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

[Kirsten-B]

The governor of Oregon has been after him for a while now.

 

[randomness]

18 years?

Ouch he as been waiting for 18 years? The Office of the State Climatologist was eliminated in June of 1989.

 

[randomness]

The governor of Oregon has been after him for a while now.

Would not shock me, George Taylor is using his state as a credential without cause or his consent.

 

[randomness]

I asume we are talking about Anthropogenic Global Warming that AGW? My view is more in the middle of the road. I think we do have an affect but that we are not a tipping point. We can however damage our use of massive areas.

The Earth systems change to evolving or changing conditions, the planit will march on; however those changes may not be good for human use and could result in changes which damage economically the viability of some activities.

Personally I think that both the militant environmentalists can be just as bad as the militant oil mongers, You go left far enough you come out on the far right. There are those on both sides who will use well intentioned people to further an agenda. I think that anyone who pursues this to prove a point needs to stop be it Al Gore or his critics.

Someone asked "Will a continued trend of the use of fossil fuel lead to a climate catstrophe?" In the long view the use of fossil fuel can not continue one way or the other, there is simply not enough of it to do so. So the argument that the economic impact of a carbon reduced or neutral is to high is just stalling the inevitable.

This reality combined with the known effect of health of humans by the use of fossil fuel is well known and catastrophic on a community basis. So if we have to change, why not do so now and hedge our bets.

 

[Evo]

This reality combined with the known effect of health of humans by the use of fossil fuel is well known and catastrophic on a community basis. So if we have to change, why not do so now and hedge our bets.

I would agree with most of what you say. I absolutely agree that we have no choice but to look for alternative power sources. I don't agree, however, that lying to the public is right. I know that the argument is that the majority of the populatuion can't understand or are unwilling to change unless you tell them that the world is going up in flames and it will be in the next few years, so they WILL be affected. It still doesn't make it right.

 

[BillJx]

I would agree with most of what you say. I absolutely agree that we have no choice but to look for alternative power sources. I don't agree, however, that lying to the public is right. I know that the argument is that the majority of the populatuion can't understand or are unwilling to change unless you tell them that the world is going up in flames and it will be in the next few years, so they WILL be affected. It still doesn't make it right.

It certainly would not be right. But who is saying that the world will go up in flames in the next few years? Serious upheaval in the next couple of decades is very possible, and over the next several decades may be unavoidable.

-Climate change is happening now.
-The last IPCC report predicted a sea level rise of up to 0.88 m by the end of this century.
-Local climate changes affecting agriculture are mostly guesswork. There are bound to be changes but they are unpredictable.
-The main driving force behind these changes is human-caused emissions. In a word, overconsumption.
-The arctic is melting faster than predicted.
-The oceans are losing their ability to absorb CO2, so CO2 induced warming is now expected to proceed faster than predicted.
-Climate change in the past has followed patterns of sudden shifts, rather than gradual change.

All of the above is well known.

It adds up to a serious enough picture as it is. There's no need to lie to the public. However, there is a need to dramatically reduce GHG emissions, despite the obvious cost to our standard of living, and despite the protests of contrarian opinion.

 

[Evo]

It certainly would not be right. But who is saying that the world will go up in flames in the next few years? Serious upheaval in the next couple of decades is very possible, and over the next several decades may be unavoidable.

-Climate change is happening now.
-The last IPCC report predicted a sea level rise of up to 0.88 m by the end of this century.
-Local climate changes affecting agriculture are mostly guesswork. There are bound to be changes but they are unpredictable.
-The main driving force behind these changes is human-caused emissions. In a word, overconsumption.
-The arctic is melting faster than predicted.
-The oceans are losing their ability to absorb CO2, so CO2 induced warming is now expected to proceed faster than predicted.
-Climate change in the past has followed patterns of sudden shifts, rather than gradual change.

All of the above is well known.

It adds up to a serious enough picture as it is. There's no need to lie to the public. However, there is a need to dramatically reduce GHG emissions, despite the obvious cost to our standard of living, and despite the protests of contrarian opinion.

Climate change has been happening since the Earth had a climate. There have been dramatic changes and there have been gradual changes. We don't know what, if any, influence on climate we are having and it certainly is not a uniform distribution across the globe.

Sea levels will rise some places and lower in other places. You haven't really been taken in by the propaganda and think sea levels will rise everywhere, have you? You surely are aware of the many cities that have been found underwater? These cities were covered by rising sea levels thousands of years ago. Stuff happens. It didn't stop happening when we started burning fossil fuels.

