Climate Change - The Simple Argument

[Coloradomtnman]

Climate Change, Global Warming, man-made or not, what does it matter? It doesn't.

Here is the simplest way I can think to put forth the argument:

Just for the sake of argument let's say all of the science, all of the scientists, all of those who agree that global warming is happening and/or is man-made are right, and we as the human race don't make drastic changes to slow or stop global warming (and other looming environmental disasters) then in a few decades our children and grandchildren will live in a wasteland where a gallon of water costs $20. Many species of animals that have existed for thousands and even millions of years will no longer be seen in the wild or may even be totally extinct. Outside of 30 latitudinal degrees of either of the poles and below 20,000 feet in elevation snow will no longer fall or maybe even exist. And the offspring of our grandchildren will live in a world that is polluted, without wilderness, and rife with wars over dwindling resources and think back to how nice it must've been in the 20th Century while they eat food manufactured in a factory. And they're grandchildren might grow up in dying world while the human race, as well as most life on Earth, resolutely face extinction. That could happen. We don't know. But research shows that it is a potentiality.

Now let's say all of the science, all of the scientists, all of those who agree that global warming is happening and/or is man-made are wrong. But we change our policies to use less fossil fuel, to put less greenhouse gases into the air, to stop polluting the atmosphere and using sustainable methods to produce energy, for transportation, for food production, for use of water resources, and instituting a global fight against poverty, etc. etc. Then decades from now our descendents will live in a cleaner, greener world with less disease, famine, and poverty. We'll give our race the time to develop into more advanced civilizations and leave an honorable legacy for offspring and the world a better place than we found it.

Are you willing to take that bet for short-term economic stability, comfort, and unwillingness to make personal choices that reduce your impact on the environment? Because if we don't and we lose that bet....

So which is it?

A) Change and stop or slow global warming and/or live in a better world; or

B) Not change and potentially ruin the world or, at the very least, not leave it better than we came into it?

 

[auditor0007]

I choose option C.

 

[manu1959]

The Modern Temperature Trend

this one of the better articles i have read.....and one of the more interesting paragraphs that makes it difficult to claim that man and it's built environment does not affect temperature.....

One source of confusion was increasingly debated. Weather watchers had long recognized that the central parts of cities were distinctly warmer than the surrounding countryside. In urban areas the absorption of solar energy by smog, black roads and roofs, along with direct outpouring of heat from furnaces and other energy sources, created an "urban heat island" effect. This was the most striking of all human modifications of local climates. It could be snowing in the suburbs while raining downtown.(19) Some people pushed ahead to suggest that as human civilization used ever more energy, in a century or so the direct output of heat could be great enough to disturb the entire global climate.(20) If so, that would not happen soon, and for the moment the main consequences were statistical.

Some experts began to ask whether the warming reported for the decades before 1940 had been an illusion. Most temperature measurements came from built-up areas. As the cities grew, so did their local heating, which might have given a spurious impression of global warming.(21*) Callendar and others replied that they were well aware of urban effects, and took them fully into account in their calculations. Mitchell in particular agreed that population growth could explain the "record high" temperatures often reported in American cities — but it could not explain the warming of remote Arctic regions.(22*) Yet the statistical difficulties were so complex that the global warming up to 1940 remained in doubt. Some skeptics continued to argue that the warming was a mere illusion caused by urbanization.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I choose option C.

Which is?

 

[Coloradomtnman]

The Modern Temperature Trend

this one of the better articles i have read.....and one of the more interesting paragraphs that makes it difficult to claim that man and it's built environment does not affect temperature.....

One source of confusion was increasingly debated. Weather watchers had long recognized that the central parts of cities were distinctly warmer than the surrounding countryside. In urban areas the absorption of solar energy by smog, black roads and roofs, along with direct outpouring of heat from furnaces and other energy sources, created an "urban heat island" effect. This was the most striking of all human modifications of local climates. It could be snowing in the suburbs while raining downtown.(19) Some people pushed ahead to suggest that as human civilization used ever more energy, in a century or so the direct output of heat could be great enough to disturb the entire global climate.(20) If so, that would not happen soon, and for the moment the main consequences were statistical.

