Why people don't believe in climate science

Post Reply New Topic

Yes. The North American megafauna were already suffering severe stresses (we don't know what exactly, but their numbers dropped - and it wasn't anthropogenic because we weren't around) a few thousand years before the cooling. They then stabalised, before being wiped out within a few generations of the warming. Obviously we can't say for certain that the warming was related to the extinctions.

It was also a stressful time for Eurasian wildlife, but they kept going extinct for a thousand years after the warming, so it seems unlikely the warming contributed to extinctions for many of them.

Obviously, I was not talking about the present day, but rather 11,500 years ago. However, I think you would be surprised how many species are considered threatened.

Here's a good link for what will happen region by region in the US:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/impacts-adaptation/

Since it will be warmer, there will be less mountain snows which will cause streams to have less water in them which could lead to drought conditions. Places that are used to getting run off from melting snow will get less of it.

It is projected there will be conflicts in the southwestern region regarding water rights.

Another thing that hasn't been discussed - the oceans are one of the areas that act as carbon sinks, capturing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and having it sink to the ocean floor. With higher levels of carbon dioxide, the ocean won't stop capturing, it will simply capture more but it cannot capture enough. What it does capture will cause the water to change at a rate too fast for many ocean dwelling organisms to adapt which will cause them to perish.

It is not a question of if, or might. Keeping the planet from getting two degrees warmer in a hundred years, when it has gotten two degrees warmer in the Southeast in the last forty years.

All panic when CO2 reaches 400ppm, but Methane is bubbling up from arctic sea beds, permafrost, at a rate that can double that in a year. Methane is a much better greenhouse gas, and breaks down into h2o and co2.

What we are hearing, Industry and Government saying they can manage the problem. They caused the problem, knew it at the time, and pushed the problem on to the future. That future has arrived. Governments response is making the Police part of the Military.

Good sense is lacking.

We now have to adapt to a runaway climate.

The industry plan is develop drought resistant seed, then buy up the land when everything else fails. Those who do not sell can share crop.

Future demand for A/C will increase, with less objection to dirty coal.

Water is being rapidly privatized.

The people who caused this problem also have a plan to profit from it.

Fisheries has reduced most species to 10% of what they were. We could pay people to not fish. The link OanaO posted said fishing is a $1.3 Billion industry. For a Billion a year, the catch could be reduced by 2/3.

Florida has banned nets. Hook and line still brings fish to the local market, but sport fishing tourists spend Billions. Fish stocks are increasing.

Bottom fishing nets catch everything, then grind it up for fish meal, which is used for animal feed. This is the base of the life system of the ocean. Ban it and the other fish can recover.

Down here we pay people to not grow rice, who then grow soybeans. If we are going to pay farmers to not produce, we could pay them to grow cover crops, that capture Carbon, then plow them under. It improves the soil, aids in holding water, and we are already spending the money. There is only so much cropland, improving it makes sense.

Our State lines are ill defined. A hundred yard forest planted along them would lay out the map from the sky. Fifty yards out of each State, not much, overall, a huge windbreak. A mile would be better. A Public Works Project, lay irrigation pipelines, from the Great Lakes, the Mississippi, water the borders. More could be done within States.

The water will go into the ground and air, the effect will reach far.

Anything, the results will take many years, might be lost to a declining climate, but will slow and buffer the change. The best time to plant a tree was twenty years ago, the second best time is today.

While oil prices have nothing to do with reality, when Bush the Younger took office it was $13 a barrel. We now have a surplus. Turning corn into fuel is a money losing deal. For less money that land could be capturing Carbon, and improving. Farmers are not making the big bucks, they might make a few cents on a loaf of bread. Arkansas, they report income of less than $50 an acre. We can pay them to grow Carbon.

For all the talk, reports, studies, TV programs, there is very little actual effort.

Government, and their friends in Industry, seem to be the problem.

Or you are simply trying to imply you didn't confuse ozone with greenhouse effect, as bait.

See Raptor, I don't care what you get your rocks off to, or whatever gets it up for you. If this is it, I'm happy to oblige, it doesn't bother me. So sure knock yourself out.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 20 Apr 2015, 1:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

That isn't strictly true, there's no oxygen in methane. It forms those when it combusts.