Perhaps you should read up on more scientific information. This is not free, but if you are really interested, it would be a good buy.

http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10136#description

 

[edward]

The latest scientific news on global warming suggests a more imminent problem than previously thought.

One of Earth's most important absorbers of carbon dioxide (CO2) is failing to soak up as much of the greenhouse gas as it was expected to, scientists say.

The decline of Antarctica's Southern Ocean carbon "sink" - or reservoir - means that atmospheric CO2 levels may be higher in future than predicted.

These carbon sinks are vital as they mop up excess CO2 from the atmosphere, slowing down global warming.

The study, by an international team, is published in the journal Science.

This effect had been predicted by climate scientists, and is taken into account - to some extent - by climate models. But it appears to be happening 40 years ahead of schedule.

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

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/17/tech/main2822740.shtml

This is the information that I have waited on, and this above all else, is the one piece of news I did not want to hear.

 

[Evo]

The latest scientific news on global warming suggests a more imminent problem than previously thought.

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

Yes, I've heard of this and intend to read more about it. I believe most of the Co2 is contained in the oceans and occasionaly they "burp" up large amounts of Co2. Andre posted about it in the Earth forum. I haven't had time to research what various scientists have found, I like to look at both sides if there are two sides and see which arguments make the most sense.

 

[edward]

Yes, I've heard of this and intend to read more about it. I believe most of the Co2 is contained in the oceans and occasionaly they "burp" up large amounts of Co2. Andre posted about it in the Earth forum. I haven't had time to research what various scientists have found, I like to look at both sides if there are two sides and see which arguments make the most sense.

I am actually hoping that someone can scientifically debunk this one.

 

[Art]

The latest scientific news on global warming suggests a more imminent problem than previously thought.



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

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/17/tech/main2822740.shtml

This is the information that I have waited on, and this above all else, is the one piece of news I did not want to hear.

I think you are missing the key point.

Yet again the climate models are wrong! Models either work or they don't and as these models evidently do not work any predictions from them whether favourable or unfavourable are worse than useless.

 

[Skyhunter]

I think you are missing the key point.

Yet again the climate models are wrong! Models either work or they don't and as these models evidently do not work any predictions from them whether favourable or unfavourable are worse than useless.

The models are only as good as the data.

Dr Sus Honjo, from the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution (WHOI) in Massachusetts, US, is working on a separate project to assess the efficiency of the Southern Ocean carbon sink, using a different method.

He said recent developments in technology now made possible very detailed monitoring of marine carbon sinks, with some data available in real time.

"We have been way behind the modellers, who are hungry for numbers. But now we are starting to catch up because of the new tools and instruments available," he told BBC News.

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

As Edward is pointing out... this could very well be a tipping point.

The British Antarctic Survey (BAS) scientist added: "The CO2 that would normally be in the deep ocean and would just stay there instead gets brought up to the surface and outgasses to the atmosphere."

If stronger winds are causing more upwelling, that also brings up nutrient rich water that cause dead zones.

A ''dead zone'' of oxygen-poor water that formed off the coast of Oregon early last summer has dissipated, scientists at Oregon State University said. Such zones have formed the last five summers, the researchers said, but this one was the longest-lasting, the closest to shore and the largest. Because it formed after the end of crab season, it did not affect commercial fishing this year. The zone forms when winds from the north generate currents that carry nutrient-rich but oxygen-poor water from the deep sea to the surface near shore. That leads to a proliferation of bacteria that use up so much oxygen that fish and crabs die. CORNELIA DEAN (NYT)

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpa...eference/Times Topics/People/D/Dean, Cornelia

As events such as this become more regular, researchers say, they appear less like an anomaly and more like a fundamental shift in marine conditions and ocean behavior. In particular, a change in intensity and timing of coastal winds seems to play a significant role in these events.

"We're seeing wild swings from year to year in the timing and duration of winds favorable for upwelling," said Jack Barth, an oceanographer with PISCO and the OSU College of Oceanic and Atmospheric Sciences. "This change from normal seasonal patterns and the increased variability are both consistent with climate change scenarios."

Barth and his colleagues are working on new circulation models that may allow scientists to predict when hypoxia and these "dead zones" will occur. No connection has been observed between these events and other major ocean cycles, such as El Niño or the Pacific Decadal Oscillation.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/MediaAlerts/2006/2006072722733.html

I am curious, as the bacteria consumes the oxygen, what is the byproduct of that process?

 

[edward]

I think you are missing the key point.

Yet again the climate models are wrong! Models either work or they don't and as these models evidently do not work any predictions from them whether favourable or unfavourable are worse than useless.

No Art the key point is that the pieces of the puzzle are starting to fit and I don't like what I am seeing.

