History Main / GlobalWarming

[[folder: {{Videogame}}]]

The debate, in any event, rages on; whether Earth is currently growing hotter or colder, very few doubt that this intense FlameWar between various factions of the political and scientific communities continues to produce massive amounts of heat and very little illumination, save the possibility of the future invention of an argument-powered lightbulb.\\
Climatologists nowadays more often use the term "climate change" rather than "global warming" as a broader term applied to ''all'' complex changes in the globe's climate, past, present, and future rather than a simple increase in "average worldwide" temperature--when one area gets warmer and drier, other may get colder and wetter as the oceanic and atmospheric conveyor belts that move heat around the planet shift location.\\

A debate among the media and the general public rages on over veracity. Politicians and academics on both sides repeat "does not" and "does too" again and again using various synonyms and scientific citings to make it sound less like a playground brawl. Both sides consider the other side's cited facts and opinions as being utter conspiracy-produced rubbish not worth considering, ensuring that the next argument will be ''the exact same argument'', except run through a thesaurus; we won't get into the scientific nitty-gritty of what those cited facts and arguments ''are'' here. In part this is because the two sides seem to use entirely different sets of fundamentals at times, partly because we're about media rather than truth, and mostly because its fantastic flamebait.

* ''{{Freefall}}'' [[http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff600/fv00526.htm mentions]] it when discussing Helix's [[http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff600/fv00523.htm vampire theory]].
* [[strike:Heat]] Money Raising [[http://www.lukesurl.com/archives/1275 Thermometer]] in Luke Surl's comics.

[[folder:Recently the issue acquired political importance and as such caught the spotlight.]]
A debate among the media and the general public rages on. Politicians and academics on both sides repeat "does not" and "does too" again and again using various synonyms and scientific citings to make it sound less like a playground brawl. Both sides consider the other side's cited facts and opinions as being utter conspiracy-produced rubbish not worth considering, ensuring that the next argument will be ''the exact same argument'', except run through a thesaurus; we won't get into the scientific nitty-gritty of what those cited facts and arguments ''are''. In part this is because the two sides seem to use entirely different sets of fundamentals at times, partly because we're about media rather than truth, and mostly because its fantastic flamebait.

[[/folder]]

* Calamities of Nature makes a great point about the [[http://www.calamitiesofnature.com/archive/?c=322 naysayers of global warming]].

A debate among the media and the general public rages on. With many people arguing that what we are experiencing is all part of a natural cycle, and not something for which we are responsible. Others claim that, even if we are causing global warming, it is either [[YouAreTooLate already too late]] or not economically feasible to solve the problem, and that we should instead be trying to work around it. Active areas of interest to the general public are whether we ought to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere or reduce their output, and if so, how; this being a major factor in the recent surge of interest in alternative energy sources and energy efficiency technologies. Skeptics generally insist that fluctuations in the Earth's climate have more to do with fluctuations in solar output.

"Green" politicians and climatologists generally claim that there's little to no evidence of any warming on this level before at the same points in the solar cycle, and point to human action as the only thing different this time. "Skeptical" politicians and climatologists generally counter that the Medieval Warming Period, certain natural cycles observed on other planets in the solar system (including global warming), and higher levels of carbon dioxide and other alleged "greenhouse gasses" in cooler climates during the past are evidence that refutes this claim. Or simply claim that the "radiation greenhouse" theory as such doesn't fit laws of physics as currently understood, so nothing valid links politics to climatic changes that may or may not exist.

The debate, in any event, rages on; whether Earth is currently growing hotter or colder, very few doubt that this intense FlameWar between various factions of the political and scientific communities continues to produce massive amounts of heat and very little illumination.\\

Climatologists nowadays more often use the term "climate change" rather than "global warming" to reflect that the changes they expect to see are more complex than a simple worldwide increase in temperature--some areas may actually get ''colder'' and wetter as the oceanic and atmospheric conveyor belts that move heat around the planet shift location, even as other areas get warmer and drier. It is also a broader term applied to all changes in the globe's climate, past, present, and future, rather than simply the current perceived warming trend.