Won't happen. Can't happen.

Higher levels of greenhouse gases means, at most, higher equilibrium points. Instead of running away, we'll just have a new "equilibrium".

The EPA is about as biased an organization as you will ever find. To them, reacting to Global Warming just means more power.

There are many species considered threatened, but I think that is overwhelmingly due to man's encroachment on their habitat, not to climate.

You sure have that correct. Even worse, it uses up enormous amounts of groundwater to grow the corn. It is not at all sustainable. To make it worse, when it does rain, very, very little of it gets down to the water table in my area. Between the Ogallala and the surface is a thick layer of caliche that is rather impervious to water. Replenishing it to what it was before we started massively irrigating could take millions of years.

For what it's worth, we stopped irrigating crops on the family farm about 35 years ago. Since then, everything (but the garden) is grown without irrigation. Obviously, we don't grow corn.

As an autistic person I hate this, but every future prediction in any realm is a matter of if. I have seen soooo many sure things not happen.

We passed if. Worldwide 0.3C over the last hundred and twenty years, but the Southeast is Two degrees hotter, in the last forty years, and the Arctic is a lot hotter, and that is where the Methane is being released.
There is a lot of Methane.

Long term I have said it is cooling, The Holocene has been warmer, Rome was warmer, the Medieval Period was warmer, we are hardly above the Little Ice Age, but we are seeing a short term climate spike.

CO2 does not cover it all. it is warming faster than CO2 would account for. CO2 seems the cover story, we know what is wrong and we can fix it. It was all those computers on the Internet.

Math says not enough CO2 to cause the warming, and geologic history says in the past, the warming came before the CO2 rose.

All the speculation about cycles caused by weird Earth orbits, Solar output, we see no evidence, but it is warming.

Normal climate is three miles of ice, over millions of years, and short interglacial periods where some heat source melts all that ice. It takes a lot of heat to melt enough ice to raise sea level 440 foot. No one has ever accounted for that heat. No evidence supports Earth moving closer to the Sun, the Sun getting hotter, so we must look elsewhere.

The reversal of the magnetic field might fit. The weight of the ice depressed the crust at least hundreds of feet, it is still rebounding. The crust is twenty to thirty miles thick and floats on the liquid mantel. The ice was around the north pole, so as the top third of the planet rebounds, it draws in liquid mantel below. That stuff is hot. Like the ocean, the mantel also has currents, upwellings that cause hot spots, volcanos, Yellowstone, and this rush of molten rock north as the crust rebounds is moving some heat around.

Also, it is drawing mantle from farther south, which was supporting Plates. Most of this is what just got 440 foot of water added. Rebounding in the north, pressed in the middle, magma migration and earthquakes.

Just magma in motion is going to stir up deeper hotter layers, and the mechanical force of movement, would produce a heat migration to the poles. Antarctica is seeing ice melting, very old ice, from the bottom, due to warm current rising from the bottom. The Arctic is warming faster than CO2 could account for. It is what would be expected from magma migration.

There are currents in the magma, it moves plates and subducts them. Some plumes rise and melt through thirty miles of crust, and come out as a volcano. All of the land around the Arctic Circle down to Chicago is rising, and that is a lot of magma flowing in.

Methane plumes coming from The East Siberian Shelf, a large landmass that was above sea level during the ice, and directly in the path of The Muck, a deep organic layer deposited around the Arctic by wind, very powerful wind, are now under several hundred foot of very cold water. The ice may be melting, a surface effect, but that would not heat the ocean bottom for a long time.

The bottom is being heated and Methane plumes are common, spreading, increasing. Heated from below fits the facts.

CO2 heating the air, melting surface ice, more exposed water absorbing more heat does not account for heating frozen muck two hundred foot down.

There was a long term Mesolithic settlement on the Arctic shore in Russia. Currently it is above the Arctic Circle. Did they really live with six months of day and night? Is it possible the location was not above the Arctic Circle then?

We need to step up our Science Game. We have been doing this for what, a hundred years?

I can't figure out how it can be true that it is warming faster than CO2 would account for. It seems to me that the models trying to predict the warming from increasing CO2 mostly seem to wildly overestimate the amount of warming. For the claim that it is warming faster than CO2 would account for should require that those models to be vastly underestimating the amount of warming.

