The ugliness of the Climate Change debate.

[Jeff Duda]

Chicxulub pumped 3,000 years worth of greenhouse gases in the the atmosphere in a blink of an eye.

Although you didn't give a source on that fact, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that the above is truly a fact (although I'd love to see your source). Even so, that was 65ish million years ago. That release would have essentially no impact on today's climate.

Furthermore, I invite you to read this short article (http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/~jdduda/2011EO240001.pdf) on the contribution of atmospheric CO2 from anthropogenic vs. volcanic sources. It pretty clearly shows using other sources that antrhopogenic CO2 far exceeds that coming from volcanoes.

 

[Robert Edmonds]

If only the idea that greenhouse gases could increase the surface temperature above its equivalent blackbody temperature could be tested by looking at other planetary atmospheres... oh wait.

 

[rdale]

Look at the chart.

I waited all night for this? STOP WITH THE "LOOK" and "FEEL" etc. Show me that it has stabilized with a statistical analysis. You know, hard numbers?

 

[Mike Johnston]

One curious aspect of this global warming discussion is that the consequences of global warming are almost exclusively spelled out as being deleterious. Yet, surely there must be some consequences that could be beneficial? If there is a warming, then that must mean it's warm relative to what. Is there a period in the past that represented an optimal average global temperature? Is there even such a thing as an optimal global temperature and who is to decide that?

 

[rdale]

Good question Mike... Actually there are many short-term (well, 10-30 years) advantages especially in agriculture. The increased CO2 and the longer growing season will be a boon for farmers. That depends on where you live though, because CA and TX are not places to be in this situation!

And it's the long term that'll bite you, when it becomes too warm for growing. In Michigan we're already seeing evidence as some plants are being found more north than ever before, which is fine -- until they get to the northern extent of the state. Not much grows in the water In addition things that are highly area specific, such as the vineyards in Traverse City, don't have anywhere to go in the first place.

 

[Stan Rose]

It naive, borderline arrogant to say that our infinitesimal existence on this Earth is a source of all our planet's woes. It has been said that the entire existence of our planet( 4.5 billion years) if it was one year, then our moment is December, 31st at 11:59

Huh. Im confused...do you think that our planet has "woes" or not? When you drive across the Plains chasing storms, do you think the fact that virtually every square yard has been redesigned by our 'insignificant' species is just a 'puny' impact? Or, keep driving west...how about the fatc that virtually every lake in my home state in the Rockies is manmade, and virtually every river has been altered or controlled so that it can be pumped through tunnels built straight through the mountains. Even the fish have been farmed and stocked by our puny existence...but keep driving west, to the mountains themselves which are loaded with holes and blasted mountainsides from our puny mining, and 96% of the ancient forest cut down. (Oh, BTW--deforestation has a major impact on climate, but it usually is forgotten in the 'debate' about CO2 effects...). Don't stop there...keep gong to the oceans, which we have turned into a giant toilet, with massive dead zones and more trash than you can possibly imagine with your 'insignificant' human mind.

I agree that our presence on earth is infinitessimal in scale compared to the age of the earth, and that certainly the planet could care less about our species if and when we are long gone, but how do you draw the connection between our puny existence and our 'puny effect?? Would you readily drink a glass of water that had a drop of cyanide in it, since certainly that one drop could cause you no harm? I think this is the source of your confusion.

 

[Rob H]

Although you didn't give a source on that fact, I will give you the benefit of the doubt that the above is truly a fact (although I'd love to see your source). Even so, that was 65ish million years ago. That release would have essentially no impact on today's climate.

Furthermore, I invite you to read this short article (http://www.meteor.iastate.edu/~jdduda/2011EO240001.pdf) on the contribution of atmospheric CO2 from anthropogenic vs. volcanic sources. It pretty clearly shows using other sources that antrhopogenic CO2 far exceeds that coming from volcanoes.

I agree with you Jeff, but I think you're missing the most important point: I can't do anything to stop a volcano, but I can choose to stop pumping stuff into the atmosphere. If a volcano wants to obliterate mankind I'll be sad but there's not much I can do about it. If we want to destroy ourselves, and I'm guessing we will one way or another, it will be incredibly disappointing and regretful.

Joshua's point about the age of the Earth and us just being a blip is a horrible analogy because the Earth itself will be fine if we launch 1000 nukes, if Yellowstone blows, or something else happens. We should be more concerned with hurting ourselves - we're a very fragile organism in comparison with the Earth.

 

[Stan Rose]

Joshua's point about the age of the Earth and us just being a blip is a horrible analogy because the Earth itself will be fine if we launch 1000 nukes, if Yellowstone blows, or something else happens. We should be more concerned with hurting ourselves - we're a very fragile organism in comparison with the Earth.

