Why people don't believe in climate science

Post Reply New Topic

If you read that link I sent, you will find out, evaporation of soil moisture (leading to drought and arid conditions, generally) is one of the "very likely" results of climate change.

Lack of soil moisture has plagued the Western US for years now.

Like right now, the wind is blowing like mad outside and even though it just rained a couple hours ago, since the wind is blowing so dang hard, the soil is going to lose a lot of moisture very quickly. Wind is one of the things that causes soil to lose moisture and since climate change, windy days could possibly increase, meaning more of them with faster wind speeds, on average, which would mean it is easier for moisture to evaporate out of the soil even with rainy days. See? There are many factors at play. When the soil holds less moisture, land is more prone to burn in wildfires and crops need more irrigation.

Last edited by ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo on 19 Apr 2015, 5:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

The term drought refers to a lack of rainfall. And a lack of soil moisture is brought about by the lack of rainfall, not the other way around. In fact, in every drought I'm familiar with, the soil gets drier.

And if your link says that the evaporation of soil moisture causes a drought, then I'm very glad I didn't waste the time to read such a work of pure nonsense.

Yes, it can lead to drought and less rain, AND hotter summers. We have battled drought in this state for years now and on the weather I have heard about drought conditions from SCIENTISTS many times, too many to count and one thing they mention over and over is soil moisture and how quickly it evaporates because you see, this makes rainfall obsolete in some cases. It is like it never happened.
It leads to a cycle.
Weather is very complicated. It's not just a matter of no rain. It's also, how fast does the moisture evaporate out of the soil? That is a very big deal.

So you can scoff at me and say what I claim is not right all you want but it is not going to change FACTS about climate change. Facts that are unfolding before our eyes as I type this. Facts we are living in this state, and others, everyday. It's not going to change them.

Last edited by ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo on 19 Apr 2015, 5:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Are you often confused with the difference between cause and effect?

You are obviously in denial but you need to take into account these windy days and how they affect recent rainfall and soil conditions because this is going to impact crop production, surface water and aquifers because when rain is scarce and soil is dry, that's when aquifers shrink.

And, also, take into account soil moisture levels, dryer air, hotter summers and how this keeps rain clouds from forming.
When there is abundant moisture in the soil, summers are cooler and if you want to negate that, take it up with the head meteorologists at KFOR and KWTV.

If dry soil causes drought, then with all the agricultural irrigation around here, we should be getting plenty of rain.

We aren't.

I may be wrong, but I think I read that meteorologists attribute California's drought to a rather persistent high pressure over the Pacific Ocean that changes the path of the storms that would have led to rain or snow.

Could there be some small influence from drier soil? Possibly. But that is far from sufficient to cause a drought.

By the way, I misspoke earlier. The term drought refers to insufficient rainfall, not a lack of rainfall. One can actually have a few pretty good rainfalls and still be in a drought.

You should be very concerned about the amount of moisture in the soil. Take a desert, for instance. It has very hot days, cooler, to sometimes below freezing nights. Soil moisture is very very low to almost non existent. You know what it's like there.

Deserts get rainfall but it's like it never happens. Usually it causes flash flooding and the rain runs off quickly into washes that stay dry most the year.

You focus on rainfall but please think about WIND SPEED and frequency. That has FAR more impact. That will take the moisture out of the soil at a relatively rapid rate.

Right now the wind is blowing at 23 mph and although it doesn't seem like much it is very windy outside. If I were to water my yard right now, I would just be wasting water with that wind blowing and it's the same with crop irrigation. You have several day with wind around 25 mph and it's like you never watered the crop and when you have a long, hot summer with very little rain, lots of wind, irrigation doesn't have much impact so you can't say it puts moisture back into soil under such conditions. This is what we are up against with climate change. Imagine more and more days like that, lots of wind, very little rain. Pretty soon, the humidity will be lowered due to lack of moisture in the soil. When humidity is low, even when there's storm systems, the likelihood of them causing storms lessens.

Think about this neat idea! What if, everyone decided they were going to rely on bikes more, not for everything but for some things, more than they rely on them at the present time? What if manufacturers made them more functional, so people could pedal them easily, and they could carry more than one person as in rickshaws that could easily be converted into something that could carry not only passengers, but also sacks of groceries or other shopping?
Of course, there are some things you need the car, pickup or SUV for, like longer trips, but what if the majority of people used bikes for shorter trips? Not only would they get more exercise, their stress level would decrease AUTOMATICALLY and immediately. Life would be so much more enjoyable and so much less stressful. Pollution would be significantly cut. People would have a much more rewarding experience, they would feel more connected with others, not sealed off in their vehicles.

If the majority of people took advantage of this method of transportation, so there were far fewer autos on the road, there would be an instant decrease in auto accidents. I would hope people wouldn't injure themselves on bikes because, of course, you know how the government would retaliate - by charging an fortune for bike insurance.

So people would have to be careful but most adults are. It's mostly kids that would take risks on bicycles.

Think of all the money that would be saved, no gas to buy, no oil, less expensive auto maintaining. You would still need insurance if you kept the SUV in the garage for longer trips.

This way you wouldn't deprive people of their SUVs and other motor vehicles entirely which we all know is everyone's worst nightmare realized, you would just give them an opportunity to improve their lives by relying on bicycles more than they do now. I think it's a great idea and would be a very positive change in the lives of many.

I can't believe you took the bait.
Well, I guess I shouldn't be too surprised.....

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".