Global Warming, Where do you stand? Poll

[Husker]

From my way of thinking, the truth can be plain & obvious if you remove emotions/political leanings from the equation: We are obviously living through a warming period, which is probably being exacerbated by human activity. But to what extent, nobody really knows and thus the arguments ensue.

What can be done about it? Probably nothing. There is no precedent for human governments to cooperate with one another without simultaneously backstabbing each other. And unfortunately, it has always been my experience that nothing really changes until IT HAS TO.

P.S. Everyone please Google "Medieval Warm Period" and then "Little Ice Age". It will, at the very least, make you feel a little better about what is currently happening. ;)

Humans do have the capacity to cooperate. Many countries (with severe ideological differences) came together to defeat the fascist empires. Many countries cooperated to eradicate smallpox. But certainly it is challenging to give something up to work for a common good. Think if your neighborhood is flooding, and the only way to stop it is to help your neighbor stack sand bags. And, it is the neighbor whose dog always poops on your lawn. And, his dandelions are encroaching onto your perfectly manicured lawn. And, he got drunk and insulted your wife at the last block party. However, sometimes competition can be more productive than cooperation. We went to the moon because we wanted to do it before the Russians. We could solve a lot of environmental and global problems if the US got into a competitive race for energy innovation with China or other developed countries.

There have been numerous climate cycles in Earth's geologic history. I am not a climate scientist, but the consensus evaluation of a multitude of data is that global temperatures are rising at a rate faster than ever observed, CO2 rising is the principle cause, and human production of CO2 is the principle driver of the increase. I can't speak to which areas we need more data because it is not my expertise. However, I am always an advocate of data-driven decisions and utilizing the analysis of experts whenever possible (without treating the word of experts as dogma, which is not science).

 

[Tahoe61]

As difficult as it is please refrain from adding political content to the discussion.

 

[Humblefish]

Humans do have the capacity to cooperate. Many countries (with severe ideological differences) came together to defeat the fascist empires. Many countries cooperated to eradicate smallpox. But certainly it is challenging to give something up to work for a common good.

Agree; cooperation will occur when it is self-serving. I.e. My coastal cites are underwater and so are yours, so I guess we better do something about this. ;) The US didn't join the fight against Fascism until Pearl Harbor; until we had to.

 

[Waterjockey]

Humans do have the capacity to cooperate. Many countries (with severe ideological differences) came together to defeat the fascist empires. Many countries cooperated to eradicate smallpox. But certainly it is challenging to give something up to work for a common good. Think if your neighborhood is flooding, and the only way to stop it is to help your neighbor stack sand bags. And, it is the neighbor whose dog always poops on your lawn. And, his dandelions are encroaching onto your perfectly manicured lawn. And, he got drunk and insulted your wife at the last block party. However, sometimes competition can be more productive than cooperation. We went to the moon because we wanted to do it before the Russians. We could solve a lot of environmental and global problems if the US got into a competitive race for energy innovation with China or other developed countries.

There have been numerous climate cycles in Earth's geologic history. I am not a climate scientist, but the consensus evaluation of a multitude of data is that global temperatures are rising at a rate faster than ever observed, CO2 rising is the principle cause, and human production of CO2 is the principle driver of the increase. I can't speak to which areas we need more data because it is not my expertise. However, I am always an advocate of data-driven decisions and utilizing the analysis of experts whenever possible (without treating the word of experts as dogma, which is not science).

I'm not convinced the proxy temperature records have enough resolution to make the claim that "global temperatures are rising at a rate faster than ever observed", and I doubt the paleo-climate crowd would agree with that statement as such a certainty.
I'm not sure how you explain "CO2 rising is the principal cause", when in *every* proxy temperature record I have ever seen demonstrates CO2 *lagging* temperature anywhere from 200 years to 14,000 years. I'm not sure how something that happens *after* temperature rises is the *causation* of the temperature rise.
CO2 is an very small portion of the atmosphere (about 4-7%) and isn't a particularly great "greenhouse gas", human emissions account for about 1% of that. So humans contribute about 1% of 4%.
To add to that, as I understand it, we've reached optical saturation of CO2 in the lower atmosphere, i.e., adding more CO2 would not have much of an increasing "greenhouse effect".

I wonder what percentage of the public understands that we are in an ice-age right now, and that geologically speaking, we're in a period of unusually *stable* temperatures.

