Do you think anthropogenic global warming is a problem?

[Redwall]

What, if anything, do you think should be done to address AGW?

Edited June 9, 2014 by Miikaya

[Sunwoo]

I was a teacher's assistant for an undergraduate class that discussed climate change for non-science majors, and I took several upper division classes related to this topic as well. From my personal understanding, I believe it is a problem. I've seen some of the denier arguments and the evidence that points towards anthropogenic global warming. I feel that there is compelling evidence that human actions are affecting the world at a rate that has never been seen before.

The first thing that the government should do to address this problem is to say that it is a problem. I feel that there is a lot of misinformation about global climate change (both the human and the natural factors of it) in the media. But if the government is willing to take actions to lower their impact on the world and let people know that "yes, this is an issue that we are facing in today's society" I think that would help a lot.

[dondon151]

the US government has repeatedly said that climate change is a problem. rather than taking the opportunity to confront the problem, right wing politicians see it as something to fight about when there is no real basis for doing so.

climate change is obviously a problem that needs to be attended to. even discounting the environmentalist arguments, among them being that many wildlife species are being driven to extinction because of climate change, the fact is that civilization is accustomed to a lifestyle in a relatively temperate climate - so why let that change if at all possible? we developed and flourished in the current climate. we do not know what it's like to live in a different climate.

[BBM]

I think personally that it's the media that's responsible for so many people thinking that climate change is not a serious problem. Because so many of them attempt to be neutral and present both sides of arguments, people think that there actually is an argument about climate change among scientists, rather than the reality, which is that 99% of scientists believe that climate change is a phenomenon, and only the fringe 1% believe that this is just natural fluctuation or whatever.

Personally I would support a ban on spreading misinformation about climate change, but that violates free speech and sets a dangerous precedent for governmental power over the media.

[dondon151]

for those of you who don't follow last week tonight with john oliver, a few weeks ago he set up a parody of a climate change debate between a panel of 3 climate change denialists (though they were probably actors) against bill nye and 96 other scientists.

EDIT: here's the clip from the show.

Edited June 9, 2014 by dondon151

[Phoenix Wright]

i don't think that there's a valid voice to be heard voicing that this isn't a problem.

[Snowy_One]

No. It isn't a serious problem. Rather, it is a problem that has time to be fixed. Earth has, naturally, gone through temperatures much hotter than what is predicted on its own with no human interference. Obviously this doesn't mean that it is not a problem, but the people acting like it will kill everyone in twenty years by roasting the Earth are very much overreacting. Unless we do something drastic it will take quite a while for Earth to become as hot as it used to be, which is plenty of time for us to develop better ways to control global warming. By the time we die of old age, global warming may, very well, have been dealt with.

[Shin]

No. It isn't a serious problem. Rather, it is a problem that has time to be fixed. Earth has, naturally, gone through temperatures much hotter than what is predicted on its own with no human interference. Obviously this doesn't mean that it is not a problem, but the people acting like it will kill everyone in twenty years by roasting the Earth are very much overreacting. Unless we do something drastic it will take quite a while for Earth to become as hot as it used to be, which is plenty of time for us to develop better ways to control global warming. By the time we die of old age, global warming may, very well, have been dealt with.

Snowy, please don't make blanket statements without looking into the material. Global temperature and atmospheric CO2 content are very likely to be related. And the Earth's temperature was higher in prehistoric eras because the atmosphere had a different constitution. The margin for temperature change is pretty wide, but by 2100, it's thought to be anywhere between 2 and 8 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than it is today. Whilst this isn't enough to cause spontaneous combustion or whatever you're picturing, it's very likely to be enough to cause significant damage to various ecosystems.

[Rehab]

And even if we don't end up needing to actually do something ourselves to "reverse" climate change (I'd appreciate citation for either/any side of that issue- I certainly feel like I've heard more substantive points "for" acting than "not," but I'm having a hard time placing them), it remains that the climate is, by the vast majority of accounts/explanations, changing in ways that we're a lot less prepared for right now than would be optimal. Therefore, just living like we always have will at the very least require us to prepare to deal with, say, more extreme weather than we're used to, droughts, desertification, things like that.

I'm pretty ignorant of environmental sciences/politics, really, and even I've heard enough background noise that would suggest the short answer to "well, what can we do?" would be something like, "how much time do you have to sit here and listen?"

[dondon151]

Obviously this doesn't mean that it is not a problem, but the people acting like it will kill everyone in twenty years by roasting the Earth are very much overreacting.

oh, please. you haven't done your research and are basing your opinion off an imaginary caricature of climate scientists. no one thinks that global warming will "roast" the earth; the problems will come from ecological changes, increased frequency of severe weather, and rising sea levels, all of which may be compounded by an inability to control climate change should the ball get rolling.

for example, melting sea ice results in lower surface albedo, which means less solar radiation is reflected into space. methane clathrate deposits in permafrost regions and on the seafloor have the potential to release huge quantities of greenhouse gas.