The reality is, of course, that the models are based on what CO2 does in a pristine laboratory environment, not in the real and rather chaotic conditions in our atmosphere.

Also, there are a number of greenhouse gases. By far the most abundant greenhouse gas and the one with the most influence is water vapor.



What math?



The most common climate for the Earth has been one with no ice other than perhaps temporary seasonal ice. Ice ages are not the norm even though we have been in one for more than two and a half million years.



The notion of a role by the possible (hardly definite) future reversal of the magnetic field doesn't fit anything.

You are correct that the massive amounts of ice during the last glacial period depressed the crust and it is still rebounding, but I think that you have the cause and effect backwards. The lower weight where there was once ice is pushing up because of the magma beneath -- it is not drawing magma by rebounding.



Cites?



For Antarctica, there are places where the crust is thinner and naturally sees more heat from beneath. That has nothing to do with Global Warming, though.

As for the Arctic, what evidence is there that it is warming faster than CO2 can account for. Considering that you have the Arctic Ocean and the currents of water, how do you isolate how much of the very limited warming from beneath the crust is having on the ice floating on top of the water?

I suspect that your confusion is that the average temperature is not going to be constant everywhere. From what I understand, the amount of warming at the equator is expected to be relatively minimal and that the further from the equator, the greater the warming. The average is just that -- an average. That the poles could warm several degrees while the equator could hardly warm at all does not mean that it is warmer than CO2 can account for. The warming is an average, not an expected value at every latitude and situation.



The rise is quite slow because the magma is so viscous. If the ice age were to end now, the post glacial rebound would continue for thousands of years.



Cites? Any such heat loss is going to be very little affected by CO2 or by Global Warming. The rates of heat loss at today should closely match the rates over a very long (geological) time.



Are you suggesting that ten thousand or so years ago, the site may have been far away? There is absolutely no reason to believe that the plates move more than something like an inch a year. In twelve thousand years, that motion probably would not exceed 1,000 feet. That is hardly enough to make much difference in the length of day or night. How much difference is there in the length of day and night between your home and a home 1,000 feet north or south?

Also, six months of day and night is a gross misstatement. They don't have a six month day followed by a six month night. Rather, as the Earth moves around the sun, the length of the day and night changes (except at the equator itself) and the amount of change differs based on latitude.

At the equator, there should be 12 hour days and 12 hour nights year around. In Hawaii, the length of the day varies between about 10 and 14 hours depending on the season. As you move further north, the variation in the length of the day changes more and more dramatically. On the Isle of Man, the day is long enough in late May and early June it is bright enough at 5 am that they used to have practice sessions for the Isle of Man TT about that early in the morning. At the Arctic Circle, the length of the day should vary from something like 4 hours in the winter to 20 hours in the summer. When you get the poles, there will be a period of time in the summer which the day is 24 hours and in the winter when the night is 24 hours. Between those times it will vary between the two over time and for a couple of times a year, they will have 12 hour days and 12 hour nights.

I urge you to take a tour of Tar Creek Superfund Site before deciding anything about the EPA. I would urge anyone to take a look and find out more about it, in person. It is something we should all know and see. I think it pays to see something like that in person to get an idea of just how destructive industry can be when you cannot separate government and industry.

Are you claiming that a cleanup at a superfund site somehow magically makes them less biased?

Biased against who and what and why? It is up to you and I to keep them from being biased. The quickest way to corruption is when big business buys politicians and uses government orgs like the EPA as extensions of themshelves. If you truly want to be sure they are not biased then keep big business out of their ranks because all big business wants is to make more money and to pass the costs onto everyone else. There needs to be a governing body that will slap them back when they need it.

Take a look at history. Look at one example, Nazi Germany. Nazis and industry were pretty much arm and arm. When government and industry team up and merge into one entity, trouble is inevitable.

Yes, generally the big issues are habitat loss, invasive species, and pollution, but climate change is becoming an increasing problem.

This is absolute balderdash. It's possibly the worst thing I've ever seen you post. The evils of Nazi Germany were not caused by Hitler's support for industry. Their support for Coca Cola didn't make them kill Jews.