Some questions about climate change?

Question

Just trying to guage opinion so short answers are fine.

To what extent do you agree with the following...

1) Anthropogenic (human) Global Warming (AGW) is real.

2) AGW is a myth created as an excuse to raise taxes.

3) Scientists do not understand the mechanisms which cause climate change.

4) The planet may be warming but this is not unusual and there have been periods of similar warming in the past.

5) Most scientists can't even agree if climate change is occuring

6) If there was an increase in the amount of greenhouse gases from natural sources (oceans, soil, cattle, decomposition etc) this would lead to, or contribute to, global warming.

7) If global warming was happening, there is nothing we can do to stop it.

8) Climate change is the biggest threat currently facing humanity.

9) Proponents of climate change need to learn the facts.

10) Skeptics of climate change need to learn the facts.

Thanks for your time.

Answer 1

1) Anthropogenic (human) Global Warming (AGW) is real.

Global warming is real. I do not think the cause it understood. It could be one or some number of many different mechanisms that is causing the current warming trend. I am not convinced the cause is known.

2) AGW is a myth created as an excuse to raise taxes.

AGW, like other really big environmental issues (DDT, Population Growth) suffers from a huge dose of hyperbole and vitriol. When it was first suggested that humans could cause global warming, it was met with pretty much a shoulder shrug. Remember, Arrhenius first proposed this way back in the day. It has since changed to what it is today, a poorly understood phenomenon, spiced with politics and vitriol.

3) Scientists do not understand the mechanisms which cause climate change.

Scientists understand some of the mechanisms well, but not others. They also do not have a strong understanding of the interplay between the mechanisms. This is where most of my skepticism comes from. I want to see some sort of percentage breakdown of each potential mechanism and the amount of potential warming they can cause. THe models have too many variable. I once read somewhere the following quote:

"give me 4 variables and I can model an elephant, give me 5 and I can make that elephant move its trunk."

4) The planet may be warming but this is not unusual and there have been periods of similar warming in the past.

I have seen several papers that suggest our warming noe is no faster than previous warmings. I have also seen papers that suggest sea level rise and ice mass los are not occuring at a rate faster than in the past. Thus, I tend to think our warming is not unusual.

5) Most scientists can't even agree if climate change is occuring.

I think most of them do. Even skeptics like Lindzen believe it is occuring, they doubt the cuase is man alone.

6) If there was an increase in the amount of greenhouse gases from natural sources (oceans, soil, cattle, decomposition etc) this would lead to, or contribute to, global warming.

Yes. Source matters not. CO2 is CO2 is CO2, no matter where it comes from. The same with the other GHG's.

7) If global warming was happening, there is nothing we can do to stop it.

Depends on the cause. Any and all natrual mechanisms are completely out of mans control. Thus we could do nothing about them. For man to be able to reverse the warming, the cause would have to be nearly 100% anthropogenic, and then it would take years and trillions of dollars. And even then, it may not be enough.

8) Climate change is the biggest threat currently facing humanity.

No, global poverty and illnesses such as AIDS and malaria are far more pressing problems. They are also more easily solved.

9) Proponents of climate change need to learn the facts.


10) Skeptics of climate change need to learn the facts.

I'll handle 9 and 10 together. Both proponents and skeptics need to be more polite to each other. Not all proponents are wacked out socialists bent on world domination and wealth redistribution. Not all skeptics are dirty oil men that want to poison the air, water, and children. There are many intellignet people on both sides, it not nearly as clear cut as Vice President Gore has been suggesting (since 1992 I might add).

Both sides are armed with facts, both sides need to debate in good faith. Both sides need a lot more science to finally prove which side is correct.

Answer 2

Just trying to guage opinion so short answers are fine.

To what extent do you agree with the following...

1) Anthropogenic (human) Global Warming (AGW) is real.
Since we have given off CO2 it is real but probably insignificant.

2) AGW is a myth created as an excuse to raise taxes. It is a real phenomena greatly exaggerated by some that is used as an excuse to push a politcal agenda that might include taxes but probaly is more focused on changing our society from a consumer driven one. Mostly it is just pushed by well meaning people who think they are doing something useful.

3) Scientists do not understand the mechanisms which cause climate change.

They understand the mechanism but often overestimate their knowledge and ability to predict.

4) The planet may be warming but this is not unusual and there have been periods of similar warming in the past. true

5) Most scientists can't even agree if climate change is occuring
Most scientists are afraid to disagree since it has been demonstrated what happens to those that do. It can be as little as being accused of being in the back pockets of the oil and gas industry to being accused of being like the holocast deniers. So who knows what most scientists think. Most scientists don't have a clue IMO.

