Global Warming

[Alpha]

There are many, many things wrong with your initial statement. I'm currently taking a climate change course at University, and, while I'm planning to drop geology, I've still learnt a thing or two about climate change, geologically, historically and recent, natural and anthropogenic. I don't claim to be an expert, but in the interests of accuracy, here I go.

Global warming is by now an issue we’re all very much aware of.

OK, so I'm going to assume you are referring to anthropogenic (human-exacerbated) climate change, as opposed to natural climate change, except where it's made clear by what I say.

A brief explanation as to what ‘Global Warming’ is…. It’s actually quite self explanatory.

It is not. "Global" is misleading, as it is having, and is likely to have different effects on different parts of the Earth, because, shock horror, they are different. "Warming" is also misleading, because it is important to state that (I assume) you are talking about the Earth's surface, as opposed to the troposphere and stratosphere, or the deep ocean. Also, some parts of the Earth could become colder through various feedback loops as a result of anthropogenic climate change.

When the Earth suffers from an increase in temperature – this is known as Global Warming.

I refer to this as 'daytime'. Silliness aside, the warming and cooling of the planet (from interglacial conditions to glacial conditions, and within these, stadials (small cold periods) and interstadials (small warm periods)) is just what the planet has done best over it's 4.56Ga (billion year) history

It occurs when the ‘Greenhouse Gases’ (Such as Carbon Dioxide, Nitrous Oxide, Methane etc.) trap heat and light from our Sun in the Earth’s atmosphere, thus meaning an imminent increase of the Earths temperature.

Half right. Greenhouse gases do not "trap light", but they do trap heat (i.e. long wave infrared radiation). However, yes, an increase in these gases does have a general warming effect, but the relationship is significantly more complicated than that.

This change may sound simple, but it certainly has a dramatic effect on many different areas. It can and does pose to be a danger to mankind, animals and nature. The consequences could be dire if no action is maintained to stop, or reduce the damage we have caused.

But climate change is a natural process that fauna and fauna have adapted to ever since the 'Cambrian Explosion', 542 MYA (million years ago), where the first shelly creatures are recorded in the fossil index. Hominids of some kind have been around for 4Ma (million years), and in that time there has been marked climatic change. I actually cannot stress this enough: WE ARE CURRENTLY IN AN ICE AGE (The so-called 'Great Ice Age', though it's mediocre as far as ice ages go). In fact, this is the FIRST time, that we know of, where both the North and South Poles have been covered in ice at the same time. Consequences, as you define them, relate to humans, who, for the most part, have had a knack of building by the sea, because we assume it is stable. Mass extinction events themselves could be argued to be entirely 'natural', for example, 251 MYA, between the Paleozoic and Mesozoic eras, where 96% of Earth's creatures were made extinct, paving the way for dinosaurs, and eventually mammals, to take over the world.

As for an actual statistic, global surface temperature has risen 0.74 ± 0.18 °C during the last century.

I stress that this is an average, and is certainly not uniform.

Next I’d just like to expand upon the Greenhouse Effect, and what is actually is. The Greenhouse Effect actually refers to the ‘chance’ in the steady state temperature of a planet (in our case Earth ^~) or even a moon, by the presence of an atmosphere which contains gas which absorbs and gives off infrared radiation. As I mentioned earlier, Greenhouse Gases include water vapour (oops I left that one out!), Carbon Dioxide, Methane etc. These gases tend to warm the atmosphere by proficiently absorbing thermal infrared radiation released by the Earth’s surface – by the atmosphere itself AND by clouds!

Yes, a reasonable definition of the Greenhouse Effect, and I won't endeavour to expand on it too much. Water vapour is actually one of the most potent greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, but compared to oceanic, glacial and groundwater water reservoirs, it (thankfully) doesn't comprise a large portion of the atmosphere. By "clouds" you mean water vapour, and more specifically, the infrared energy released as it goes through a latent heat transformation from water to gas. This, along with simple reflectivity (albedo), is how the Earth balances outgoing long-wave radiation with incoming short-wave (heat) radiation, keeping it in steady state equilibrium.

Most importantly and it has to be said, life on this plant actually depends on energy from the Sun. That’s basic science and we all know it. Approximately 30% of the light given off by the sun that is sent to Earth is deflected by the Outer Atmosphere and scattered back into the large and looming area we call Space. The light that manages to get through and reach the Earth’s surfaces is reflected back up as a type of slow-moving energy known as infrared radiation.
As it rises, the greenhouse gases perform and absorb the infrared radiation (look up to recap on the gases if you forgot them :3). This slows it’s escape from the atmosphere.

8/10, but I won't go into detail, except to say that not all life depends on the sun. What of deep-sea creatures who live in entirely self-contained ecosystems around geothermal vents. They do not rely on the sun for life, probably the only living things that don't.

Greenhouse Gases infact regulate our climate conditions – by trapping heat and holding it in. Think of a nice fleece blanket for example, wrapped around the Earth.

Terribly simple analogy, one which one of my lecturers ridiculed in the first five minutes of a one-trimester course, but it does help laymen understand this important process somewhat, so I'll ignore.

This marvel is what in fact the scientists of our world call “The Greenhouse Effect.” If we were to be without this mechanism it is said that the average temperature on our planet would actually cooler by about 30 degrees Celcius! Current ecosystems would not be here if that were to be the case. So in fact – we can’t live without it either.

Not having the greenhouse mechanism would imply that we have no atmospheric gases, which would mean we would be blasted by gamma rays from the sun, and NO LIFE could POSSIBLY exist what with the spontaneous mutations and combustions and whatnot.

