If you believe in man-made climate change, on what do you base your ideas?

Question

Do you think you might be wrong?

Tell me about the concensus.

What's your take on the 'hockey stick' graphs?

actually there's a multitude of hockey stick graphs. Look it up.

Answer 1

A deep religious belief that man is evil

Answer 2

Belief? I believe in science. When I first saw the Mauna Loa graph in the late 70's that was it for me; that was all it took. I was already grounded in the sciences, so the implications were immediately apparent. The problem should be called "carbon pollution" or "greenhouse gas pollution". To me it's just another intractable environmental problem caused by man. Just another example in the long list of environmental assaults we have perpetrated.

Consensus? When different people apply logic and the scientific method to observations and data they are likely to come to the same conclusions. In science, when they don't, the problem becomes the object of more study until the inconsistencies are resolved. For the theory of Global Warming, the science has steadily led to the conclusion that greenhouse gasses are the culprit and we are the cause. I have read some interesting attempts at alternate hypothesis over the years, but they come and go quickly. It was interesting for me when Gore said in "An Inconvenient Truth" it was the same moment for him, seeing the Mauna Loa graph.

Calling attention to the hockey stick is a red herring tactic; the criticisms have been thoroughly debunked.

Global Warming is just one more symptom of our overall problem. There is simply no credible alternative explanation for the environmental degradation we currently experience. We have met the enemy and he is us.

Answer 3

Yes, I agree with the scientific consensus that humans are the primary cause of the current global warming based on the following evidence.

Basically we know it's warming, and we've measured how much:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2005/ann/global-blended-temp-pg.gif

Scientists have a good idea how the Sun and the Earth's natural cycles and volcanoes and all those natural effects change the global climate, so they've gone back and checked to see if they could be responsible for the current global warming. What they found is:

Over the past 30 years, all solar effects on the global climate have been in the direction of (slight) cooling, not warming. This is during a very rapid period of global warming.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6290228.stm
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf

So the Sun certainly isn't a large factor in the current warming. They've also looked at natural cycles, and found that we should be in the middle of a cooling period right now.

"An often-cited 1980 study by Imbrie and Imbrie determined that 'Ignoring anthropogenic and other possible sources of variation acting at frequencies higher than one cycle per 19,000 years, this model predicts that the long-term cooling trend which began some 6,000 years ago will continue for the next 23,000 years.'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovich_cycle

So it's definitely not the Earth's natural cycles. They looked at volcanoes, and found that

a) volcanoes cause more global cooling than warming, because the particles they emit block sunlight

b) humans emit over 100 times more CO2 than volcanoes annually

http://www.gaspig.com/volcano.htm

So it's certainly not due to volcanoes. Then they looked at human greenhouse gas emissions. We know how much atmospheric CO2 concentrations have increased over the past 50 years:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png

And we know from isotope ratios that this increase is due entirely to human emissions from burning fossil fuels. We know how much of a greenhouse effect these gases like carbon dioxide have, and the increase we've seen is enough to have caused almost all of the warming we've seen over the past 30 years (about 80-90%). You can see a model of the various factors over the past century here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

This is enough evidence to convince almost all climate scientists that humans are the primary cause of the current global warming.

You can read a bit about the concensus here:

http://www.norvig.com/oreskes.html

The hockey stick graph was much ado about nothing. It was basically correct, but just a bit oversmoothed which minimized the recent Midieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age. If you're not happy with it, then just use these 10 temperature reconstructions which still all show that the current warming is quite alarming:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

Answer 4

A short answer first. On a wide variety of evidence. First and foremost, the actual data. Then the interpretation of the data by scientists who are far more qualified than I. Then the opinions of people, including most all world leaders, who are obviously well informed and have no reason to advance a falsehood. More details on all that in the lengthy answer below.

The original "hockey stick" was found to be basically correct by the National Academy of Sciences, although it was overly smoothed (averaged). Since then it's been duplicated may times with better statistical methods.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison_png

Here's the long stuff (and the real proof is in the links).

This is science and what counts is the data.

"I wasn’t convinced by a person or any interest group—it was the data that got me. I was utterly convinced of this connection between the burning of fossil fuels and climate change. And I was convinced that if we didn’t do something about this, we would be in deep trouble.”

Vice Admiral Richard H. Truly, USN (Ret.)
Former NASA Administrator, Shuttle Astronaut and the first Commander of the Naval Space Command

Here are two summaries of the mountain of peer reviewed data that convinced Admiral Truly and the vast majority of the scientific community, short and long.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
summarized at:
http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf

It's (mostly) not the sun:

http://solar-center.stanford.edu/sun-on-earth/FAQ2.html

And the first graph above shows that the sun is responsible for about 10% of it. When someone says it's the sun they're saying that thousands of climatologists are stupid and don't look at the solar data. That's ridiculous.

Science is quite good about exposing bad science or hoaxes:

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/ATG/polywater.html

There's a large number of people who agree that it is real and mostly caused by us, who are not liberals, environmentalists, stupid, or conceivably part of a "conspiracy". Just three examples of many:

"Global warming is real, now, and it must be addressed."

