Global Warming Retreat: Evidence Shows Sun is Responsible

In summary, global warming is being attributed to the increased radiation from the sun, as suggested by Swiss and German scientists. However, the impact of this factor compared to the contribution of greenhouse gases is still unclear. Some scientists believe that human activities, such as burning fossil fuels and deforestation, are the main catalysts for global warming, while others argue that the sun's radiance must be considered along with other factors. Conservationist David Bellamy and others question the validity of the current belief that humans are the main cause of global warming. More research is needed to fully understand the effects of sun's radiation on climate change.
  • #1
Andre
4,311
74
Global warming on retreat.

The British press is usually in the top scaremongers when it’s about the potential disasters of Anthropogenic Global Warming. It’s about finished by now. See how elegant the retreat is:

http://news.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml

The truth about global warming - it's the Sun that's to blame
By Michael Leidig and Roya Nikkhah
(Filed: 18/07/2004)

Global warming has finally been explained: the Earth is getting hotter because the Sun is burning more brightly than at any time during the past 1,000 years, according to new research.

A study by Swiss and German scientists suggests that increasing radiation from the sun is responsible for recent global climate changes.

Dr Sami Solanki, the director of the renowned Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research in Gottingen, Germany, who led the research, said: "The Sun has been at its strongest over the past 60 years and may now be affecting global temperatures.

"The Sun is in a changed state. It is brighter than it was a few hundred years ago and this brightening started relatively recently - in the last 100 to 150 years."

(notice that it’s told four times here already – :wink: Andre)

Dr Solanki said that the brighter Sun and higher levels of "greenhouse gases", such as carbon dioxide, both contributed to the change in the Earth's temperature but it was impossible to say which had the greater impact.

Well, every alarmist has downplayed that factor consistently and most vigorously – A..

(…)

Most scientists agree that greenhouse gases from fossil fuels have contributed to the warming of the planet in the past few decades

(yes, with about 30% increase in CO2 levels as of 1850 the legal Stefan - Boltzman factor would have yielded warming of some 0,2 degrees C ..A)

but have questioned whether a brighter Sun is also responsible for rising temperatures.

(…)

The team studied sunspot data going back several hundred years. They found that a dearth of sunspots signalled a cold period - which could last up to 50 years –
I remember very vivid discussions where alarmist categorically denied any effect of sunspots

but that over the past century their numbers had increased as the Earth's climate grew steadily warmer. The scientists also compared data from ice samples collected during an expedition to Greenland in 1991. The most recent samples contained the lowest recorded levels of beryllium 10 for more than 1,000 years. Beryllium 10 is a particle created by cosmic rays that decreases in the Earth's atmosphere as the magnetic energy from the Sun increases. Scientists can currently trace beryllium 10 levels back 1,150 years.

(how about 700,000 years in the new Antarctic Dome C ice core…A)

Dr Solanki does not know what is causing the Sun to burn brighter now or how long this cycle would last.
(…)
Dr Bill Burrows, a climatologist and a member of the Royal Meteorological Society, welcomed Dr Solanki's research. "While the established view remains that the sun cannot be responsible for all the climate changes we have seen in the past 50 years or so, this study is certainly significant," he said.

Well it is a beginning

"It shows that there is enough happening on the solar front to merit further research.

Perhaps we are devoting too many resources to correcting human effects on the climate without being sure that we are the major contributor." ! :biggrin: -A

Dr David Viner, the senior research scientist at the University of East Anglia's climatic research unit, said the research showed that the sun did have an effect on global warming.
He added, however, that the study also showed that over the past 20 years the number of sunspots had remained roughly constant, while the Earth's temperature had continued to increase.

too bad but no, not true. check again, after 1998 the global temperature has decreased again never reaching those values again..A.

This suggested that over the past 20 years, human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation had begun to dominate "the natural factors involved in climate change", he said.

Nice try to save at least something of the myth but no because the temperature did not do what he said..A

Dr Gareth Jones, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said that Dr Solanki's findings were inconclusive because the study had not incorporated other potential climate change factors.
Urban Heat Islands for instance..A

"The Sun's radiance may well have an impact on climate change but it needs to be looked at in conjunction with other factors such as greenhouse gases, sulphate aerosols and volcano activity," he said. The research adds weight to the views of David Bellamy, the conservationist. "Global warming - at least the modern nightmare version - is a myth," he said. "I am sure of it and so are a growing number of scientists.
(Me too but I’m not a PhD)

But what is really worrying is that the world's politicians and policy-makers are not.