 

[Husker]

I'm not convinced the proxy temperature records have enough resolution to make the claim that "global temperatures are rising at a rate faster than ever observed", and I doubt the paleo-climate crowd would agree with that statement as such a certainty.
I'm not sure how you explain "CO2 rising is the principal cause", when in *every* proxy temperature record I have ever seen demonstrates CO2 *lagging* temperature anywhere from 200 years to 14,000 years. I'm not sure how something that happens *after* temperature rises is the *causation* of the temperature rise.
CO2 is an very small portion of the atmosphere (about 4-7%) and isn't a particularly great "greenhouse gas", human emissions account for about 1% of that. So humans contribute about 1% of 4%.
To add to that, as I understand it, we've reached optical saturation of CO2 in the lower atmosphere, i.e., adding more CO2 would not have much of an increasing "greenhouse effect".

I wonder what percentage of the public understands that we are in an ice-age right now, and that geologically speaking, we're in a period of unusually *stable* temperatures.

Here is a website that does a better job explaining the misperception of CO2 saturation than I could: https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm

Yes, human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere does appear to represent a small portion of the total CO2. However, the total atmospheric CO2 has remained relatively stable for thousands of years (as far as we can effectively measure). The small but stead increase from human activity is correlated with increased global temperatures. In addition, the spectrum absorbed by CO2 appears to be the primary spectrum retained in the atmosphere. It is amazing that such a small increase could be contributing to global temperature rises, but think of this analogy: you have a giant gymnasium with a skylight and several vents to let air out. That gymnasium is at temperature equilibrium because heat is leaving the gymnasium at the exact same rate as the gym floor is warmed by the sun. But, what if you close up one small vent to slightly change the amount of heat that can leave? Over time, the gym will get slightly warmer because more heat is entering than leaving. It might take a very long time to notice the effect, but it is happening nonetheless.

I will say, it is really important and valuable to have a nuanced discussion of the science. However, this is so difficult to do without being an expert on climate science, optical chemistry, or physics. I am certainly not this kind of expert.

I'm an immunologist, so I will use the example of vaccinations. People are refusing to vaccinate their children based on opinions that are not supported by science. In response to this, people who don't understand the science of an immune response are echoing the consensus of experts who say "vaccines certainly don't cause autism, and they are safer that not being vaccinated." Do the people who echo these sentiments understand them? Certainly not. They are also missing out on a lot of known problems associated with vaccines as well as theoretical problems that could arise from vaccines. However, those subtleties don't change the fact that they are correctly echoing the general consensus based vaccines: it is safer to be vaccinated than to not be vaccinated, and nearly all claims of major conditions caused by vaccines are completed rejected by tremendous amounts of data.

 

[Mattrg02]

We need to figure out a way to let some c02 out or safely bind it up on a large scale. Same for the other greenhouse gasses.

If people started putting the same effort into dealing with the gasses as they did trying to prove the concept, we may just have no reason to worry.

Can't we use the "free" energy from the sun to convert these gases to something useful?

Let's assume that global warming is real and will be deadly. Let's also assume that people aren't going to have less children or convert over to something that doesn't produce greenhouse gases.

Now what?

 

[Husker]

Agree; cooperation will occur when it is self-serving. I.e. My coastal cites are underwater and so are yours, so I guess we better do something about this. ;) The US didn't join the fight against Fascism until Pearl Harbor; until we had to.

Good point. I admit it is much easier to clamor for action by ambiguous entities (such as governments) than it is to do anything myself. I happen to love driving my car, using air conditioning, and eating meat. I am unlikely to sequel any of those acts unless I am forced (or given strong incentive) to do so.

 

[Husker]

We need to figure out a way to let some c02 out or safely bind it up on a large scale. Same for the other greenhouse gasses.

If people started putting the same effort into dealing with the gasses as they did trying to prove the concept, we may just have no reason to worry.

Can't we use the "free" energy from the sun to convert these gases to something useful?

Let's assume that global warming is real and will be deadly. Let's also assume that people aren't going to have less children or convert over to something that doesn't produce greenhouse gases.

Now what?

There ya go... Kind of like "Phosphate RX" for CO2! Blast it into the atmosphere and have the CO2 precipitate out and fall down in a beautiful, Mt. Saint Helen's-esque dust. It could be an every-2-years thing as the opening to the summer or winter olympics. Get working on this, chemists. ;)

 

[Humblefish]

Good point. I admit it is much easier to clamor for action by ambiguous entities (such as governments) than it is to do anything myself. I happen to love driving my car, using air conditioning, and eating meat. I am unlikely to sequel any of those acts unless I am forced (or given strong incentive) to do so.

