According to the Google Analytics, the global warming is just a bit less popular, than famous pop-stars. The quantity of search queries, connected with climate changes increased dramatically over the past few years. Global warmings discussion gone literally global, splitting scientists, inhabitants and even politicians into the teams of believers and non-believers. And while the believers trying to turn public attention to the fact, that temperature is increasing and we should do something right here and right now (from providing local ethical campaigns to developing Obama's Clean Power Plan) to extend human races life on this planet, the opposite group prefers to deny the fact the Earth is warming and we are responsible for that. The basic stumbling-stone of near every warm discussion is CO2: harmful gas or harmless byproduct of everything breathable? All greenhouse-haters are welcome to make a simple experiment: take two equal bottles, put models with thermometers into and seal them. Then run a hose of the CO2 to the one of the bottles. Shine two heat lamps of the equal intensity and on the equal distance on each one. The result is that the temperature in a bottle with carbon dioxide runs faster and higher. The bottle is the atmosphere, the lamp is the Sun and the whole experiment shows how CO2 heating the atmosphere greenhouse effect in a bottle. The CO2 inside atmosphere absorbs this heat radiation, and the gas itself is heated. This heat inside the bottle is being confined the temperature increase higher in the bottle filled with CO2. Without CO2, air cannot absorb heat, so the bottle without CO2 is not heated. This experiment is often demonstrated at a physics classes to explain the greenhouse effect. However, researches from Massachusetts called into question the accuracy of its results. They claimed that the reason of temperature increased is not about greenhouse effect. CO2 and air have density difference. The suppression of convective heat transport between. This density difference suppresses gas mixing at the CO2-air interface and inhibits heat transfer. As a result, temperature rises. Nevertheless, scientists underline that their findings apply only to the interpretation of classroom scale demonstration, but not call into question the effects of anthropogenic greenhouse gases on the Earth's climate or existing models of those phenomena (Wagoner, Liu, Tobin, p.540).
However, researches show that our planet turns warmer and warmer. NASA officially ranks 2014 as the hottest year science 1880. And its not the end.
For those who dont believe, that each additional degree of warming could lead to dramatically effects the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) impact assessment have been updated with reasons for concern. Here are some predictable consequences of temperature increasing in 1 to 5 0C:
There is medium confidence that ~2030% of known plant and animal species are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average temperature exceed 1.5 0C to 2.5 0C over 1980-1999;
increases in drought, heat waves, and floods are projected in many regions and would have adverse impacts, including increased water stress, wildfire frequency, and flood risks (starting at less than 1 0C of additional warming above 1990 levels) and adverse health effects (slightly above 1 0C);
climate change over the next century is likely to adversely affect hundreds of millions of people through increased coastal flooding after a further 2 0C warming from 1990 levels; reductions in water supplies (0.4 to 1.7 billion people affected with less than a 1 0C warming from 1990 levels); and increased health impacts that are already being observed (Smith, Schneider, Oppenheimer, Yohe, Hare, Mastrandrea, Patwardhan, Burton, Corfee-Morlot, Magadza, Fussel, Pittock, Rahman, Suarez, and Ypersele).
But non-believers and so called lukewarmers (scientists, bloggers and inhabitants, whore agreed with the global warms existence but strongly believe its importance being too exaggerated) have another ace in the hole. The argument is that temperature increases because of natural factors (like cosmic radiation), but not because of humans. Here are two more simple experiments to demonstrate how humans benefit to global warming. The first one shows how through the burning of fossil fuels (fields as well as forests) homo sapiens release additional CO2 into the atmosphere. Place the glass funnel upside-down and connect it to the stand 2. Place the porcelain basin underneath the funnel 3. Connect the funnel to the washbottle with a hose which is on another stand 4. Connect the washbottle to the water pump. 5. Burn the gasoline in the porcelain basin and let the gases be sucked through the funnel and into a washbottle filled three cm high with calcium hydroxide solution. 6.Take note of the time until a precipitation builds up. 7. Do a blind test without burning 8. Take note of the time until a precipitation builds up 9. Compare your observations for the experiment with the wood, gasoline and no burning. There is a noticeable faster build up of milky precipitation with burning than in the blind test without burning. This milky precipitation is the result of the carbon dioxide passing through the calcium hydroxide solution and the subsequent precipitation of calcium carbonate. This experiment demonstrates that by burning fossil fuels as well as wood, a great amount of CO2 is set free into the atmosphere. This increases the greenhouse effect (Blume, Morgensterm, p.21).