Right you guys have an awfull lot of unexplaining to do and that will be very tough with young independent self-conscious -but brain washed- people especially after “the day after tomorrow”

"Instead, they have an unshakeable faith in what has, unfortunately, become one of the central credos of the environmental movement: humans burn fossil fuels, which release increased levels of carbon dioxide - the principal so-called greenhouse gas - into the atmosphere, causing the atmosphere to heat up. They say this is global warming: I say this is poppycock."

Hurray
 
Earth sciences news on Phys.org
  • #2
At last a voice of reason!
If only more people would take the time to examine the data presented by environmental alarmists objectively and ask questions!
I have found that when you examine the data they present (when they can be bothered!) closely, you find all sorts of discrepancies, distortions (for instance data on claimed halving of sperm count over the last 60 years, or that we are running out of resources) and in some cases just guesswork with no references or evidence of any kind (for instance Norman Myers claim made in 1974 that 40,000 species will become extinct every year for the next 25 years!
Keep up the good work Andre!
 
  • #3
Thanks, There is a lot of baloney going on indeed. Perhaps check the article of
Prof Bellamy[/url] too. Although I must say that in his enthousiasm, his hard fact claims are a wee bit inaccurate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
I notice that you cheer them when they agree with you, and you jeer them when they don't. Do we take this as accurate or not? The source is good, but not good?
 
  • #5
Well, do you think that the truth is dependent on the emotions of a single person? Anyway it's a happy day when the very first signs of the end of a costly hype are there.
 
  • #6
I will say this for now: First, as you know, I have been interested in this as an explanation for a very long time. It is important to remember though that this is still just one of many reports that will come. I saw some pretty convincing data about this many years ago but this did not settle the argument. We still might find errors that led to this conclusion. Next, it is still critical that we determine precisely how significant our contributions to green house gases might be. Given the solar flux explanation for warming, we may or may not be a significant contributor to increased global warming. We still might be making the problem worse. We might be the straw the breaks the camels back; we just don't know yet.

The most important thing is that we figure out what is happening, and what if any role we do or should play in these events. It may be that relocating population centers is the primary order of business; if this gets bad enough. In fact we need to try to figure that out as well. How bad will this get; according to the solar flux model?

Honestly, I would cheerfully welcome the end of green house gas concerns. This problem thwarts many otherwise promising alternative energy options. No matter how we slice the global energy and environmental cake, we need to get away from petro power.
 
  • #7
One further comment: It seems like only a few years ago, or even days ago, people were claiming that there is no global warming...hmmm.

What does this say about the anti-evironment lobby? Should we suddenly forget about the history of this subject?
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Let's see, there are a few things mixed up here.

Humanity's first aim should be to use stewardship to preserve the planet. Now this requires accurate assessment of problems and dealing with those in a responsible way. Responsibility not only means ecological awareness but also an economical approach. You cannot spend all your assets to solve a minor or even a non-problem. So is pollution for instance a major problem? Probably so, So we need to look into that. But what if the first whatever volcano produces more pollution in a week than humanity in a century? How about if we spend double or triple the usual amount to clean the air in our area some 10% better if the same amount of money would have cleaned the air in China or India or so with 80%?

Is/was the hole in the ozone layer a real or imaginary problem? Were/are CFC's or halones really that hazardous or were we overreacting? There is a whole war going on about this issue.

So is anthropogenic greenhouse gas effect from increasing CO2 really a problem? Not according to the straight physics concerning greenhouse gas effect. But yes- it is according to the alarmists, who look at the ice cores and Venus without a thorough understanding of what they are seeing and they invent all kind of positive feedback effects, none of which can be substantiated, whilst some have been falsified (Olavi Kärner - antipersistency study)

Now about an explanation about the temperature devellopments the last 30 years.

- The surface met-station report a general global warming in the 1990-1998 time frame of some 0,3-0,4 degrees

- The weather balloons / satelite measurements do not agree with this trend.

- The temperature has stabilized in the 1998-2004 timeframe.

