Young Writers Society

Ok, so we just watched An Inconvenient Truth, by Al Gore, in science class. I have a 1000 word essay on whether or not I believe in global warming, which I have decided on saying I do. It's due next week Friday, so I have a while to do it. I'm just curious what everybody thinks about it and why they support their idea. Thanks

I don't think there's many people arguing that global warming doesn't exist, just whether or not it's caused by us.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Re ... p?ID=18881

I'm not entirely sure where global warming is concerned. I feel that, yes it's happening, but I also feel that the earth at present is leaving the last ice-age, and so it's bound to get warmer. I do think, though, that the speed with which this is happening is perhaps faster than it should be. I find that slightly alarming, as apparently in a hundred years or so, where I live now could be completely submerged in water. All I can say is that, it's going to happen. All we can help to do is slow it down.

-Kaz

I think it doesn't.

And the argument that it's due by carbon dioxide is a bunch of junk. If global warming does exist, then it's not by carbon dioxide but by methane and chloroflurohydrates (sp?) which are superior compared to carbon dioxide in trapping heat.

Here's the essay I wrote, if you're interested.

I accept it, largely based off the fact that it's accepted by Climate Scientists, who are the ones who are actually looking at the evidence and doing the experiments. The fact that it's extremely widely accepted by the rest of the scientific community also backs this up.

There are other reasons I accept it - the fact that CO2 is a known greenhouse gas, and that we're releasing it into the atmosphere will naturally lead to problems. It's not just Climate Change it's causing - ocean acidification is happening also. The ocean is a large CO2 sink, and it's absorbing a lot of the gas. Whilst this is good (as there's less in the atmosphere), it also lowers the pH of the ocean, which naturally isn't too good for sea life.

The fact that sceptics haven't yet actually been able to put forwards a counter theory to explain the observed warming (including the rapid speed of the warming) better than the Anthropogenic (man-made) Climate Change theory is another reason why I accept it.

A number of the reports that have come to the conclusion that global warming is not being caused by humans, but rather is natural, was actually funded by companies that had a vested interest in that conclusion (such as oil companies). This naturally also has me leaning towards the side of Anthropogenic Climate Change.

Indeed, George Bush has been accused - by a Director of a NASA institute, no less - of editing reports on greenhouse gases, and only accepting results that already fit the conclusion he wanted (that Global Warming isn't caused by humans).

The debate is largely a public and political one. These people are, as you can imagine, not in the best position to judge the merit of the theory.

Don't listen to Gore though. He's taken the worse case scenario - one that is actually rather unlikely - and is flogging it off as what will happen. Alarmists like Gore damage the credibility of Climate Change.

We still don't know for sure just how Climate Change will affect the Earth. Different models predict different outcomes. Most likely, we're looking a raise of 1 - 2 degrees Celcius in mean global temperature. This will lead to problems - famine in the poorer parts of the world in particular, and extinction of some animal species - but don't expect your favourite city to dissapear under the water.

Um yeah, I'll leave it there.

Well, yes, of course George Bush wants to deny it. America does, after all, produce 60% of the world's pollution, and yet he still refuses to acknowledge that, and so do any thing to prevent it.

And if the sea levels really do rise as expected within the next 100 years or so, my home will definitely be under water. I live on a very flat island. Oh well! Not that that really affects me. I'll be dead and buried by that time.

As a mathematician and chemical engineer, and surrounded by leading mathematical climatologists like Neal Amundson and Roland Glowinski, neither I nor they have found suitable proof that global warming is an actual phenomena for which to worry ourselves. Four very simple points already deflate the entire argument:

1: how do we know that the measurements taken 300-odd years ago in the woods were calibrated properly and set to the same scale, etc. etc.? We don't.

2: just because people whose very job depends on the existence of global warming happen to believe in it (coincidence, isn't it?) is not sufficient proof for why I or anyone else should believe in it. Sureal says it is "widely accepted"--it isn't.

3: the mathematical models for which climatologists have used to model the atmosphere are, quite frankly, pathetic excuses for models. Analyses need to include multiparameter bifurcations (Takens-Bogdanov singularities, Hopf-Hopf interactions, etc.), numerical analysis, and functional analysis. In general, barely any of these are present in the formulation.

4: Al Gore thinks it exists.

(okay, okay, seriously) 5: volcanoes produce several orders of magnitude more carbon dioxide and harmful toxins than the entirety of the human race--why didn't they toss us into the throes of global warming a long time ago? Another source of CO2 that outproduces humans: cow manure.


