Is Climate Change Real? Polling Public Opinion on the Controversial Issue

[Surrealist]

I am not to sure you understand the roll of the VP. Before Dick came into the office the VP was largely a spare tire roll, you got NASA, you got to run around and deal with congress and you got to do dinners with world leaders but you don't actually have any ability to push an agenda.

However you are factually incorrect.



Lets keep it factual.

The fact of the matter is that during the entire Clinton-Gore administration, Gore remained relatively silent on the issue of Global Warming. For the most part, he kept his mouth shut, and did not take advantage of his position to champion his cause. This is a fact.

 

[randomness]

The fact of the matter is that during the entire Clinton-Gore administration, Gore remained relatively silent on the issue of Global Warming. For the most part, he kept his mouth shut, and did not take advantage of his position to champion his cause. This is a fact.

I am sorry to say but what you claim and the historic facts do not line up.

For example in 1994 he launched GLOBE Program a school education program on the environment. He pushed hard for Resolution S. 98 which would make the Kyoto treaty law. in 1997 he started giving the the presentation that would later become the film 'An Inconvenient Truth'. His actions on the Global warming front go back to his days in the House in the 80's in which he held hearings on the topic.

I'm sorry, but what you want to believe and the truth are to distinctly different things. Perhaps you feel he should have done more, but when you say he " took no action" and then change your statement to say he "remained relatively silent" you are not helping your argument.

 

[Skyhunter]

Perhaps time to do a little prediction. It appears that this Antarctic saturation is caused by some deep water upwelling. As the deep ocean is loaded with CO2 due to the high pressure (like beer in the can) large amounts of CO2 will be released in the atmosphere increasing the concentration from some 380 ppm to ~500 in a few months time. There is some unusual weather reaction, due to unusua sea surface temperature changes. There will be world wide panic but other than that nothing will happen. The excess CO2 will be dissipated rather quickly in some 5 years due to the generally colder ocean surface.

There is no wind in the beer can to stir up the deep water, so your initial premise is incorrect. It is not "some deepwater upwelling," it is specifically a deepwater upwelling caused by stronger winds, as the polar/tropical temperature differential increases.

Sorry, I don't believe this supports your oceanic kegger theory. What it means is CO₂ concentrations will be higher than projected.

 

[Art]

Sorry, I don't believe this supports your oceanic kegger theory. What it means is CO₂ concentrations will be higher than projected.

Best thing that could happen. This way the 'critical' CO2 so called tipping point will be reached faster and so when folk see the sky doesn't fall down all the 'chicken littles' propogating the myth of AGW will be exposed.

 

[Andre]

There is no wind in the beer can to stir up the deep water, so your initial premise is incorrect. It is not "some deepwater upwelling," it is specifically a deepwater upwelling caused by stronger winds, as the polar/tropical temperature differential increases.

Sorry, I don't believe this supports your oceanic kegger theory. What it means is CO₂ concentrations will be higher than projected.

i hav no idea what kind of scenario you have in mind. I'm talking about something different, the deap sea as in >2 miles depth is not affected by wind. Other forces are required to make it well up. But it's also loaded with CO2 due to the high pressure and the low temperature, when you bring that up to the surface it will vent a lot of CO2 due to decreased pressure, just like the soda can.

 

[Skyhunter]

i hav no idea what kind of scenario you have in mind. I'm talking about something different, the deap sea as in >2 miles depth is not affected by wind. Other forces are required to make it well up. But it's also loaded with CO2 due to the high pressure and the low temperature, when you bring that up to the surface it will vent a lot of CO2 due to decreased pressure, just like the soda can.

I was referring to Edwards link to the science article about the southern ocean carbon sink.

The cause of the decline in the Southern Ocean sink, the researchers explain, is a rise in windiness since 1958.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6665147.stm

 

[roconnell]

My name is Kristen Byrnes, I am the High School student that wrote Ponder the Maunder that was posted in another thread.