You are saying that the fact that it was recently discovered that the antarctic waters are not absorbing CO2 as they should be is useless information! Amazing. This wasn't based on a model. It was based on direct observation.

True, that they had predicted that this situation should not have happened for another 40 years was probably based on a model, but the fact that it is happening now can't be discreditited. The fact that is happening now is troubling.


Another discovery which come to light recently sounds very familiar in its relation to global warming.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070510164044.htm

 

[Kirsten-B]

Ok, Let's try it in plain language: Computer climate models will never work until they learn how to predict volcanoes, El Nino Southern Oscillation and solar variation.
AND
Until the programmers finally figure out clouds and water vapor.

Until then they have to run many simulations and give themselves large margins of error.

 

[Andre]

No Art the key point is that the pieces of the puzzle are starting to fit and I don't like what I am seeing.

You are saying that the fact that it was recently discovered that the antarctic waters are not absorbing CO2 as they should be is useless information! Amazing. This wasn't based on a model. It was based on direct observation.

True, that they had predicted that this situation should not have happened for another 40 years was probably based on a model, but the fact that it is happening now can't be discreditited. The fact that is happening now is troubling.


Another discovery which come to light recently sounds very familiar in its relation to global warming.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070510164044.htm

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.

It will be recognised that all of this has happened before, between 1938 and 1948 for instance. It's just a weird oceanic anomaly, which are even more unpredictable than the dynamics of the atmosphere.

Finally, Senator Kristen Byrnes will succeed banning prediction models by law and a whole lot of people are trying to erase global warming from their memories, frantically looking for a new apocalypse.

 

[randomness]

Ok, Let's try it in plain language: Computer climate models will never work until they learn how to predict volcanoes, El Nino Southern Oscillation and solar variation.
AND
Until the programmers finally figure out clouds and water vapor..

Well Kirsten I would not put it as a programmer problem, the real issue is that no one has come up with a meta model of water precipitation that can be expressed mathematically. Until such time there is nothing that computer science can do to assist climatologists or meteorologists.

I think there was some confusion in my earlier statement, I don't think anyone should be exaggerating or lying to the public (this includeds those that say AGW is fact and those that say AGW is utterly wrong), but I also do not think they should be hiding the fact that we could very well have a problem. Yes we don't know the exact outcome but it is irresponsible to hide the debate going on because we do not want to alarm the public.

In addition think we should also not allow the lunatic fringe on both sides to have a equal place at the debate. In politics I have seen to much of this shotty kind of attempt to be fair or balenced, where a show will bring on a dishonest sycophant to refute the remarks of someone who may be trying to present a balanced viewpoint.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I voted for "AGW is proven and is based on flaky science"

 

[randomness]

Now, I have seen this term before, but what exactly is "flaky science"

 

[Surrealist]

There is also a problem with agendas of warmers: the more scare the more funding, the more in the limelight. it's a way to get rich&famous or to gain a white house.

If preaching GW is a "way to the White House" then please explain why Al Gore took no action to stop GW when he was in the White House.

That's right... he took no action because it was too politically risky.

In other words, your point is pointless.

 

[randomness]

If preaching GW is a "way to the White House" then please explain why Al Gore took no action to stop GW when he was in the White House.

That's right... he took no action because it was too politically risky.

In other words, your point is pointless.

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.

He retained the ban on offshore oil drilling in California; increased funding for solar and renewable energy; mandated federal agencies to buy recycled paper and other materials; supported aid to international family-planning programs; and signed legislation reserving the California desert. He has also vetoed many anti-environmental bills, at the cost of twice temporarily shutting down the federal government.

Clinton stuck by his campaign pledges on a number of other issues, but was thwarted by a recalcitrant Congress. He signed the Convention on Biodiversity from the Rio Summit, for example, but Congress refused to ratify it. On Superfund reform, Bob Dole led efforts to block a compromise position that was worked out between environmental groups and chemical companies with the support of the White House. Congress also rejected presidential proposals for an anti-global-warming carbon tax, and for tax incentives for renewable energy.

The Clinton administration also distinguished itself by placing strong environmentalists in positions of power, starting with Vice President Al Gore, who has been a consistent - and often insistent - voice in the White House for environmental concerns. Other standouts (even though the Sierra Club has not always agreed with their actions) have been Carol Browner in the EPA, Mollie Beattie at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (who died in June of brain cancer), Bruce Babbitt in Interior, and Undersecretary of State for Global Affairs Timothy Wirth.

From the LATimes 1996 http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1525/is_n5_v81/ai_18646401/pg_1

Lets keep it factual.

 

[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".