Ever heard of too much of a good thing? Well that’s the case we have here… Humans have accelerated the volume of these gases. Now we have too many of these gases which is necessary – and as a result temperatures are rising!

These gases have increased and decreased of their own accord many, many times before. The evolution of photosynthetic plants is what caused greenhouse gas concentrations to decrease. Who defines a necessary level of greenhouse gases? Things probably died as the climate got warmer before the Industrial Revolution (where large-scale anthropogenic climate change began), so to these organisms a "necessary level" would be pre-1800s concentrations, and less.

How are we contributing to the problem? Many things cause Global Warming. First off I will use an example on which we are all guilty of… Having. Using. And abusing. In a word… Electricity. One of the main contributors is Electrical Pollution. Electricity is able to cause pollution in a multitude of ways – some worse than others. One of the more common examples of this is in the case of ‘Fossil Fuels’. Fossil fuels are burnt to create the electricity we use – and by burning them we in turn release more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere for example. Many other pollutants are emitted into the atmosphere when we burn these… And after time they just accumulate. Like they have now.

Wow. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Firstly, electricity is not solely made by the burning of fossil fuels. In my homeland, Aotearoa/New Zealand, I am proud to say that 85% of our electricity is made from renewable energy sources, especially hydroelectricity, but also increasingly wind and geothermal sources (and a planned wave-generator in Cook Straight, and if you know much about the mid-latitude westerly winds, you would know that there is some huge seas in the Southern Hemisphere oceans). I am not proud to say that we burn all of the gas that we can extract, and that we export a considerable amount of oil. We do have coal-fire electricity generators, but we export most of the minuscule amount of coal we produce. So, yes you're right, but you're inaccurate at the same time.

Some other simple examples of using energy and polluting the air that we breath are as follows:
- Turning on a light. (And leaving it on for that matter… like when you exit the room.)
- Watching the TV. (How many of us are guilty of leaving it on when we leave the room as well? Just like a light switch.)
- Listening to the stero.
- Playing a video game <_<

Not so here in NZ. My FF-playing has a significantly lower carbon footprint than you North Americans

Deforestation is yet another what in which we are destroying our Earth. By deforestation we are once again contributing to Global Warming. Another basic science fact incoming! Trees use Carbon Dioxide and give off Oxygen in it’s place thus helping to create a healthy balance of gases in our atmosphere. As more of the lungs of our planet are cut down, logged for timber or even to made way for farming, we are reducing the number of trees to perform this critical function, and so in turn increasing the number of greenhouse gases lurking in our atmosphere.

Yes, trees are a form of "carbon sink", but most Western countries have cut down their trees early in their industrialisation, for example the UK, which I'm sure you imagine as an island of field after field of farmland... well, before this, it was forested (when not covered in ice throughout the geological history). Indonesia has recently been found to be the fastest deforesting nation on Earth, followed by Brazil, and then much of Southeast Asia and South America. What are "we" (Western nations), to do about this? They're entitled to, and more so because "we" already have...

The last point that I shall mention in contributing to Global Warming is population growth! As more people are born onto this Earth then there is a greater demand for fossil fuels to be used in heat, transportation etc. And so… the level of greenhouse gases continues to escalate out of control. Not to mention, with more people this means more mouths to feed. So what needs to be done? More deforestation of course! Land is needed for farming and so it goes on.

Actually, land intensification is an option we can use to produce more agricultural output on the same amount of land, but after the ongoing human catastrophe that is the "Green Revolution" (Wiki for an explanation), it probably isn't a good response.

Fossil fuels are not necessary for things such as electricity and transportation. For example, imagine an electric car in a country with 100% renewable energy sources. It could be argued that population growth will more quickly deplete the finite supplies of the planet, creating a rush to adopt alternatives as quickl as possible.



One big gaping hole in your analysis is the lack of mention for Milankovitch Cycles (Wiki it, or see Caroline Fry, "The Impact of Climate Change", 2008, for a simple explanation in the first few pages). What these are, are changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis of rotation (from 21.5-25 degrees), changes in the precision of it's axis (the Earth 'wobbles'), and changes in its eccentricity (from an elliptical orbit, to a less-eliptical orbit). These occur in 24, 45 and 100 thousand year cycles, and cause small changes in the amount of solar radiation that the Earth receives, and are largely responsible for the past glacial and interglacial conditions that the earth has endured. In saying this, anthropogenic addition of greenhouse gases is responsible for projected (not entirely the current warming, that's natural) warming.

Further research, or, if someone decides to pick a fight, I will bring these up:

The Meridional Overturning Circulation (MOC) (and it's probable collapse, plunging Europe into an ice age, possibly).

Planetary albedo.

Atmosphere-ocean interface.

And a lot more.

Climate change is happening. But I also believe in informed debate, so, here you are, you have become informed, my children.

(Kudos for creating this thread, if you did, I didn't check)



P.S.

What do you think about it all?

There is no dispute that global warming is real, though I don't think in these modern times it's as extensive or harming as some people say. Man-made global warming on the other hand, is not real. It never was. It was just a way for Al Gore to get rich while instilling fear into everybody. What political machine use to do that? Oh yeah, the catholic church (think crusades).

Anthropogenic climate change IS REAL. Fact: increased concentrations of greenhouse gases cause the Earth to INCREASE IN TEMPERATURE. Fact: humans have increased the concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. While there is a natural element to it, there is NO DENYING, WHATSOEVER, that humans are somewhat causing "climate change" in this enhanced sense.