A debate among the media and the general public rages on, with many people arguing that what we are experiencing is all part of a natural cycle, and not something for which we are responsible. Others claim that, even if we are causing global warming, it is either [[YouAreTooLate already too late]] or not economically feasible to solve the problem, and that we should instead be trying to work around it. Active areas of interest to the general public are whether we ought to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere or reduce their output, and if so, how; this being a major factor in the recent surge of interest in alternative energy sources and energy efficiency technologies. Skeptics generally insist that if fluctuations in the Earth's climate actually have far more to do with fluctuations in solar output rather than the levels of carbon dioxide or other "greenhouse gasses" then developing the more expensive and less efficient methods of energy production in order to prevent global warming is a serious waste of our economic resources.

"Green" politicians and climatologists generally claim that there's little to no evidence of any warming on this level before at the same points in the solar cycle, and point to human action as the only thing different this time. "Skeptical" politicians and climatologists generally counter that the Medieval Warming Period, certain natural cycles observed on other planets in the solar system (including global warming), and higher levels of carbon dioxide and other alleged "greenhouse gasses" in cooler climates during the past are evidence that refutes this claim. Some physicists say that the "Green" Climatologists' theories contradict the laws of thermodynamics as currently understood, while others do not. The debate, in any event, rages on; whether Earth is currently growing hotter or colder, very few doubt that this intense FlameWar between various factions of the political and scientific communities continues to produce massive amounts of heat and very little illumination.

'''Note: This page is only for examples concerning the portrayal of global warming in fiction. RealLife examples are not welcome. Since global warming is a rather controversial and politicized issue, please observe the RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement while doing any editing.'''

* The HumongousMecha of ''PatLabor'' were originally developed to construct barrier dams to protect coastal cities from being flooded due to global warming.

* MichaelCrichton's ''StateOfFear'' is all about the controversy over global warming. Its [[{{Hatedom}} detractors]] insist that it bears about as much accuracy as TheDayAfterTomorrow, in the opposite direction. It is worth noting that it resembles the ''accusations'' of [[GateConstruction Climategate and Glaciergate]], but differs substantially in the details in that in the book, climate change as a whole is a hoax, whereas in the two 'gates, the greens insist that all it proves is that [[HanlonsRazor two scientists need better proofreading.]]

Climatologists nowadays more often use the term "climate change" rather than "global warming" to reflect that the changes they expect to see are more complex than a simple worldwide increase in temperature--some areas may actually get ''colder'' and wetter as the oceanic and atmospheric conveyor belts that move heat around the planet shift location, even as other areas get warmer and drier. It is also a broader term applied to all changes in the globe's climate, past, present, and future, rather than simply the current perceived warming trend. (And yet, [[WhatAnIdiot people nowadays keep saying "global warming",]] [[WallBanger even if you hear about major blizzards on the news.]])

* ''NeonGenesisEvangelion'' manages to both play with and avert the problem. Second Impact [[spoiler:(also a [[NiceJobBreakingItHero man-driven catastrophe]])]] causes the destruction of Antartica first, resulting in a lot of underwater real estate.

* In ''SoylentGreen'', the greenhouse effect has led to year-round temperatures in the 90s and 100s, so crops cannot grow and people can only be fed by the Soylent Corporation's processed products, including their [[ImAHumanitarian latest]] [[YouShouldKnowThisAlready innovative]] [[ItWasHisSled product]].

Climatologists nowadays more often use the term "climate change" rather than "global warming" to reflect that the changes they expect to see are more complex than a simple worldwide increase in temperature--some areas may actually get ''colder'' and wetter as the oceanic and atmospheric conveyor belts that move heat around the planet shift location, even as other areas get warmer and drier. It is also a broader term applied to all changes in the globe's climate, past, present, and future, rather than simply the current perceived warming trend.

One might say "Global Warming is the New Nuke", for it has largely supplanted the role the A-bomb once had in fiction as a catalyst for TheEndOfTheWorldAsWeKnowIt.