Lee Scott, CEO, Wal-Mart

"Our nation has both an obligation and self-interest in facing head-on the serious environmental, economic and national security threat posed by global warming."

Senator John McCain, Republican, Arizona

“DuPont believes that action is warranted, not further debate."

Charles O. Holliday, Jr., CEO, DuPont

There's a lot less controversy about this is the real world than there is on Yahoo answers:

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/home_page/412.php?lb=hmpg1&pnt=412&nid=&id=

And vastly less controversy in the scientific community than you might guess from the few skeptics talked about here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

"There's a better scientific consensus on this [climate change] than on any issue I know... Global warming is almost a no-brainer at this point. You really can't find intelligent, quantitative arguments to make it go away."

Dr. Jerry Mahlman, NOAA

Good websites for more info:

http://profend.com/global-warming/
http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/
http://www.realclimate.org
"climate science from climate scientists"

Answer 5

There are not many "hockey stick" graphs. There was one temperature graph that was call by that name which has since been shown to be inaccurate.

I base my thinking on these graphs and the sources for them. The graphs are all reasonable and the sources are listed.

I especially like the CO2 graph in the 2nd source. Even if CO2 is not causing warming, that rise is alarming all by itself. We all know than CO2 is toxic in high enough concentrations, and look how fast it is going up!

Answer 6

Its based on science. And a "sciencetific consensus" simply means that a point in the investigation of a particular question has been reached in which a particular hypothesis has been proved to be correct.

There are a lot of graphs out there--but since its obvious that noe of the skeptics have enough education to even understand what the're seeing, and can't tell the difference between the real ones and the junk science fakes, it's pointless to try to explain them--at least until the so-called skeptics bother to learn some basic science. In which case, they can read the graphs themselves and see how ignorant they sound.

Answer 7

Man made climate change is real. The major factor, however, is not CO2, but the paving of the streets and the existence of large populations in a concentrated area.

The concensus, like any consensus, is meaningless. Until people have the knowledge and skills to make an accurate assessment, they have no right to an opinion. Saying that "X" number of people believe it is what caused the Salem Witch Trials to go forward.

The hockey stick graph has already proven to be a fictitious invention of the scare mongers. Climate change may be real, but it is sad when politicians have to use lies to convince people.

Answer 8

All you have to do is Google HAARP and/or Tesla, and be prepared to do a lot of reading. However, I'm sure you'll get quite an eye-opening education. You decide. I don't know anything about a "hockey stick" graph.

Answer 9

The case for human-caused global warming is about as strong as it gets.

1. If the Sun is causing the current warmth, then we're getting more energy, and the whole atmosphere should be getting warmer. But if it's greenhouse, then we're getting the same amount of energy, but it's being distributed differently: more heat is trapped at the surface, and less heat is escaping to the stratosphere. So if it's the Sun, the stratosphere should be warming, but if it's greenhouse, the stratosphere should be cooling.

In fact, the stratosphere has been on a long-term cooling trend ever since we've been keeping radiosonde balloon records in the 1950's. Here's the data:
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/images/update_images/global_upper_air.png
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadat/hadat2/hadat2_monthly_global_mean.txt
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/temp/sterin/sterin.html

2. If it's the Sun, we're getting more energy during the day, and daytime temperatures should be rising fastest. But if it's greenhouse, we're losing less heat at night, and nighttime temperatures should be rising fastest. So if it's the sun, the difference between day and night temperatures should be increasing, but if it's greenhouse, the day-night difference should be decreasing.

In fact, the daily temperature range has been decreasing throughout the 20th century. Here's the science:
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0450(1984)023%3C1489:DDTRIT%3E2.0.CO%3B2
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0477(1993)074%3C1007%3AANPORG%3E2.0.CO%3B2
http://www.bom.gov.au/bmrc/clfor/cfstaff/jma/2004GL019998.pdf

3. Total solar irradiance has been measured by satellite since 1978, and during that time it has shown the normal 11-year cycle, but no long-term trend. Here's the data:
http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/SOLAR/solarda3.html

4. Scientists have looked closely at the solar hypothesis and have strongly refuted it. Here's the peer-reviewed science:
http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf
http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/mpa/publications/preprints/pp2006/MPA2001.pdf

5. CO2 levels in the air were stable for 10,000 years prior to the industrial revolution, at about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv). Since 1800, CO2 levels have risen 38%, to 384 ppmv, with no end in sight. Here's the modern data...
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
... and the ice core data ...
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/domec/domec_epica_data.html
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/vostok/vostok_data.html
... and a graph showing how it fits together:
http://www.columbusnavigation.com/co2.html

6. We know that the excess CO2 in the air is caused by burning of fossil fuels, for two reasons. First, because the sharp rise in atmospheric CO2 started exactly when humans began burning coal in large quantities (see the graph linked above); and second, because when we do isotopic analysis of the CO2 we find increasing amounts of "old" carbon combined with "young" oxygen. Here are the peer-reviewed papers:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1984JGR....8911731S
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mksg/teb/1999/00000051/00000002/art00005
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/256/5053/74

So what's left to prove?