What's Your Stance?

[Admiral_Bobski]

By popular demand (well, a couple of people thought it might be a good idea!), here's a thread where people can state for the record what their official viewpoint on AGW is. If your viewpoint changes then by all means post an amended version on the thread (perhaps the mods could delete old entries...?), but could I please politely request that nobody comments on others' views here - we can debate stances until the cows come home elsewhere, but let's leave this one as a database of people's positions and nothing else.

Thanks!

CB

[Stratos Ferric]

We're warming, and we're mainly warming because of anthropogenic factors. Concurrent there is the normal range of other "natural" variations as have always occurred, though without obvious dramatic effect hitherto on a global scale within the reliable record; SST flux, volcanoes (we're overdue an eruption of some magnitude), sun spots. These factors will occasionally act to moderate GW, and at other times will act to enhance warming. Warming will not be constant in space or time.

I dismiss all suggestions re huge underwater plumes / volcanoes / solar variation / universal orbit etc.

We are right at the limits of warming that MIGHT still be considered to be in natural bounds (though personally I do not believe that the excess of warming is natural). If we continue upwards for another 2-3 years then in my opinion we will be through the point at which "natural cycles" can, with any legitimacy, be held up.

[Devonian]

I accept there is a natural greenhouse effect of about 33C. I think it's shown that there are things called greenhouse gasses that cause the greenhouse effect and that water vapour, CO₂, and cfcs are greenhouse gasses. I think the data from ice cores and more recently direct measurements shows CO₂ has rise in concentration to now stand at 380ppm+ and that that is a level not seem for at least a million years. I think it's shown that humanities actions are the root cause of that change.

I think we will see considerably more warming directly attributable to humanities activities in this century. I don't think our actions are the only cause of climate change but I do think they will become an increasingly obvious/dominant one. I think we should take action to reduce this effect, but, I don't think as a body humanity will for some considerable time if ever. Thus I do fear for my planet.

Edited February 5, 2008 by Devonian

[flagpole]

We're warming and it's largely our fault.

[Essan]

Climate is naturally variable on local, regional and global scales. Many different phenomena are involved, interacting in different ways at different times and in different places. In addition, human activity is also affecting local and regional climates which, taken together, may be deemed a global effect.

The complexity of this can make it very difficult to determine how much climate change in any given place is caused by human activity and how much by natural variability. However, in many cases the human activity which causes such local or regional climate change is clear and unequivocal and often detrimental in other ways as well.

Although some increase in atmospheric CO2 (and other GHGs) is a natural response to locally, regionally or globally warmer temperatures - which in turn may be caused by natural variability and/or human activity - the majority of the increases observed over the 20th/21st century are directly attributable to human activity. However GHGs currently play only a small role in overall climate change, though this may change if they continue to rise.

Edit: this is a similar position to that of other sceptics such as Hans Erren and Ferdinand Englebeen. Neither of whom have yet cashed in on AGW by writing a book .......

Edited February 5, 2008 by Essan

[VillagePlank]

I am not sure.

CO2 is clearly part of set of gases that maintain a greenhouse Earth. Whether the magnitude of change in CO2 is correlated quite so directly with temperature, I think, remains to be seen, although, for sure, it is certainly in there somewhere, and increasing it, through whatever complex route, almost certainly adds to an increasingly warm climate.

I think that we are still within the extremities of natural variability - although fast approaching the excesses of that variability.

[Admiral_Bobski]

I believe that Climatology is a science still in its infancy and that, furthermore, it is one of the most complicated sciences embarked upon by man: it draws on a huge range of other disciplines - physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics, computer science, statistics etc. - and so no one climatologist can claim to be au fait with the whole discipline. Teamwork and collaboration are absolutely vital elements of the field, and clearly expressing phenomena that cross the sub-disciplines is difficult. This degree of complication makes it extremely difficult to establish anything definitively.

Due to the complexity of the climate system, and hence our understanding of it, I do not feel that we are yet at a stage where we can start making long-term projections that have any real meaning in the real world. As yet there are no predictions arising from AGW theory, the results of which could only be as a result of man's influence, and this is what the theory needs in order for it to be scientifically robust.