Some experts began to ask whether the warming reported for the decades before 1940 had been an illusion. Most temperature measurements came from built-up areas. As the cities grew, so did their local heating, which might have given a spurious impression of global warming.(21*) Callendar and others replied that they were well aware of urban effects, and took them fully into account in their calculations. Mitchell in particular agreed that population growth could explain the "record high" temperatures often reported in American cities — but it could not explain the warming of remote Arctic regions.(22*) Yet the statistical difficulties were so complex that the global warming up to 1940 remained in doubt. Some skeptics continued to argue that the warming was a mere illusion caused by urbanization.

Whether or not its man-made, there is no denying that the global mean temperature has risen and that if global warming is natural, that it has been accelerating in the last 30 years. This is observable scientific fact, not theory or speculation. Should we do something to slow or stop it? What harm would we cause our descendents by attempting to clean up the planet?

 

[xsited1]

If we don't do something pretty soon, Keanu Reeves is gonna come down here and KILL US ALL!

 

[edthecynic]

One source of confusion was increasingly debated. Weather watchers had long recognized that the central parts of cities were distinctly warmer than the surrounding countryside. In urban areas the absorption of solar energy by smog, black roads and roofs, along with direct outpouring of heat from furnaces and other energy sources, created an "urban heat island" effect. This was the most striking of all human modifications of local climates. It could be snowing in the suburbs while raining downtown.(19) Some people pushed ahead to suggest that as human civilization used ever more energy, in a century or so the direct output of heat could be great enough to disturb the entire global climate.(20) If so, that would not happen soon, and for the moment the main consequences were statistical.

Some experts began to ask whether the warming reported for the decades before 1940 had been an illusion. Most temperature measurements came from built-up areas. As the cities grew, so did their local heating, which might have given a spurious impression of global warming.(21*) Callendar and others replied that they were well aware of urban effects, and took them fully into account in their calculations. Mitchell in particular agreed that population growth could explain the "record high" temperatures often reported in American cities — but it could not explain the warming of remote Arctic regions.(22*) Yet the statistical difficulties were so complex that the global warming up to 1940 remained in doubt. Some skeptics continued to argue that the warming was a mere illusion caused by urbanization.

Even more powerful evidence against the "urban heat island effect" is that the oceans reflect the same 100 year warming trend as the land, and there are no urban heat islands in the ocean. Ocean temps lag behind the land trend as we would expect since water heats and cools more slowly than land.

 

[Meister]

One source of confusion was increasingly debated. Weather watchers had long recognized that the central parts of cities were distinctly warmer than the surrounding countryside. In urban areas the absorption of solar energy by smog, black roads and roofs, along with direct outpouring of heat from furnaces and other energy sources, created an "urban heat island" effect. This was the most striking of all human modifications of local climates. It could be snowing in the suburbs while raining downtown.(19) Some people pushed ahead to suggest that as human civilization used ever more energy, in a century or so the direct output of heat could be great enough to disturb the entire global climate.(20) If so, that would not happen soon, and for the moment the main consequences were statistical.

Some experts began to ask whether the warming reported for the decades before 1940 had been an illusion. Most temperature measurements came from built-up areas. As the cities grew, so did their local heating, which might have given a spurious impression of global warming.(21*) Callendar and others replied that they were well aware of urban effects, and took them fully into account in their calculations. Mitchell in particular agreed that population growth could explain the "record high" temperatures often reported in American cities — but it could not explain the warming of remote Arctic regions.(22*) Yet the statistical difficulties were so complex that the global warming up to 1940 remained in doubt. Some skeptics continued to argue that the warming was a mere illusion caused by urbanization.