- Climate has been variable for as long as we can see.

- Solar activity has been increasing the last decade. Sun spots were continuing to occur at high rate and did not follow the usual 11-years cycle:

http://www.usefulinfo.co.uk/images/natural_factors.gif

- Rural and urban weather stations have different characteristics. In the 1980-1990 timeframe many rural stations got closed, yielding a false trend.

Check this:
http://home.wanadoo.nl/bijkerk/trends2.JPG

This is a representation of ALL stations in a radius of 1000 miles around a centre close to Omsk in Siberia. (data available). It contains the data of 20 urban stations and 9 rural stations. The area was semi-randomly selected to have several rural station still in service. Since the area is too big to assume an average temperature, I transferred the temperatures to the average of the 1980-1990 baseline. I believe that this is common practice.

Now look at the four averages. Notice that the urban stations show the steepest warming trend whilst the four rural stations, still in service yields the lowest warming trend.

See the red and blue 5th order curve fit waves. Red is the contribution of this part of the world to the average global temperature using all data and all stations, no matter what. IMO, Blue is the closest approximation to the real average trend as seen exclusively in the four continuous operating rural stations. Notice that it has only half the warming trend of the average of all stations.

Consequently, the closing of the rural weather stations seem to have induced a false non existing warming signal of 50% of the total warming.

So my conclusion is that global warming is mostly natural and we should not worry about extraordinary powers of carbon dioxide.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #9
Note: The telegraph is the most rabidly right wing of the UK broadsheets, and typically represents industrial, business and other conservative interests. Nor is its science coverage a major authority in the matter. It publishing another article denying human factors cannot in any way be contrued as a global retreat, or other such baloney.
 
  • #10
Perhaps, FZ+, as it is so common use in the global warming alarmists department, you may not even be aware that you are using, one of the http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html.

Would color or political orientation have anything to do with the truth? Or are we making the truth by judging people.
 
  • #11
Found this somewhere:

Weather Action News Release

Friday 30th July 2004 at 02.30hrs
NEWS RELEASE: Global Warming Spin Exposed. Government Top Scientific Adviser Challenged

Speaking at Weather Action's Forecast & Research Centre in London today, Piers Corbyn - astrophysicist and long range forecaster, attacked recent Global Warming "one-sided spin and nonsense" on TV and criticised that Sir David King the Government's Chief Scientific Adviser for failing to challenge glaring global warming myths about storms, sea level rise, tropical diseases and the actual minor climatic role of Carbon dioxide - compared with the power of particles from the Sun - even though his team at a recent seminar held in the Russian Academy of Sciences in Moscow had disowned certain myths.

Piers said: "I and a number of invited scientists from around the world present at the International Seminar on Climate change held at the Russian Academy of Sciences July 7th-8th in Moscow, accused Sir David and his team of promoting and hiding behind doom-mongering falsity about climate change.
"In particular we challenged them to admit that there had been actually LESS tropical strorms and related extremes (eg severe monsoons) in the last 10-15 years than before. They admitted this and blamed media distortion. We accused them of actually promoting and supporting such nonsense hype and they denied this. Yet they attacked the Daily Mail as being 'not a respectable newspaper' because it had reported David Bellamy's critique of global warmers. It seems their media criticism is very selective!
"We made the same charges about sea level rise - in particular at the Maldive Islands where contrary to the doom claims of the Global Warmers sea level has fallen in the last 75 years, yet neither Sir David nor Sir Crispin Tickell had anything to say about that on the recent 'Global Warning' programme on which they appeared on BBCTV. "Indeed the programme after giving a false repoirt of the Maldives went on to propagate the myth that the problems of the Thames estaury are a consequence of sea level rise, yet the truth is the land of SouthEast England is sinking - like Venice - and the Thames has been dredged and narrowed and so responds much more quickly to heavy rain. Forest felling and dredging in Bangla Desh are having the same effects yet Sir David and Sir Crispin are happy to sit quiet when myths about and man's CO2 induced monsoon ferocity are put about. This is shameful because there is a man-made cause to extra floods in Bangla Desh - like forest felling - which could be combatted, but they don't seem to care because they have other axes to grind.
"They similarly failed to nail the nonsense that malaria is spread by global warming when the acknowledged truth is that it has been prevelant in Russia (the coldest country in the world) and England at times. Its spread depends on sunlit pools and water collecting debris such as old tyres and cans which make good breeding grounds for mosquitos.
"At the seminar in Moscow it was pointed out that Greenland in Mediaval times was warmer than now which is why it was called GREENland (by the Vikings whn they discovered it). There was less CO2 around then yet Sir David failed to mention that when the melting Greenland Ice sheet was falsely suggested as something unprecedented for thousands of years.
"Sir David and Sir John Houghton who was in his team failed to respond in Moscow to the fact that world tempertures follow changing particle flows from the sun much better than they relate to CO2. Indeed Sir John claimed that CO2 levels somehow combined with volcanic and pollution effects could control world tempertaures but he could not explain how such a combination of earthbound events can control what happens on the Sun. Sir David stayed silent on this on the TV.
Piers said that the Global warming craze by governments was not about science but driven by interest groups and it was no accident that the nuclear lobby were part of Sir David's team in Moscow presenting a non-CO2 source of energy.
He agreed with the Russian Academy of Sciences which found "no scientific basis" for the Kyoto Protocol, and with President Putin's adviser Andrei Illarionov who accused Britain and other "imperialist" rich nations of using Kyoto to keep poor nations from developing. Illarionov argued that the real reason every rich nation but America, the world's biggest polluter, backs the protocol is because they want control of emissions quotas, something he said will give developed nations unprecedented control of poor countries' economies.

