From what I read, the Earth’s increasing temperature, even as small as 1 degree C, causes a chain of events that will continue to make the threat of wildfires increasingly dangerous. Here are some articles, that I think are rather balanced, that discuss this problem.

https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/global-warming-fueling-increased-wildfire-risks

https://phys.org/news/2018-08-ten-ways-climate-wildfires-worse.html

https://www.usgs.gov/faqs/will-global-warming-produce-more-frequent-and-more-intense-wildfires

 

I'm not a "climate denier" or anything. I hate that term, btw, but I believe that mankind has an impact on our environment. Positive and/or negative. It's not like 7.5 billion people using energy the way we do has zero consequences.

But I also look at the hysteria and the misleading claims put forth by so many who support the climate change narrative. All of the predictions that did not come to pass. All of the fear-mongering. Altering data and misleading people into believing that our situation is more desperate than it actually is. Leonardo DiCaprio and all of these entertainers championing for Mother Earth when a camera is pointed in their face, and then they fly off to Rome or France on a private jet. Al Gore buying carbon credits so he can continue to pollute.... but do so with a clear conscience. 15 years ago, activists predicted that over 2 dozen glaciers in Alaska would have completely melted by 2020... Now it's 2020 and all of them are still around and they have hardly receded.

30 years ago, the environmentalists told us that paper bags were killing our forests!!! Use plastic bags because they can be REUSED!!! Now that script as flipped and we have to use paper bags because plastic bags are the DEVIL. Pick a goddamn lane, people!

Is Miami going to be under water in 10 years as AOC claims? Where's the "scientific data" that supports the claim? When that doesn't happen, what is going to be the next scare tactic that is used?

No wonder so many people are skeptical or are "climate deniers". There's a lot of good, honest people out there who do care, and they would care a lot more if they weren't being manipulated and guilt-tripped every time they used a plastic straw or ate a Ribeye.

 

I understand your confusion. All the articles, from different sources, have slightly different prognostications, but there seemed to be a central theme. Higher temperatures dry out the soil, trees and other vegetation making them tinder when naturally occurring or man made fires ignite them leading to bigger fires that last longer and destroy larger areas.

The wet areas becoming wetter and the dry areas drier seemed some what contradictory alright so I tried to find out what was meant. Here's what I read:

"With climate change, the water cycle is expected to undergo significant change. For example, a warmer climate causes more water to evaporate from both land and oceans; in turn, a warmer atmosphere can hold more water – roughly four percent more water for every 1ºF rise in temperature. Changes like this are expected to lead to specific, and in many cases negative, consequences. Some parts of the U.S. – in particular, the Northeast and Midwest – can expect increased precipitation and runoff, especially in winter and spring, leading to increased flooding. Other areas – notably the Southwest – can expect less precipitation, especially in the warm months, and longer, more severe droughts as storm tracks shift northward leaving arid areas increasingly dry.

The form that precipitation takes is also subject to change in response to warming: climate projections for many regions of North America suggest less snow, overall, and more rain. In areas dependent on the gradual melting of snowpack to supply surface water through the warm months, this means lower flows and greater water stress in summer – a trend already in evidence in parts of the western U.S. While the effects of climate change on groundwater are not fully understood, rising water competition and stress at the surface are likely to drive greater use – and overuse – of this resource."

I'm not sure that really explains it to a novice, like myself, but it seems like a solid recipe for a very unpleasant environment sometime in the (perhaps near) future.

I don't believe scientists in general have a particular agenda and if they're convinced the data seems to be headed in a certain direction, I tend to believe they know what they're talking about. I think I'll take their word over your average John Q. Public who can't see beyond their own front yards but that's me.

As regards your last paragraph, the Earth’s atmosphere may indeed be on a warming cycle naturally but mankind doesn’t need to exacerbate the process. Can we do anything about it? I know we were able to reverse ozone damage by banning CFCs but it took some time. Economies are always changing but I think we can adapt. Some industries will go by the wayside, always have, but new ones will take their place.

 

That was true of Minnesota:

http://www.startribune.com/even-by-minnesota-standards-2019-was-a-wild-weather-year/566657551/

And we're on track already to break that record again this year.

I drive over the bridge of the Mississippi every day, and that is just barely below flood stage even now - many roads close to the river had to be closed from Spring through most of the Summer due to flooding. It won't take much to flood again once things start melting and the rains start.