Bingo! Thanks for saying it more succinctly

 

[Jeff Snyder]

Well we might as well plug up every volcano in the world, when Krakatoa went, it lowered the global temperature for years.

Chicxulub pumped 3,000 years worth of greenhouse gases in the the atmosphere in a blink of an eye.

Atmospheric constituents where dramatically different eons ago.

Sent from beyond the vaporsphere.

Is *anyone* anywhere (at least anyone with credentials) arguing that natural processes cannot change the climate? Of course not -- the climate has changed a myriad of times in the past! Humans, as you've noted, have only existed the equivalent of a "blink of an eye" in a 100-year-old person's lifetime (I didn't run the math on this, but you get my drift). The IPCC reports discuss at length the natural factors that have changed the climate in the past.

However, just because there are natural mechanisms to force climate change has absolutely nothing to do with whether human activity can change the climate. We can look back at all the past periods of abrupt climate change all we want, but those events are not evidence that humans cannot affect the climate. Frankly, by the very nature of humans having only existing for a "blink of any eye" relative to geological time-scales requires that all past climate change events have been natural. There are a lot of different types of evidence to support the notion that the climate is changing beyond air temperature records (see changes in vegetation/tree regions, changes in sea surface temperatures and acidity, etc.), and there are physically-based, scientifically-reasonable mechanisms by which humans can change the global climate. It's not like it's magic that the release of copious amounts of CO2 and other greenhouse gases can affect the global radiation budget and climate.\

Similarly, just because someone thinks we can or cannot do anything meaningful to change it has no bearing on whether humans are affecting the climate. Just because someone doesn't think alternative energy sources are financially feasible to take a chunk out of carbon-based sources has no bearing on whether humans are affecting the climate. Just because someone doesn't think that politics will allow significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions worldwide has no bearing on whether humans are affecting the climate. Just because ongoing natural processes (or yet-to-happen events such as a massive volcanic eruption) can affect the climate has no bearing on whether humans are affecting the climate. How we DEAL with the changing climate, and the role of human activity in it, is a completely different topic that in inherently policy related.

 

[Logan Karsten]

Since this is the "Advanced weather and chasing" forum, I have no problems with anyone who wants to debate climate change. However, please back your claims up with some hard peer-reviewed scientific papers/evidence. Otherwise, please don't waste people's time by opening a thread yelling about your climate change views without anything to back it up with. As it stands right now, the majority of the scientific community supports the notion of climate change, through dozens, if not hundreds of studies and peer-reviewd papers. It's pretty well accepted by the scientific community now. Moving on.....

 

[Kirk Chestnut]

For those of us less engaged in the topic, what trusted source of "peer-reviewed scientific papers/evidence" would you recommend?

In Lee Sandlin's "Storm Kings" the concept of anthropogenic climate change was certainly on the mind of James Pollard Espy (1785–1860). However, Mr. Espy's plan was to have the general public set controlled fires all across the country to bring about a utopian climate, it nearly cost him his job at the Smithsonian.

 

[Logan Karsten]

The IPCC reports are rich with information from peer-reviewed scientific studies. Hundreds of them......

 

[rdale]

...and if you really just want to skip to the meat, get the summary for policy makers. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

Just so all are clear - the IPCC does not perform research. They "simply" compile what's available.

 

[Jeff Snyder]

...and if you really just want to skip to the meat, get the summary for policy makers. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

Just so all are clear - the IPCC does not perform research. They "simply" compile what's available.

For those looking for an even shorter summary (even if it's still 115 pages!), look at the Technical Summary near the top right of the link rdale posted (or go straight to http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_TS_FINAL.pdf ). The details provided in the individual chapters are actually very interesting and enlightening if you are interested in some of the science and state of research. I stay away from the policy stuff (which is covered in other chapters of the IPCC reports), but the Working Group 1 material (physical science basis) is pulled from countless peer-review studies and breaks down what's currently known about climate change (and what's not known).

 

[rdale]

It was a few years ago, maybe during the era of social mediarology really growing, that I had my "aha" moment. That's when people with no formal met training took a Skywarn class and started declaring themselves meteorologists. I thought to myself "How do these people have the gall to come into a field with no real training and declare themselves to be experts in the field?"

That's when I realized I'd done the exact same thing with climatology. Sure I took a class that studied the climate in college, but in no means would that put me on the same footing as a climate change researcher. Yet I was taking what I "thought" was happening and used that to "debate" the issue against people who had actual data and no reason to be part of a corrupt conspiracy. So I read up on it, considered the alternative theories, and decided that the scientific method - while not perfect - is still the best way to develop knowledge. And that method says humans are influencing the climate in bad ways.