Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The scientists who are wicked smart and have studied this topic for their entire adult life figure the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. They have dissected indirect clues about the weather by examining things like ocean sediments, fossilized reefs, structural signatures of rocks, fossils, tree rings, and clues inside the ice cores. Basically, they study much of the stuff that you look at when you are on vacation: the mesmerizing beauty that teaches scientists about the history of the world (a.k.a. geologists). In summary, it's understood through extrapolation what the past temperatures have been like.
Here is a well-done website to understand what has happened in the past. See SNOWBALL EARTH
Yes, the earth was crazy hot for many eras. But current human civilization (settlements and harvesting agriculture) is about 10,000 years old. That works out to be a 0.00022% time frame as compared to how old the earth is in relation to 4.5 billion years: mice-nuts! This short 10,000-year period has generally experienced lower temperatures and excellent climate stability in comparison to other radically different eras. As in, this 0.00022% span is unusually cold which is a good thing for humans. Geologists call it the 'interglacial' era. The reason for this cooler climate is an equilibrium between how much greenhouse gases happen (warming) in combination with how much reflection we have with the ice and snow (reflection==cooling). And that's the equilibrium (smart) people are concerned about. Yet, in 20(ish) years, or 0.2% of the 10,000 years of modern civilization, things are changing FAST!? What we see in front of our eyes (in combination with what climate scientists have been warning about), has my attention.
There are dumb people on both sides of this argument. Like the tree huggers who are so GD stupid not to embrace fission. That would eliminate billions of metric tons of greenhouse gasses per year. Let's not chase gas stoves. The old 1970(ish) reactors are a POS and dangerous in comparison to new designs. Shut those down and build new ones. And standardize on ONE model so they don't cost so much (economy of scale, delays, and overruns). Finally, make them safe and stop changing the regulations that can make the cost of energy over-priced. But oh no, there is a risk, and tree huggers have put the world in a stalemate.
And then there are the other not-so-smart people who have not read a GD in-depth article on this topic of global warming. Yet, they are an expert on the topic. People with a brain should get a strong inkle that they might be wrong when all of their decisions line up perfectly with their political beliefs on BOTH sides of the aisle. Like abortion is always bad, any type of gun is always good, a guy with 95 indictments is innocent (a witch hunt), and global warming is obviously a liberal scam.
Yes, there are many factors as to why the world warmed and cooled which had NOTHING to do with mankind. Including the 2022 Hunga Tonga volcano which those same "dumb" scientists claim is responsible for much of the 2.5 degrees F warmer that we are experiencing today. Read https://eos.org/articles/tonga-erupt...-5c-of-warming
Big picture: this 10,000-year-run of climate equilibrium (gasses and reflection) has been fantastic for mankind. If the scientists who study it for a living are right, we are going to be in for a lot of negative changes. The great news is if it becomes a fact in my lifetime and the weather is all F'ed up, I know I can sell my home to a certain political demographic that will be in denial. Disclaimer: I'm slightly to the right on the political spectrum.
Rant off.
All good points, it is complicated but at the planetary level it's fairly straightforward. More CO2 will be associated with higher temps. Weather that comes from volcanic activity or burning of fossil fuels doesn't matter.
All good points, it is complicated but at the planetary level it's fairly straightforward. More CO2 will be associated with higher temps. Weather that comes from volcanic activity or burning of fossil fuels doesn't matter.
I'm in the middle politically as well.
That's why the ultimate goal is a complete de-industrialization of the US.
That's also why Phoenix is a C40 city.
Are you trying to argue that CO2 emissions doesn't increase earth's temperature? Is your case that UHI is in Phoenix is the cause of a 7.5 degree above average temperature in the arctic this July?
Who's arguing? All I'm saying is weather conditions & change of the climates result from a number of factors. CO2 emissions are one small piece of the puzzle, and that's what you seem to be focused on the most. If you look at the big picture, you'll understand that climate change has been occurring in many different forms throughout the earth's history ... including long before human civilizations came into existence. Volcanic activity alters weather patterns. El Niño/La Niña cycles can have a large influence. Variations in the earth's orbit play a part as well. There are too many things to take into consideration on a global scale besides CO2 emissions resulting from industry.
