The Great Global Warming Poll

[7,052,770]

Are there any climate scientists on this forum?  If so, please speak up and offer your expert opinion.

If not, we must all defer to the consensus of climatologists, which is that the world is warming at an alarming rate, caused primarily by human burning of fossil fuels.

[John Dibble]

Are there any climate scientists on this forum?  If so, please speak up and offer your expert opinion.

If not, we must all defer to the consensus of climatologists, which is that the world is warming at an alarming rate, caused primarily by human burning of fossil fuels.

Except no such consensus exists. At best I think it can be argued that the general consensus is that the Earth is warming and that humans have a part in it, though not necessarily at an alarming rate or primarily due to human burning of fossil fuels.

[7,052,770]

Are there any climate scientists on this forum?  If so, please speak up and offer your expert opinion.

If not, we must all defer to the consensus of climatologists, which is that the world is warming at an alarming rate, caused primarily by human burning of fossil fuels.

Except no such consensus exists. At best I think it can be argued that the general consensus is that the Earth is warming and that humans have a part in it, though not necessarily at an alarming rate or primarily due to human burning of fossil fuels.

No, you're wrong.  The IPCC Report represents the consensus of scientific thought.

[Sbane]

The thing I fear most is increased complacency if earth temperatures should start to fall slightly. This could be a cooling trend which is masked by global warming. And when the earth starts warming again naturally, the increased carbon in the environment could produce a situation where all the ice at the poles melt and that is when things will start to get interesting.( in the sense that we are all gonna die!!!!!!)

[minionofmidas]

Are there any climate scientists on this forum?  If so, please speak up and offer your expert opinion.

If not, we must all defer to the consensus of climatologists, which is that the world is warming at an alarming rate, caused primarily by human burning of fossil fuels.

Except no such consensus exists. At best I think it can be argued that the general consensus is that the Earth is warming and that humans have a part in it, though not necessarily at an alarming rate or primarily due to human burning of fossil fuels.

No. "Alarming rate" is certainly consensus... although of course your mileage may vary.  Heck, some people don't find the PATRIOT Act alarming.
As to "primarily"... well the extra warming above what can be reasonably explained as cyclical, ie what makes this "alarming", is man-made beyond reasonable doubt. I'm not sure if that's over 50% of the total increase of the past couple of decades, but I fail to see how the question matters anyway.

Oh, as to the "Polar Ice Caps Melting!1! Cologne Under Water!1!" scenario... yeah well, toss. Scare story from the early days of speculation. There wasn't all that much ice over the North Pole waters to begin with, and much of that is already melted without any increase in sea levels as it's, well, in the water to begin with. And it'd take a lot more warming to melt Greenland or Antarctica than anybody's predicting. Especially as all that ice there helps keep the places cooler. (Notice how Antarctica is just about the only region in the world that's not been getting warmer at all over the past few decades.)

I do notice how, when the tabloids/private tv/etc acknowledge the issue of global warming, they come up with that story time and again. Shocking their readers/viewers into fatalistic inaction seems to be the agenda here.

[dead0man]

Are there any climate scientists on this forum?  If so, please speak up and offer your expert opinion.

If not, we must all defer to the consensus of climatologists, which is that the world is warming at an alarming rate, caused primarily by human burning of fossil fuels.

Except no such consensus exists. At best I think it can be argued that the general consensus is that the Earth is warming and that humans have a part in it, though not necessarily at an alarming rate or primarily due to human burning of fossil fuels.

No, you're wrong.  The IPCC Report represents the consensus of scientific thought.

<snicker>

[John Dibble]

Are there any climate scientists on this forum?  If so, please speak up and offer your expert opinion.

If not, we must all defer to the consensus of climatologists, which is that the world is warming at an alarming rate, caused primarily by human burning of fossil fuels.

Except no such consensus exists. At best I think it can be argued that the general consensus is that the Earth is warming and that humans have a part in it, though not necessarily at an alarming rate or primarily due to human burning of fossil fuels.

No, you're wrong.  The IPCC Report represents the consensus of scientific thought.

The IPCC report represents the general consensus by those working in the IPCC, not every climatologist. There are admittedly those outside who agree, however I do not believe there is a consensus. There are even those in the IPCC who disagree with the IPCC's report - it's not like the IPCC has a hive mind. I've even had a climatologist who believes in global warming tell me to my face that there's not a consensus. But really what does this matter? 'Consensus' is not a scientific argument - a consensus can be dead wrong, and has historically been so on many issues.

