Can we use common sense and rational thought on this Climate Change issue? You believe or don't believe in ..?

Question

Can we use common sense and rational thought on this Climate Change issue? You believe or don't believe in ..?

Answer 1

No you cannot use common sense or rational thought about climate change because the claim that we are causing it is not supported by any evidence. Yes it's getting warmer and has been since the last time it was colder. The earth has been mostly covered in ice and not so much ice over and over and over and over. The fact that it is getting warmer isn't evidence that we are causing the warming. If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it does it still make a sound?

Answer 2

Not a believer. But if you offer me up some of the oodles of grant money "global warming" generates (and was designed to generate) I might reconsider.



How about $100,000 to study the effects of global warming on cold beer???

Answer 3

At this point, I have not embraced the Man-caused global warming cause. Until the corrupted surface temperature data is cleaned up so that it does not show false warming (which it is now), the true extent of any alleged warming is unknown.



Additionally, there have been instances of so-called 'science' that was poorly studied and reported.... for example the 'Hockey-Stick' graph.... which has been thoroughly exposed as being the result of shoddy science.

Answer 4

I'm a "believer".



I think the single best piece of evidence is the cooling of the upper atmosphere. This is a key signature of an enhanced greenhouse effect, because essentially more heat is trapped in the lower atmosphere. If global warming were due to solar effects, for example, all layers of the atmosphere would warm.



I think the second-best piece of evidence is the decreasing diurnal temperature range (more warming at night than during the day). Again from solar warming, you would expect more warming during the day, when the surface is bombarded with solar radiation. This is another key fingerprint of anthropogenic warming.

Answer 5

25 years ago I moved to Florida from the northeast and it took my body 5 years to get acclimated not just a short time like it did other people. I realized that the body changes to adapt. I'd never experienced hurricanes, tornadoes, flooding or seeing first hand homes under water when I lived up north. At the time I thought it was just the difference between north and south but as time has gone on and I realized that some areas here have not had water for many years and it's been brought in by truck that I realized what drought does, that without humidity there are fires. Each day here I learn something new about the climate. When I first arrived here and rode the freeways no one was on them but me, now it's not only bumper to bumper and daily and several times a day but smog has appeared, I saw it with my very own eyes over time as sprawl occurred. Seeing the smog upon the city I know it's caused by something, conclusion is by cars (and maybe by sitting in traffic idling the car). I saw that in the San Francisco area many years ago and thought smog was there alone. As sprawl occurred more traveling happened, as globalization occurred more people traveled overseas and more from overseas to here (even those earning $300 a month could fly and did somehow, maybe on credit, idk). And what used to be two lane highways in 25 years have become 6 lanes running in "one" direction, and now for emergencies all 12 lanes run in one direction. So "people" have definitely affected the planet. I see smog coming from China to our California coast.



I'm not sure what is micro and what is macro anymore. All I know is that the water is that glaciers are melting and the seas are truly rising (Maldives, parts of Bangladesh, parts of Alaska, the Philippines, over this past six months) and we need to give demographics a second look since other countries are looking us to house their people from disaster. How are we going to handle this, can we handle this? It used to be they gave us 20 years to look at this but it's said that problems are occurring twice as fast now, so that gives us 10 years or less to do something. Frankly because this climate change occurs in the entire galaxy every so many years (lots of shows showing this on the public broadcasting stations) and populations have been wiped out either entirely or nearly all we should be lending a helping hand while we still can. We in FL got warned a couple of week ago to take pics of the beaches now because in ten years they will be gone. Now tell me honestly, does the northeast ever get warnings like this? I'm not so sure they do. I think if you're in an area to be affected moreso than the others these warnings will come. Those of us in these warned areas know there is climate change and more is coming. Sure we wouldn't broadcast it because we're a tourist area and we need tourists to be able to exist. Gore has probably changed the word from Global because we can only help ourselves and not the globe's peoples. The warmest year in your part of the country may have been 1998 but there are sections of the country in drought 4 years or more already.



If there was no global warming then why would summits be called by many governments to discuss the problem and try to solve it. Those people are intelligent people trying to make future problems manageable. Like where to put or take people,l how to get food and clean water to them to give them a fighting chance.



People to an extent but along with all things in nature and around us are causing global warming but also history repeats itself and all things that were made at the beginning of time are always in flux it's just that with our technology we are just now learning that fact. Sometimes technology is good, sometimes it scares people. The scare has always been around, and people have always been terrified and running or fleeing, that's just the way it is.



I think you should be fair and stick to one question only...there are only 10 points per answer.