6) If there was an increase in the amount of greenhouse gases from natural sources (oceans, soil, cattle, decomposition etc) this would lead to, or contribute to, global warming. Contributions might be negligible, slight, or significant


7) If global warming was happening, there is nothing we can do to stop it. It would be difficult. Changing light bulbs to flourescents and getting more efficient cars won't matter a degree in a century IMO but still is a useful endeavor on its own merit

8) Climate change is the biggest threat currently facing humanity. Not even close IMO

9) Proponents of climate change need to learn the facts. Certainly

10) Skeptics of climate change need to learn the facts. Certainly

Answer 3

1. Well there is some debate as to weather people casued global warming or not. I have seen some sources like on the BBC news website that say it is the sun casueing it or others say it is earth's natural cycle. most of North amercia was ice many many years ago and we have been warming up since that.

2. I would not think it is a myth for tax purposes but I do think that AGW is a partial myth becasue it is not out sole fault.

3. Well they do understand it but some people think of different resasons there is perfectly legitamate evidence that we did not cause global warming but then some scicentist have found some evidence the suggest we do play a role in global warming.

4. well that is a good point like as i said earlier that the ice age occured and we warmed up from that. the earth's climate can change over time and people can have nothing to do with it.

5. well most do say it is rising but again some say that it is AGW but others say that it is the earth's natural cycle. Global warming it real it is just a matter of the cause.

6. according to the AGW people and how the man made c02 causes it the same would hold ture for the natural sources i suppose.

7. well that would depend on the casue. it is happening but if it was caused naturally we could not stop it and we should not stop it but if was AGW then yes we should try to cut down and walk or ride a bike take public transportation and conserve more and use less.

8. Not really I think that there is somthing much worse out there, poverty is a bigger one at least in my opinion we need to find some way to educate them so they can get a strong well paying job.

9 +10. both parties should at least consider the facts of the other side before making an opinon.

Answer 4

Short answer: It can't. Long answer and proof of how deluded global warming zealots are: Global warming “science” predicts a 300% increase in cold winters. It also predicts “milder winters rather than cold ones.” So which weather outcome would AGW kooks use as evidence to back up their theory—warmer winters or colder ones? Yes? Huh? The most important tenet of the scientific theory is that a hypothesis must be testable, i.e., if it’s not true, there must be a way to show it. That’s why God is a lousy hypothesis. The answer to all contrary evidence is “God did it,” and thus there is NO contrary evidence. The same for global warming. Here’s a recent quote from one of the biggest names in climate panic: Q: Do you agree that from 1995 to the present there has been no statistically-significant global warming A: Yes, but only just. I also calculated the trend for the period 1995 to 2009. This trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level. Setting aside the spin, the key word there is “yes,”—there hasn’t been any global warming outside the accepted margin of error. And that’s Jones’ answer even though he’s using weighted, biased numbers: •75% of the globe has not seen significant peak warming or cooling changes between the period prior to 1960 and the 2000′s which rise above a 0.5°C threshold, which is well within the CRU’s own stated measurement uncertainties o +/- 1°C or worse. •Assuming a peak to peak change (pre 1960 vs 2000′s) should represent a change greater than 20% of the measured temperature range (i.e., if the measured temp range is 10° then a peak-to-peak change of greater than 2° would be considered ‘significant’) 87% the Earth has not experienced significant temperature changes between pre 1960 period and the 2000′s. And remember how global warming was going to flood the East Coast because, each year the sea was going to rise at a faster rate than the year before until Manhattan was under 20 feet of water? Not so much… “While relative sea level continues to rise at some of the highest rates found along the U.S. Atlantic Coast, there is presently no evidence of a statistically significant increase marking an acceleration in relative sea-level rise” Yes, in some places absolute sea level is rising. In others its falling. But given the (alleged) century of catastrophic damage man has been doing to the atmosphere, shouldn’t there at least be a trend by now? Here’s the truth: The warmest year on record (and our records are only about 130 years old) is still 1998. Unless it’s 1934. The temperatures are so close, scientists are still debating. Since 1998, temperatures have been flat—no significant warming or cooling. Meanwhile, the AGW kooks still can’t explain how the slight warming during the 20th century is different from the huge warming across Europe some 1000 years ago, or why current “warming” shouldn’t be viewed in context of the ending of the Little Ice Age. Sorry for the rambling "answer."

Answer 5

>>1) Anthropogenic (human) Global Warming (AGW) is real.
Anthropogenic contribution to GHGs - yes
Man also emits pariculate pollution that produces a cooling effect. It is difficult to determine the net effect. Even among AGW proponents. James Hansen will tell you that CO2 forcing is offset by man-made cooling.