If I can offer an inside view on how this poll would look if scientists were responding, my guess is that it would look like this:

Yes 10%
No 10%
Leaning yes: 25%
Leaning no: 10%
The other 45% would not answer the poll due to fear of being bothered by one side or the other.
Government scientists such as those with NASA JPL or GISS gave me the okay to acknowledge them in my paper that would be turned into my teacher, but would not approve of the same in the on-line version.
Within the scientific community there is a fear of being harrassed by political activists, creationists, peers and etc. They also fear having their funding cut. As for the influence of the fossil fuel industry, it seems that there is no money directed to scientists who are not directly emploiyed by the fossil fuel industry. Sceptical scientists do not want to accept fossil fuel money because they would be plastered all over the press as "shills" for the fossil fuel industry and their careers ruined.

Actually Kirsten a poll has been done lately of "climatologists", I don't recall where I saw it but will try to find and post on here. As I recall the results were that near 50% believed that man had some impact on climate change, while about 15% were not sure with the remainder saying absolutely not. It should be noted that of that 50%, even if one thought that man was responsible for only 1% of the climate change he/she is included in this group. BTW...wonderful paper

 

[baywax]

I think its a manufactured reason to get out of the oil nightmare. And, the whole campaign is perceptually supported by some of the natural changes going on in the climate, due to some of the effects of the gigantic gyroscope that is our planet earth.

 

[wildman]

Dunno is a good response...

 

[vanesch]

I voted for the second option, although of course it means "dunno". It is that I attach a strong meaning to the word "proven".

 

[BillJx]

"With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Anthropogenic climate change is as factual as evolution. They are both hotly debated but in neither case is the debate rational.

 

[vanesch]

"With the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Instead of relying on an argument of authority, have you actually looked into the matter, and into the "proofs beyond reasonable doubt" ? Did you realize that the most important "proofs beyond doubt" of 8 years ago all turned out to have to be amended in such a way that their spectacular convincing power was annihilated ? I'm talking about the IPCC "hockey stick" of the last 1000 years, and about the paleoclimate synchronisation of temperature proxies and CO2 ? The predicted rise in temperature which didn't happen in the last 6 or 7 years, and which is now (but not back then) explained away with a new oscillation (multidecadenal oscillation) ?

So how many times can you come up with "absolutely convincing proof" just to have to admit, a few years later, that the proof had some flaws in it, and still claim that you have absolutely convincing proof ?

Again, that doesn't mean that AGW isn't true. But it is difficult to say that it has been demonstrated beyond the slightest bit of reasonable doubt ! Did all these scientific establishments carry out *their own* investigations, or are they just re-emitting statements based upon the authority of others, so that the genuine scientific contents of the entire endorsement is in fact each time the same source ?

Anthropogenic climate change is as factual as evolution. They are both hotly debated but in neither case is the debate rational.

There's a world of difference between both! There are myriads of ways in which evolution shows its workings. The thing fits together in different ways.
I simply claim that climate science has not reached that point of proof. If you have to withdraw you "main argument" of 8 years ago, then you are not yet at a stage where everything is settled beyond doubt - as with evolution. THAT's what it means, "scientific fact". Before something can be taken as "scientific fact", it takes normally decades of work, and *a lot of skepticism* from within the scientific community itself. This is what missing here. We're selling a working hypothesis as a fact beyond doubt. One day it will be a known fact. But it isn't, yet.

However, there is a very simple experimental procedure that will show whether *dramatic* climate change is true or not beyond doubt: measure climatic variables for the coming 30-50 years. Then we will know. So there is not even much suspense: we will find out for sure.

Don't understand me wrong: I'm *not* saying that somehow the inverse has been established, and that there is no AGW, or anything of the kind. I'm just saying that attaching the qualifier "scientific fact" to something needs extensive proof, and in my humble opinion that proof has not yet been delivered - and I'm amazed that so many scientific organizations endorse so quickly and so easily such a thing, but I have the idea that there's another purpose behind it, like for instance the gamble that *if* AGW turns out to be true, it would be a bad thing to "deny its factuality" right now, as this might introduce any delay in applying measures to fight it and increase the risk on a global catastrophe and so on - a noble thought. A "scientific fact", however, has no agenda, has no "noble goal", and has no deadline. A scientific fact is established through a lot of work, a lot of criticism, and an overwhelming amount of evidence. And *that's simply not there yet* for AGW - independent of whether AGW is actually true or not. It is not because we socially and politically "need to know right now" and need to take decisions, that this can change the course of scientific investigation and can shorten the time needed to accumulate a body of evidence "beyond doubt".

