What are your views on climate change?

[theangryamerican]

No its a perfect analogy. It's a natural event, but what we don't know is if we are unnaturally accelerating it, or if we kick started the process. The car rolling down the hill is a natural event due to gravity, but the unnatural acceleration of pushing the gas is representing our polluting the environment. The thing is, that we don't know if we are pushing the gas or not.

Flawed analogy. The car requires man to park it on the hill. In order to hit the gas, man would have to still be in control of the car,nmakin it not a natural event and who's to say man didn't park the car facing UP the hill, in which case pressing the gas would slow or even reverse the downhill slide?

 

[Your Star]

Flawed analogy. The car requires man to park it on the hill. In order to hit the gas, man would have to still be in control of the car,nmakin it not a natural event and who's to say man didn't park the car facing UP the hill, in which case pressing the gas would slow or even reverse the downhill slide?

No, the car represents the Earth, the hill represents climate change, and eventually the car is going to get to the bottom of the hill, what we don't know is if we are helping it along by pushing the gas.

Is it that hard to understand? It's a perfect analogy.

 

[bowerbird]

Flawed analogy. The car requires man to park it on the hill. In order to hit the gas, man would have to still be in control of the car,nmakin it not a natural event and who's to say man didn't park the car facing UP the hill, in which case pressing the gas would slow or even reverse the downhill slide?

Who is to say? Well when you see the scenery going backwards past you at an increasing rate you usually do NOT have to wait until everyone else is yelling "You're MOVING" before you do something

We have the evidence - it is unequivocal that man has changed the CO2 level of this planet

 

[Prof. Peabody]

Fine - what "naturally occurring event" can be causing the climate change??

Ah......Milankovitch cycles?

 

[hazlnut]

Occurs naturally regardless of how minute or severe those changes are.

No matter what those dummies at NASA say, right?

 

[bowerbird]

Ah......Milankovitch cycles?

Good - you have learnt something! Now show how they are actually causing the problem at present - or has the entire scientific field of Astronomy joined climatology in the "scam" of global warming

 

[digsbe]

I think it happens naturally and can be drastic. Our planet has seen an ice age, warm periods, and all kinds of climate changes. I do not, however, believe that mankind's activity is impacting climate change.

 

[bowerbird]

I think it happens naturally and can be drastic. Our planet has seen an ice age, warm periods, and all kinds of climate changes. I do not, however, believe that mankind's activity is impacting climate change.

Sorry but clear evidence of increase in man emitted CO2 - clear evidence that CO2 is a greenhouse gas - clear evidence that the long wave radiation patterns emitted from Earth are changing

AND here in Australia some really really fragged up climate - you lot in the USA are LUCKY - it has not really hit you yet - but when Texas is building 10 salt water purification plants a year because it now has a desert climate maybe then you will realise that there is a "rest of the world":roll:

 

[Deuce]

I think it happens naturally and can be drastic. Our planet has seen an ice age, warm periods, and all kinds of climate changes. I do not, however, believe that mankind's activity is impacting climate change.

What physical mechanism do you think is causing these natural cycles, and how is that affecting the current temperature trend? "It's natural" is about as informative as "it's magic."

 

[FluffyNinja]

No, the car represents the Earth, the hill represents climate change, and eventually the car is going to get to the bottom of the hill, what we don't know is if we are helping it along by pushing the gas.

Is it that hard to understand? It's a perfect analogy.

Doesn't the OP suggest that we should be considering the degree of incline that the "hill" has?

 

[FluffyNinja]

What physical mechanism do you think is causing these natural cycles, and how is that affecting the current temperature trend? "It's natural" is about as informative as "it's magic."

Perhaps you should answer your own question here. What caused the extreme climate shifts over the past 5 billion years - including the several ice ages which have occurred before humans were burning fossil fuels?
I've posed this before but here it goes again............Perhaps we're giving ourseleves way too much credit here.
1. We live on a planet that is composed of approx. 30% dry land. Only around 10% of this land is arable to the point that it is capable of supporting significant human population.
2. The present human population of Earth is around 5.5 billion
3. Let's stretch it and say that the vast majority of these 5.5 billion people occupy a total of about 15% of the available "dry land"
4. Also, take into consideration that a large pecentage of the population does not live in fullly industrialized societies which means their CO2 output is not nearly equal to those living in industrialized areas.
5. Humans have only been burning significant amounts of fossil fuels for around the past 100 years - and this is also stretching it.
6. "Modern humans" have only existed on this planet for approx. 10,000 years - on a planet that has been spinning through the Solar System for over 5 billion years! (And have been polluting on a significant scale for a mere 100 of these 5 billion years)
7. Humans have only, arguably, been accurately measuring global temperature change and ocean levels for around the past 50 years
8. Considering we live on a planet where the entire population inhabits about 15% of the surface and have only been seriously polluting for 100 years on a planet that is 5 billion years old - I have real difficulty believing that our "imprint" on the "big climatic picture" is as significant as we believe. To assume, based on our observations of human impact over the past 50 years, that human activity is somehow "upsetting" the complete "natural balance" of Earth's environment is quite an egotistical approach.