Even more powerful evidence against the "urban heat island effect" is that the oceans reflect the same 100 year warming trend as the land, and there are no urban heat islands in the ocean. Ocean temps lag behind the land trend as we would expect since water heats and cools more slowly than land.

Looks like we just came off a warming cycle......

 

[manu1959]

One source of confusion was increasingly debated. Weather watchers had long recognized that the central parts of cities were distinctly warmer than the surrounding countryside. In urban areas the absorption of solar energy by smog, black roads and roofs, along with direct outpouring of heat from furnaces and other energy sources, created an "urban heat island" effect. This was the most striking of all human modifications of local climates. It could be snowing in the suburbs while raining downtown.(19) Some people pushed ahead to suggest that as human civilization used ever more energy, in a century or so the direct output of heat could be great enough to disturb the entire global climate.(20) If so, that would not happen soon, and for the moment the main consequences were statistical.

Some experts began to ask whether the warming reported for the decades before 1940 had been an illusion. Most temperature measurements came from built-up areas. As the cities grew, so did their local heating, which might have given a spurious impression of global warming.(21*) Callendar and others replied that they were well aware of urban effects, and took them fully into account in their calculations. Mitchell in particular agreed that population growth could explain the "record high" temperatures often reported in American cities — but it could not explain the warming of remote Arctic regions.(22*) Yet the statistical difficulties were so complex that the global warming up to 1940 remained in doubt. Some skeptics continued to argue that the warming was a mere illusion caused by urbanization.

Even more powerful evidence against the "urban heat island effect" is that the oceans reflect the same 100 year warming trend as the land, and there are no urban heat islands in the ocean. Ocean temps lag behind the land trend as we would expect since water heats and cools more slowly than land.

Looks like we just came off a warming cycle......

you should read the article......

 

[Yurt]

it is natural, why would you want to stop that? if we are coming off an ice age, why would you want to keep tempatures the same? i believe they have found evidence that much of north america was at one time tropical. to say that the earth warming is a bad thing might be short sighted. i am not sure we have enough information to say one way or the other.

 

[KittenKoder]

Option C:

We cannot do anything about it, even if we were the cause damage is done. What we should be doing is focusing on how to survive it as a species since life ill continue on the planet no matter what we do, instead of wasting money and time trying to fix what we clearly cannot do (evidence being that no matter what changes we make and how much we cut back our pollution levels the trends continue unabated).

 

[code1211]

Asking if "we" should do something to stop it implies that you know what the cause is and how to counteract that cause. Do you think that there is only one cause that can be counteracted?

 

[code1211]

Even more powerful evidence against the "urban heat island effect" is that the oceans reflect the same 100 year warming trend as the land, and there are no urban heat islands in the ocean. Ocean temps lag behind the land trend as we would expect since water heats and cools more slowly than land.


Hi Ed,

According to your chart, assuming that the oceans cool as a lagging indicator of climate change, we have been cooling for some time. Is that not what the chart shows?

 

[code1211]

I choose option C.

I do, too. Presenting this as an either / or proposition is both misleading and disingeuous. The entire case for AGW rests on cherry picking data, ignoring data and rigging results. To say that we must act now or die is ridiculous.

The Earth is to man as the dog is to the flea. Men arguing about how to best determine the future of the planet is like fleas arguing about which way the dog is going to run.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

I choose option C.

I do, too. Presenting this as an either / or proposition is both misleading and disingeuous. The entire case for AGW rests on cherry picking data, ignoring data and rigging results. To say that we must act now or die is ridiculous.

The Earth is to man as the dog is to the flea. Men arguing about how to best determine the future of the planet is like fleas arguing about which way the dog is going to run.

My post isn't disingenous. I am being very sincere. Even if global warming isn't man-made, it has been accelerating. There are ways for us to counteract it. Whether or not those ways are effective has yet to be seen.

And what if you're wrong? Accelerated global warming is a helluva thing to chance not acting to counter and being wrong about it. Woudln't you agree?