Answer 6

No amount of mainstream peer reviewed science is going to convert a non-believer even though mainstream science has debunked all the alternative explanations. The non-believers will continue to push debunked explanations as if they have not been debunked.



This is because psychology of greed is at work here. It is basically this.



Admitting man made global warming would involve financial loss through taxation & rising prices of material goods. It would stifle the meaning of life that depends on material status & luxury.



Therefore, no matter how mad the conspiracy theory is that all mainstream scientists of the major nations of the world are conspiring so that they get more research funds, and governments can raise more taxes if they come up with a manmade global warming conclusion.



The slightess wiff of an alternative explanation would have to be clutched.



Frankly, anyone who knows anything about Fourier Wave analysis would have told you smack in the face that an analysis always yield waves with fixed cycles irrespective whether there are real waves in a graph, but this is pushed by political means by a small eccentric group of oil financed 'researchers' because their work cannot pass peer review.



Furthermore, because this is a pseudo-scientific political lobby group, what we see on internet messageboards are hords of these activists trying to give the impression that they represent the dominant view in the world.



Richard Black talks about this elegantly in this article:-

2009-10-30 Magnetic attraction of climate 'scepticism'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/richardblack/2009/10/climates_magnetic_attraction.html

Answer 7

I think it is very likely that humans are currently causing climate change. I am not in a position to duplicate the thousands of studies that support that conclusion, but I can read some of them and I can read summaries in reputable sources like the Scientific American or National Geographic magazines. And no I do not buy into the theory that climate scientists are virtually all in giant conspiracy to mislead us. There is no evidence of a conspiracy.



It's a mistake to draw conclusions about science from ONE piece of evidence. It's too likely to lead you astray because of an error in the data or the analysis. That is why no reputable scientist will draw a conclusion based on a single piece of evidence. You need multiple confirming sources.



The IPCC home page publishes references to the studies and the results. If you don't trust their conclusions, you can check the sources. Compare that to the sources-mostly unpublished rants or stories in popular press like the British tabloid, the Daily Telegraph- cited by the deniers.



If you need anecdotal evidence to give you a gut feeling, then look at the rapid retreat of most Glaciers. By itself, it is not scientific proof, but when coupled with the IPCC studies, it gives you common sense confirmation.



edit:

You must be joking. You are telling us that you are going to ask more fake questions that are nothing more than a ruse to provide you with an excuse to parrot some false information relying a conservative blog and an editorial from a newspaper ruined by Rupert Murdock. Do you really think people will take your future questions seriously?

Answer 8

We can't pick ONE MOST convincing piece of evidence. We have to look at the evidence that the earth is warming, and then find an explanation. The most convincing piece of evidence that it is caused by man is that every possible known natural cause has been ruled out. It is not due to the slow cycles that cause ice ages to come and go - the Milankovitch Cycles - because those cycles have been causing gradual cooling for the past 6000 years. It is not caused by changes in the sun - the sun is in a solar minimum right now and has not been unusually active over the past 250 years. We know that the added CO2 is not natural for several reasons, including where it is concentrated, the isotopes and that the oceans are acidifying. Global Warming is not caused by changes in volcanoes, or gama waves or martians. There is no known natural cause and anyone who claims it is natural is uneducated or ignorant on the subject matters. AGW is a theory that holds up to all of the evidence while no natural theory makes sense compared to all the evidence. This is why climatologists are universally agreed, and why it is so silly for uneducated individuals to claim their own opinions.

Answer 9

I believe there is a high probability scientists are right (but, as with all science, they could be wrong).





My 'favourite' evidence (at least, the stuff that convinced me):



Warming is recorded in thermometer & satellite records, changing plant and animal movement, ice melt and increased atmospheric water vapour. It's definitely warming. And total heat content of the biosphere (atmosphere + oceans) is still going up (Lamb, 2009):

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Total-Heat-Content.gif



For why it's human:

Diurnal (Day/night) temperature range is shrinking, it's warming faster at night. Consistent with greenhouse gases but not the Sun. Also, the upper atmosphere is cooling - partly because of ozone loss there but also because of greenhouse gases lower down.



The strengthening greenhouse effect has been directly detected by satellites and ground stations (Trenberth et al, 2009 and Philipona et al, 2004 or 06, can't remember)



The reaction of the climate to changes in heat flow has been calculated both from models AND from known changes in the past (like ice ages etc). The models and the past results agree with each other and the IPCC.



Satellites and ground stations have looked at the links between solar activity and climate and for the last 30yrs, solar activity has been effectively constant (it oscillates on 11yr cycles though), and its effect is far, far smaller than greenhouse gases.

