do you believe in global warming/climate change?

College Life
61

<p>

</p>

<p>There absolutely is consensus - [there</a> are no reputable scientific organizations](<a href=“Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia”>Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia) in the entire world that deny that global warming is happening and is caused by humans, and that we’re going to be in deep doodoo if we don’t do something about it. On top of that, [many</a> major petroleum companies](<a href=“Case Studies - Meridian Institute”>Case Studies - Meridian Institute) now agree, and say that governments need to regulate emissions. Even [Exxon Mobil](<a href=“http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020902081.html”>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/09/AR2007020902081.html&lt;/a&gt;), the previous poster child for global warming skeptics, is warming up to the idea of global warming (pun intended). This is akin to the tobacco industry saying “cigarettes cause cancer, please regulate us.”</p>

<p>Meanwhile, we have a few scientists (and your guy is a physicist; this is sort of a like a veterinarian trying to prescribe treatment to a person dying of cancer) who are skeptical. But in a world where there are [noble prize winning scientists denying that HIV causes AIDS](<a href=“HIV/AIDS denialism - Wikipedia”>HIV/AIDS denialism - Wikipedia)… well, single scientists on either side of the issue don’t seem that credible. But humongous organizations of scientists with similarly humongous reputations to protect, along with oil companies that have a disinterest in speaking the truth, are, I think, extremely credible when they all unambiguously state that this is a problem and that we are causing it. </p>

<p>So my question to anyone here that is still skeptical in the face of this overwhelming consensus: what would have to happen to change your mind?</p>

62

<p>

</p>

<p>Well, it was a good intention. However, to me, this is an extremely important topic, because if the worst proposed consequences of global warming occur, then we’re in deep doodoo. Even if the conservative estimates for consequences occur, well, if you think that Katrina was bad, or 9/11, or the current economic downturn… </p>

<p>If your thread were about whether or not college students agreed with the theory of evolution (or insert some other hot-button issue), I might have been content to just state my opinion and leave, because the consequences of the debate don’t really matter. Here, the consequences are crucial. For every person that walks away with doubt about the clear reality, it makes it that much harder for the people who really know what’s going on to do what they need to in order to prevent a global catastrophe. </p>

<p>Does this seem like alarmist, the-sky-is-falling rhetoric? It darn well is. And if it were just some UFOlogists sitting in their backyards coming up with this stuff, then I wouldn’t blame anyone for saying it’s crazy talk. But when essentially everyone that matters is saying that the sky is falling, maybe it’s not so crazy.</p>

63

<p>BIGTWIX, there was no global cooling from 1940 to 1970. North America and Europe had a slight decline in average temperature, but the rest of the world, and especially the oceans, became warmer.</p>

<p><a href=“http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf[/url]”>http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_SPM.pdf&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

64

<p>Global warming and etc. has to do with how when we put carbon into the environment it releases a lot of energy and increases the entropy of the Earth. Therefore, more particles move and they move more thus creating a higher temperature.</p>

65

<p>Temperature is an intensive variable. Increasing the number of particles with the same energy doesn’t increase the temperature.</p>

<p>Actually, I’m not even sure how much the actual act of burning changes the configurational entropy. If you’ve got CH4 burning, then you get the reaction CH4 + 2 O2 -> 2 H2O + CO2. You’re actually reducing the amount of gas particles, which have so much more entropy than liquid/solid stuff it’s not even funny, so shouldn’t you be reducing entropy by burning hydrocarbons?</p>

66

<p>^ It’s mainly through the greenhouse effect: </p>

<p>"The greenhouse effect results from the interaction between sunlight and the layer of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere that extends up to 100 km (60 mi) above Earth’s surface. Sunlight is composed of a range of radiant energies known as the solar spectrum, which includes visible light, infrared light, gamma rays, X rays, and ultraviolet light. When the Sun’s radiation reaches Earth’s atmosphere, some 25 percent of the energy is reflected back into space by clouds and other atmospheric particles. About 20 percent is absorbed in the atmosphere. For instance, gas molecules in the uppermost layers of the atmosphere absorb the Sun’s gamma rays and X rays. The Sun’s ultraviolet radiation is absorbed by the ozone layer, located 19 to 48 km (12 to 30 mi) above Earth’s surface. </p>

