FORMER climate student, and prolific contributor to the letters page, Glenda Carroll argues, in reply to Doctor Clare Rudkin (QT 11/18) that Australia's contribution to climate change is too small to worry about.
But Mrs Carroll also says her studies show climate change at human hands is indeed possible.
Any chance of an opinion on an article which supports that claim?
Some years ago, The New Scientist magazine published a finding that, as the Russian rivers which drained into the Arctic Ocean were progressively dammed for diversion to irrigation, the fresh water that naturally flooded into that ocean would no longer be available to float there in a thin layer and freeze, as it would do normally.
As a result, less fresh water ice would form to reflect the heat of the sun, and the darker salt ocean would then absorb more heat than normal and so warm up.
Giving an outcome for the present Arctic heating that is not a result of the burning of fossil fuels.
So humans can change the climate, in a short time?
Surely, then, Australians can "think globally" on environment issues, such as the warming Arctic discussed by Dr Rudkin, and still "act locally".
No matter how small and insignificant Mrs Carroll might imagine any such activity on an actual island continent might do to change the local climate for the better?
She'll be right, then, Glenda?