Piers also gave a summary of events at the International Seminar on Climate Change at the Russian Academy of Sciences Moscow 5-8 July 2004 along with his presentation

He explained he had been invited by the Russian Academy of Sciences as part of an International Team to give a balanced view to counter claims by the 'Global Warmers' in particular a British Team led by Sir David King (the UK Govt's Chief Scientific Adviser) and Sir John Houghton former Director General of the UK Met Office and including some Met Office scientists and a representative of the nuclear industry and of the British Embassy in Moscow.

The Russian Academy of Sciences had already taken the view that 'There is no scientific basis for the Kyoto protocols'. I and the other scientists from around the world present agree with this view.
The event gave Sir David King and Sir John Houghton and their team a great opportunity to argue their case but they completely failed to do so. Sir John was unable to answer questions and referred them all to understudies who did not give satisfactory answers. Sir David also failed to answer questions and indeed walked out at the start of the second day (after talking at great length beyond his original time) while 'answering' - saying that he had 'no more time and had to see a minister'. Andrei Illarionov, President Putin's chief Adviser, stood up at this point and said this behaviour was 'totally unacceptable', and added that the British Govt Team had failed to answer questions at this event and had still failed to answer ten questions posed by the Russian Academy of Sciences some months ago. Further he criticised them for holding up the first day's proceedings for two hours in an attempt to silence certain views and for various disruptions during the day.
"It appears the British Government Team after failing to prevent the international science team - of which I was part - from speaking resorted to spoiling tactics because they were unable to answer questions. They subsequently tried to portray the event as something somehow 'taken over' by others/Russian officials and 'unlike anything they have ever seen'. It was indeed unlike any scientific event I have ever seen but for no reason other than the inappropriate behaviour of the British Government's Official Team"; said Piers

There were many interesting papers presented at the meeting on a wide range of Climate Change matters (see below).

KEY POINTS from the International Seminar
(Note the Kyoto Protocols originate from the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (1990) the objective of which is to prevent dangerous (human-induced) climate change)

1. World Temperatures do not follow CO2 levels and indeed the warmest periods in the last 2,000 years were the Roman period and the Medieval period which were both warmer than present and had lower CO2 levels {various speakers - William Kininmonth Australian Climate Research, Piers Corbyn Weather Action London etc}.

2. Solar particles decisively affect World temperatures.
There is a much better correlation between world temperatures and particles than between World temperatures than CO2 levels {Piers Corbyn, Weather Action London}.

3. There is no significant Sea level rise - in particular the Maldives are in no danger of submergence - sea level having gone down there in the last 75 years {Prof Nils-Axel Morner, Stockholm University}.