<p>About 50 percent of the Sun’s energy, largely in the form of visible light, passes through the atmosphere to reach Earth’s surface. Soils, plants, and oceans on Earth’s surface absorb about 85 percent of this heat energy, while the rest is reflected back into the atmosphere—most effectively by reflective surfaces such as snow, ice, and sandy deserts. In addition, some of the Sun’s radiation that is absorbed by Earth’s surface becomes heat energy in the form of long-wave infrared radiation, and this energy is released back into the atmosphere. </p>

<p>Certain gases in the atmosphere, including water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide, absorb this infrared radiant heat, temporarily preventing it from dispersing into space. As these atmospheric gases warm, they in turn emit infrared radiation in all directions. Some of this heat returns back to Earth to further warm the surface in what is known as the greenhouse effect, and some of this heat is eventually released to space. This heat transfer creates equilibrium between the total amount of heat that reaches Earth from the Sun and the amount of heat that Earth radiates out into space. This equilibrium or energy balance—the exchange of energy between Earth’s surface, atmosphere, and space—is important to maintain a climate that can support a wide variety of life. </p>

<p>The heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere behave like the glass of a greenhouse. They let much of the Sun’s rays in, but keep most of that heat from directly escaping. Because of this, they are called greenhouse gases. Without these gases, heat energy absorbed and reflected from Earth’s surface would easily radiate back out to space, leaving the planet with an inhospitable temperature close to –19°C (2°F), instead of the present average surface temperature of 15°C (59°F)."</p>

<p>[Greenhouse</a> Effect - MSN Encarta](<a href=“http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761578504/Greenhouse_Effect.html]Greenhouse”>http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761578504/Greenhouse_Effect.html)</p>

67

<p>

</p>

<p>I didn’t say they do. I’m just saying there are people on both sides.</p>

<p>

</li>
</ol>

<p>I support the process of moving toward green energy / humans that pollute less. However, I don’t think we should do it b/c “oh noes, we will all die!!” if we don’t.</p>

68

<p>

</p>

<p>They already say that… on every box. Keep in mind though, with all of the government anti smoking campaigns… they don’t actually want people to stop smoking. Every state takes in millions of dollars in tax revenue from smokers each year. If everyone stopped smoking, then the government would need a new way to get this money.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Why has the worry changed from “global warming” to “climate change”? No matter what humans do, we cannot stop the climate from changing.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>The people who keep championing this cause… need to ACT like there is a problem. The UN cannot host climate conferences in remote locations. Al Gore needs to not fly around in a private plane. The legislators who support wind turbines off the coast, but not where it can be seen from their district, need to stop. When the suggested solution is pollute less instead of randomly introduce more taxes that don’t even go to funding green initiatives like this:</p>

<p>

</p>

<p><a href=“http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/18/obama-climate-plan-could-cost-2-trillion/[/url]”>http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/18/obama-climate-plan-could-cost-2-trillion/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>That’s $120 billion of ~$2 trillion. Or roughly FIVE PERCENT.</p>

<p>This is supposed to be the plan to reduce pollution. All it does is make things more expensive, and a SMALL FRACTION will be invested in green energy. If the goal is actually to help the environment, then ALL of the revenue should be put back into that. Instead, we are using the “environment” to fund other government programs.</p>

<p>Honest question: How do you feel about that? Do you think the money should all go to green initiatives? Or are you content with the government using climate change, something you think is very important, as a cover to fund other programs?</p>

<p>I want the people who champion these climate issues to ACT like they are a real danger (not just talk about it), and then I will take another look at the situation. As I said, I fully support a cleaner society… I just don’t believe the hype yet.</p>

69

<p>^
How can democratic societies act if not enough people are willing to change? Ironically, you state that you’ll believe them when they act but they can’t act without the majority of Americans supporting them.</p>