[Sunwoo]

No. It isn't a serious problem. Rather, it is a problem that has time to be fixed. Earth has, naturally, gone through temperatures much hotter than what is predicted on its own with no human interference. Obviously this doesn't mean that it is not a problem, but the people acting like it will kill everyone in twenty years by roasting the Earth are very much overreacting. Unless we do something drastic it will take quite a while for Earth to become as hot as it used to be, which is plenty of time for us to develop better ways to control global warming. By the time we die of old age, global warming may, very well, have been dealt with.

Snowy, that's not how carbon dioxide and things that enter our atmosphere works.

The "residence time" of a substance is the amount of time that said substance STAYS in a reservoir (like the atmosphere or water or the earth) before it gets washed out naturally. Carbon dioxide, one of the main greenhouse gases, has a residence time of 100-150 years. This means that a molecule of CO₂ that is put into the atmosphere today will stay in the atmosphere for 100-150 years.

Let's say that tomorrow, we come up with and implement a technology worldwide that cuts carbon dioxide emission down to zero. The damage has still been done because we've been pumping carbon dioxide into our atmosphere for years and years, and we will continue to see effects in the future because carbon dioxide is not going to magically go away just because we stopped putting it in. Not to mention all the OTHER greenhouse gases like methane and CFCs, which are smaller in concentration but last longer than CO₂ and have a greater global warming potential.

Also, look up the Maldives and some of the other small island nations in the Pacific. The sea level rising even a meter has drastic consequences for these island nations, some of which are barely above sea level in elevation, and it HAS already impacted these places. The rising sea level will also overtake low-level coastal regions in the United States, if it hasn't already started.

You can't say that people who act like global warming will kill everyone in twenty years is overreacting. The truth of the matter is, there is so much that scientists still don't know about global warming, and that is terrifying. The truth of the matter is, we don't know if we've already reached the "point of no return", in which the earth's climate cannot revert to its original state and the future will have to adapt to a new climate. There is still much that we don't know, but 97-99% of climate scientists AGREE that human-caused global warming is a thing, and that it's going to be a big issue.

[Snowy_One]

Snowy, please don't make blanket statements without looking into the material. Global temperature and atmospheric CO2 content are very likely to be related. And the Earth's temperature was higher in prehistoric eras because the atmosphere had a different constitution. The margin for temperature change is pretty wide, but by 2100, it's thought to be anywhere between 2 and 8 degrees Fahrenheit hotter than it is today. Whilst this isn't enough to cause spontaneous combustion or whatever you're picturing, it's very likely to be enough to cause significant damage to various ecosystems.

Wow. It's like you didn't even look at your own chart and notice that there have been higher temperatures in the Earth's past.

Look, I'm not saying 'Global Warming is unimportant'. I'm saying that a lot of fear OF Global Warming is unfounded. At the least we'll have a hundred or so years before it becomes super-serious and I'm sure that, by then, we'll have figured out how to deal with it.

This does not mean it is not an issue.

This does not mean that we should ignore it and leave it for future generations to solve.

This means that the scare that people seem to believe that, before long, the world is gonna get unnaturally flooded and destroyed is false as the Earth has done so in the past and survived. Especially since, in your own chart, there was a HUGE spike before many of the things that currently cause GW existed.

Also: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/opinion/global-warming-scare-tactics.html?_r=0

Now, I understand that this is an article about how many of the scare tactics have worked, but remember that these tactics exist in the first place and many believe them. 'Years Living Dangerously' is implying that, if Global Warming is not dealt with now, the world is basically going to combust as floods rage rampant and the glaciers melt.

Once again, I am NOT saying Global Warming isn't a problem. I AM saying that the people who act like it is going to kill us all and destroy the world are overreacting/intentionally making it sound like it is far worse than it really is.

I.E.

You: Getting shot in the leg sucks.

Me: Least you didn't get shot in the heart. You can heal.

You: ARE YOU SAYING THIS DOESN'T SUCK?!

You can't say that people who act like global warming will kill everyone in twenty years is overreacting. The truth of the matter is, there is so much that scientists still don't know about global warming, and that is terrifying. The truth of the matter is, we don't know if we've already reached the "point of no return", in which the earth's climate cannot revert to its original state and the future will have to adapt to a new climate. There is still much that we don't know, but 97-99% of climate scientists AGREE that human-caused global warming is a thing, and that it's going to be a big issue.

Yea... Considering that's not what I said at all, I'm just going to not bother responding.