>>2) AGW is a myth created as an excuse to raise taxes.
No. But it is being misappropriated by politicians and bureaucrats with questionable motives. I believe that it is a possible phenomenon that is being overhyped by many environmentalists who simply want us to act more responsibly in terms of resource/energy conservation and limiting of environmental damage - an otherwise good cause.

>>3) Scientists do not understand the mechanisms which cause climate change.
They do not FULLY understand it. Anyone who is arrogant enough to claim this is not practicing good science.

>>4) The planet may be warming but this is not unusual and there have been periods of similar warming in the past.
It's not unusual only in the sense that we cannot entirely know what "usual" is. See 3 above.

>>5) Most scientists can't even agree if climate change is occuring.
False. Most scientists know that the climate is ALWAYS in flux. To say that NO change is occurring would be ignoring reality. Non-scientists need an oversimplification, a tangible value to comprehend a dynamic system such as the Earth; we come up with an average global temperature, as if this is a valid benchmark of global climate health. For the argument's sake, let's say that temperature is the most critical measurement in assessing climate change. Is that sea surface temperature? Total sea temperature? Troposphere temperature? Total atmospheric pressure? Soil temperature? Crust temperature? An amalgam of all of the above? Some of the above? Weighted? You can see how complex the problem can be - do you believe that most scientists would agree on the details?

>>6) If there was an increase in the amount of greenhouse gases from natural sources (oceans, soil, cattle, decomposition etc) this would lead to, or contribute to, global warming.
Likely but not necessarily. Being classified as a greenhouse gas does not limit that gas to just the greenhouse effect. Water vapor is the chief greenhouse gas, but it's role in the total movement of energy across the globe is just as significant, if not more. One needs only look at the energy locked inside a hurricane to see that the effect cannot be discounted.

>>7) If global warming was happening, there is nothing we can do to stop it.
False. We can stop it. Question should be whether stopping it is the right thing to do. Global warming IS a natural process in that EVEN IF man initiated or exacerbated the global heating that many say we are experiencing, it is so entwined in natural feedback that it is likely impossible to only subtract the anthropogenic contribution. Sure, reduce man-made GHGs - down to zero, even. After that, however, we would be screwing with nature to selfishly reestablish what this generation percieves the best climate to be.

>>8) Climate change is the biggest threat currently facing humanity.
Nope. Humanity is the biggest threat facing humanity.

>>9) Proponents of climate change need to learn the facts.
>>10) Skeptics of climate change need to learn the facts.
We don't have all the facts. But even if we did, we would need to learn the basics of how the facts interact. See 3 above. Our greatest obstacle - proponents and skeptics alike - is the hubris of believing that we already know all the facts.

Good questions, Trevor!

Answer 6

1) Anthropogenic (human) Global Warming (AGW) is real.
Yes

2) AGW is a myth created as an excuse to raise taxes.
No

3) Scientists do not understand the mechanisms which cause climate change.
They are getting there. I think they understand a lot, but certainly not all.

4) The planet may be warming but this is not unusual and there have been periods of similar warming in the past.
No, the present warming is unprecedented both in rate, and reason, for at least 650.000 years.

5) Most scientists can't even agree if climate change is occurring
Most agree that it is true.

6) If there was an increase in the amount of greenhouse gases from natural sources (oceans, soil, cattle, decomposition etc) this would lead to, or contribute to, global warming.
Yes

7) If global warming was happening, there is nothing we can do to stop it.
I see several ways in which we can stop it, until possibly the 'tipping point' is reached.

8) Climate change is the biggest threat currently facing humanity.
Hard one. I believe it is one of the greatest threats to human kind, at present.

9) Proponents of climate change need to learn the facts.
Not really. I think many who believe in GW have scientific facts to support that.

10) Skeptics of climate change need to learn the facts.
In many cases, yes. I often see unsupported opinions with claims contradictory to known facts.

Answer 7

1) Disagree
2) Somewhat agree
3) Agree
4) Agree
5) Agree
6) Do not agree or disagree
7) Agree
8) Strongly disagree
9 and 10 are hard to answer. My best answer is that this:

9) Proponents of climate change need to live in reality, stop getting so surrounded in your isolated bubble surrounded by your so called scientific findings, take a deep breath and realize this is never going to happen. You can get caught up in your anxiety and have a hand full of findings that you believe are the smoking gun and not have a correct "big picture" perspective on it.

10) Skeptics are not so much looking at the facts, and I mean by this is that you give me isolated facts, one here, one here, one here, but in the big picture none of it makes sense I am going to think your a crazy person. I have not seen any concrete evidence that has made me go, "hmm, this may not be a chicken little story." Instead all I hear are wacky pro GW talking points, and crazy data. so no, facts are not what needs to be learned. well unless you got some really hard scientific conclusion that you can give that fits together, and that makes sense. Cause honestly I take a look outside, I take a look at daily life, and GW is just a far fetched Art Bell, Sci Fi movie plot that has no basis in reality.