 

I hadn't realized the Mississippi ran the length of the U.S.

 

Mmmmmmmm Ribeye.

 

I’m only going to say that I challenge your assertion that Alaskan glaciers have “hardly receded”. They may not be gone yet but they’re going.





The Mendenhall glacier is thought to have retreated about a half mile (or 660 meters) in the last 20 years. Glacierchange.org shares a fascinating image of the glacier's terminus, documenting its visual retreat in just the last three years.
THERESA SOLEY, Contributing Writer, Alaska Campgrounds





The pics from Exit Glacier are pretty revealing too. I’m sure there are many others. It’s been pretty well documented.

 

To learn more about melting glaciers, or as my hubs would say, “who the hell got her started on this?”, you can read the following:

https://nsidc.org/cryosphere/glaciers/quickfacts.html (Use the side bar to go down to Glaciers and climate change)

http://extremeicesurvey.org/why-do-glaciers-matter/

 

There's over 600 glaciers in Alaska. I don't recall stating that ALL OF THEM were hardly receding. So maybe you're misunderstanding whatever you think my assertion was.

In fact, there are several glaciers that are receding at a very slow rate (much slower than analysts had predicted from 20-30 years ago- which is the true essence of the point that I am making) and there are at least 8 glaciers that are currently increasing in size.

https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/fs-001-03/

Now, I'm not sure if you've ever been to Alaska, but I have. Dozens of times. I've seen a lot of glaciers with my own two eyes because I've traveled ALL OVER THAT DAMN STATE because my parents are nuts and they think they are G-D tour guides!! lol

I've visited Exit Glacier numerous times. They have wooden markers staked out along the trail as people make their way toward the glacier which indicate where the glacier was at certain periods in time. There's no question that this glacier has receded but there's a lot they've gotten wrong. They had to remove and re-post the signs for where they thought it would be almost every year since 2002.

My mother has a picture of Mrs. Jama and I sitting on the edge of the glacier (in a section that is relatively safe for people to walk about). This pic was taken in 1995, and there's a sign that says that the glacier will continue to recede by 50 feet a year on average. Now while it has retreated and was retreating at that rate for a few years, it slowed down considerably since 2002. We visited Exit Glacier most recently back in 2016 and it looked like it maybe had retreated about the length of a football field (300 feet). About one-third of what their prediction was when I first visited.

 

Interesting. Your response made me look into the situation more closely. What I found, and that I didn’t know before, was that there are many types of glaciers. Going back to the National Snow & Ice Data Center article I previously cited, I went to “types” and was surprised there were so many. Exit is an example of a Valley Glacier while Hubbard is a Tidewater Glacier. Tidewater glaciers apparently are not sensitive to the climate while advancing and retreating, unlike others. So it’s complicated, lol, and that’s on me.

But given the situation at large, despite some exceptions to the rule, the consensus of the scientific community is that the many glaciers that are receding at what is considered an alarming rate isn’t a good sign.

I have traveled somewhat....Hawaii (three islands), Europe (five countries), Mexico (Yucatán peninsula & Cozumel), three Caribbean islands, parts of Eastern Canada and as many places as I can in the lower 48. Alaska has not been one of them to my dismay. I have been pushing to get there, for one because I wanted to see the glaciers before they disappeared. I’m happy to hear that I most likely will see some before that happens!

*Glaciers are a topic that I’ve got to read more about.

 

Scientific evidence > anecdotal observations

It's like the people that see more yard signs and they think that means that particular candidate will win. It snowed one day in Washington D.C. and that clown Senator Inhofe brought a snowball into the Senate to "prove" that climate change was a farce.

You see the same thing going on with the anti-vax people and now we're having previously contained diseases back on the rise.

What's crazy though is that we should all want a cleaner environment and a healthier society. But everything has become so warped.

 

The reason why you're never bringing the coal industry back no matter what lies you tell coal miners is that virtually every coal-burning plant in the USA had already switched over to natural gas or other sources. They would have to pay MILLIONS to switch back.

That was over before it started.

However Trump has damaged the solar and wind industries through his policies, and it will take a long time to get that business back. Other countries will continue to develop and manufacture those energy sources and we will be left behind.

 

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...helved-after-trump-panel-tariff-idUSKCN1J30CT

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/po...ndmill-hatred-worry-booming-industry-n1060206