Edited June 9, 2014 by Snowy_One

[Sunwoo]

but the people acting like it will kill everyone in twenty years by roasting the Earth are very much overreacting.

You can't say that people who act like global warming will kill everyone in twenty years is overreacting.

You did very much say this.

Also, if this is seriously the only part of my argument that you're going to even respond to, then I'm not sure if I can even take you seriously at all. Go ahead, refute my point about residence time of CO₂ and other greenhouse gases. About the Maldives and the rising sea level. This isn't an issue that we can wait on. We don't HAVE one hundred years before it becomes "super serious".

Global warming isn't going to "destroy the earth" or "kill us all". What it IS going to do is cause glacial melt and rising sea levels, which will lead to loss of coastline and many low elevation islands, and cause much drastic weather events. Hot days will become hotter and more numerous. Floods and storms will become greater and more intense. It's about intensifying extremes.

One final thing: the issue with carbon dioxide in the atmosphere isn't necessarily the "temperature", but the rate of change of the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. You'll find that at no other point in the earth's climatological history from ice cores and stuff has there ever been such a dramatic RATE of increase in CO₂ as there has been in modern times. That kind of change is not natural.

[Jaybee]

Wow. It's like you didn't even look at your own chart and notice that there have been higher temperatures in the Earth's past.

Look, I'm not saying 'Global Warming is unimportant'. I'm saying that a lot of fear OF Global Warming is unfounded. At the least we'll have a hundred or so years before it becomes super-serious and I'm sure that, by then, we'll have figured out how to deal with it.

This does not mean it is not an issue.

This does not mean that we should ignore it and leave it for future generations to solve.

This means that the scare that people seem to believe that, before long, the world is gonna get unnaturally flooded and destroyed is false as the Earth has done so in the past and survived. Especially since, in your own chart, there was a HUGE spike before many of the things that currently cause GW existed.

Also: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/09/opinion/global-warming-scare-tactics.html?_r=0

Now, I understand that this is an article about how many of the scare tactics have worked, but remember that these tactics exist in the first place and many believe them. 'Years Living Dangerously' is implying that, if Global Warming is not dealt with now, the world is basically going to combust as floods rage rampant and the glaciers melt.

Once again, I am NOT saying Global Warming isn't a problem. I AM saying that the people who act like it is going to kill us all and destroy the world are overreacting/intentionally making it sound like it is far worse than it really is.

I.E.

You: Getting shot in the leg sucks.

Me: Least you didn't get shot in the heart. You can heal.

You: ARE YOU SAYING THIS DOESN'T SUCK?!

Yea... Considering that's not what I said at all, I'm just going to not bother responding.

no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no

You realise that this flooding is going to happen, correct?

You realise that there is a pretty fuckin decent chance a lot of people will die because of this flooding, correct?

I do not understand how people cannot see this as being a serious issue. We probably aren't the ones whom are most affected by it, but holy shit there's so many other terrible things that can and will happen. You get more tornadoes, coastal cities become entirely inhospitable, and you fuck over ocean currents which are dependent on a temperature gradient. You screw over 90% (low estimate) of animals, wreck the world's ecology, and so many other things that I can't be bothered to name. Extinction of humans? That's pushing it a little, but still.

And saying that we can wait a 100 years or whatever you are prescribing is all the more worse. Look at everything we've done in the past 50 (low estimate) or so years. What about the following 100 years? Are you so sure you want to sit idly by and twiddle your kawaii thumbs as this problem gets worse and worse and worse?

This is not 'getting shot in the leg' as you described it, it's closer to getting your jugular cut open. You're not dead yet, but holy shit you're getting close. And if you underestimate the effects, you're going to die.

[dondon151]

This means that the scare that people seem to believe that, before long, the world is gonna get unnaturally flooded and destroyed is false as the Earth has done so in the past and survived. Especially since, in your own chart, there was a HUGE spike before many of the things that currently cause GW existed.

the earth will continue regardless of what we do to it. what we're concerned about is ourselves.

[Snowy_One]

no no no no no no no no no no no no no no no

You realise that this flooding is going to happen, correct?

You realise that there is a pretty fuckin decent chance a lot of people will die because of this flooding, correct?

I do not understand how people cannot see this as being a serious issue. We probably aren't the ones whom are most affected by it, but holy shit there's so many other terrible things that can and will happen. You get more tornadoes, coastal cities become entirely inhospitable, and you fuck over ocean currents which are dependent on a temperature gradient. You screw over 90% (low estimate) of animals, wreck the world's ecology, and so many other things that I can't be bothered to name. Extinction of humans? That's pushing it a little, but still.