4. There is no climate induced increased danger of dangerous tropical diseases, eg malaria, since it is not itself a tropical disease - having being prevalent in Russia (the coldest country in the world) and Britain at various times and is in fact encouraged by sunlit pools not climatic warmth {Paul Reiter, Pasteur Institute Paris}.

5. There is no discernible link between Global warming & (dangerous) Extreme weather. Indeed the British Govt delegation specifically said they did not claim any increase in storms due to man-made CO2. {Madhav L Khandekar, consulting meteorologist, Ontario Canada (and also William Kinninmonth)}.

Will the hype be terminated soon or has the war just started?
 
  • #12
Sceptics score

Another blow for global warming (the anthropogenic greenhouse gas version that is):

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0407/0407074.pdf

(to be published) Geophysics Research Letters (GL020103)

Altitude Dependence of Atmospheric Temperature Trends:
Climate Models vs Observation

David H. Douglass et al

(...)

Introduction
All state-of-the-art general circulation models (GCMs) predict a warming trend due to various greenhouse forcings that is greater for the troposphere than the surface. The calculated warming trend reaches a maximum at an altitude corresponding to a pressure of 200-400 hPa and decreases to negative values in the stratosphere.

These model results disagree with many observations of the lower troposphere over the last 25 years, which show the surface to be warming faster than the air just above.

Jones et al. (1999) reported that the surface warms by 190 [10-3K/decade] relative to the satellite data [referring to a mean altitude of ~2 km] (Christy et al. 2000).

Gaffen et al. (2000), in a study of the tropics that included radiosonde measurements, reached similar conclusions.

Singer (2001) discussed resolving the disparity as the most important research priority.

Christy (2001) has done a comparative study of trend-lines between Hadley sea-surface temperatures and four temperature sets of the air above the sea surface. He finds that “[T]he difference in temperature trends is statistically significant in the tropical belt...”

Christy et al. (2001) have extended the study of the tropics to include buoys which had thermometers 3m in the air and 1m below the surface. They find statistically significant cooling of the air relative to the water.

Chase et al. (2004) compared four models with five data sets and considered the possibility that variability in the models could account for the disparity. They conclude that “model variability and uncertainty in applied forcings cannot produce the recently observed tropospheric temperature characteristics.”

This disparity between state-of the-art models and observations is even more dramatic when the comparison is extended to the mid- and upper troposphere, and is the subject of this paper. We show below that the various models all predict that greenhouse effects are stronger at mid- to high- tropospheric altitudes. …cont..

(…)

We are therefore faced with two alternatives:

1. The models are correct and account for all relevant forcings. If so, then we must conclude that the observational data sets -- MSU, NNR and Radiosondes -- are all incorrect.

2. The models do not fully capture the multitudinous climate effects (including various feedbacks) of an increase in greenhouse gases. Since the observed surface temperature trends (ST) agree with the models, then they too must be questioned. It seems improbable that results from satellites (MSU), NCAR/NCEP reanalysis (NNR), and Radiosondes, which agree with each other, would all be wrong. Therefore, it seems more likely that both the models and observed surface trends are problematic. Their apparent agreement may be a coincidence or perhaps reflect a “tuning” of the models to the surface temperature trends.

Pretty clear I should say, but the global warming lingers on.
 
  • #13
If anyone is interested in the most comprehensive work against Global warming,
it is:
(big file)[/url]

Are observed changes in the concentration of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere really dangerous?

ABSTRACT

Statements made by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have been used to put pressure on governments to formulate policies in response to the perceived threat of the climate change resulting from a build up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The Kyoto Protocol proposed by the United Nations calls for industrialized countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions by five percent from 1990 levels by the year 2012. The enormity of the perceived economic consequences of this has led to intense arguments between governments over the appropriateness of reduction targets. But the real reason behind the failure to agree on a global climate treaty is disagreement on tradeoffs between the economic and environmental risks involved.

Contrary to the IPCC predictions, global temperature has not risen appreciably in the last 20 years. Most surface temperature data free from the influence of surrounding buildings and roads show no warming. Data from satellites support this. Sea level has been rising since the end of the last ice age, long before industrialization, but historical records show no acceleration in sea level rise in the twentieth century. Increases in carbon dioxide appear to pose no immediate danger to the planet. The gas is not a pollutant. An understanding of global warming hinges on the answers to certain key questions.

