Kansas Bill Would Require Teachers To Misinform Students About Climate Change

[one...two...tree 2,762]

If it is the warmest it has been in 1000 years, what was man doing back then to mess things up ?

If you understand how the earth maintains an overall temperate climate which has made it possible for mammals like us to thrive, then you should know that the earth has gone through cycles of warming and cooling. Those cycles, however, happen typically over tens to hundreds of thousands of years - meaning that the overall temperature of the earth would increase or decrease very gradually, allowing a reasonable amount of time for adaptability.

What we are facing today and why climate scientists are concerned about, is that the rate of increase is happening at a much more accelerated rate - less than 100 years as opposed to tens or hundreds of thousands of years. That's not enough time for plants and animals to adapt which will result in life as we know it to cease. Right now, they aren't hoping we're going to be able to reverse the damage. What they are proposing is that with doable reductions of carbon emissions over the next few decades, we can slow the rate of change that will be a bit more manageable, but even a 2 degree increase, we're going to see a lot of severe droughts, floods, disease, food scarcity which will cripple economies, and mass extinctions. Our younger generations will have to adapts to finding other food sources, moving to areas of the globe less susceptible to the volatile weather patterns and resource conservation. We have no choice. Those who continue to ignore what is before us are being willfully ignorant to consequences of this man-made acceleration of climate change.

[Karee 4,190]

Our younger generations will have to adapts to finding other food sources, moving to areas of the globe less susceptible to the volatile weather patterns and resource conservation. We have no choice.

Where will they be moving? I want to buy real estate there now while it's cheap.

[Teddy B 17,252]

Yeah, right, millions and millions! Come on, that does not now and never has passed the laugh test. There might somewhere be one or two moderate paying jobs dependent on someone accepting the theory of climate change but there are literally billions, maybe trillions of dollars yet to be made by those who must derail any action on climate change, at least by creating doubt and confusion. As to 'green' energy, that is something that will eventually be necessary in any case and the evidence is that it would create many jobs here. It would cost profits to the few and the ultra-rich though, so that is why they are getting you and many others drinking the kool-aid and congratulating each other on how smart you are for doing so!

It appears the one drinking the kool-aid here is you James.

[Teddy B 17,252]

If you understand how the earth maintains an overall temperate climate which has made it possible for mammals like us to thrive, then you should know that the earth has gone through cycles of warming and cooling. Those cycles, however, happen typically over tens to hundreds of thousands of years - meaning that the overall temperature of the earth would increase or decrease very gradually, allowing a reasonable amount of time for adaptability.

What we are facing today and why climate scientists are concerned about, is that the rate of increase is happening at a much more accelerated rate - less than 100 years as opposed to tens or hundreds of thousands of years. That's not enough time for plants and animals to adapt which will result in life as we know it to cease. Right now, they aren't hoping we're going to be able to reverse the damage. What they are proposing is that with doable reductions of carbon emissions over the next few decades, we can slow the rate of change that will be a bit more manageable, but even a 2 degree increase, we're going to see a lot of severe droughts, floods, disease, food scarcity which will cripple economies, and mass extinctions. Our younger generations will have to adapts to finding other food sources, moving to areas of the globe less susceptible to the volatile weather patterns and resource conservation. We have no choice. Those who continue to ignore what is before us are being willfully ignorant to consequences of this man-made acceleration of climate change.

It's funny how you start your post with the condescending "If you understood how this works" and then dive right into your own ignorance on this issue and preach it as if it were fact. The earth has faced MANY short term rises and falls in temperature, it happens all the time, the earth's climate is always changing. You don't need to look any further than the "new ice age" folly of the 70's for proof of this. It's this type of kneejerk reaction to climate change that alienates the rational thinker.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Teddy B

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's funny how you start your post with the condescending "If you understood how this works" and then dive right into your own ignorance on this issue and preach it as if it were fact. The earth has faced MANY short term rises and falls in temperature, it happens all the time, the earth's climate is always changing. You don't need to look any further than the "new ice age" folly of the 70's for proof of this. It's this type of kneejerk reaction to climate change that alienates the rational thinker.

Most people who dismiss the science of man-made climate change use the argument that the climate has always changed, but to make that false comparison shows that they probably don't have a grasp on the carbon cycle to begin with. We know that the burning of fossil fuels adds a tremendous amount of CO2 into the atmosphere and we know that prior to the Industrial Revolution, the carbon cycle was fairly stable. So what part of that are you dismissing? If you don't believe that all that CO2 being pumped into our atmosphere from fossil fuels could possibly warm the planet further than the carbon cycle did before the Industrial Revolution, then it sounds like you don't believe that CO2 is capable of remaining in the atmosphere and trapping solar heat.

