When you see the ads, articles and all those reports on global warming, it looks like we're all heading into some really deep trouble. But why does it feel like nobody cares? Some people are cutting down on waste and being more energy efficient, but I don't think that's going to be enough to get us out of the deep hole we've already dug. But anyways, what do you think? Are people making too much of a big deal maybe, or are we silently approaching armageddon? Were last years large natural disasters a result of environmental crisis? Are you doing anything to try and reduce pollution?

There is a great TIME magazine issue from 1970 that says the world is going to feeze over.

Using very similar charts (but in the opposite direction) as their recent article...

Damn those cycles!

Global warming is one of those trickier subjects. I assure you that most of those ads are fire and brimstone preachers turned environmentalists.

First off, let's establish the ground facts. Yes, carbon dioxide holds heat next to the Earth's surface better than nitrogen. Yes, industrial emissions increase the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. No, the average temperature on Earth is not rising except in large metropolitan areas, where the Land Usage theory comes into play (basically, concrete and glass reflect heat back into the atmosphere). The debate is over whether CO2 emissions will ever reach the point that temperatures will rise and if that will cause significant damage to the Earth's ecosystems.

Greenhouse gases, including CO2, do not make up any substantial portion of the atmosphere. I remember doing a science experiment in high school to demonstrate the effect of additional CO2 on plant growth (the results weren't as substantial as I expected, but the fact remains that the ecosystem could actually stand to have a little more CO2 out there--conversely, significant increases in oxygen don't help land animals thrive, since we already have plenty.) That having been said, the numbers are indeed rising...all the way to 0.04%. Woo? At the rate we're going, 3-4% CO2 seems very unlikely, barring a disease that causes mass extinction in the rainforests' flora.

Now, let's say we do get hit with that two degree temperature rise. The amount of water stored in the icecaps is both proportionally small and largely irrelevant because of the Archimedes' principle. We would lose some low-lying coastal areas, but by no means all of them, and certainly nothing beyond them. As far as climate shifts go, agriculture in the equatorial regions may be diminished, but agriculture in the temperate zones (where most of the food is produced anyways) would benefit from a longer growing season.

Ahh that's really interesting, thanks for the info Xavius. So you're saying that global warming won't have a significant impact, and might actually have some benefits?

I haven't done very much research yet, but from empirical observations it feels like the summers are getting hotter, drier (and stinkier), and air quality getting smoggier (I live in Toronto, a fairly busy metropolis but it's not ranked as one of the top 50 worst polluted cities ((in North America?)), yet). Even if on a global level the principles of nature might keep things balanced, human/animal health is still a large concern. I'm wondering, can the pollution 'spread' to affect areas that aren't harmed?

Heard there's a new movie coming out by Al Gore. Might be an interesting watch...

I think it's a tad blase to say that we will lose some low lying land, but it's no big deal. There are hundreds of thousands of people living on that low lying land, especially in underdeveloped countries, which will likely die unless something is done to relocate them.

I say relocate rather than stop global warming because the people shouldn't be living in such stupid places, anyway. It's like the Australian farmers and suburbanites who bitch and moan when their homes get flooded...you built on a flood plane, tools!

Only hundreds of thousands?

Actually, yes, probably only hundreds of thousands, since we're only talking about five feet or so in sea level rise, and only ocean coastland would be impacted, not the river flood plains.

EDIT: And they're not going to wake up one morning and find themselves in the middle of the ocean. Over a process of years, the tide won't recede as far as it used to. They'll move themselves.



There's a difference between pollution concerns and global warming concerns. There are plenty of very good reasons to be concerned about what our pollution is doing to the world. Smog, ozone depletion, thermal pollution, mutagenic and carcogenic waste...environmental threats are real, but they tend to be localized. The whole "global warming" bandwagon started because it could be trumped up as a worldwide disaster. That part is blown way out of proportion.

In 20 years you will be wondering why the winters are so cold and ask yourself if the world is about to freeze up like some bad batman movie.

You should read what some of the people in the 1700 and 1800s wrote about the "dire climate changes"

" target="_blank">http://www.enginova.com/global_warming.htm+-->

It's true that climate change is a natural occurance, we just do not know to what degree the change can be considered "normal". I think we could learn a lot by speaking to indigenous people around regarding climate change over the centuries, I'm sure their passed down stories and myths would contain a lot of information.

According to Jefferson, 1 degree every 100 years is normal....

I consider global warming a joke. There is no evidence that any change of temperature isn't natural. The earth actually started cooling for a few years a while ago... I'm thinking the 70's... before continuing in its upwards trend, even though people did nothing different during those years. For all we know, industries could be preventing the next ice age. There's no way to tell.

