Global warming is due to the burning of fossil fuels.

The consensus among scientists is overwhelming.

There's no chance of bringing back an animal with DNA as ancient as a T-Rex.

The oldest DNA that we have some of is less than half a million years old. Getting to 1 million is an impossible hope. 5 million is completely out of the question, much less 66 million.

With current technology you'd want a complete set of nuclear DNA, and that means stuff that went extinct recently enough that we have video footage of them: Thylacine, Quagga, West African black rhinoceros. Things like that.

Haast's eagle? They'd be pretty easy to avoid. They hunted in bushland, and could only take a small child.

Such as?

I'm surprised that there's a legal avenue for the public to overturn laws.

What law are they suing under?

Not suggesting that the good news story is exaggerated at all. But insilico medicine has filed for a Hong Kong IPO, so either this sort of publicity is timely, or they're doing the IPO on the strength of this drug going to trial ...

Which could mean that they want some pocket money to rapidly expand their operation, or it could mean that they want to spread the risk of the trial being a failure. (Or some combination of the two).

It might reduce the number of toddlers shooting themselves or their parents.

But so does not having a gun, and that also makes domestic violence less fatal.

Farming is a rort.

Visually spectacular enough to hold my interest, despite the plot being thin. As it, ooh, nothing's happening in this scene, it's simply about the visuals, but I'm still entertained. But the plot summarizes as: The offworlders assemble a team to hunt down Jake. When they find him, a battle ensues.

The problem with geoengineering solutions is unintended consequences.

Sure you can cool the poles, but you're also cutting out some of the sunlight, and that is the energy input into every ecosystem on the planet, that's not near a deep ocean hydrothermal vent.

And it's already pretty tricky to eke out an existence near the poles.

Surely the flood myth wasn't something that the author(s) of Genesis saw. The story is in large part borrowed from the epic of Gilgamesh, probably written 1000 years earlier, which in turn seems to have the flood myth patched in from Atra-Hasis,

Nevertheless, 27 cm wouldn't have cut the mustard. Instead of drowning the people of the world that would have given the people of the world wet feet until they moved up the beach a bit.

Perhaps you did. Decrease in moisture over the period 1900-2020 is measurable throughout New Mexico, Arizona, California, Nevada, Utah and Colorado.

Investigate the data yourself.

And the increasing temperatures will make the climate unsuitable for crops that don't need greenhouses now. And fires, floods and droughts will further impact productivity, as well as natural ecosystems.

Fair and irrelevant. You're not being offered a choice between the roman era or the medieval warming period.

Not this warming. It's killing something like 150,000 people annually.

Is 274mm of sea level rise a vast flood of biblical proportions?

I got the impression the deluge in the bible was more in the hundreds of metres to kilometres range.

From the Main section or the paper:

Greenland’s ice budget deficit emerged after the 1980s from increases in surface meltwater run-off1,2 and ice flow discharge from its tidewater sectors3,4. Yet, despite its importance for future sea-level rise (SLR), our capacity to accurately predict Greenland’s response to climate change is hampered by process limitations in ice sheet models and their imprecise coupling to land, atmosphere and ocean boundaries5,6,7. Given these constraints, we pursue a complementary approach to obtain Greenland’s thus far lower-bound-committed SLR contribution.

Our approach does not directly solve the transient ice flow equations but rather calculates the committed areal and volumetric changes incurred by the up-to-present ice geometrical disequilibrium with climate8,9. The method determines the ice extent and thickness perturbations required to bring the current ice sheet into equilibrium with surface mass balance (SMB). Changes in flow dynamics are implicitly accounted for by a glaciological power law scaling function that relates imposed areal changes in ice extent to an implied ice volume10. To account for marine-terminating sectors and tidewater outlets where the ablation area is truncated by iceberg calving, we introduce an effective ablation area treatment. For application to Greenland—including its peripheral ice masses—the essential empirical requirements are met with new multi-year inventories of: (1) tidewater glacier discharge4; (2) SMB (that is, snowfall accumulation minus run-off) from observational reanalysis and regional climate data11; and (3) the accumulation area ratio (AAR): the glacierized area with net annual mass gain divided by its total area, readily retrieved from optical satellite imagery12,13.

