do you believe in global warming/climate change?

<p>(sorry for infusing politics in here, but...)</p>

<p>Ok, one side of my family is feeding me liberal garbage about global warming and how we are killing the earth. My uncle sent me Al Gore's documentary book. </p>

<p>At school, one of my teachers loves to bring his conservative point of view into class. He just keeps spewing about how horrible Obama is and he's a socialist, blah blah. But he gets really worked up about global warming. He says there is no real evidence that humans/CO2 cause it and Al Gore is a hypocritical @$$hat and is just another liberal with an "agenda". He says that the only evidence that believers in global warming give is that the Polar ice caps are melting, and he says that is just the earth on a cycle. </p>

<p>
[quote=]
There is overwhelming scientific data, and there is a consensus among scientists that climate change is happening, and that the most plausable explanation is human activities. The reason most people don't believe that climate change is happening/is caused by humans is mainly that the science behind it is extremely complicated and unpredictable, and they don't understand it.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Ok, do you want to dumb it down for me and explain some evidence that we cause global warming? Right now I have to side with my teacher, until I get evidence that suggests otherwise.</p>

<p>Start with the IPCC report on climate change. A lot of people don't trust An Inconvenient Truth due to Al Gore's status as a politician and not a scientist, so it would probably convince you more to read something that is scientific and not political.</p>

<p>IPCC</a> Fourth Assessment Report: Working Group I Report "The Physical Science Basis"</p>

<p>
[quote]
Frequently Asked Question 6.2</p>

<p>Is the Current Climate Change Unusual Compared to
Earlier Changes in Earth’s History?</p>

<p>Climate has changed on all time scales throughout Earth’s history.</p>

<p>Some aspects of the current climate change are not unusual, but others are. The concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere has reached a record high relative to more than the past half-million years, and has done so at an exceptionally fast rate. Current global temperatures
are warmer than they have ever been during at least the past five centuries, probably even for more than a millennium. If warming
continues unabated, the resulting climate change within this century would be extremely unusual in geological terms. Another unusual aspect of recent climate change is its cause: past climate changes were natural in origin (see FAQ 6.1), whereas most of the warming of the past 50 years is attributable to human activities.</p>

<p>When comparing the current climate change to earlier, natural ones, three distinctions must be made. First, it must be clear which variable is being compared: is it greenhouse gas concentration or temperature (or some other climate parameter), and is it their absolute value or their rate of change? Second, local changes must not be confused with global changes. Local climate changes are often much larger than global ones, since local factors (e.g., changes in oceanic or atmospheric circulation) can shift the delivery of heat or moisture from one place to another and local feedbacks operate (e.g., sea ice feedback). Large changes in global mean temperature, in contrast, require some global forcing (such as a change in greenhouse gas concentration or solar activity). Third, it is necessary to distinguish between time scales. Climate changes over millions of years can be much larger and have different causes (e.g., continental drift) compared to climate changes on a centennial time scale.</p>

<p>The main reason for the current concern about climate change is the rise in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) concentration (and some other greenhouse gases), which is very unusual for the Quaternary (about the last two million years). The concentration of CO2 is now known accurately for the past 650,000 years from antarctic ice cores. During this time, CO2 concentration varied between a low of 180 ppm during cold glacial times and a high of 300 ppm during warm interglacials. Over the past century, it rapidly increased well out of this range, and is now 379 ppm (see Chapter 2). For comparison, the approximately 80-ppm rise in CO2 concentration at the end of the past ice ages generally took over 5,000 years. Higher values than at present have only occurred many millions of years ago (see FAQ 6.1).</p>

<p>Temperature is a more difficult variable to reconstruct than CO2 (a globally well-mixed gas), as it does not have the same value all over the globe, so that a single record (e.g., an ice core) is only of limited value. Local temperature fluctuations, even those over just a few decades, can be several degrees celsius, which is larger than the global warming signal of the past century of about 0.7°C. </p>

