More science - climate change is a lie!

[Kyle78]

O2??? I'm not a scientist, but isn't that oxygen? Plankton is producing more oxygen than the trees and other plants on the earth? I realize that the oceans make up most of the planet, but is there some scientific source showing that Plankton are the "big producers?" Also, with all the CO2 that we are supposedly producing, including through humans exhaling, doesn't that just give the plants more with which to produce oxygen?

Pretty much explains it all:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0607_040607_phytoplankton.html

 

[Kyle78]

Also you would think more CO2 would be great for the plants. In a way it is, but it's also acting as heat insulator. It's keeping heat inside the Atmosphere, instead of it venting back into space. Scientist have compared and noted that all plants are actually greener then they were 30+ years ago due to the rise of CO2 in the air. The big deal about climate change is it's happening in a very very very very short time span, instead of over a epoch. Animals including humans would be devastated by a raise of O2 in the air. It would be lethal, we couldn't change fast enough biologically to adapt to a increase.

 

[doctorjj]

Also you would think more CO2 would be great for the plants. In a way it is, but it's also acting as heat insulator. It's keeping heat inside the Atmosphere, instead of it venting back into space. Scientist have compared and noted that all plants are actually greener then they were 30+ years ago due to the rise of CO2 in the air. The big deal about climate change is it's happening in a very very very very short time span, instead of over a epoch. Animals including humans would be devastated by a raise of O2 in the air. It would be lethal, we couldn't change fast enough biologically to adapt to a increase.

There is absolutely nothing unique about the rate or magnitude of this recent change.

 

[farmerbyron]

Also you would think more CO2 would be great for the plants. In a way it is, but it's also acting as heat insulator. It's keeping heat inside the Atmosphere, instead of it venting back into space. Scientist have compared and noted that all plants are actually greener then they were 30+ years ago due to the rise of CO2 in the air. The big deal about climate change is it's happening in a very very very very short time span, instead of over a epoch. Animals including humans would be devastated by a raise of O2 in the air. It would be lethal, we couldn't change fast enough biologically to adapt to a increase.

If CO2 levels are an existential threat then why aren't climate change scientists bigger advocates for rapid expansion of nuclear energy? It is the most viable way to produce enough energy with zero emissions for modern life to exist. Their solutions of carbon taxes are very telling IMO.

 

[LightningCrash]

I know right? Gotta love it. lol

Rod Snell, thank you for your post. I've long held the "cliff notes take away" of your work. That is that we just don't matter on any measurable scale. Sure we can have a short term localized effect but the planet really doesn't even know we are here in reality. It has it's own "maintenance mechanisms" and we sure can't aid or deter them. One of many is the BP well blowout in the Gulf. They were screaming that the gulf would just literally die and today you can't even tell it ever happened. What happened to all that oil? The planet dealt with it, it's a naturally produced substance and it is native on this rock. I love to tell my liberal tree hugging family members the we could exterminate ourselves and virtually every mammal on the planet with a nuclear armageddon type event. Then in a few years the earth would just go back to doing what it does. And climate change would still exist but it wouldn't be man caused! They really don't like hearing that because they can't refute it. These two individuals have their PhDs from UC Berkley and are currently studying various evolution processes in avian and marine animals in Australia. It's great fun messing with those two!

BP blowout: In numbers, what was the effect on wildlife? What was rise or fall in the population of animals in the ocean or coast?

Short term localized effect: In numbers, how does what the planet does naturally compare to what man is doing?

 

[farmerbyron]

BP blowout: In numbers, what was the effect on wildlife? What was rise or fall in the population of animals in the ocean or coast?

Short term localized effect: In numbers, how does what the planet does naturally compare to what man is doing?

It's easy for humans to think they have a greater impact than they actually do. Especially when large numbers of humans live in close proximity to one another. You do not have to go very far outside city limits to see areas with far less human influence. Then you consider there are vast sections of this planet essentially untouched my human development (Alaska, Siberia, Sahara, Amazon forests, Australian outback, about 98% of the ocean, etc, etc). Plainly put the world is a pretty damn big place and we aren't nearly as important as we think we are. Our impact is marginalized by the relative size of human influence compared to the vastness of nature.

 

[briarcreekguy]

Are there more cows farting today than 100 years ago? Will there be more cows 20 years from? More cows=more cow farts=more methane

What about all those American Bison and antelope that used to roam the great plains in past, didn't they number in the millions and millions? Didn't they fart too? Just asking!

 

[Biggsly]

What about all those American Bison and antelope that used to roam the great plains in past, didn't they number in the millions and millions? Didn't they fart too? Just asking!

Pterodactyl farts were the worst ever.

 

[LightningCrash]

It's easy for humans to think they have a greater impact than they actually do. Especially when large numbers of humans live in close proximity to one another. You do not have to go very far outside city limits to see areas with far less human influence. Then you consider there are vast sections of this planet essentially untouched my human development (Alaska, Siberia, Sahara, Amazon forests, Australian outback, about 98% of the ocean, etc, etc). Plainly put the world is a pretty damn big place and we aren't nearly as important as we think we are. Our impact is marginalized by the relative size of human influence compared to the vastness of nature.

This is why I stopped to ask for numbers. If you say the gulf coast is back 100%, there should be evidence to support it, and not conjecture.

 

[farmerbyron]

This is why I stopped to ask for numbers. If you say the gulf coast is back 100%, there should be evidence to support it, and not conjecture.

I wouldn't say it's back to 100% but the ecosystem is certainly recovering. Check back in a decade and I'll bet you wouldn't know the difference.

Just a cursory google search turned up this story about seafood in NO. It was the most recent story I found on page 1. April 2014

http://www.nola.com/dining/index.ssf/2014/04/the_2010_gulf_of_mexico_oil_sp.html

Sounds like most seafood is back but at lower numbers than before the spill. One would expect that I would think. Just takes time to build up population numbers after a disaster.