Interestingly enough, I believe it was Michael Crichton who raised the very valid point that increased global temperature means lands will be more fertile, and thus famine will have the potential to wheedle down--not increase.

If I were more knowledgable on the subject, I'd like to engage in a more prolonged discussion of the subject. But I only really understand the basics of the subjects (and terms such as 'Takens-Bogdanov singularities' don't actually mean anything to me).

I do, however, like your point 4.

All I can really answer to is point 2 - as far as I'm aware, no ones job actually relies on Global Warming being a fact.

And last time I checked, it certainly does appear to be widely accepted. The number of peer-reviewed articles for Anthropogenic Climate Change vastly outnumbers those against it.

I can also take a crack at 5 - the current output of CO2 by cow manure and volcanoes is part of the current balance. By adding more CO2, we're tipping the system out of its balance.

But like I said, I don't really know enough of the subject to debate it properly.

But I only really understand the basics of the subjects (and terms such as 'Takens-Bogdanov singularities' don't actually mean anything to me).

Unfortunately, I'm afraid, most climatologists don't either.


Our production of CO2, then, like all things in physical systems, will be compensated for by the state of the system reaching a new equilibrium. The differential in centigrades over a two-hundred year period leaves everything enough time to adapt with it. It seems as though some people forget that as long as the time scale is sufficiently long enough, anything can adapt.

On the volcanoes producing CO2 etc. There is a theory that the last Ice Age was caused by an increase in volcanic activity. Also, this change has happened before; it is natural for CO2 levels to fluctuate, and dramatic changes cause problems. I think the debate lies in whether or not human influence has sped this process up.

Personally I think that humanity is but a fly pushing the charging rhino of nature towards mass climate change.

It interests me that other planets, such as Mars and Mercury, have also seen temperature spikes as of late. Do you think we're polluting there too?

A number of climatologists have said that the sun is going through a cycle right now in which it intensifies, but that ultimately within 15 years we will experience another "Little Ice Age" like there was during the 17th century.

I suppose there is a possibility we could be polluting the other planets as well....if our CO2 emissions are pouring out into the atmosphere.

However, I'm not all scientific-like in that area so I don't even know if that is possible. Just a thought.

Mars is indeed heating up at the moment. Mercury, to the best of my knowledge, isn't, and a couple of google searches bring up nothing of the sort.

Mars also have a natural variation in its global temperature (I'd imagine many planets do). At the moment, it's going through a natural heating phase, and scientists are well aware of this.

Earth's warming, however, has gone past its expected natural point, and is continuing to warm, at a faster rate than we'd expect to be happening. This is where the concern comes from.

If the heating ends (which is certainly possible) then we can breathe a sigh of relief and be thankful we were wrong. But at the moment, that doesn't seem likely, and an anthropogenic reason for Climate Change remains the accepted cause.

Sureal--


It amazes me that you're willing to believe climatologists saying Mars hasn't warmed up beyond its natural point. Where did they get these measurements to determine such a claim? They can at least say somebody recorded temperature data here 500 years ago, but on Mars? Did ET fax that in for them to study? No, the point-in-case is that all of the planets are experiencing a "warming" trend at least in the sense that we are getting hit with harsher rays. Is that because our ozone and atmosphere has been deteriorated by our CO2 emissions? No, not at all. If other planets are experiencing warming trends (and they are), and those planets aren't full of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, then what the heck is causing their temperatures to rise?

The crazy thing about this baseless idea is that if the earth DOES warm up, then that will actually mean we will experience an ICE AGE because with warmer waters, pressure systems intensify in the atmosphere and in turn lead to colder air from the North travelling farther to the South. If the earth is actually "warming up" in the sense of global warming, then we wouldn't be experiencing a warming trend but a cooling one.

In this sense, climatologists are all over the place. Snoink has kindly pointed out the CO2 is hardly a contributing factor to atmospheric damage anyway, but it's one that is mass-produced (duh...life is carbon) and thus it's easier for scientists to study. But the human contribution to greenhouses gases is SO MINIMAL that in terms of the world production, if our emissions are the cause, then we are literally the straw that broke the camel's back. Maybe that's what you're arguing, but to that I say if your only solution is to attack the exception and not the rule, then your action plan is far deviated from a good alternative.


Best,
Brad

well, i appreciate everyones opinions, but i have now completed my essay. i have gone in the direction of believing its real, so i appreciate what everyone said.
thanks