For grounded ice masses with an ablation area, the maximum snow line elevation at the end of each melt season marks the transition between the lower-elevation dark bare ice and the bright upper-elevation snow accumulation areas. This equilibrium line and its corollary, the AAR, conveniently integrate the competing effects of surface mass loss from meltwater run-off and mass gain from snow accumulation. Minimum AAR each year demarcates hydrological years on a sector basis (Extended Data Fig. 1). By regressing annual AAR and mass balance, we obtain the statistical property of AAR in the condition of mass balance equilibrium (AAR0) that is necessary for the current ice surface morphology to be in dynamic equilibrium with climate (Fig. 1). The ratio of the observed AAR to AAR0 yields the fractional imbalance () that quantifies the area perturbation required for the ice mass to equilibrate its shape to an imposed climate shift away from that associated with AAR0 (ref. 8). This disequilibrium approach exploits how climatically driven SMB perturbations are at least an order of magnitude faster than the associated dynamic adjustment of the ice mass14. The resulting derivation for the adjustment in ice volume (V) and committed eustatic SLR follows glaciological scaling theory relating the glacierized area change to ice volume perturbation using a power law function10 (Fig. 1) with exponent () (Methods).

While under the most up-to-date ice thickness and subglacial topography mapping15, Greenland’s current ice sheet configuration implies an area–volume scaling exponent of =1.24 that closely abides the theoretically derived value of 1.25 (ref. 10), we apply a linear exponent of 1 to avoid the mathematically intractable regional case in which some ice flux between adjacent flow sectors is inevitable. The choice of a linear exponent represents an absolute minimum committed loss, encompassing flow interaction between adjacent ice sheet sectors, since it accounts for how scaling techniques are best applied to ensembles of many ice masses10,16, which we accomplish by summing the volumes from 473 subregions of the ice sheet. While it is possible to scale the entire ice sheet with an exponent of 1.25, yielding volume changes roughly 20% higher than our results, this is an ill-posed inversion with potentially large random errors that grow exponentially with the size of the ice mass, a problem shared by both numerical models and scaling theory17. Our aggregate sums from many regions exploit the law of large numbers to dramatically reduce these errors10. As such, while an exponent of 1 underestimates the volume change for each region, such an approach guarantees a mathematically sound lower bound of the ice volume loss along with the resulting SLR while minimizing methodological errors.

While the method has previously only been applied to assess mountain glacier and ice cap disequilibria8,9,18, the theoretical basis and derivation of ice area–volume scaling analysis can be applied independently of size and area8,9,18. Hence, we apply the method to Greenland’s entire glacierized area through summing over sectors to obtain lower-bound estimates of its committed mass loss and SLR resulting from its imbalance with recent climate. We calculate ice disequilibrium for three reference climate scenarios applied in perpetuity: ‘recent’ (2000–2019 average) climate to determine Greenland’s already committed ice loss and then take the respective high- and low-melt years of 2012 and 2018 to assess potential future area and volume changes under extreme end-member climate states, with the proviso that no long-term reversal in climate warming trends are anticipated this century.

Because expanding deserts with increased flood and fire damage are not conducive to land productivity.

This warm period is warmer than anything humanity or any other existent species has survived.

This depends on the plant, how warm it is already, and what other things those plants need. More or less water, less fire, less competition with weeds that do want more warmth and more CO2 are three things that negatively affect land productivity under the current high greenhouse climate.

No mate. They're doing fine. Those ones that aren't under water or on fire.

Growing crops that require a warmer climate than the one outside the greenhouse.

You don't charge the last 20% on a road trip because the last 20% takes about as long as the first 80%.

You don't charge to 100% ever, because that means that the car drives less efficiently, since it can't do regenerative breaking.