Climate Change, the study modelled global land and ocean temperatures and rainfall for the past 21,000 years...
The study then examined the impact of adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere under two scenarios – one considered to represent very high emissions and another with much lower levels of emissions.
Prof Bill Laurance, director of James Cook University’s centre for tropical environmental and sustainability science, who was not involved in the study, said it was “the scariest paper that I’ve read in the last couple of years”.
He said: “The idea that our global biodiversity hotspots – Earth’s most critical real-estate for saving nature – will be intensely vulnerable to future climate change is enough to scare the bejesus out of anyone with a lick of common sense."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... tudy-finds
The study then examined the impact of adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere under two scenarios – one considered to represent very high emissions and another with much lower levels of emissions.
Prof Bill Laurance, director of James Cook University’s centre for tropical environmental and sustainability science, who was not involved in the study, said it was “the scariest paper that I’ve read in the last couple of years”.
He said: “The idea that our global biodiversity hotspots – Earth’s most critical real-estate for saving nature – will be intensely vulnerable to future climate change is enough to scare the bejesus out of anyone with a lick of common sense."
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... tudy-finds
Facts have a well known liberal bias