What I believe based on what I've studied:
1. Greater amounts of certain gases in the atmosphere would have an effect of increasing temperature. The science behind this is strong.
2. Greater amounts of certain gases in the atmosphere would have an effect of decreasing temperature. The science behind this is also strong.
3. Human industry has historically released some of both types of gases into the atmosphere. Since it has been shown that many of the second types of gas also have the side effect of damaging the ozone layer, their use has been curbed. Thus, we can say that human activity is increasing the temperature of the planet to some degree, though the exact degree is not known.
4. There are natural forces that release both types of gas into the atmosphere. Decomposition for instance releases the first type of gas. On the other hand, volcanic eruptions release both, but usually enough of the second type to have a net cooling effect for a year or two.
5. There are other factors, some known and some unknown, not directly related to these gases that affect temperature. These include but are not limited to ocean currents, changes in solar activity, and planetary albedo.
6. Before large scale human activity, there have been large and sometimes dramatic climate changes.
7. The complexity of the interactions between all factors related to climate change is not fully understood, and it is too early to reach a full conclusion.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Are there any climate scientists on this forum?  If so, please speak up and offer your expert opinion.

If not, we must all defer to the consensus of climatologists, which is that the world is warming at an alarming rate, caused primarily by human burning of fossil fuels.

Except no such consensus exists. At best I think it can be argued that the general consensus is that the Earth is warming and that humans have a part in it, though not necessarily at an alarming rate or primarily due to human burning of fossil fuels.

No, you're wrong.  The IPCC Report represents the consensus of scientific thought.

The IPCC report represents the general consensus by those working in the IPCC, not every climatologist. There are admittedly those outside who agree, however I do not believe there is a consensus. There are even those in the IPCC who disagree with the IPCC's report - it's not like the IPCC has a hive mind. I've even had a climatologist who believes in global warming tell me to my face that there's not a consensus. But really what does this matter? 'Consensus' is not a scientific argument - a consensus can be dead wrong, and has historically been so on many issues.

What I believe based on what I've studied:
1. Greater amounts of certain gases in the atmosphere would have an effect of increasing temperature. The science behind this is strong.
2. Greater amounts of certain gases in the atmosphere would have an effect of decreasing temperature. The science behind this is also strong.
3. Human industry has historically released some of both types of gases into the atmosphere. Since it has been shown that many of the second types of gas also have the side effect of damaging the ozone layer, their use has been curbed. Thus, we can say that human activity is increasing the temperature of the planet to some degree, though the exact degree is not known.
4. There are natural forces that release both types of gas into the atmosphere. Decomposition for instance releases the first type of gas. On the other hand, volcanic eruptions release both, but usually enough of the second type to have a net cooling effect for a year or two.
5. There are other factors, some known and some unknown, not directly related to these gases that affect temperature. These include but are not limited to ocean currents, changes in solar activity, and planetary albedo.
6. Before large scale human activity, there have been large and sometimes dramatic climate changes.
7. The complexity of the interactions between all factors related to climate change is not fully understood, and it is too early to reach a full conclusion.

Don't argue with Harry... he isn't a free thinker.  His posts in this thread are the internet equivalent to covering your ears and yelling as loud as you can.

[John Dibble]

Don't argue with Harry... he isn't a free thinker.  His posts in this thread are the internet equivalent to covering your ears and yelling as loud as you can.

LOL. I've argued with jmfcst and opebo - Harry ain't got nothing on them.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Option 3

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

Option 3 (Normal)

[DownWithTheLeft]

I have come up with a solution, since the Earth is actually cooling, I plan on admitting numerous fossil fuels to prevent an ice age

[King]

I think it would've happened naturally anyway, but we've accelerated the process.  By the time any of the problems scientists are predicting occur, our civilization will be probably be advanced to the point where we could easily manage it and there would be no issue.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I have come up with a solution, since the Earth is actually cooling, I plan on admitting numerous fossil fuels to prevent an ice age

Please fuck yourself with a sharp stick, kthnx.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Climate change is happening, humanity is in part responsible for this (and there is an argument that "how much" is a pointless question). Eventually we will all die, but not, mostly, as a direct result of either of those things.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I have come up with a solution, since the Earth is actually cooling, I plan on admitting numerous fossil fuels to prevent an ice age

Please fuck yourself with a sharp stick, kthnx.

Just trying to save the planet

[Ban my account ffs!]

