Not exact matches
This is where a
global shift can
really occur: on the ground.
Here's the problem with that analysis — KXL isn't
really a level
shift in the supply curve, and thus the authors don't actually make the case for there to be any
global price effect associated with the pipeline.
What made him
shift his focus to climate issues was the state of
global climate: «I think it's
really important for us to understand how serious the stakes are now given we've made no progress on this for the last 20 years.
The Slow Movement is a
really interesting website that addresses issues of «time poverty» and supports a «growing
global shift toward slowing down.»
Once upon a time women feeding their babies was visible in our communities and while we're
shifting that way now thanks to the
global village of the internet, we still don't
really see it regularly and not all that up close and personal.
I mentioned that my biggest challenge has been
shifting from a local to a
global perspective, and I've
really struggled with that and would reiterate that, in terms of «how indie publishing has been for me.»
Note that the last regime
shift fits with when things
really began to turn down in the
global economy.
The authors of the Nature study (Thomas et al.) did a fine job with the 2004 paper — I
really don't find it at all hard to imagine that drastic
shifts in climate — with regional variations far exceeding the
global average — will force species and populations to adjust.
My main point
really was that the understanding of the GCMs in this respect is poor enough, that we can't rule out a flattening of the
global mean temperature trend being caused by these
shifts in demographics.
Some climate «skeptics» have suggested explanations as to why their interpretation of
global warming shown in Figure 1 is actually the correct one, arguing that
global warming is
really just a «step function» caused by natural cycles and «climate
shifts.»
(The only one I can think of, by the only
really solidly qualified contrarian, Lindzen, who also claimed that tobacco wasn't linked to lung cancer, came up with an Iris theory that has been thoroughly repudiated (recent studies have in fact continued to strongly show increased atmospheric moisture), but his theory of a significant enough decrease to keep the earth from significantly warming at the same time this radical
shift toward lack of
global cloud cover (and far more drought everywhere?)
When
really, all of the ongoing discovery, individually, is secondary to (if that), and all of it together only further corroborates, the basic climate change concept — a radical
shift in the atmosphere's heat re radiation will ultimately likely lead to a radical or at least major
shift in
global climate — and the reasons for it, which haven't
really changed for several decades.
Is 100 years
really «long term» in terms of
global climate
shift patterns?
And then, she ends up by focusing on the big
global public and private Internet companies, and it's
really — there's a couple slides in there talking about how — the value in the market, and how that's changed over the years, and how that
shifted over to technology and Internet companies.