<p>More meaningful for global changes is an analysis of large-scale (global or hemispheric) averages, where much of the local variation
averages out and variability is smaller. Sufficient coverage of instrumental records goes back only about 150 years. Further back in time, compilations of proxy data from tree rings, ice cores, etc., go back more than a thousand years with decreasing spatial coverage
for earlier periods (see Section 6.5). While there are differences among those reconstructions and significant uncertainties remain, all published reconstructions find that temperatures were warm during medieval times, cooled to low values in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, and warmed rapidly after that. The medieval level of warmth is uncertain, but may have been reached again in the mid-20th century, only to have likely been exceeded since then. These conclusions are supported by climate modelling as well. Before 2,000 years ago, temperature variations have not been systematically compiled into large-scale averages, but they do not provide evidence for warmer-than-present global annual mean temperatures going back through the Holocene (the last 11,600 years; see Section 6.4). There are strong indications that a warmer climate, with greatly reduced global ice cover and higher sea level, prevailed until around 3 million years ago. Hence, current warmth appears unusual in the context of the past millennia, but not unusual on longer time scales for which changes in tectonic activity (which can drive natural, slow variations in greenhouse gas concentration) become relevant (see Box 6.1).</p>

<p>A different matter is the current rate of warming. Are more rapid global climate changes recorded in proxy data? The largest temperature
changes of the past million years are the glacial cycles, during which the global mean temperature changed by 4°C to 7°C between ice ages and warm interglacial periods (local changes were much larger, for example near the continental ice sheets). However, the data indicate that the global warming at the end of an ice age was a gradual process taking about 5,000 years (see Section 6.3). It is thus clear that the current rate of global climate change is much more rapid and very unusual in the context of past changes. The much-discussed abrupt climate shifts during glacial times (see Section 6.3) are not counter-examples, since they were probably due to changes in ocean heat transport, which would be unlikely to affect the global mean temperature.</p>

<p>Further back in time, beyond ice core data, the time resolution of sediment cores and other archives does not resolve changes as rapid as the present warming. Hence, although large climate changes have occurred in the past, there is no evidence that these took place at a faster rate than present warming. If projections of approximately 5°C warming in this century (the upper end of the range) are realised,
then the Earth will have experienced about the same amount of global mean warming as it did at the end of the last ice age; there is no evidence that this rate of possible future global change was matched by any comparable global temperature increase of the last 50 million years.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>10 char.....</p>

<p>Another thing is we're not killing the Earth. There's not even a definition for the "death of Earth". But, I mean for human welfare and prosperity it's probably in our best interest to stabalize the climate. So it's not true that we're "killing" the Earth, but we're changing the Earth in a way that'll mostly kill us. </p>

<p>The most important evidence for global warming is the incredible correlation between global temperature and global carbon dioxide concentrations. Therefore, this evidence negates that fact that global warming is cyclical. Fine, let's assume it's cyclical, but we know the two facts: </p>

<ol>
<li>Global warming damages our economy. </li>
<li>Global warming can be controlled by lower carbon emissions. </li>
</ol>

<p>It doesn't matter that perhaps the Earth is going through a cycle as long as we have a slightest ability to mitigate global warming then we do it. For example, I'm allergic to grass pollen and I get really, really irrtated by them during April. It's a cyclical phenomenon, I haven't done anything to cause it, but does it mean I shouldn't take allergy meds?</p>

<p>
[quote]
Further back in time, beyond ice core data, the time resolution of sediment cores and other archives does not resolve changes as rapid as the present warming. Hence, although large climate changes have occurred in the past, there is no evidence that these took place at a faster rate than present warming. If projections of approximately 5°C warming in this century (the upper end of the range) are realised,
then the Earth will have experienced about the same amount of global mean warming as it did at the end of the last ice age; there is no evidence that this rate of possible future global change was matched by any comparable global temperature increase of the last 50 million years.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I will take out a $50 million dollar loan to put on the line. The earth will not warm 5 degrees C by 2100. Come on.</p>

<p>Honestly... what is the "current trend" that all these people talk about. 30 years? 100 years? How old is the earth? 4.5 BILLION years? let's look at the data that we are using then if these climate people are complaining about the last 100 years:
100/4,500,000,000 or 1/45,000,000.</p>

<p>They are looking at 1/45,000,000 of the data and drawing a conclusion? No thanks.</p>

<p>Al Gore makes money when people buy carbon credits.</p>

<p>Sociomedical sciences is like a "health, medicine, and society" major -- we study the social determinants of health and how social, economic, and behavioral factors affect medicine and public health. I personally study the effects of social behavior and social psychology on health decision making, and I'd agree with you that it's a "green" major.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Molly: do you believe an organization (Heartland Insitute) funded by Exxon Mobil will tell you anything but that Global Warming not caused by humans?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Do you know what the somewhat ironic thing here is? There ARE many companies in the same business as Exxon Mobil that agree that Global Warming is happening and caused by humans. You heard me right. There are companies, such as BP, ConocoPhillips, and many others who agree that some of the things that they make money off of are resulting in global warming. Take a look at this unambiguous statement by an organization called the "United States Climate Action Partnership," an alliance including the companies above and many others:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.us-cap.org/ClimateReport.pdf%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.us-cap.org/ClimateReport.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>From that report:</p>