I have come up with a solution, since the Earth is actually cooling, I plan on admitting numerous fossil fuels to prevent an ice age

Please fuck yourself with a sharp stick, kthnx.

Just trying to save the planet

The planet is cooling?  Really?  Do you have proof?  I'd like to see it, please.  And don't pull the old "yeah, since 1998 it has been cooling" crap.. if you have a sequence like this:

2, 4, 3, 1, 2, 20, 3, 3, 5, 6, 9, 13, 16, 18, 15, 16, 17, 14.... that doesn't mean the numbers are getting smaller just because the largest number, 20, occurred towards the beginning of the data set.

And yes, Antarctica has cooled slightly in the past 30 years.. just like Greenland cooled slightly during the '70s and '80s. 

This was caused by an anomaly in the Arctic Oscillation that is actually thought to have been triggered by global warming.

The Arctic Oscillation, which measures atmospheric pressure at the north pole and at the mid-latitudes, was historically in its "negative" phase where the pressure was generally higher at the pole and lower at the mid-latitudes.

This promotes a weaker jetstream that can buckle and dive southward rather easily, flooding hte mid-latitudes with cold, Arctic air.  Precipitation decreases during the negative AO phase, but snowfall increases in the mid-latitudes because it is so much colder. 

The natural position of the jetstream during the negative AO forces air southward in the continental U.S>, but also allows warm, moist Atlantic air into Northeastern Canada and Greenland.

Starting in the late '80s and early '90s, the AO went strongly positive, which baffled meteorologists.  This relatively new positive phase, where low pressure gathered at the north pole and high pressure dominated the mid-latitudes, completely reversed the normal way of things.

The jetstream became very strong and potent, essentially becoming a bullwhip that remained very zonal (west to east, rather than troughs and ridges).  This kept the cold air bottled up in Canada.  Rather than moving southward, the cold air was pushed east-south-east very quickly and with much force by the faster jetstream, into northeast Canada and Greenland, cooling the climate slightly.

Meanwhile, the midlatitudes warmed dramatically.. winters warmer than ever before begun to happen.

The Brits on the forum can probably attest to this positive AO:  You've had a lot of mild, dull, wet winters in the past 15 years haven't you?  Rather than undercutting Britain and allowing chilly air to move in from the north and east, bringing snow, the jetstream slams into the British isles from the North Atlantic, bringing powerful storms, but also mild temperatures and almost no snow.  Southern Europe experiences winter drought.

Basically, a small region cooled slightly while the rest of the hemisphere warmed on a much larger scale.

[Torie]

The last choice, and the impact of panic reactions would in all events be de minimus either way. The issue has become quite a disgusting political football in my opinion.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The last choice, and the impact of panic reactions would in all events be de minimus either way. The issue has become quite a disgusting political football in my opinion.

Indeed.  Both sides twist the numbers to their advantage, and it is extremely hard to find objective sources without digging into the climate studies themselves, which are often too technical for non-climatologists to understand readily.

My official belief is this:

The earth's climate has been warming for the last 200 years or so, though not uniformly.  Much of this warming has been the result of natural cycles and the end of relatively low solar output, which was the main driver behind the little ice age, which ended in the late 1700s and early 1800s.

Though natural forces were the main driver behind climate warming even into the early 20th century, the warming throughout the 20th century and into the 21st century has been increasingly caused by large increases in greenhouse gases and decreased concentrations of aerosols, such as CFCs and Sulfur Dioxide, which, by their shape and composition, reflect solar energy before it can reach the surface of the earth.

Since sulfur dioxide is much heavier than carbon dioxide, slowing emissions of SO2 has resulted in a much faster reduction of SO2 concentrations in the atmosphere, allowing more solar energy to reach the surface.  Since SO2 is only in the atmosphere for 5-10 years, and CO2 can stay there for up to 300 years, reductions in the emissions of both will lead to warming in teh short and medium ranges.

The warming of our planet since 1970 has mainly been caused by increasing greenhouse gases and decreasing aerosols.  During the '90s and in this decade, this has especially been the case.  While natural forces will still have a large impact on our climate, the manmade component will represent an ever larger share of the trends in our climate.

We do have to recognize that new natural trends or other unexpected events could drastically change our climate despite high concentrations of greenhouse gases.  Sulfur Dioxide emissions have climbed again thanks to coal power plants being the main driver behind the economic booms in many places.  It has been proven recently that this cloud of soot, smog, and aerosols is actually cooling the Pacific ocean as it flows off the Chinese mainland, which could actually cool the planet.