I accept that CO2 causes the retention of warmth to a certain degree. In idealised laboratory conditions the results are clear, though (as I understand it) there is a logarithmic relationship between CO2 and temperature such that each successive doubling of CO2 has a smaller warming effect than the previous one. We do not yet know what warming effect CO2 actually has in a system as complicated as the Earth's climate - how far up the logarithmic curve are we already, what other factors may counteract CO2's effect and so on.

I also accept that, as far as we are able to ascertain, the increased atmospheric CO2 is anthropogenic in origin - we start pumping out CO2 and the atmospheric levels increase is a fairly compelling combination of events. The effect that additional CO2 has is debatable, for the reasons given in the previous paragraph.

Scientists accept that there is much we do not understand, there are things we know are missing from our understanding of the climate system, we have different degrees of understanding of different factors. This makes theory-building and prediction extremely complicated - I do not think we have enough information to be able to make any kind of claims for the future. I equate our understanding to that of 17th Century doctors - basic, logically compelling (in its way), and sometimes even right (though not necessarily for the right reasons). Would we put our faith in modern medicine? Most of us do. Would we put our faith in 17th Century medicine? Many did in the 17th Century, but in retrospect you'd avoid it.

I am open to new evidence, but what I would really like to see is a testable prediction that turns out to be correct - then I might be less skeptical.

CB

[0000]

Earths natural cycle.Before NW I was an undecided.

[Roo]

We are warming and the human element is what is causing the problem. Yes, there are natural warming/cooling cycles but the human element is what is doing the majority of the damage, and tipping the system beyond the point where it will easily come back to equilibrium.

Yes, the planet will cope, it always has done, but will we and many other species? I think not.

[wysiwyg]

After quite a bit of intriguing reading around this forum and the links that spread from it I have decided to add to this thread - great idea btw!

1. We are currently warming but the effects of taking a global mean and applying its effect to local climate and weather pattern changes is not yet understood fully enough to estimate the impact on high stakes investments i.e. development close to flood plains, agriculture and commerce.

2. Current warming is partly man-made but CFCs, and knock-on effects from other atmospheric constituents are currently underestimated by the science and data that we have available.

3. AGW 20%:Natural GW 80% Enough of an argument to suggest that more investment should be made into protecting our current investments and futures as well as reducing emissions. I'm all for reducing emissions (read pollution and waste) and if the AGW argument is the spanner we need to accelerate this then so be it - BUT - a much more sound long term investment is to protect ourselves against future GW events as the consensus in my mind appears to be towards natural GW and that fixing our own emissions will be a temporary at best measure.

4. The real challenge for technology is to ween us off fossil fuel dependency - if we let it get scarce then the political and socio-economic consequences are far greater than the effects of climate change (dT +ve of course, dT -ve is worrying for me)

Not easy to state your stance in a nutshell - but there is mine.

Wysi

[full_frontal_occlusion]

The only thing with 100% certainty is that climates change, they have always done so and always will.

Natural forcings for the very large part of our planets history, have been the only source of propagating climate change.

Anthropogenic forcing is real and is increasingly superimposing its effect over that of natural forcings - how much and how fast still has a good margin of error.

Using the best brains and science we have at our disposal we can extrapolate all we like, but at present we can only roughly estimate the trajectory of GW. We are not yet masters of the science of prediction.

Scientists and increasingly governments may have reached consensus, but there is much public confusion; like the interchangeability of the terms www and Internet, most people confuse Climate-Change with Global Warming and hence that the only way for temperatures at any given location is up.

Whichever way it is looked at, by doing nothing or doing something about AGW, on a global scale we are conducting an uncontrolled experiment. One which if carried out in a laboratory, would be breaking all the rules.

Those least responsible for AGW are also those who will potentially suffer the most if we do nothing.

ffO.

[Thundery wintry showers]

The Earth's climate has changed due to natural forcings ever since it came about. However, it's very likely that human activity is providing extra forcings, most of which cause a rise in temperature. Thus, instead of natural forcings causing variation either side of a stagnant mean, they're causing variation either side of a mean that is trending upwards because of human activity.

