Science can be very controversial, and we definitely picked out one of the contenders for the most "heated" argument (wait, that was clever, right?). As a geology major, global warming is an issue very pertinent to my field of study. That's not to say the information I'm about to give makes it any more accurate than others' (that's like feeling on par with Isaac Newton after an introductory physics course), but just that I feel much more passionate about the subject than the average person. Oh boy. Here we go.
 |
| http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus |
97% of climate scientists --including NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) -- agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities. 97 percent. As stated before, science can be very controversial, especially within the scientific community, and an overwhelmingly one-sided agreement on an issue is something to note. A complete list of published statements can be referenced in the link provided under the above picture. In all, that includes statements from: 18 scientific associations, a joint statement from numerous international science academies, government agencies such as the U.S. Global Change Research Program, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Here is also a list of 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been influenced by human action.
That's not to say there aren't naysayers to the subject of global warming (and there are quite a few), but the above statistic only attributes to those within the scientific community, and honestly in my own opinion, those only worth listening to. Although, there are those within the scientific community, an insignificant-yet-vocal minority who are against the actuality of global warming, but there are always those select few who go against the flow just to do so. There's a hipster in us all, apparently. Politicians have also joined the ring in arguing on this matter, but considering the tenuous nature of politicians overall, those opinions are excluded in this statistic.
 |
| http://www.globalchange.gov/HighResImages/1-Global-pg-20L.jpg |
Now that the scientific consensus has been noted, the next priority is to state the evidence in support of it. Earth's average temperature has risen by 1.4°F over the past century, and is projected to rise another 2 to 11.5°F over the next hundred years. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), the decade from 2000 to 2010 was the warmest on record, and 2010 was tied with 2005 as the warmest year on record. Many places have experienced changes in rainfall resulting in more intense rain, as well as more frequent and severe heat waves. The planet's oceans and glaciers have also experienced changes: oceans are warming and becoming more acidic, ice caps are melting, and sea levels are rising.
The image above also supports the claim that the primary cause for the recent warming of the earth is due to greenhouse gas emissions, i.e. human caused effects. Although the earth periodically goes through natural climate shifts, the graph illustrates the projected change if only natural forces were present and the actual change with human contribution.
Finally, here are some examples of the drastic changes that can occur even with a seemingly small temperature change*:
For about every 2°F of warming, we can expect to see
5—15% reductions in the yields of crops as currently grown
3—10% increases in the amount of rain falling during the heaviest precipitation events, which can increase flooding risks
5—10% decreases in stream flow in some river basins, including the Arkansas and the Rio Grande
200%—400% increases in the area burned by wildfire in parts of the western U.S.
*Referenced in NRC (2011). Climate Stabilization Targets: Emissions, Concentrations, and Impacts over Decades to Millennia
 |
| http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends_station.shtml?stnid=8665530 |
For my "definitive" piece of evidence in support of global warming, I'm going to discuss sea level rise, an issue that has very real consequences for a coastal city such as Charleston. Charleston has a mean sea level rise of 3.15 mm/year which is equivalent to a change of 1.03 feet in 100 years. Sea-level rise and the likely increase in hurricane intensity and associated storm surge will be among the most serious consequences of climate change. Low-lying areas, including some communities, will be inundated more frequently – some permanently – by the advancing sea. Current buildings and infrastructure were not designed to withstand the intensity of projected storm surge, which would cause catastrophic damage. If sea-level rise increases at an accelerated rate (which is dependent upon ice sheet response to warming) a large portion of the Southeast coastal zone could be threatened – especially Charleston.
Now onto The Day After Tomorrow and its relation to real life global warming. The movie primarily focused on a piece of evidence that I chose to be my definitive example -- sea-level rise; however, it spotlighted it on a much larger, dramatic, and more ludicrous scale.
In the first half of the film, there were several montages of massive natural disasters, such as super tornadoes ravaging California and a gigantic storm surge destroying New York, depicted above. While sea-level rise does indeed influence these natural events, at the rate it is rising currently (as shown previously), it is nowhere near the rate that would produce these storms, especially so quickly.
The second half of the film focused on an "ice age" effect due to sea-level rise. The explanation for this was a profound amount of desalination disrupting the North American current. The North American current flows warm water towards Europe, and given that oceans primarily regulate the climate, if they changed, the climate would as well. The error in this scenario is that a humongous amount of fresh water would have to be dumped in the ocean in an extremely short period of time so the water couldn't regulate itself, and seeing as that the only source of fresh water would be melting ice caps, this idea would simply never happen. At least not within a week, as shown in the film.
The last part of this puzzle is to analyze and discuss how much movies impact public opinion -- and it's honestly both alarming and scary all at once. I don't have the proper figures at my disposal, but after questioning an audience about their stance on global warming before and after viewing The Day After Tomorrow, the figures showed that a significant amount of people changed their view in favor of the issue after watching the film. This is kind of scary to think on a much broader scale. Although The Day After Tomorrow highlighted a real issue, it did so in typical Hollywood fashion: irresponsibly and immaturely. Thankfully it influenced public discourse correctly, but the question remains -- if a movie as silly as The Day After Tomorrow can drastically influence public opinion on a controversial issue, what can other movies to towards other issues as well? Hollywood blockbusters aren't where the public should be educated and ultimately indoctrinated on controversial subjects. Thankfully it converted the masses for the good this time, but it might do just the opposite the next time.