Major volcanic eruptions could also cause temporary dips in global temperatures.  Also, orbital changes in the earth are inevitably headed towards an ice age position as our axil tilt decreases and our orbit becomes more spherical.

A smaller tilt in the planet ultimately means that seasonal extremes will decrease, which results not in colder winters, but drastically colder summers in the far north, which allows snow to accumulate over the year since not all of it can melt during the summer.  This creates glaciers which reflect sunlight back into space and it cools the planet even further, compounding the problem.  This can and has occurred in times when greenhouse gases were relatively high.  The greenhouse effect adds moisture to the air in the north as the tmeperature warms increasing snowfall (it's warmer, but still cold enough to snow) until there is so much snow that it can't melt all summer.  Snow depths have increased so much in places like northern Alaska in the past 20 years that animals that hibernate are increasingly waking up to wintry conditions where spring had initially been underway.  In effect, the beginning of the thaw is coming much earlier, but the snow melt and green up is coming later.

Understanding the natural forces better will ultimately lead us to make the best decisions.  Either way, reducing carbon dioxide emissions are critical so that our planet doesn't become completely dominated by the greenhouse effect, which would likely cause desertification to vast swaths of the earth.

[Nym90]

Man made and it will hurt, but we'll manage if we act now

[© tweed]

Man made and it will hurt, but we'll manage if we act now

but we aren't going to "act now" so there is no point to choosing that option.

[Ban my account ffs!]

our opinions are irrelevant.  Only the opinions of climatologists matter, and they favor option 3.

17% do.

It's all hype.

I don't understand why all the global warming nuts are waiting for the government to tell them what to do.  Go buy green houses and appliances and cars yourself.  If you can prove to us that it's actually happening, we'll all do the same.  In the meantime stop whining about it and do something.

Not all of us have the means to just do whatever we want, whenever we want.  You forget that most of us on the forum work quite hard for a substantially lower quality of life than you're used to.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

our opinions are irrelevant.  Only the opinions of climatologists matter, and they favor option 3.

17% do.

It's all hype.

I don't understand why all the global warming nuts are waiting for the government to tell them what to do.  Go buy green houses and appliances and cars yourself.  If you can prove to us that it's actually happening, we'll all do the same.  In the meantime stop whining about it and do something.

Simple. Because if Global Warming is indeed correct (and its way more than 17% of all scientists who agree... 70% would be even be too low) then the idea that the choices we make as individuals are merely our choices is out the window, for the only way to stop it is for everybody to reduce their C02 emissions. If only the "greens" did it then it would be insufficient as they make up so much percent of the population.

[Ban my account ffs!]

our opinions are irrelevant.  Only the opinions of climatologists matter, and they favor option 3.

17% do.

It's all hype.

I don't understand why all the global warming nuts are waiting for the government to tell them what to do.  Go buy green houses and appliances and cars yourself.  If you can prove to us that it's actually happening, we'll all do the same.  In the meantime stop whining about it and do something.

Not all of us have the means to just do whatever we want, whenever we want.  You forget that most of us on the forum work quite hard for a substantially lower quality of life than you're used to.

The irritating assumptions and uneducated biases are really starting to piss me off.  How about I start talking to you like you're not a real person just because you aren't wealthy?  That would be fair though because you can't just pay away the insults like I obviously can.  You don't know me, you don't know my life, and you certainly don't know why I feel the way I do.  Just like I don't know those things about you.  So how about keeping these things political and leaving the hatred out, ok?  This asinine vitriol is getting to the point where it's not even pleasant to be on here anymore.

What do you want me to say, fezzy.. "yeah!  Great idea!  People should go beyond their means to lead by example in the fight against global warming!"?  The "lead by example" argument works when you're trying to keep a local theater from going out of business or the local high school football team needs new gear... but not when there is the threat of a possible global catastrophe that will affect every person.

I apologize for insulting you.  I can be a real jerk.

[7,052,770]

Did you make up the 17% number, or is there a "source"?

You are surely aware of the study done by the scientific journal Science, that took a look at the hundreds of articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals that concerned global warming/climate change.  75% of them explicitly agreed that humanity is the primary cause of global warming, and the other 25% were not about the causes, but about solutions.  Not a single one stated that something other than humanity was the cause.

...And libertarians still try to deny there's a consensus....