 

[molten_dragon]

I think the theory behind man-made global warming is sound. However I also believe that global climate systems are unimaginably complex, and we have been monitoring them for a (relatively) minuscule amount of time. In other words, I don't think we have nearly enough information to make a valid scientific claim that humanity is or is not causing global warming. This is also why I believe that a measured, well-reasoned plan to completely end our dependence on fossil fuels over the next couple centuries is the best way to respond. Panicking, whether now, or in 100 years when we're running out of oil and haven't done anything about it, would be the worst way to deal with things.

 

[bowerbird]

Perhaps you should answer your own question here. What caused the extreme climate shifts over the past 5 billion years - including the several ice ages which have occurred before humans were burning fossil fuels?
I've posed this before but here it goes again............Perhaps we're giving ourseleves way too much credit here.
1. We live on a planet that is composed of approx. 30% dry land. Only around 10% of this land is arable to the point that it is capable of supporting significant human population.
2. The present human population of Earth is around 5.5 billion
3. Let's stretch it and say that the vast majority of these 5.5 billion people occupy a total of about 15% of the available "dry land"
4. Also, take into consideration that a large pecentage of the population does not live in fullly industrialized societies which means their CO2 output is not nearly equal to those living in industrialized areas.
5. Humans have only been burning significant amounts of fossil fuels for around the past 100 years - and this is also stretching it.
6. "Modern humans" have only existed on this planet for approx. 10,000 years - on a planet that has been spinning through the Solar System for over 5 billion years! (And have been polluting on a significant scale for a mere 100 of these 5 billion years)
7. Humans have only, arguably, been accurately measuring global temperature change and ocean levels for around the past 50 years
8. Considering we live on a planet where the entire population inhabits about 15% of the surface and have only been seriously polluting for 100 years on a planet that is 5 billion years old - I have real difficulty believing that our "imprint" on the "big climatic picture" is as significant as we believe. To assume, based on our observations of human impact over the past 50 years, that human activity is somehow "upsetting" the complete "natural balance" of Earth's environment is quite an egotistical approach.

There is an old saying that "a little bit of knowledge is dangerous" and that is what is shown here - just a (very) little bit of a very large body of knowledge. Did you know that Europe used to have dense forests? See it is not just about emission of CO2 but the loss of one of the main mechanisms to soak the ruddy stuff back up again - the loss of vegetation across large swathes of the world

Did you know 1/5 of CO2 rise is down to deforestation?

 

[bowerbird]

I think the theory behind man-made global warming is sound. However I also believe that global climate systems are unimaginably complex, and we have been monitoring them for a (relatively) minuscule amount of time. In other words, I don't think we have nearly enough information to make a valid scientific claim that humanity is or is not causing global warming. This is also why I believe that a measured, well-reasoned plan to completely end our dependence on fossil fuels over the next couple centuries is the best way to respond. Panicking, whether now, or in 100 years when we're running out of oil and haven't done anything about it, would be the worst way to deal with things.

That is why there is a LOT of research going on into paleoclimatology. That is why proxy data was used for reconstruction of past climate.

One day do a google scholar search on paleoclimatology - you will be gobsmacked at the thousands of papers that it will unearth

 

[American]

Fine - what "naturally occurring event" can be causing the climate change??

What makes you assume that we even have the capacity to understand it? Because once people thought the world was flat, and now we know it's a sphere? We're so smart now that we know everything? Science needs to be less arrogant.

 

[American]

What are your views on climate change?

Occurs naturally regardless of how minute or severe those changes are.
Occurs naturally only with minute changes
Does not occur naturally
Not sure or other



I know some of the man made global warming fairy tale religious nuts have this belief that those who do not subscribe to their fairy tale religion are climate change denialist. So I created this poll to clear up this misconception that they have. I am sure the huge vast majority of people who do not subscribe to this fairy tale of man made climate change, man made global warming, man made global cooling, global climate disruption or what ever the **** they are calling it now will agree that climate change is a naturally occurring event regardless of how minute or severe those changes are.

I have a theory that the Chinese have caused this by having too many people (and thus mass) on that part of the Earth, causing a change in the rotation of the Earth and thereby setting the doom of humanity into motion.