Answer 8

1) Not a chance

2) this isn't the case either. Its more a scare tactic, surrounded by politically funded junk science.

3) they understand them, they can also pick and choose certain statistics that support their argument. You've got to remember- and yes, scientists do it too. when studies are conducted, there is always a hypothesis they are trying to prove or disprove. more times than not, the hypothesis supports the scientists beliefs, as that is what they are trying to prove. so there is bias in the study before it even starts.
you can look at statistics, find 9 aspects of the data that disagree with your hypothesis, and find 1 piece that DOES agree, and you can report that 1 piece.

4) True.

5) Also true. you have a sample (17,000) of scientists that are in agreement about AGW. But there is also just as vocal a group that rejects AGW (about 16,000). and those 33,000 are not the entire population of scientists. so you can't say "Most" agree- its a slected set of scientists, that all believe it. again, there is bias in the study. it would be like asking a group of 10 athletes, with all 10 of them being basketball players, "What is your favorite sport to play?" obviosuly, the answer will be basketball. but then the report would read "10 out of 10 athletes think that basketball is the best sport). Bias skews studies , and it has skewed AGW.

6) Maybe

7) True

8) No way.

9) absolutely. just become free thinkers. its funny- most of the proponents of AGW claim to be "Liberals", which is usually associated with free thinking. and yet, they read 1 report (IPCC), and they become instant sheep.

10) absolutely. its important to understand the facts on both sides of any debate. you are better equiped to discuss it, when you have as much information as possible.

remember- there are lies, damn lies, and statistics. I work in an industry in which we do forecasting and analyze data every day, and we use statistics to analyize the data. and while we try to remain unbaised, we have been known to pick pieces of data which will help to support our argument. if we were being paid millions of dollars to do a study, and given the premise "Find the man-made causes of global warming", you can bet we'd certainly do our best to cherry pick that data.

Answer 9

1) False - Take off the "Anthropogenic" part

2) That's part of it, the rest would to be to exert more control on the populace.

3) Not completely

4) True

5) True

6) You're still forgetting about water vapor. And what about sea water emissivity?

7) True. It will get cooler on its own.

8) No, that honor goes to George Bush

9) They need to at the very least read ALL of the science and base their opinion on that. They also need to not dismiss something because it doesn't fit their political views. Not necessarily just on global warming but in general (ie. reports that come from oil companies).

10) See answer #9

Fact of the matter is that not ALL of the science is in on this subject. But we are getting more and more information every day.

Answer 10

sorry trevor, i'm not going to go through and answer each question individually, so i'll just give you one that i hope will answer them all simultaneously.

Global Warming is occuring, but it isn't the greatest problem we need to deal with. the greatest problem we need to deal with is the pollution that not only harms the environment, but causes more deaths annually than terorrists do. If we deal with this pollution for no other reason than our individual health's sake, it will greatly dimenish the factors attributed to global warming, since they are the same factors.
regardless of our opinion of global warming, the factors attributed to it should be of the utmost importance, since they influence the health of everyone.
Climate change may or may not be caused by humans. chances are, some of it is, some of it isn't. BUT skeptics still need to learn the facts, that the pollution climate change proponents are crying about finding remedies for, are still major threats to health and life on this planet. AND that pollution IS caused by humans, no matter what people like Lindzen, who also claimed that second-hand smoke wasn't related to health problems, say.
Changing economical and individual habits will not harm the economy. If anything the economy will benefit from increased profits by conservation of energy and fuels. recycling, and lower healthcare claims.
So it doesn't matter, if you call it Global Warming, or Bush's dirty socks, the problem is air pollution, and it is a real threat that need to be taken care of.

a nice educational powerpoint on pollution
http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geu55ohGlGqukAJjxXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE3YmZmamQzBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDMTgEY29sbwNlBHZ0aWQDRjk0Ml85NARsA1dTMQ--/SIG=13h5gfkbk/EXP=1181406696/**http%3a//faculty.evansville.edu/mc42/Sp2004es103/ES103%2520CH19%2520Air%2520Pollution%2520I.ppt

MIT study on the benefits of pollution regulation on the economy.
http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/MITJPSPGC_Rpt113.pdf

study of mortality caused by air pollution
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/rains/review/Rabl2003.pdf

scientific data that shows the air pollutants that increases the heat trapping ability of water vapor, but also are the same ones that cause health problems.
http://www.tpub.com/content/altfuels02/3299/32990036.htm