 

[edthecynic]

One source of confusion was increasingly debated. Weather watchers had long recognized that the central parts of cities were distinctly warmer than the surrounding countryside. In urban areas the absorption of solar energy by smog, black roads and roofs, along with direct outpouring of heat from furnaces and other energy sources, created an "urban heat island" effect. This was the most striking of all human modifications of local climates. It could be snowing in the suburbs while raining downtown.(19) Some people pushed ahead to suggest that as human civilization used ever more energy, in a century or so the direct output of heat could be great enough to disturb the entire global climate.(20) If so, that would not happen soon, and for the moment the main consequences were statistical.

Some experts began to ask whether the warming reported for the decades before 1940 had been an illusion. Most temperature measurements came from built-up areas. As the cities grew, so did their local heating, which might have given a spurious impression of global warming.(21*) Callendar and others replied that they were well aware of urban effects, and took them fully into account in their calculations. Mitchell in particular agreed that population growth could explain the "record high" temperatures often reported in American cities — but it could not explain the warming of remote Arctic regions.(22*) Yet the statistical difficulties were so complex that the global warming up to 1940 remained in doubt. Some skeptics continued to argue that the warming was a mere illusion caused by urbanization.

Even more powerful evidence against the "urban heat island effect" is that the oceans reflect the same 100 year warming trend as the land, and there are no urban heat islands in the ocean. Ocean temps lag behind the land trend as we would expect since water heats and cools more slowly than land.

Looks like we just came off a warming cycle......

Well, I guess if you cherry pick the last 2 years and compare them to a nearby warm year you can say that, but in reality it is just a short cycle WITHIN the 100 year warming TREND. You could have made that same claim after the years 1999 and 2000 compared to 1998 and the chart shows that too was a cycle within the warming trend.

A better way to read the chart is to compare the lowest lows of this decade to the lowest lows of previous decades, and likewise the highest high rather than highs with nearby lows. Clearly the lowest lows are WARMER than the previous decades lows.
And if you notice, the ocean cooling you refer to is the La Nina phase of the El Nino/La Nina cycle. It is quite likely that when the next El Nino cycle happens we will have record warming again.

 

[FactFinder]

a slight problem with those graphs.

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat : NPR

 

[edthecynic]

a slight problem with those graphs.

The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat : NPR

No problem, the graph is surface temps, and your link is temps at 3000 feet deep.
This reminds me of the deniers saying that the troposphere measurements (2 miles high) were the only accurate indicator of warming or cooling because they showed cooling at the time. But now that the troposphere is showing warming, suddenly ocean temp at 3000 feet is the only accurate measurement because it shows cooling. And when that too shows warming in the future it will be another measurement that will become the only one to consider.
It's called cherry picking.

 

[FactFinder]

Your charts show the same trend. Did you cherry pick those?

 

[FactFinder]

As for the troposphere:

Solar signals in tropospheric re-analysis data : Comparing NCEP/NCAR and ERA40

Résumé / Abstract
Recent analyses of the NCEP/NCAR re-analysis data have demonstrated statistically significant variations in tropospheric temperatures, geopotential heights, water vapour distribution, and global circulation regimes in phase with the solar cycle over the last 44 years. The findings reveal a consistent pattern of atmospheric response to solar variability throughout the low- and mid-latitude troposphere. In order to more firmly establish the reality and nature of the detected Sun-climate relations, and to correctly identify the atmospheric processes involved, independent confirmation from other relevant data sets is warranted. In this paper we present the results of identical analyses of the NCEP/NCAR and ERA40 re-analysis data sets and show that the detected Sun-climate relations are substantially weaker in the ERA40 data than in the NCEP data. We argue that this largely is due to the presence of temporal inhomogeneities in ERA40 having a substantial impact on decadal signals, which strongly affects the observed Sun-climate relations as well as climate trends. The nature of the NCEP-ERA40 differences, their influence on the detection of Sun climate relations, and their possible causes are discussed.