And saying that we can wait a 100 years or whatever you are prescribing is all the more worse. Look at everything we've done in the past 50 (low estimate) or so years. What about the following 100 years? Are you so sure you want to sit idly by and twiddle your kawaii thumbs as this problem gets worse and worse and worse?

This is not 'getting shot in the leg' as you described it, it's closer to getting your jugular cut open. You're not dead yet, but holy shit you're getting close. And if you underestimate the effects, you're going to die.

...

You know what? Fuck it. You're right. Global warming is going to happen unless we cut out all carbon emissions. Corporations are evil moneygrubbing beings ruining peaceful lives. Guns are horrible things that should be banned from everyone. Zihark is better than Mia. Belief in religion makes you a horrible person one step away from murdering people at the command of God. All white people are horrible monsters for enslaving blacks years ago. I don't give a crap anymore. I'm so sick and tired of people telling me I'm wrong and stupid for believing differently and a horrible monster. I'm sick of having my own opinions and thoughts that differ from the norm. I'm sick of trying to learn about things and trying to learn about everything, so fuck it. I don't care. I'm now a Democrat, atheist, Republican, theist, whatever. I don't care anymore.

Yea! How can people be such ignorant monsters as to try and pollute the world we live in! Every day companies fill our air with carbon dioxide that's going to melt the ice caps and kill us all with floods and fires!

[Rehab]

Dude, it's difficult for others to be sympathetic when you're not exactly a bastion of ideological tolerance yourself. Cool off.

[Phoenix Wright]

your ignorance on this subject wouldn't be as alarming if you were willing to learn; however, it appears you are so far up your own butt on this subject that getting through to you with scientific data and the actual science of climate change is nigh impossible.

[Nightmare]

As you can plainly see, this is how we don't post. Passive-aggressive nonsense like this is not tolerated.

The rest of you, carry on.

[Sunwoo]

Something that I forgot to add to my previous post: a lot of the time, the countries that are first affected and hardest hit by global climate change are not the biggest contributors to the problem.

One of the consequences of global climate change is rising sea level, which is caused by the melting of ice caps, more absorption of heat into the ocean, and the expansion of seawater as it warms. Where does rising sea level hit hardest? The U.S.? North America in general? On the contrary, it's the small island nations in the Pacific, like the Maldives and Tuvalu, which are barely above sea level. These countries aren't contributing nearly as much to global warming as the U.S. is, and yet they are being hit far harder.

The effects of climate change are visible NOW, but it's more apparent in certain places more than others. For the places that are being hit now, there is a sense of urgency and they are in trouble. I feel that sometimes people only look at what's going on where they live and dismiss the thought that something could be happening because they're not being hit as hard or because they don't experience the impacts.

[Shin]

*Some stuff Snowy said*

I don't really have much to say in response, the others have pointed out why your statements weren't particularly correct. I'd recommend reading around a little, information never hurt anyone... unless the KGB didn't like them!

Boron raises a very valid point with the victims of climate change. The rising sea levels would affect a lot of countries without the means to deal with what's coming. Countries like the UK and US have the money to manage to some extent, whilst some poorer nations depend on their current climate to get by - especially with regards to agriculture.

[Phoenix Wright]

for those who voted "no," mind if i ask why?

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

[jiodi]

I don't understand why people treat science like a brand name or something. I imagine something like

"from the folks who brought you flying and tv and nuclear power and cell phones and computers and the internet...comes global warming to a climate near you, act now or be drowned and/or roasted in a Venus-like atmosphere!"

"well fuck that, sounds bad, unsubscribe!"

Are people still mad that hairpsray is bad or something? I really, truly don't get it from the perspective of an average person. Makes perfect sense if you're living off the dime of the industries who are helping to contribute to this mess and only care about their bottom line, but regular people?

[Esau of Isaac]

I don't understand why people treat science like a brand name or something. I imagine something like

"from the folks who brought you flying and tv and nuclear power and cell phones and computers and the internet...comes global warming to a climate near you, act now or be drowned and/or roasted in a Venus-like atmosphere!"

"well fuck that, sounds bad, unsubscribe!"

Are people still mad that hairpsray is bad or something? I really, truly don't get it from the perspective of an average person. Makes perfect sense if you're living off the dime of the industries who are helping to contribute to this mess and only care about their bottom line, but regular people?

Part of it lies in partisan dick-waving. If one of the two puts forth an ideology and runs with it, the other is generally obliged to deny it, regardless of validity.

More personally anecdotal, so take it with a grain of salt, but in my life others have ignored research because of plain old paranoia. Many people believe that scientists are like some separate branch of the government or corporations. I suppose at times that's not very far off, though.

[jiodi]

I would love to know the total grant money given to the 90-whatever percent of scientists advocating man-made climate change vs the single-digit percentage of scientists saying it's a bunch of crap.