 

[molten_dragon]

That is why there is a LOT of research going on into paleoclimatology. That is why proxy data was used for reconstruction of past climate.

One day do a google scholar search on paleoclimatology - you will be gobsmacked at the thousands of papers that it will unearth

It's great that scientists are trying to put together models of what has affected climate change in the past. They should keep doing so. They should not become arrogant enough to assume that they already know everything there is to know about it though.

 

[Deuce]

I have a theory that the Chinese have caused this by having too many people (and thus mass) on that part of the Earth, causing a change in the rotation of the Earth and thereby setting the doom of humanity into motion.

Thankfully, the average American weighs about three times as much as an average Chinese person.

 

[ptif219]

You would think if we are getting warmer there would be more hurricanes to release the heat yet we have this.

coaps.fsu.edu | Ryan Maue's Seasonal Tropical Cyclone Activity Update

 

[Deuce]

You would think if we are getting warmer there would be more hurricanes to release the heat yet we have this.

coaps.fsu.edu | Ryan Maue's Seasonal Tropical Cyclone Activity Update

In other random "evidence," it's freaking 84 degrees out here today, October 8th. In Minnesota.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66F4SF20100716

Edit: another one, updated for Jan-August. Still hottest on record, and this is during one of the lowest solar minimums ever recorded. The sun is cooler than it has been in the last 50 years, but we're seeing the hottest year on record.
http://climateprogress.org/2010/09/15/noaa-2010-hottest-year-global-warming/

 

[ptif219]

In other random "evidence," it's freaking 84 degrees out here today, October 8th. In Minnesota.

World simmers in hottest year so far | Reuters

Edit: another one, updated for Jan-August. Still hottest on record, and this is during one of the lowest solar minimums ever recorded. The sun is cooler than it has been in the last 50 years, but we're seeing the hottest year on record.
NOAA reports 2010 hottest year on record so far « Climate Progress

That doesn't explain the gloom and doom we heard about hurricanes. If the earth is heating are the oceans cooling?

 

[Deuce]

That doesn't explain the gloom and doom we heard about hurricanes. If the earth is heating are the oceans cooling?

It's a combined ocean and surface temperature. You didn't even read the links, did you? You're way oversimplifying things. (and misrepresenting scientists' predictions about hurricanes)

 

[ptif219]

It's a combined ocean and surface temperature. You didn't even read the links, did you? You're way oversimplifying things. (and misrepresenting scientists' predictions about hurricanes)

Like you do to prove points? The point is for years we heard the warming would heat the oceans and we would see more hurricanes and more powerful hurricanes. Once again the predictions from the global warming crowd proves to be false. We see more of this than we do truth from the global warming church

 

[bowerbird]

It's great that scientists are trying to put together models of what has affected climate change in the past. They should keep doing so. They should not become arrogant enough to assume that they already know everything there is to know about it though.

The only "arrogance" is that being attributed to them - that is why the IPCC report came out saying it was "very likely" caused by man. If you read the actual words written by actual scientists they are usually very cautious. This in itself has caused problems with their own reticence being used against them as denialist after denialist uses cautious papers as "proof global warming is not happening"!

BTW I classify scepticism - which is the ability to LISTEN to the other side and read what they are presenting as different from denialists who just jeer and make fun of those of us who take the science seriously

 

[bowerbird]

You would think if we are getting warmer there would be more hurricanes to release the heat yet we have this.

coaps.fsu.edu | Ryan Maue's Seasonal Tropical Cyclone Activity Update

And this means??

Sorry but unless you have correlated sunspot activity and PDO into the equation this is like saying "Gee is it is snowing today in Alaska - Global warming mustn't be happening!"

http://mailer.fsu.edu/~jelsner/PDF/Research/ElsnerJagger2008.pdf

This is from one of Maue's previously published papers

The structure of the Pacific correlation pattern of SST
with NH ACE suggests that considerable predictive information
for the upcoming NH TC year is present in boreal
spring. Furthermore, when acknowledging the role of ENSO
in modulating WP+EP TC ACE, winter midlatitude storm
activity imprinting upon boreal spring NP SST, and the
interrelated basin climatology described above, NA ACE
activity falls out as a residual of the NH minus WP+EPACE
total. This suggests an additional null hypothesis to the NA
global warming and hurricanes puzzle: the NA increase in
activity since 1995 is part of large-scale hemispheric climate
variability with clear association to the EP against a backdrop
of local and relative NA tropical SST increases.

http://masig.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/Maue_grl_2009.pdf

And shows how complex this is

Oh! And in case you haven't noticed the year is not yet over and GUESS WHAT?? OUR hurricane season is about to start!