Quote: Originally Posted by Curious Cdn
Why Do People Want to Refute Climate Change?
New research sheds light on how threat to the status quo shapes beliefs.
According to NASA, the evidence is incontrovertible that climate change is real and represents a serious threat. Based on studies in peer-reviewed scientific journals, they report that at least 97% of working climate scientists agree that "climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities". The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), "established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts" reports unequivocally that climate change has multiple negative impacts on the environment and is extremely likely to be caused by human-made greenhouse gases (go here for the Synthesis Report, IPCC, 2014).y
NASA succinctly presents the evidence for and impact of climate change: sea level rise, global temperature rise, warming oceans, shrinking ice sheets, declining arctic sea ice, glacial retreat, extreme [weather] events, ocean acidification, and decreased snow cover. The psychological effects of climate change have been an area of increasing concern for behavioral health researchers, and the American Psychological Association in collaboration with ecoAmerica report that in addition to negative effects on the environment and physical health, climate change is taking a toll on mental health, "due to trauma and distress due to personal injuries, loss of a loved one, damage to or loss of personal property or even the loss of livelihood," citing higher rates of PTSD, mood and anxiety disorders following natural disasters (Clayton et al., 2017).
Walnut doesn't like long posts as he loses control of the discussion and long detailed posts usually have a fact or two in them that runs the opposite way to what Walnut wants you to believe. He wants all posts to be as short and meaningless as his are.
While I don't agree with what your post covers it deserves to be read and commented on. If you could bold a few of the most important parts that would help in making a reply as short as possible. The 'list' is just to show that Walnut might be incapable of forming a reply but other posters can look at complex subjects and comment on them in a way that is 'logical', even if it points science is more fantasy than fact these days.
NASA is about space and animations, if they can make an animation that is 'evidence that it is also a fact'. If they can send something into orbit they can send a camera to the moon. If they didn't go to the moon then they never went to Mars either and the Devon Is. story id the 'factual one'.
"climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities"
Considering that CO2 is in minute quantities to start with you would have to explain the rise and fall of that same gas going back as far as records allow. You would then have to eliminate those as being 'causes' in this rise. Forest fires add how many 'cars to the formula'? The volcano in Hawaii added how muchCO2 to the air as well as the 40,000 miles of underwater rifts that let our the same amount of gas if not more.
If we stopped all CO2 emissions today and took a reading the amount might not even reverse itself but rise at a slower rate. If you take a reading in a large city the CO2 should be higher. If a reading is taken deep in a rain-forest the O2 reading should be about as high as you can find on the planet as we are not involved in adding O2 to the air.
If minute changes in a trace gas can cause global changes then why could minute changes in O2 not cause changes in us as that is a form of slow strangulation.
When you start looking into those areas you will make progress in understanding how this place works and how we fit in. Ice-age conditions should have seen more plants on the planet and that would mean O2 levels were higher and that would mean the large nose on Neanderthals would have been giving the brain lots of O2 so their brains were working as good as Tesla's did and the surplus food means they grew as large as possible so placing things like the Carnac Stones would have been what 1 person could move and the layout shows it was planned to show higher mathematical skills.
There is no data to show that an ice age that sees the ocean levels drop 400ft is an extinction level event, coming out of one could be one though as that would see the desert belt that circles the globe make a return and there goes 33% of the global food supply as the area the ice leaves does not grow as much food.
That adds up to we should be able to piece together how that comes about and plan to develop the places that will be able to grow 2 or 3 crops a year and abandon the areas that see too much frost to be able to even grow tubular crops. Manitoba would be the first to ice over and the American SW should be the first brown region to go green. See how the current predictions could be intentional bull-shit and all they have to do is throw their hands in the air are say they did their best. If their version of science is a house of cards then that is why 'progress' is so slow. Greed is more important that true knowledge, expensive being something not mentioned as robbery would have to enter the conversation and that would not be good for their side.
evidence for and impact of climate change:
- we barely got the data in as weather records for sailing ships and ports have not been added in not has local changes been factored in. We do have ice cores from Greenland and the Antarctic and other things that go back a long ways. Mud cores from the rifts to where the outflows meet would also be valuable and quite detailed as far as recording minor fluctuations over the last 200M years
sea level rise,
-an ice-age sees the ocean level drop 400ft, to get the water to evaporate is it warmer at the beach and colder once you are on a high hill or a mountain top?
global temperature rise,
- that is the end result, it does not cover the million years that it took the Siberian traps raise the 'global temp'. If the average was 7C then the lowest change was 5C and the highest was 10C, in 1 area 76^ of all life died and in the other it was 100% kill ration for all living things.
- the sun can only heat the surface water and the rate is how long it takes for water to cross the Atlantic and how much the water temp rises. That is gone in the same time once it starts to flow north. All the other heat added to the Atlantic comes from the Atlantic Rift over the last 200M years. Take the average temp today as being the change from molten Basalt and you have how many BTU's were released per year over that long of a period of time. That can be done on a global scale also.
shrinking ice sheets,
-in the mountains glaciers are said to be retreating but the ice-sheet behind it might be getting more snow than is being lost and the added height is feeling the effects of gravity and pushing out at the weakest spots, the fingers that are 'retreating'. On the coast the rifts would be expanding at a faster rate and that heat rises to heat the rocks under the ice as well as heat the air that is blowing over them. The US would see it as more storms as the water coming down from the UK is warmer than usual when it swings to the west so the sun's added heat is enough to pass the 80F temp mark.
declining arctic sea ice,
-an animation of the sea-ice using sat data will show the ice goes in a circle due to ocean currents. Sea-ice can grow so much and then when it comes past the NE side of Greenland some ice is sheered off and sent directly into the path of the Gulf Stream so it melts a lot faster than if it is on the other side of the island.
-already covered in part.
extreme [weather] events,
small changes at both ends of the sale make the transition more violent and more people are reporting event so it seems like things are getting worse when they have been bad for some time.
= we would need to ass something to the rivers to make then above ph 7.6, if the acid it coming from the rifts it is not something that can be stopped so we need to adapt.
and decreased snow cover.
= Less in BC is offset by more falling on Quebec. That is weather change and is neither warming or cooling. When the ice reaches Manitoba that is an 'ice-age'
I'll let you and Walnut get back to it.