<p>
[quote]

We Know Enough to Act on Climate Change</p>

<p>In June 2005, the U.S. National Academy of Sciences joined
with the scientific academies of ten other countries in stating
that “the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently
clear to justify nations taking prompt actions.”</p>

<p>Each year we delay action to control emissions increases the risk
of unavoidable consequences that could necessitate even steeper
reductions in the future, at potentially greater economic cost
and social disruption.Action sooner rather than later preserves
valuable response options, narrows the uncertainties associated
with changes to the climate, and should lower the costs of mitigation
and adaptation.</p>

<p>For these reasons, we, the members of the U.S. Climate Action
Partnership (USCAP) have joined together to recommend
the prompt enactment of national legislation in the United
States to slow, stop and reverse the growth of greenhouse
gas (GHG) emissions over the shortest period of time reasonably
achievable.</p>

<p>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>When the very same companies that are causing the problem start making statements like this, you know that it's worth a good hard look.</p>

<p>
[quote]
</p>

<p>I will take out a $50 million dollar loan to put on the line. The earth will not warm 5 degrees C by 2100. Come on.</p>

<p>Honestly... what is the "current trend" that all these people talk about. 30 years? 100 years? How old is the earth? 4.5 BILLION years? let's look at the data that we are using then if these climate people are complaining about the last 100 years:
100/4,500,000,000 or 1/45,000,000.</p>

<p>They are looking at 1/45,000,000 of the data and drawing a conclusion? No thanks.</p>

<p>Al Gore makes money when people buy carbon credits. </p>

<p>

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Did you really just dismiss the best science that the world has ever produced on this topic with a "come on"? Do you think that the hundreds of scientists that have spent their careers studying this complex topic didn't think of your objection before writing this report, which would be taken as the scientific consensus on this very hot-button issue? These are the unambiguous statements of humongous scientific organizations with similarly large reputations to protect. Who are you?</p>

<p>Soulturtle is correct. And the reason scientists don't need to use earlier data (not that it exists) is because the composition of the earth's atmosphere was radically different in ancient history. For most of those 4.5 BILLION YEARS that you emphasized the earth didn't have any oxygen, for example.</p>

<p>And ending with the Al Gore conspiracy line; classic.</p>

<p>I think the climate change people would have a heck of a lot easier time making their argument if they focused on air quality and how poor it is in so many locations around the country. Every time I come out here to Los Angeles from being at home in Pennsylvania, I can taste the air for a few days. Let people realize how poor the air they're breathing is and they'll be a lot more likely to care about cutting down on their carbon emissions than waving fancy graphs and politicized data about.</p>

<p>Soccerdumbass: </p>

<p>First of all it's over 200 years since the trend began with the Industrial Revolution. Furthermore, the fact that it is happening so quickly during these 200 years is PROOF that global warming is related to human activities. Scientists looked at all the geological history and never found an era where global temperature and CO2 concentration increased so fast within 200 years. Within several eons, maybe, not never in mere 200 years.</p>

<p>grow up, augustus!</p>

<p>what's with the namecalling?</p>

<p>Juillet - Thanks for answering my question about what SocioMedical sciences are :)</p>

<p>I think it's funny everyone else is calling each other names and bickering over global warming. I didn't expect to learn anything on this thread about climate change that I couldn't have learned in college, online or from a book. My point was really to see whether most college students are liberal go-greener types like the ones i'm surrounded by.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Did you really just dismiss the best science that the world has ever produced on this topic with a "come on"? Do you think that the hundreds of scientists that have spent their careers studying this complex topic didn't think of your objection before writing this report, which would be taken as the scientific consensus on this very hot-button issue? These are the unambiguous statements of humongous scientific organizations with similarly large reputations to protect. Who are you?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am soccerguy315. I like long walks on the beach...</p>

<p>You act like there is consensus... there is not. There are many scientists who do not agree that there is human caused global warming.</p>

<p>
[quote]
But the climate is warming and CO2 is increasing. Doesn't this prove that CO2 is causing global warming through the greenhouse effect? No, the current warming period began about 1800 at the end of the little ice age, long before there was an appreciable increase of CO2. There have been similar and even larger warmings several times in the 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age. These earlier warmings clearly had nothing to do with the combustion of fossil fuels. The current warming also seems to be due mostly to natural causes, not to increasing levels of carbon dioxide. Over the past ten years there has been no global warming, and in fact a slight cooling. This is not at all what was predicted by the IPCC models.

