Climate Change - The Simple Argument

Discussion in 'Environment' started by Coloradomtnman, Apr 10, 2009.

  1. Coloradomtnman
    Offline

    Coloradomtnman Rational and proud of it.

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    4,311
    Thanks Received:
    863
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    Denver
    Ratings:
    +1,495
    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?
     
  2. auditor0007
    Offline

    auditor0007 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2008
    Messages:
    12,566
    Thanks Received:
    2,255
    Trophy Points:
    255
    Location:
    Toledo, OH
    Ratings:
    +3,218
    I choose option C.
     
  3. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    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.
     
  4. Coloradomtnman
    Offline

    Coloradomtnman Rational and proud of it.

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    4,311
    Thanks Received:
    863
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    Denver
    Ratings:
    +1,495
    Which is?
     
  5. Coloradomtnman
    Offline

    Coloradomtnman Rational and proud of it.

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2008
    Messages:
    4,311
    Thanks Received:
    863
    Trophy Points:
    200
    Location:
    Denver
    Ratings:
    +1,495
    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?
     
  6. xsited1
    Offline

    xsited1 Agent P

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    17,750
    Thanks Received:
    5,299
    Trophy Points:
    198
    Location:
    Little Rock, AR
    Ratings:
    +5,306
    If we don't do something pretty soon, Keanu Reeves is gonna come down here and KILL US ALL!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. edthecynic
    Offline

    edthecynic Censored for Cynicism

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    26,597
    Thanks Received:
    3,080
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Ratings:
    +5,699
    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.

    [​IMG]
     
  8. Meister
    Offline

    Meister VIP Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2009
    Messages:
    25,900
    Thanks Received:
    8,099
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Conservative part of the Northwest
    Ratings:
    +8,100
    Looks like we just came off a warming cycle......
     
  9. manu1959
    Offline

    manu1959 Left Coast Isolationist

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2004
    Messages:
    13,761
    Thanks Received:
    1,625
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    california
    Ratings:
    +1,626
    you should read the article......
     
  10. Yurt
    Offline

    Yurt Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    25,583
    Thanks Received:
    3,554
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Hot air ballon
    Ratings:
    +5,038
    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.
     

Share This Page