I guess the fish disease forum can make me cynical sometimes, and I apologize for coming off that way. Most people aren't interested in QTing until they get hit with a fast killing disease (like velvet) in their DT. It's the whole proactive vs. reactive behavior thing. I feel people (and thus society as a whole) will always be more inclined to do the latter.

 

[Husker]

I guess the fish disease forum can make me cynical sometimes, and I apologize for coming off that way. Most people aren't interested in QTing until they get hit with a fast killing disease (like velvet) in their DT. It's the whole proactive vs. reactive behavior thing. I feel people (and thus society as a whole) will always be more inclined to do the latter.

I think you are right. But, if you think about it, the "it will never negatively impact me" mentality is incredibly useful to humans. We have to have an innate assumption that we are invincible until proven otherwise. If we were constantly aware of how all of our decisions could lead to doom, we would be fearfully paralyzed into indecision without ever taking risks. "I can't go out hunting, the lion will eat me" leads to starvation, but "I could outrun a lion any day" allows someone to muster up the confidence to go get some food.

 

[Kevin Ellis]

Growing up in the seventies we were all warned about the coming ice age ! In the forth grade one of our weekly reader magazines showed a glacier cutting across Kansas city (where which I live) by 1990!! Also the world was going to out populate our food supply by the year 2000! It's all about control and money ! Google time magazine's coming ice age and check out the scientific studies that they base there info on. That didn't work for them so they have changed it to global warming, climate change, tell a lie long enough and people will start to believe it!!!!!! Just my two cents!

 

[Centerline]

0.9 degrees in 100 years is simply a blip in time if its even accurate. Its not the first time things have warmed up and it wont be the last time.

 

[Waterjockey]

Here is a website that does a better job explaining the misperception of CO2 saturation than I could: https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm

Yes, human contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere does appear to represent a small portion of the total CO2. However, the total atmospheric CO2 has remained relatively stable for thousands of years (as far as we can effectively measure). The small but stead increase from human activity is correlated with increased global temperatures. In addition, the spectrum absorbed by CO2 appears to be the primary spectrum retained in the atmosphere. It is amazing that such a small increase could be contributing to global temperature rises, but think of this analogy: you have a giant gymnasium with a skylight and several vents to let air out. That gymnasium is at temperature equilibrium because heat is leaving the gymnasium at the exact same rate as the gym floor is warmed by the sun. But, what if you close up one small vent to slightly change the amount of heat that can leave? Over time, the gym will get slightly warmer because more heat is entering than leaving. It might take a very long time to notice the effect, but it is happening nonetheless.

I will say, it is really important and valuable to have a nuanced discussion of the science. However, this is so difficult to do without being an expert on climate science, optical chemistry, or physics. I am certainly not this kind of expert.

I'm an immunologist, so I will use the example of vaccinations. People are refusing to vaccinate their children based on opinions that are not supported by science. In response to this, people who don't understand the science of an immune response are echoing the consensus of experts who say "vaccines certainly don't cause autism, and they are safer that not being vaccinated." Do the people who echo these sentiments understand them? Certainly not. They are also missing out on a lot of known problems associated with vaccines as well as theoretical problems that could arise from vaccines. However, those subtleties don't change the fact that they are correctly echoing the general consensus based vaccines: it is safer to be vaccinated than to not be vaccinated, and nearly all claims of major conditions caused by vaccines are completed rejected by tremendous amounts of data.

I am not a climatologist either, I'm an Engineer who probably spends more time surfing (closed) climate forums with scientists of various disciplines (geologists, physicists, climatologists) than I do surfing reef related forums :)
The link you posted is somewhat correct, and is great for explaining the greenhouse theory to someone who isn't versed in thermodynamics, but it's a little more complicated than that. The warmer a body becomes, the greater the heat transfer..... in this case, to outer space. It's a built in feedback control loop. As far as actual "science" goes, there is no "bonefides" evidence that the greenhouse theory is, in fact, true. It is a far, far, far, more complex system than any model is equipped to deal with to date, and there are many known (and unknown) inputs and inertias that have poorly understood magnitudes of impact. There is so much basic physics and thermodynamics *missing* from "climate science", that for anyone to suggest the currently popular (in the mainstream media) alarmism is "settled science", shows, in my humble opinion, an ignorance of the "science".