On a local scale, UHIs are a definite cause of why cities like Phoenix have become warmer over the last few decades. All you have to do is look at the official temperature records over the last 100 years, and you'll see how much hotter our summers have become, especially the overnight lows. Phoenix has reached 118 degrees prior to 1990 on several occasions, but the lows dropped to the 70s or low 80s. We're lucky to see a low temperature below 90 when that happens now, even in June. That's the UHI in full effect. Since you're concerned about climate change, but also seem to believe that the Phoenix area is the absolute cat's meow, you should be educated enough to realize that our climate has already been f'd up because of urbanization. Again, we don't have to be against growth & development, but we do need to grow smarter at this point.
All good points, it is complicated but at the planetary level it's fairly straightforward. More CO2 will be associated with higher temps. Weather that comes from volcanic activity or burning of fossil fuels doesn't matter.
I'm in the middle politically as well.
A small correction. In this specific case, it was the 150 metric tons of water vapor (a temporary greenhouse gas) that was shot up in this specific case. "Major volcanic eruptions typically cool the planet temporarily, because, until they dissipate, sulfur dioxide particles reflect sunlight away from the planet. However, the study – published in Nature Climate Change – finds that the Tonga eruption in the South Pacific expelled an unprecedented amount of water into the atmosphere.
..... Usually when a volcano erupts, the plumes of dust and aerosols reflect sunlight away from the planet, causing surface temperatures to drop. For example, when Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, global temperatures temporarily dropped by 0.5C. However, the Tonga eruption has had the opposite effect.
A small correction. In this specific case, it was the 150 metric tons of water vapor (a temporary greenhouse gas) that was shot up in this specific case. "Major volcanic eruptions typically cool the planet temporarily, because, until they dissipate, sulfur dioxide particles reflect sunlight away from the planet. However, the study – published in Nature Climate Change – finds that the Tonga eruption in the South Pacific expelled an unprecedented amount of water into the atmosphere.
..... Usually when a volcano erupts, the plumes of dust and aerosols reflect sunlight away from the planet, causing surface temperatures to drop. For example, when Mount Pinatubo erupted in 1991, global temperatures temporarily dropped by 0.5C. However, the Tonga eruption has had the opposite effect.
Who's arguing? All I'm saying is weather conditions & change of the climates result from a number of factors. CO2 emissions are one small piece of the puzzle, and that's what you seem to be focused on the most. If you look at the big picture, you'll understand that climate change has been occurring in many different forms throughout the earth's history ... including long before human civilizations came into existence. Volcanic activity alters weather patterns. El Niño/La Niña cycles can have a large influence. Variations in the earth's orbit play a part as well. There are too many things to take into consideration on a global scale besides CO2 emissions resulting from industry.
Take a peek at this graph which shows the measured CO2 levels since 1960. See https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...carbon-dioxide It's an undisputed fact that all greenhouse gases warm the planet by trapping some of the heat that Earth might have otherwise radiated out into space. Without it, we are screwed. It's a balance we care about specifically in this portion of the history of the world (the past 10,000 years).
CO2 is just one of the greenhouse gases. So are Nitrous oxide (N2O), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), Methane (CH4), Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3). When it gets warmer, we get another interaction called water vapor which is also a greenhouse gas. The warmer it gets, the more vapor that is produced. The more ice that is melted, the more surface area of water which again means more water vapor in the atmosphere.
Now, the exclusive debate is how much greenhouse gases cause additional warming of the planet. And least in my line of thinking, I'm not going to argue with wicked-smart climatologists who model the impact for a living. Will they get it wrong sometimes? Yep! Are the models getting better? Yep!
Yet, you seem to default to 'the climate has always changed over time'. Well, yea!!!! We should care about the change in the past 10,000 years; not discussing temps when our planet was a lot hotter when the dinosaurs roamed the planet. By the way, it was 16X more CO2 during that era. Hence, it was a lot hotter. In short, I think your logic is questionable. The world will adapt over millions of years. But it could be a bumpy ride for a lot of species if we F up and people assume they have the answers on a topic they have ABSOLUTELY no ability to mathematically grasp! I'm including myself. It's why I leave it up to the researchers who overwhelmingly say it's a GD problem! OR.... I can say "The climate has ALWAYS changed" (duh) and go about my merry way.