The aim of the next experiment is to proof, that all of the factors affecting climate are in the area closest to the earths surface. So the human factor is included. 1. Place the black cardboard at the bottom of the tank. 2. Place a thermometer on the cardboard. The sensor should not touch the cardboard. 3. Cover the thermometer with the layer of perspex. Place a second thermometer on top of the sheet of perspex . 4. Place the fluorescent lamp at an adequate distance from the tank, making sure that it is lit horizontally from above (figure 5). 5. Note the initial temperature, and the temperature every 30 seconds for 20 minutes of both thermometers.
After about 20 minutes the bottom thermometer shows a 2 to 4 K higher temperature. Perspex has a good transmittance for light but not for thermal radiation It absorbs thermal radiation and emits it in all directions, including back to where it came from. You can easyly test this by putting perspex between a heater (for example electric iron) and the cheek. Perspex has similar properties to carbon dioxide gas and it can be used in place of the gas in this experiment. The atmosphere (the perspex) has a good light transmittance (the visible part). When light reaches the earth (black cardboard), a part is absorbed and warms the earths surface. The warmed earth surface acts secondarily as a source of thermal radiation. If there were no climate gases, e.g. carbon dioxide in the air, this thermal radiation would be distributed throughout the earths atmosphere and to outer space. The carbon dioxide layer absorbs the heat and it heats up too. What does a warm body (even when it is made of gas) do? It sends heat out in all directions: above to outer space and below into the atmosphere and to the earths surface. The two latter components become even warmer. It can be seen, that it becomes warmer under the climate gas layer (in the experiment under the perspex plate), than above this layer (plate) (Blume, Morgensterm, p.10).This demonstrates that CO2-layer closer to the earth is warmed up more than higher layers of atmosphere.
There are easy-to-do experiments could be done even at school. But both freshmans experiments and the new spreading trend in a global warming studies real-word data climat simulations (including human-made greenhouse emissions, that compares with datas without human-factor to compare for clear results) proves the same: climat changing is not only about hard science, but about society. Its not problem of a country, but a problem of the whole world .Providing low-carbon technologies and energy systems could help to extend life of a human civilization and set aside planetary cataclysm. As well as creating new jobs and opportunities for investment. But for an obvious reason it always turns from a question of survival to the question of big money and big politics.
Wagoner, Paul, Chunhua Liu, and R. G. Tobin. "Climate Change in a Shoebox: Right Result, Wrong Physics." American Journal of Physics (2010): n. pag. Print.
Smith, Joel B., Stephen H. Schneider, Michael Oppenheimer, Gary W. Yohe, William Hare, Michael D. Mastrandrea, Anand Patwardhan, Ian Burton, Jan Corfee-Morlot, Chris H. Magadza, Hans-Martin Fussel, A. B. Pittock, Atiq Rahman, Avelino Suarez, and Jean-Pascal V. Ypersele. "From the Cover: Assessing Dangerous Climate Change Through an Update of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)." Proceedings of The National Academy of Sciences (2009): n. pag. Print.
Blume, Morgensterm K. Global warming and climate change an experimental approach. Carboeurope.org. 7th EU Framework Pogramme for research & technological development, Science in Society.
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the ProEssays website, please click below to request its removal:
- Role of Psychological Theory in Research
- Slavery and What It Has to Do With the Foundation of America
- The Biology Behind the Procedure
- SMART Cars Market Analysis
- Business Principles
- Mission, Vision, Core Values
- Scientific Consensus on Climate Change PAGEREF _Toc444512139 \h 5
- Market Imperfections
- The Movie "Dead Man Walking"
- The Hound of the Baskervilles by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
- Issues and Problems Affecting Volkswagen Company
- Developmental Rights on Land vis-a-vis Zoning