[/quote]

William Happer, professor of Physics at Princeton University
Global</a> Warming and Climate Change in Perspective: Truths and Myths About Carbon Dioxide, Scientific Consensus, and Climate Models by William Happer -- Capitalism Magazine</p>

<p>
[quote]
Soulturtle is correct. And the reason scientists don't need to use earlier data (not that it exists) is because the composition of the earth's atmosphere was radically different in ancient history. For most of those 4.5 BILLION YEARS that you emphasized the earth didn't have any oxygen, for example.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>So there was no oxygen... and now there is. Is it unrealistic to think that maybe once again, at a point in the future, there will be no more oxygen? Maybe the Earth changes without regard to humans...</p>

<p>
[quote]
Soccerdumbass: </p>

<p>First of all it's over 200 years since the trend began with the Industrial Revolution. Furthermore, the fact that it is happening so quickly during these 200 years is PROOF that global warming is related to human activities. Scientists looked at all the geological history and never found an era where global temperature and CO2 concentration increased so fast within 200 years. Within several eons, maybe, not never in mere 200 years.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I would respond, but I stopped reading after your first line. If you would like to restate your argument without an attitude, I would be happy to read it. However, feel free to read the link I posted above, regarding your "proof"</p>

<p>
[quote]

You act like there is consensus... there is not. There are many scientists who do not agree that there is human caused global warming.

[/quote]

If you don't think there's a consensus, you have not done any real research on the issue.</p>

<p>A stray scientist here or there does not a consensus break.</p>

<p>"There have been similar and even larger warmings several times in the 10,000 years since the end of the last ice age."</p>

<p>This is the fastest increase, however.</p>

<p>"No, the current warming period began about 1800 at the end of the little ice age, long before there was an appreciable increase of CO2."</p>

<p>Yet it didn't accelerate to record warming speeds until after the CO2 increase.</p>

<p>"Maybe the Earth changes without regard to humans..."</p>

<p>A fallacy. Just because the earth's climate changes without regard to humans doesn't mean that humans cannot have an impact on the environment.</p>

<p>Most of your link's examples come from history, like the "Little Ice Age" or the example with Charles Darwin. None of them have anything to do with modern science, and the author has not researched climate change in 16 years.</p>

<p>Capitalism</a> Magazine: Climate and Global Warming</p>

<p>Also, all of the articles on that website are against global warming. Hardly an unbiased source.</p>

<p>^ I agree. </p>

<p>Soccer: </p>

<ol>
<li><p>Why do scientists who deny global warming have more credibility than those who don't? </p></li>
<li><p>If both groups have equal credibility, then shouldn't we be prepared for the worst possibility? Why do people buy health insurance when they don't know for certain whether they will become sick? </p></li>
<li><p>What are the harms of seeking renewable energy sources and limiting short-run output if global warming proves to be "wrong"?</p></li>
</ol>

<p>
[quote]
2. If both groups have equal credibility, then shouldn't we be prepared for the worst possibility? Why do people buy health insurance when they don't know for certain whether they will become sick?

[/quote]
people care about themselves. They think, "I could get in a car crash tomorrow, better get health insurance!" But when it comes to things like global warming they think, "well it may be true, but so what? so the planet will warm 1 degree during my lifetime...why the hell should I pay for it and do all this crap to stop it? i'll be dead by then anyway."
[quote]
3. What are the harms of seeking renewable energy sources and limiting short-run output if global warming proves to be "wrong"?

[/quote]
lets see...waste trillions of dollars? don't know about you Canadians, but we Americans aren't exactly rolling in money these days.</p>

<p>I was kinda hoping everyone would just stick with the format, say their opinion and leave, so this would be easy...haha but what did I expect? this is CC, after all.</p>

<p>well for all you global warming advocates out there, will you please explain the global cooling of the mid 20th century?--since you are all so adamant about the era of industry being the cause.</p>