Answer 10

The House and Senate climate bills contain a provision giving the president extraordinary powers in the event of a "climate emergency." As chief of staff Rahm Emanuel says, a crisis is a terrible thing to waste.



The Senate version includes a section that gives the president authority, under this declared "climate emergency," to "direct all Federal agencies to use existing statutory authority to take appropriate actions ... to address shortfalls" in achieving greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions.



What the "appropriate actions" might be are not defined and presumably left up to the discretion of the White House. Could the burning of coal be suspended or recreational driving be banned... Sen. David Vitter, R-La., asked the EPA for a definition and received no response.



Environmentalism only pretends to deal with environmental protection. Behind the terminology is really an ambitious attempt to radically reorganize the world.

Answer 11

There is very little reason to "believe" anything. What I know is that climates vary naturally. Recent climates haven't behaved in any extraordinary way. Those who claim otherwise are ignorant of the facts or liars.



It is always easy to debunk the alarmists. They typically will only provide pseudo-consensus. Richard is a good example. I don't think I ever read any facts or opinion coming from him. He just cites concensus.



Bacheus said:

..that every possible known natural cause has been ruled out...

It would be hard to find a better example of double speak. Every possible known natural cause? Jibberish. Utter jibberish.



As for the person who noted that warming occurs mostly at night, is that supposed to be a bad thing? Greenhouse gases should increase warming far more in the night and winter temperature. In other words it should act more like global moderation. Are we supposed to panic about that? Besides, CO2 levels have probably also naturally increased as would be expected with a warming trend and it doesn't surprise or alarm me that warming would be concentrated at the coldest times and places.

Answer 12

Some people here clearly aren't getting your emphasis on Macro vs. Micro.



It sounds like you've already read the same journals I have. The climate change studies have largely been debunked. The biggest issue with the temperature studies is that they rely on thermometers at weather stations. Most weather stations are located at airports, most airports are in cities, and therein lies your flaw. Cities, with their vast stretches of pavement and buildings, heat up quickly and absorb a lot of energy that they radiate into the atmosphere long after the sun has set.



Here's the basic question you could ask a 12 year old that debunks the theory of global warming, "Is it warmer downtown or in a big park or out in the country? How about at night?" Then to link it in you'd just describe where weather data is obtained and where the stations are located.

Answer 13

First off, I do believe humans have an effect on global climate for the following reasons: a. clearing of land for agriculture, b. building cities of concrete and asphalt, and c. emissions of CO2 through the burning of fossil fuels. As we all know, the one that is concentrated on is CO2 emissions perhaps since correcting that problem has the most straightforward solution.



The key question is how much effect each of those human activities has, especially CO2 emissions. Right now, CO2 is getting the lion's share of the blame for recent warming and that is based on two prominent pieces of evidence. First, CO2 has been shown in a lab to have a greenhouse gas capability to absorb and emit infrared radiation. Second, scientists have used this first piece of evidence to produce climate models based on fluid dynamic systems. In these models, they have taken past temperatures and CO2 levels and produced future "projections" which predict that increased CO2 levels will result in warmer global temperatures.



These climate models however make many assumptions about the complex interactions of the global climate system. One of the key assumptions they make is that the climate sensitivity is high. That means that putting extra CO2 into the atmosphere will result in a rise in temperature with no natural mechanism to counteract this. Several climate scientists (and I mean climate scientists not journalists or bloggers) have been studying climate sensitivity (which is a large part of climate feedback mechanisms). These scientists claim that the climate sensitivity estimated by the IPCC for the climate models is too high, perhaps much too high.



While it has yet to be proven how sensitive the climate actually is (to CO2 level increases for example), a soon to be published peer-reviewed scientific report will be coming out soon which suggests the estimates used for the model's climate sensitivity is on the order of 6 times too high: http://masterresource.org/?p=4307



To support the claim that IPCC model temperature projections are too high, we can look at the predictions vs the latest temperature trends. As you may know, there are many ways to cherry pick temperature data and pretty well every type of trend has been put forth from 10 year cooling to a reduction in warming to business as usual and everything in between. It's pretty hard to argue though that temperatures are rising exactly as predicted by IPCC models. One the lead IPCC modelers has even come out and said as much and predicted one or two decades of cooling.



So most people who believe in man-made global warming will point to the bulk of scientists and scientific organizations as a place of authority. That's not unusual. However, if you dig a little deeper, it's not at all as clear as it seems on the surface.

Answer 14

OK, you use "common sense" and scientists will use mathematics and science.





http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/link=/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html

Answer 15

Firm believer. Here's the reason.



The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686



I tend to listen to the climate scientists on this one, and not the business media.



I know you asked for only one link, but this one's related to the first:

http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html