EDIT: adding something. A scientific fact beyond doubt is something that cannot turn out to be false in essence (up to minor details), or it means that the entire scientific method is flawed. It is something you can bet on with your eyes closed.
So do the following gedanken experiment, given that the final truth of whether AGW is there or not *will* eventually be established beyond doubt, in at most 50 years from now. Are you willing to accept the following bet:

Accept $2000,- right now. If dramatic AGW turns out to be established in 50 years from now, keep it. If however, AGW turns out to be non-existing, or of small magnitude, then sign a paper right away that your children and grand-children will be sold as sex slaves, or tortured to death in the most horrible circumstances, and that if you are still around, that you will be disembowled on a public place.

If AGW is established as a scientific fact already, there's nothing to fear. You can sign right away. You put $2000,- in your pocket. For instance, I wouldn't hesitate to make that bet on something that IS truly scientifically established beyond doubt, such as the fact that the Earth is round, or that the Earth turns around the sun or something. Even on the overall picture of evolution, I'm willing to sign that paper. Or on the fact that smoking causes cancer. But not on AGW. If you hesitate, it means that it *isn't* an established scientific fact beyond doubt.

 

[Amp1]

Although I think the correlation between the Industrial age beginning and the CO₂ concentration increasing is valid and true to the extent that statisical correlation can be shown, the steady shifting of climates over the globe is very strong evidence the Earth is warming. Thinking of the N and S poles as places where drops of cold diffuses into the warmer temperate and equatorial regions over a spinning globe-I can visualize how the poles are warming. If they are indeed warming, then that would constitute proof that AGW is real.

 

[Evo]

If they are indeed warming, then that would constitute proof that AGW is real.

No, it would only indicate warming, how much is natural and how much is caused by humans is unknown. Warming by itself isn't proof of AGW, there are other ways to show that humans are contributing to climate change. BTW, the term "Global Warming" has been changed to "Climate Change".

The official US EPA stance on what "is likely" is

In short, a growing number of scientific analyses indicate, but cannot prove, that rising levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are contributing to climate change (as theory predicts).

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html

Vanesch's explanation above is excellent.

 

[vanesch]

Although I think the correlation between the Industrial age beginning and the CO₂ concentration increasing is valid and true to the extent that statisical correlation can be shown, the steady shifting of climates over the globe is very strong evidence the Earth is warming. Thinking of the N and S poles as places where drops of cold diffuses into the warmer temperate and equatorial regions over a spinning globe-I can visualize how the poles are warming. If they are indeed warming, then that would constitute proof that AGW is real.

Nobody is denying that the last few decennia, there has been a global warming. Nobody is denying that there is an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. However, under AGW, the claim is that we are facing an *exceptional*, *dramatic* and *essentially human-caused through CO2 exhaust and other greenhouse gasses* rise of temperature which will give rise to *terrible consequences* in about 100 years from now. Although I will not deny that there are some indications that this might be correct, the proof beyond doubt, that you would be willing to bet the life of your grandchildren on it, for each of these 3 points has IMO not been delivered yet, and previous attempts at proving this "beyond doubt" turned out to be false (at least in their capacity of proof beyond doubt):
- the slope of the warming doesn't seem to be exceptional, after all
- because of the great uncertainties on the feedback mechanisms that are supposed to turn a moderate effect into a dramatic effect, we don't know what will be the extend of the rise
- even if there is a warming, it is not entirely clear how much the CO2 is responsible in this business.

If we were scientifically certain - that is, there is not the slightest room of doubt - of the above points, then we would know many of the mechanisms in much more detail than we actually do and the models and mechanisms wouldn't have to be changed and adapted every 5 years. Many *different* observations would come to exactly the same numbers for the essential parameters of the dynamics, and one would be able to explain quantitatively exactly why there are differences, if there are differences.