Listen. We agree that not-so-smart people are telling us to toss out our stoves. I say, F you! Fix the big problems like building a crap pot of nuclear reactors so we don't have to have ugly solar panels on our homes or inefficient wind turbines. to me at least, the solution is simple. It's the 80-20 rule. That's a lot different than people assuming that the people who study this topic for a living are idiots and have been wasting their time yelling at the top of a mountain for get our crap together. I digress....
Take a peek at this graph which shows the measured CO2 levels since 1960. See https://www.climate.gov/news-feature...carbon-dioxide It's an undisputed fact that all greenhouse gases warm the planet by trapping some of the heat that Earth might have otherwise radiated out into space. Without it, we are screwed. It's a balance we care about specifically in this portion of the history of the world (the past 10,000 years).
CO2 is just one of the greenhouse gases. So are Nitrous oxide (N2O), Perfluorocarbons (PFCs), Methane (CH4), Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), Sulfur hexafluoride (SF6), and Nitrogen trifluoride (NF3). When it gets warmer, we get another interaction called water vapor which is also a greenhouse gas. The warmer it gets, the more vapor that is produced. The more ice that is melted, the more surface area of water which again means more water vapor in the atmosphere.
Which I never denied or argued against. What we have to realize is that carbon dioxide isn't all related to human activity. A good amount is from burning of fossil fuels, but natural occurrences such as volcanoes also contribute to CO2 levels. You and I are both old enough to remember when Mount St. Helens erupted. It caused a temporary climate change in the Pacific NW (actually a cooling effect). You previously mentioned last year's Tonga volcano, which scientists are attributing to the current rise in global temperatures. Yet, the climate change alarmists have barely uttered a word about that. Instead, they continue to default to "it's all human caused", and have made climate change into a huge political issue (which it never should have become).
Quote:
Originally Posted by MN-Born-n-Raised
Yet, you seem to default to 'the climate has always changed over time'. Well, yea!!!! We should care about the change in the past 10,000 years; not discussing temps when our planet was a lot hotter when the dinosaurs roamed the planet. By the way, it was 16X more CO2 during that era. Hence, it was a lot hotter. In short, I think your logic is questionable. The world will adapt over millions of years. But it could be a bumpy ride for a lot of species if we F up and people assume they have the answers on a topic they have ABSOLUTELY no ability to mathematically grasp! I'm including myself. It's why I leave it up to the researchers who overwhelmingly say it's a GD problem! OR.... I can say "The climate has ALWAYS changed" (duh) and go about my merry way.
What I'm more concerned about is the UHI effect on a local level. Some people don't have any clue what that is (particularly a certain breed of transplants who moved here just for more sunshine & warmth). Aside from the changes on a global level, how else can it be explained that Phoenix hasn't set any new record low minimum temperatures in over 30 years, but continues to set record highs on an ongoing basis (both daytime and overnight lows)?
One way to reduce the effects is to have more greenery & shade. I find it pathetic in an amusing kind of way how city "leaders" will say that we need to create more shade (rightfully so), but then they'll turn around an call for bans, restrictions, or increased fines for those of us who have green lawns & shade trees. DUH! The solution to the UHI (and climate change) is not to restrict what we plant in our yards. It also doesn't make sense to put limitations on industry or anything else that big metros like Phoenix thrive on. Unfortunately, none of us have all the answers. Just giving my 2 cents.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yet, in 20(ish) years, or 0.2% of the 10,000 years of modern civilization, things are changing FAST!?
What we see in front of our eyes (in combination with what climate scientists have been warning about), has my attention. 
Disclaimer: I'm slightly to the right on the political spectrum. 
In this specific case, it was the 150 metric tons of water vapor (a temporary greenhouse gas) that was shot up in this specific case. 