In fiction, the effects of global warming are drastically exaggerated for the purposes of creating immediate drama. Everything within a thousand miles of the tropics becomes an inhospitable desert, with places like Canada, Siberia and Scandinavia becoming the last refuges of humanity. Massive tornadoes, hurricanes and wildfires start striking all over the planet. Absurd sea level rise is very common, with fictional works frequently portraying [[GiantWallOfWateryDoom walls of water]] flooding all the coastal cities on the planet all at once rather than extremely gradually. A sea level rise of that magnitude would necessitate the melting of most of the world's major ice sheets, something that would take decades. [[http://merkel.zoneo.net/Topo/Applet/ Here]] is a good app to demonstrate.

In reality, global warming is a far more subtle phenomenon, with its supposed effects being such things as droughts, famines, floods, and magnification of real-world weather patterns, generally more heavily affecting the less developed parts of the world, where food is scarcer and farming more difficult than the developed world. Because the real world is complicated, no single drought or melted glacier can ever be claimed as the sole result of global warming; the effect only appears when looking at a large amount of data over many years.

For the developed world, the most relevant consequences of global warming may not be its direct effect on the weather, but the effects that the changing weather would have on the geopolitical climate. The increasing frequency and intensity of famine and ecological problems would magnify the inability of developing states to exercise any sort of control over their populations. In short, the situation would be more ''MadMax'' than ''{{Waterworld}}''.

Also note that scientists often use the term "climate change" rather than "global warming" to reflect that the changes are more complex than a simple worldwide increase in temperature -- some areas will actually get ''colder'' and wetter as the oceanic and atmospheric conveyor belts that move heat around the planet shift location, just as many areas will get warmer and drier. It also is a broader term, able to be applied to all changes in the globe's climate, past, present, and future, instead of simply the current observed warming trend.

A debate among the media and the general public rages on, with many people arguing that what we are experiencing is all part of a natural cycle, not something that we are responsible for. Others claim that, even if we are causing global warming, it is either [[YouAreTooLate already too late]] or economically infeasible to solve it. Active areas of interest to the general public are how to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere or reduce their output, a major factor in the recent surge of interest in alternative energy sources and energy efficiency technologies. Skeptics however will generally argue that if fluctuations in the Earth's climate actually have far more to do with fluctuations in solar output rather than being driven by carbon levels or "greenhouse gasses" then all everyone is really doing is flushing money down the toilet in developing much more expensive much less efficient means of energy production. Climatologists counter that there's little to no evidence of any warming on this level before at the same points in the solar cycle, and point to human action as the only thing different this time. Physicists say that Climatologists's theories have problems with the thermodynamics as we know it. Skeptics argue that the difference between "censored" and "fixed" data used to back up the "hockey stick" theory is enough to simply dismiss it. And so on. Whether Earth currently grows slightly hotter or slightly colder, there aren't much doubts about the temperature of Climate FlameWar.

'''Note: This page is only for the portrayal of global warming in fiction. No RealLife examples. And since global warming is a rather politicized issue, remember the RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement.'''

A debate among the media and the general public rages on, with many people arguing that what we are experiencing is all part of a natural cycle, not something that we are responsible for. Others claim that, even if we are causing global warming, it is either [[YouAreTooLate already too late]] or economically infeasible to solve it. Active areas of interest to the general public are how to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere or reduce their output, a major factor in the recent surge of interest in alternative energy sources and energy efficiency technologies. Skeptics however will generally argue that if fluctuations in the Earth's climate actually have far more to do with fluctuations in solar output rather than being driven by carbon levels or "greenhouse gasses" then all everyone is really doing is flushing money down the toilet in developing much more expensive much less efficient means of energy production. Scientists counter that there's little to no evidence of any warming on this level before at the same points in the solar cycle, and point to human action as the only thing different this time. Skeptics argue that the evidence- largely glacier-based, although fossilized pollen also plays a role- doesn't go back far enough. And so on, to the point where the only people who haven't lost interest in the argument have already made up their minds with preconceived notions.

A debate among the media and the general public rages on, with many people arguing that what we are experiencing is all part of a natural cycle, not something that we are responsible for. Others claim that, even if we are causing global warming, it is either [[YouAreTooLate already too late]] or economically infeasible to solve it. Active areas of interest to the general public are how to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere or reduce their output, a major factor in the recent surge of interest in alternative energy sources and energy efficiency technologies. Skeptics however will generally argue that if fluctuations in the Earth's climate actually have far more to do with fluctuations in solar output rather than being driven by carbon levels or "greenhouse gasses" then all everyone is really doing is flushing money down the toilet in developing much more expensive much less efficient means of energy production.