As for Al Gore's movie, thats even more of a joke. Ever see the South Park episode where Al Gore makes up manbearpig to cause panic and get attention because he doesn't have any friends? That was the first thing I thought of when I heard about his movie.

Where do you think southpark got the idea for the episode from?

Global warming is happening. That much is clear. It's also clear that human-produced polluents have an effect, although the extent of that effect (IE, how much is natural and how much is caused by pollution) is debatable. It's also clear that 'waterworld' scenarios are fiction; however, entire ecosysems can die easily out of relatively small changes in temperature; crops can be spoiled, particularly in undeveloped countries where precision agriculture isn't readily avaliable to most food producers; and while the effect is, at least not for the next 100 years or so, catastrophic, it can get pretty bad. It's unlikely to actually get pretty bad because, with the exception of the USA, emissions have been reduced all over the world. Internal combustion fossil-fuel-burning car engines, which are the main source of pollution, are likely to disappear during the course of the next twenty years thanks to biodiesel (Which, by the way, runs in common diesel engines, is clean, and is both cheaper and gets more fuel efficiency - the initial investment in it, however, is a bit large and there's a lot of logistic issues associated with it.), hybrid cars (Prius anyone?) and hydrogen fuel cells. There is going to be more environmental damage from this, but unless things go really wrong and you live in a coastal city, we won't be undergoing forced submersion anytime soon.

Well, I saw the episode long long long before I heard any mention of the movie.

Oh sweet, cannon fodder.

Every model that indicates global warming in any fashion that even vaguely corresponds to levels of greenhouse gases are based largely on readings of surface temperature, and those readings are normally taken from the same places that give you the day's forecast--thermometers typically located at airports, military bases, and TV stations. It's a great method when you're reporting to a largely urban population. It's a poor method when trying to measure atmospheric trends. Why? Climatologists refer to "urban heat islands," which is really just a fancy way of saying that concrete and glass reflect heat back into the atmosphere, giving higher surface temperature readings. The difference can be drastic. Using surface methods, 1997 is the hottest year on record. Using satellite-based methods, it's the seventh coolest year on record.

As far as crops and ecosystems go, the only places that stand to suffer if we (and remember, it's unlikely here) get that two degree temperature rise would be equatorial areas. For most of the world, a two-degree variance is less than the annual temperature variance. And, let's be honest here, what do capitalists grow in equatorial countries? Coffee. Potted and cut flowers. Spices. Fruit too expensive for the locals to buy. Yes, corn is grown well in equatorial America and affordable bananas are available in Africa, but those are exceptions to the rule. When you consider how much food the US government forcibly exports to keep local food prices high enough for farmers to turn a profit, it makes more sense to just eat the imports. Here in Nebraska, where we grow stuff that people actually eat for caloric purposes, the (unlikely) temperature shift might give us another couple weeks in the average growing season.

I hate to beat an irrelevant dead horse, but your bit on emissions falling everywhere except the US is also false. Since environmental restraints have become quite stringent here, polluting industries are being moved overseas in droves. Also, ethanol releases more carbon dioxide per mile driven. It is referred to as environmentally friendly because 1) it's made from corn, a nearly infinitely renewable resource, and 2) it releases less particulate matter when burned, which is a legitimate environmental concern.

EDIT: Although I am forced to concede that higher coffee prices could destroy the western world.

That's a two-degree temperature rise at first. How about when it becomes four, then eight, then sixteen? The earth goes through natural cooling and heating phases, yes, but that doesn't mean it's invulnerable to human influence. To think that we're doing nothing to it is just silly.

Well, using models that are based on satellite data and acknowledge that human population really doesn't grow exponentially, we're looking at a two degree rise in about 7500 years. Pessimistic models with some grounding in reality talk about a two degree rise in 100 years. We're more likely to destroy ourselves in 200 years due to lack of caffeine than we are to make the Earth uninhabitable.

I wonder if anyone has ever done a study to see how much CO2 is produced by humans vs the CO2 produced by Cows, Volcanos, natural forest fires etc.

Actually, yes, they have. I want to go to bed, so I can't be bothered to find the sources, but going by memory, we account for 2-3% of what's currently in the atmosphere. It doesn't sound like much when stated like that, but industrialization has done a lot to speed up the process. That's actually a fairly significant rate of increase. Still, we're a long way from 1% carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

I'm too lazy to go back and look up all the evidence again so I won't comment directly, but I want to know if you participated in collegiate debate during the 04-05 school year, Xavius.