70

<p>

</p>

<p>They may say that on every box, and in fact, we don’t have people going around saying that cigarette smoking is not harmful for your health. You would be seen as crazy if you denied this fact when everyone already admits it. All I’m trying to do here is to stop people from denying that human greenhouse gas emissions are harmful for the planet. Whether or not the government actually wants people to stop smoking is another issue</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m not sure what your point is here, I didn’t use the phrase “climate change” or “global warming” anywhere in that quotation. In any case, I think that the terms can be pretty much interchangeable; the point remains that everyone who matters is saying that a large portion of the warming of the earth is attributable to human causes, and that that portion is what’s going to cause all heck to break loose. We can’t stop all climate change, but we could theoretically stop the change that was due to us in the first place. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Well I congratulate and thank you, because it looks like we’re finally reaching some common ground. I mean it. I mostly agree with you here. I think that scientists unambiguously say that it is a problem, but unfortunately, it’s outside of their scope to do anything else. Oil companies are arguably already doing more than just talking, but writing reports such as [the</a> one that I linked to](<a href=“http://www.us-cap.org/ClimateReport.pdf]the”>Case Studies - Meridian Institute), and actively arguing for government regulation of emissions. Unfortunately we are all the victims of a media who likes to conjure up doubt and controversy where there really is none. If you move past this, and look at what people are really saying, however, then I think you will see that it’s way more than just hype. </p>

<p>Soccerguy, as for your other statements about wind mills, Al Gore flying around in his private jets, etc., I am not prepared to debate the merits of individual plans to combat this problem. You may yet be right in your criticisms. My only aim here is to show that there IS a problem in the first place. I think that this fact is undeniable to almost any person who will look at what has been said and who has said it.</p>

71

<p>Add me: math/econ green</p>

72

<p>

</p>

<p>cheers soulturtle! I know we have different views, but that is ok. Individually, I am a fairly green person, just because I think it’s the right thing to do. Pollution = bad, so I try to minimize mine. I just worry about these big plans, that they do more harm than good to the country, like move jobs to locations with fewer “green” restrictions and things like that. The environment is really a public good, so there is incentive to cheat (in game theory terms). And finally, I hope the Earth does not die =D</p>

73

<p>Due to the cyclical nature of the Earth’s climate, the Earth would be slowly warming up right now even without us contributing. On geological time scales it’s not all that unusual for the poles to be completely ice-free year-round! But the data we have suggests that human activity (or some other factor that correlates well with human activity) has accelerated the climate change dramatically. </p>

<p>The actual question is: is it something we should be worried about? And can we slow the process down?</p>

<p>The Earth will most definitely recover from whatever we do here, unless we blow up the entire planet or anything of that sort. There have been countable big events in the geological past that caused the climate to go haywire for a period of time - bolide impacts, big volcanic eruptions, etc. Some of these events have resulted in 90% of the species on Earth going extinct! 90% of species, not 90% of the population!!! The Earth’s climate got back to normal within a few centuries of each event, and there’s no reason to assume that human activity would have a more lasting impact on the Earth’s climate than the most catastrophic events the Earth has ever experienced.</p>

<p>The only problem is that even relatively small climate changes could have a dramatic impact on human civilization. I won’t go into details because we hear enough about those in the media. Chances are we are not going to stop the climate change because it would happen without us as well - but it would happen on much larger time scales, giving us a lot more time to adjust and several worry-free millenia to come.</p>

<p>I am pro-green but anti-dramatization.</p>

74

<p>

</p>

<p>Yes. With human contribution, however, it is warming much more quickly.</p>

75

<p>

</p>

<p>Exactly what I said.</p>

76

<p>

I like B@r!um’s views and have found his posts in this thread most informative considering my previous knowledge on the issue…so basically B@r!um i’m adopting your thoughts as my own…thanks :slight_smile: and are you a chem major? i’m just going by your username.
I won’t bother tallying up the answers because it’s gotten kind of messy and complicated, but I see the majority are pro-green.</p>

77

<p>[BBC</a> NEWS | Science & Environment | Global warming ‘underestimated’](<a href=“http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7890988.stm]BBC”>BBC NEWS | Science & Environment | Global warming 'underestimated')</p>

78

<p>I can play that game too…</p>

<p>[Global</a> Warming Predictions Are Overestimated, Suggests Study On Black Carbon](<a href=“http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081119120155.htm]Global”>Global Warming Predictions Are Overestimated, Suggests Study On Black Carbon | ScienceDaily)</p>

79

<p>No, I believe in the fact that the population is getting so big that with everyone breathing, the warm breath is melting the polar ice caps and therefore causing them to melt.</p>

80

<p>No.
Its cyclical.
Al gore is a big time ******r.
But I forgot he said that he invented the internet so he must be very intelligent.</p>