Is global climate warming? If so, what part of that warming is due to human activities? How good is the evidence? What are the risks? The task of answering these questions is hindered by widespread confusion regarding key facets of global warming science. The confusion has given rise to several fallacies or misconceptions. These myths and misconceptions, and how they relate to the above questions, are explained. Although the future state of global climate is uncertain, there is no reason to believe that catastrophic change is underway. The atmosphere may warm due to human activity, but if it does, the expected change is unlikely to be much more than 1 degree Celsius in the next 100 years. Even the climate models promoted by the IPCC do not suggest that catastrophic change is occurring. They suggest that increases in greenhouse gases are likely to give rise to a warmer and wetter climate in most places; in particular, warmer nights and warmer winters. Generally, higher latitudes would warm more than lower latitudes. This means milder winters and, coupled with increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, it means a more robust biosphere with greater availability of forest, crops and vegetative ground cover. This is hardly a major threat. Amore likely threat is policies that endanger economic progress. The negative effect of such policies would be far greater than any change caused by global warming. Rather than try to reduce innocuous carbon dioxide emissions, we would do better to focus on air pollution, especially those aspects that are known to damage human health...cont'd

Although this paper may be closer to the truth than anything else, you loose all credit if you publish it in a oil oriented bulletin. The obvious argumentum Ad Hominem is likely stronger than a thousand truths.

honi soit qui mal y pense
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #14
Well there is more growing concern about the concernmakers of global warming:
I believe this is the first book about it.

I'm going to feed the authors with a lot more for the second edition.

Man-Made Global Warming: Unravelling a Dogma

by Hans Labohm, Simon Rozendaal & Dick Thoenes

These three Dutchmen - respectively an international relations expert, a scientific journalist, and a chemical engineer (past chairman of the Royal Netherlands Chemical Society) - form part of that growing body of reasonable and qualified people who feel unease at the claims of 'scientific consensus' on climate change, and wonder at the policies flowing from those claims. If the science is flawed, plainly the policies are too. Worldwide, billions of public money will be mis-spent, unnecessary costs placed on existing industry, new industrial development hampered. Together, these three authors are well-placed to point up the weaknesses in the scientific argument that global warming is a man-made phenomenon, and are able to analyse that murky place where the needs for recognition, research grants and votes all come together. Could it really be the case that the 'global warming crisis' is really as much about careers and power as anything else?

I'm avoiding to spamming. Therefore I withhold the link that appeals to buying the book. However with this information it should be an easy google.
 
  • #15
of course . England is suffered the most by global warming
 
  • #16
Well the local warming of western Europe is hardly disputed. Many Europeans think that Western Europe is the world, consequently they call it "global warming".

Anyway, the medieval vineyards -that perished by the Little Ice Age- are returning to Albinion. This should suggest that England has the right on a better climate anyway.

Many folks in the States know that the new ice age is coming.
 

Related to Global Warming Retreat: Evidence Shows Sun is Responsible

What is global warming retreat?

Global warming retreat refers to the decrease in global temperatures over a period of time, often attributed to the Earth's climate cycle and natural weather patterns.

What evidence shows that the sun is responsible for global warming retreat?

Scientists have studied various data, such as solar irradiance, sunspot activity, and cosmic rays, and have found that they all correlate with global temperature changes. This suggests that the sun's activity plays a significant role in global warming retreat.

Is human activity still a factor in global warming retreat?

While the sun's activity is a major contributor to global warming retreat, human activity such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation also play a significant role in the Earth's changing climate. It is important for us to reduce our carbon footprint and make efforts towards sustainability.

What are the potential consequences of global warming retreat?

Global warming retreat can disrupt ecosystems, cause extreme weather events, and lead to rising sea levels, which can have disastrous effects on coastal communities. It can also impact agriculture and food production, leading to food shortages in certain regions.

What can be done to address global warming retreat?

To address global warming retreat, we must reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and promote sustainable practices such as using renewable energy sources, reducing waste, and protecting natural habitats. It is also important for governments and individuals to take action and make changes to mitigate the impact of global warming retreat.

Similar threads

  • Earth Sciences
Replies
2
Views
394
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
28
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
5K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • Earth Sciences
Replies
25
Views
7K
Back
Top