How many people are aware the error bars of the sampling exceed the warming cited with such precision in the "modern" record? (If I have an instrument with an accuracy of +- 2 deg C, claiming precision to 0.01 deg is a bit silly).

Again, the geological record shows that we are in an unusually *stable* period of climate, not some unprecedented run-away changes. Have a look at Dansgaard–Oeschger events for example, 25 periods (with some regularity) of rapid warming episodes (over just decades), followed by gradual cooling over much longer periods. This went on literally dozens of times before human-kind even appeared on the scene. I'm not suggesting that we are currently in a Dansgaard-Oeschager event, I'm simply giving kind of example where the earth has seen rapid warming in it's natural history that has nothing to do with Anthropogenic CO2.

In my opinion, the body of evidence that the planet tends to go through regular climatic events far more severe than we are experiencing, based a number of factors which we are only beginning to scratch the surface of (orbits, solar cycles, ocean cycles, etc) is overwhelming, and the hypothesis of anthropogenic CO2 forcing is very very weak, at best.

Far more people die, and the effects on human kind are far more drastic from cooling climates than warming ones. There is significant evidence the current warming trend has been of tremendous benefit to humanity, it's not all "doom and gloom".

 

[Husker]

Growing up in the seventies we were all warned about the coming ice age ! In the forth grade one of our weekly reader magazines showed a glacier cutting across Kansas city (where which I live) by 1990!! Also the world was going to out populate our food supply by the year 2000! It's all about control and money ! Google time magazine's coming ice age and check out the scientific studies that they base there info on. That didn't work for them so they have changed it to global warming, climate change, tell a lie long enough and people will start to believe it!!!!!! Just my two cents!

I won't comment on the quality of Kansas/Missouri's science education, but here is a Snopes article related to the "coming ice age" Time Magazine, to which you are referring: http://www.snopes.com/the-coming-ice-age/ There was no such article in Time Magazine, although there was a bit of an overzealous article regarding climate change. That zeal was at the hands of the journalist, who was making claims which he now admits were beyond what was supported by scientific evidence.

Nevertheless, I agree there has been a perpetual problem with media outlets over-dramatizing science to get readers/viewers/listeners. Think of how often you hear about cancer treatments reported, and how enthusiastically they are reported (there is a lot of good work being done, but science typically progresses incrementally and not in dramatic, paradigm shifts).

 

[Husker]

I am not a climatologist either, I'm an Engineer who probably spends more time surfing (closed) climate forums with scientists of various disciplines (geologists, physicists, climatologists) than I do surfing reef related forums :)
The link you posted is somewhat correct, and is great for explaining the greenhouse theory to someone who isn't versed in thermodynamics, but it's a little more complicated than that. The warmer a body becomes, the greater the heat transfer..... in this case, to outer space. It's a built in feedback control loop.

I appreciate your nuance and analysis of the data. As I said in another comment, media representation of science can be quite problematic. You seem to spend much more time reading climate-related works than I, but this quoted statement doesn't seem to make sense. Earth loses heat to space through radiation. Different molecules absorb different wavelengths, so the amount of heat lost to space is contingent upon which molecules are in the atmosphere. If the cooling feedback loop were independent of atmospheric molecules or other conditions, then 1) Earth would be extremely cold because a significant amount of electromagnetic radiation would be reflected and 2) We would not observe fluxuations in global temperature over geological time. As far as the greenhouse effect, you can do a simple demonstration: take 3 glass boxes: 1) Shine full spectrum light; 2) Shine full spectrum light but line the inside of the box with tin foil; 3) Shine full spectrum light and have a high carbon dioxide concentration in the glass box. Measure the temperature over time.

 

[Seanb1]

That's not true. A UK-based survey team STUDYING global climate change and the ice shelf in question freely admits they don't have any evidence to link this event to global climate change (read the third question down). Wouldn't these people have the most to gain by lying and saying that global climate change and/or man caused this cleave? And yet, they are being open and honest. They don't even hint or imply that humans caused this. Straight from their FAQ: "This rift appears to have been developing for many decades, and the result is probably natural."

Let's tone down the rhetoric and have a meaningful discussion please.