Like I said about the theory of evolution - you could add pieces to the puzzle or throw out pieces that were once thought as 'links' to the chain, but the overall theory remains solid. That is also true with the theory of global warming. The denialists come in varying degrees - some accept that the earth is getting warmer right now, but can't accept that it is being accelerated by human activity, and then some dismiss it entirely.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Where will they be moving? I want to buy real estate there now while it's cheap.

Where and how much is the prediction part that is much less accurate. That's probably what most people who refuse to accept the science of climate change get worked up over. We know the polar ice caps are melting and eventually, coastal areas will no longer be inhabitable, but when and how much is difficult to predict with a great degree of accuracy. Some areas are going to go through severe droughts, while other areas will become flood plains. Based on the patterns so far, places like Alaska and Canada look to be your safest bests, for the next 30-40 years.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

from NASA:

There's nothing quite like historical photos of glaciers to show what a dynamic planet we live on. Alaska's Muir Glacier, like many Alaskan glaciers, has retreated and thinned dramatically since the 19th century. This particular pair of images shows the glacier's continued retreat and thinning in the second half of the 20th century. From 1941 to 2004, the front of the glacier moved back about seven miles while its thickness decreased by more than 2,625 feet, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center.

While historical photos like these show change over many decades, satellites are giving us a better understanding of how Earth's ice cover has changed in the more recent past. The satellite era, beginning in the 1970s, has given us a picture of accelerating ice changes in places like Alaska, Greenland and Antarctica, where the loss of land-based ice is contributing to global sea level rise.

Forty-six gigatons of ice from Alaskan glaciers was lost on average each year from 2003 to 2010. That's according to data from NASA's GRACE satellite, as analyzed by a team of scientists from the University of Colorado at Boulder. Their paper on global ice changes, as measured by GRACE, was published in Nature in February 2012.

For more on that study, visit: http://www.jpl.nasa....elease=2012-036

For more historical images of glaciers, visit http://nsidc.org/data/glacier_photo/ orhttp://climate.nasa....obal_ice_viewer

Photo credits: Photographed by William O. Field on Aug. 13, 1941 (left) and by Bruce F. Molnia on Aug. 31, 2004 (right). From the Glacier Photograph Collection. Boulder, Colorado USA: National Snow and Ice Data Center/World Data Center for Glaciology.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

from NASA:

The one on the right looks better.

[^_^ 5,021]

Looks like the end of an ice age. Cool! Warmer planet is better for life. This should really kickstart evolution. The greatest evolutionary spurts have always been during warm and moist periods of planetary history.

[Teddy B 17,252]

We know that the burning of fossil fuels adds a tremendous amount of CO2 into the atmosphere and we know that prior to the Industrial Revolution, the carbon cycle was fairly stable.

Yet the planet earth still went through warming and cooling cycles even with that stable carbon cycle. Amazing isn't it?

Edited February 21, 2013 by Teddy B

[^_^ 5,021]

Yet the planet earth still went through warming and cooling cycles even with that stable carbon cycle. Amazing isn't it?

Teach Mr. Mullet about the tides next. He probably thinks it's the big bad corporate masters regulating how much sea water we get!

[Teddy B 17,252]

[quote name=' timestamp='1361466933' post='5994886]

Looks like the end of an ice age. Cool! Warmer planet is better for life. This should really kickstart evolution. The greatest evolutionary spurts have always been during warm and moist periods of planetary history.

Shouldn't talk like this be in the adult section?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

[quote name=' timestamp='1361466933' post='5994886]This should really kickstart evolution. The greatest evolutionary spurts have always been during warm and moist periods of planetary history.

Evolution? That's been relegated to the same bucket of fake science as global warming. By the same people.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Yet the planet earth still went through warming and cooling cycles even with that stable carbon cycle. Amazing isn't it?

Yes, it is amazing how our atmospheric climate has remained fairly stable for millions of years and that only a few degrees change in temperature stretched out over hundreds of thousands of years can bring about dramatic change.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Lincolns mullet

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Prior to 1750, the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide had been relatively stable between 260 and 280 ppm for 10,000 years. Perturbations of the carbon cycle from human activities were insignificant relative to natural variability. However, since 1750, the concentration ofcarbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen, at an increasing rate, from around 280 ppm to nearly 380 ppm in 2005. The increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration results from human activities: primarily burning of fossil fuels and deforestation, but also cement production and other changes in land use and management such as biomass burning, crop production and conversion of grasslands to croplands. While human activities contribute to climate change in many direct and indirect ways, carbon dioxide emissions from human activities are considered the single largest anthropogenic factor contributing to climate change. (reference)