'''Note: This page is only for the portrayal of global warming in fiction. No RealLife examples. And since global warming is a rather politicized issue in many places where people refuse to listen to empirical evidence, remember the RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement.'''

A debate among the media and the general public rages on, with many people arguing that what we are experiencing is all part of a natural cycle, not something that we are responsible for. Others claim that, even if we are causing global warming, it is either [[YouAreTooLate already too late]] or economically infeasible to solve it. Active areas of interest to the general public are how to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere or reduce their output, a major factor in the recent surge of interest in alternative energy sources and energy efficiency technologies.

'''Note: This page is only for the portrayal of global warming in fiction. No RealLife examples. And since global warming is a rather politicized issue in many places, remember the RuleOfCautiousEditingJudgement.'''

A debate among the media and the general public rages on, with many people arguing that what we are experiencing is all part of a natural cycle, not something that we are responsible for. Others claim that, even if we are causing global warming, it is either [[YouAreTooLate already too late]] or economically infeasible to solve it. Active areas of interest to both scientists and the general public are how to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere or reduce their output, a major factor in the recent surge of interest in alternative energy sources and energy efficiency technologies.

In fiction, the effects of global warming are drastically exaggerated for the purposes of creating immediate drama. Everything within a thousand miles of the tropics becomes an inhospitable desert, with places like Canada, Siberia and Scandinavia becoming the last refuges of humanity. Massive tornadoes, hurricanes and wildfires start striking all over the planet. Absurd sea level rise is very common, with fictional works frequently portraying walls of water flooding all the coastal cities on the planet all at once rather than extremely gradually. A sea level rise of that magnitude would necessitate the melting of most of the world's major ice sheets, something that would take decades. [[http://merkel.zoneo.net/Topo/Applet/ Here]] is a good app to demonstrate.

Also note that scientists often use the term "climate change" rather than "global warming" to reflect that the changes are more complex than a simple increase in temperature overall and some regional decreases are actually involved -- many areas ''will'' get colder and wetter under global warming as the oceanic and atmospheric conveyor belts that move heat around the planet shift location, just as many areas will get warmer and dryer. It also is a broader term, able to be applied to all changes in the globe's climate, past, present, and future, instead of simply the current observed warming trend.

A debate among the media and the general public rages on, with many people arguing that what we are experiencing is all part of a natural cycle, not something that we are responsible for. Others claim that, even if we are causing global warming, it is either already too late or economically infeasible to solve it. Active areas of interest to both scientists and the general public are how to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere or reduce their output, a major factor in the recent surge of interest in alternative energy sources and energy efficiency technologies.

A debate among the media and the general public ([[http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/38574742.html although not scientists]]) rages on, with many people arguing that what we are experiencing is all part of a natural cycle, not something that we are responsible for. Others claim that, even if we are causing global warming, it is either already too late or economically infeasible to solve it. Active areas of interest to both scientists and the general public are how to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere or reduce their output, a major factor in the recent surge of interest in alternative energy sources and energy efficiency technologies.

A debate among the media and the general public (although not scientists) rages on, with many people arguing that what we are experiencing is all part of a natural cycle, not something that we are responsible for. Others claim that, even if we are causing global warming, it is either already too late or economically infeasible to solve it. Active areas of interest to both scientists and the general public are how to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere or reduce their output, a major factor in the recent surge of interest in alternative energy sources and energy efficiency technologies.

A debate among the media and the general public rages on, with many people arguing that what we are experiencing is all part of a natural cycle, not something that we are responsible for. Others claim that, even if we are causing global warming, it is either already too late or economically infeasible to solve it. Active areas of interest to both scientists and the general public are how to remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere or reduce their output, a major factor in the recent surge of interest in alternative energy sources and energy efficiency technologies.

* ''CaptainPlanetAndThePlaneteers'', in a WonderfulLife episode, showed Manhattan half-submerged by the Atlantic Ocean in a scene meant to represent [[ZeeRust the year 2010]].