Al gore just last week said I told you so and blamed the break on global warming.
It was on the news.
He has been saying the polar ice cap has been melting at an alarming rate since the 90s.
There's probably 100 videos of him spewing his lies on YouTube.
NASA has pictures of the polar ice shelf and it has actually grown this last decade proving him a liar and alarmist.https://www.google.com/amp/amp.dail...ing-a-jarring-reminder-of-the-climate-crisis/ https://twitter.com/algore/status/885117450093768704

He also gave a interview to the New York Times blaming the break on global warming.
He is the leader of the coalition on global warming.
And since leaving office he has accumulated 150 million dollars for his efforts.

 

[jgvergo]

I always find the questions that are asked about Global Warming FAR too simple. Do you believe in GW? Is it real? Here are the questions I think are important to ask and (of course) answer:

1) Is the earth warming? I think the evidence points this being true.
2) Does CO2 cause warming? Again, the evidence says yes.
3) Is man made CO2 responsible for the increase in temperatures, or are other factors, such as natural climate variability, in play? The scientific evidence on this question is almost zero. Until we understand the source of the natural variability, we have no way to answer this question.
4) Can our actions alter the climate? This is totally unknown, in part because of #3
5) Are warming temperatures a problem? The evidence is all over the map on this question. There is solid scientific evidence that increasing temperatures are beneficial in many ways. For example, human deaths due to cold weather are 10x the death rate for heat induced death.
6) Are there beneficial effects of CO2? CO2 is a fertilizer and accelerates plant growth (anyone who has ever kept a planted aquarium and injected CO2 has witnessed this first hand :rolleyes:). Evidence shows that the total vegetative biomass of the earth is steadily increasing. More vegetation means more productive farms and more food. There are many other beneficial effects of CO2 and warm weather that are rarely reported.
7) What is the right/best/optimal temperature for the earth? No one knows. Why do we assume that warmer is worse?

Finally, I'll point out that climate modelling is not "science". In some cases, it uses scientific evidence to predict changes in the climate. In the mathematical modeling world, there is a famous expression that "All models are wrong". If you hear someone claim that modeling is science, you can safely discount everything else they say that they claim to be backed by science.

 

[Tuffyyyyy]

Probably not.

Eh, quoting something from 4 chan is probably not the best way to get your point across.

 

[Areseebee]

I always find the questions that are asked about Global Warming FAR too simple. Do you believe in GW? Is it real? Here are the questions I think are important to ask and (of course) answer:

1) Is the earth warming? I think the evidence points this being true.
2) Does CO2 cause warming? Again, the evidence says yes.
3) Is man made CO2 responsible for the increase in temperatures, or are other factors, such as natural climate variability, in play? The scientific evidence on this question is almost zero. Until we understand the source of the natural variability, we have no way to answer this question.
4) Can our actions alter the climate? This is totally unknown, in part because of #3
5) Are warming temperatures a problem? The evidence is all over the map on this question. There is solid scientific evidence that increasing temperatures are beneficial in many ways. For example, human deaths due to cold weather are 10x the death rate for heat induced death.
6) Are there beneficial effects of CO2? CO2 is a fertilizer and accelerates plant growth (anyone who has ever kept a planted aquarium and injected CO2 has witnessed this first hand :rolleyes:). Evidence shows that the total vegetative biomass of the earth is steadily increasing. More vegetation means more productive farms and more food. There are many other beneficial effects of CO2 and warm weather that are rarely reported.
7) What is the right/best/optimal temperature for the earth? No one knows. Why do we assume that warmer is worse?

Finally, I'll point out that climate modelling is not "science". In some cases, it uses scientific evidence to predict changes in the climate. In the mathematical modeling world, there is a famous expression that "All models are wrong". If you hear someone claim that modeling is science, you can safely discount everything else they say that they claim to be backed by science.

You forgot the second part of that famous expression and it's made you miss the point. In a model you always compress and ignore details, the role of theory in general is to ignore the right details and give predictive capabilities from a subset of parameters. The interplay between theory and experiment is perhaps the most important aspect of quantitative sciences, I'm not sure I would call it "not science".

You can point to a regime of length or time scales where every theory we know breaks one way or the other, that doesn't mean they aren't useful in getting us to the moon, predicting where a ball will land or predicting the orbits of planets.

 

[Greybeard]

Mars is experiencing 'Global climate change' as well.

Must be all those martians driving SUV's.

Couldn't have anything to do with the variable heat output of that great big ball of burning gas in the sky...

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/31/mars-also-undergoing-climate-change-ice-age-retrea/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html