I will not deny that there is suggestive evidence. The problem is that almost every single element of evidence also has contradictions in one or another way. Of course, taken everything together, it is true that some picture starts to be drawn. But there are too many individual little dirty details that don't fit. Of course, if you put an overall filter over all these little factoids, and you only pick those parts that suit your explanation, you start building up indeed a serious body of "evidence". If you look in every thing where there is a contradiction, and you only highlight that, then you almost have "evidence for a conspiracy". But that's just looking at what you want to see. And if you look at the whole, you see suggestive evidence with still many problems. And that's where we stand IMO.

We don't have a big, almost monolithic, body of entirely fitting evidence that doesn't leave any room for doubt. And that's what we need before we can declare something "a scientific fact".

 

[Amp1]

I see your point somewhat. Given, I couldn't say 'beyond doubt'/100%; however, I could qualify by saying 'very likely'/90-98%. Since I saw a program about methane hydrates in the seabed and how oil drilling activity sometimes cause their release. I can't help but think that if climate change is going on with man induced influence contributing then since man's influence is 'on going' the change just might be accelerating. it is a chaotic system though and I would expects points of equilibrium where there are levels that are maintained until thresholds once crossed swings the system along different tracks until a new equilibrium is reached. But the point I'm getting at is this acceleration may be measureable and definable.(Don't ask me how yet I'm only musing)

 

[vanesch]

I see your point somewhat. Given, I couldn't say 'beyond doubt'/100%; however, I could qualify by saying 'very likely'/90-98%.

As a subjective measure, I'd say, 30-90% I think there is a non-neglegible possibility of no dramatic AGW at all, but with a slight bias in its favor and essentially a big unknown.

Since I saw a program about methane hydrates in the seabed and how oil drilling activity sometimes cause their release. I can't help but think that if climate change is going on with man induced influence contributing then since man's influence is 'on going' the change just might be accelerating.

Indeed, and that's one of the points that is in contradiction with recent observations - although it is true that these periods are in fact too short to conclude - but then that should also work the other way around: if it is too short to know, it is too short to know.

it is a chaotic system though and I would expects points of equilibrium where there are levels that are maintained until thresholds once crossed swings the system along different tracks until a new equilibrium is reached. But the point I'm getting at is this acceleration may be measureable and definable.(Don't ask me how yet I'm only musing)

Multistability is a possibility. But you see, if it were a "scientific fact", then there would be no doubt about the essential dynamics. We're in the dark about the essential dynamics.

One can see that also in the different kinds of "proofs": there are proofs based upon black box correlations (the paleoclimate thing). We don't know the dynamics, but we try to find correlation estimators. The danger with that is that one cannot distinguish in that way, cause and effect. Just correlation. And then, the proxies that are used are highly non-trivial in their interpretation. There are contradictions. Then there are proofs based on recent instrumental observations. They are unfortunately taken over rather short times, so it is difficult to fit a serious black box model to it: you essentially extrapolate the last slope. And then there are physical/geographical simulation models, which actually try to do a genuine prediction (and not just data fitting with black box models). Unfortunately, there is a serious part (an essential part) which has to be modeled by educated guessing (the land feedback mechanisms and so on, land reactions, cloud formation, behaviour of ocean currents...), together with more reliable physical models. Part of these models are probably sound, part of it is guesswork. They get some predictions right, and some wrong.

 

[Amp1]

Thanks Vanesh for helping me not be so blanket statement minded. I have a gut feeling that is about as much as can be determined. I'm not a trained mathematician (I think it is fun), still non-linear systems are not amenable to precise accuracies,(a Palinism). What I mean is there will be doubt - the systems are after all chaotic. The order in the chaos is what allows the models to reflect them to some degree. And attractors (strangely enough) are what I assert become the levels/plateaus where equilibriums occur until the increasing energy in the system,ie heat/warming, kicks it on to a different track. BTW, I (and I think a lot of persons have said GW will cause this) think if the Gulf Stream and other oceanic currents start showing discernible slowing, stopping, or reversals/eddies then that can be labeled conclusive evidence. I give it about five years if GW is accelerating - it has a lot of inertia now. I consider it remarkable that the Earth is assimilating the retention of energy the way it has and there aren't sporadic areas of extraordinary weather all over the globe. Such activity could help narrow down which modeling relations are in agreement.