Current scientific evidence suggests that the CO2 forcing is the most pronounced, but even if that is disproved or shown to be exaggerated somewhere down the line, we have things like mass deforestation, aircraft contrails, oxides of nitrogen, excess methane etc, most of which are also "warming agents". How much of the current warming is anthropogenic in origin is open to question, but chances are, at least some of it is. I believe that the exaggerations and scaremongering of the politicians and media helps fuel scepticism and that campaigners should instead be pointing out that there's uncertainty, but that the potential risks of doing nothing are too great for it to be a viable option.

The main solution, to my mind, should focus around developing sustainable living. I mostly advocate 'carrot' policies which encourage and develop clean technology, public transport and cycling, more efficiency etc. However, such policies are usually open to abuse by the less conservation-minded, so we'll need some draconian policies in there as well, such as caps on pollution and tax-based incentivising, to reduce such abuse of the system. I also think that, for social and environmental reasons, we need to reduce the emphasis on consumerism and money. I think capitalism in moderation is a very good thing- just the way society runs at present smacks of 'too much of a good thing'.

In practice, sadly, it's most likely that the 'status quo' will continue until some catastrophic event occurs, by which time it may already be too late to do anything of consequence. In life in general, the main thing that annoys me isn't the problems in the world, it's the way social inertia makes it difficult to do anything about problems that could otherwise be addressed. AGW is a case in point.

[HighPressure]

Well I think I am learning all the time, I don't see myself as Anti or Pro.

AGW makes up a part of total GW, I do not know what that percentage is, anything above 10% I would think could be called significant and I think its above that. The AGW part of GW has to be split further into other human activities such as CFCs. CO2 is merely a contributory factor in my view and not the cause, for this we need to find why CO2 is not being dealt with by our Sinks as clearly Physics say that any increase in CO2 should be met with at least an attempt by these to soak up more. What we are seeing is an opposite effect the timing of which to me seems linked to Ozone depletion. The key thing for me with CO2 and AGW is that I can find no evidence that reducing emissions will have the effect of stabilising GW.

I also believe that natural effects play a significant role in Climate (you can have 2 significant things you know) the Earth has been at the mercy of these for hundreds of millions of years with some quite drastic climate changes evident. The Earth's predominant state is that of Cold we exist within what is just a brief period between ice ages, there is no evidence to suggest that these gigantic natural processes have been overcome by human activities.

I realise that at first look these may appear to be 2 opposing views but, short term Global temp trends are not the same as medium or long term ones. What we maybe doing is impacting on a very small time slot within one very short Earth cycle, merely bringing forward the next natural Earth cycle, I suspect this will be due to the slowing or stopping of Ocean currents.

Edited February 5, 2008 by HighPressure

[Bobby]

I belive the Earth has warmed rapidly and significantly since the industrial revolution and human greenhouse gas emissions are mainly the cause. I'd say at least 75% of the warming is due to humans. I believe that there are no signs of any sort of halt, slowing or reversal of the warming trend in the near future and thus I expect the Earth will continue to warm for the forseeable future. I believe the rate of warming will increase over time.

I am sceptical however of the IPCC projections of the amount of warming in the future due to a lack of fossil fuel resources and an expected economic slowdown. I am also unsure if the warming will be as disastrous as many think, but I do believe there is potential for disaster.

[Gray-Wolf]

For the huge numbers of humans who depend upon the stability of our climate to survive day to day we have scored a massive own goal.

I believe we cannot fully understand all the implications of our impact upon a finely balanced system but the reality is far far worse than many folk understand/believe. If you simply look at it as an 'energy equation' the amount of 'extra energy' we have already allowed our planet to absorb is worrying enough , the period of accelerated energy 'absorption' we are currently entering does nothing but compound my fears.

If you watch a pan of water from 'cold' to 'boiling' not a lot happens for quite a while and then, at the end of the process, we get lots of dynamic activity.

Our oceans, and the vast reserves of water they contain, have been 'on the stove' for over 150yrs and are now at the point where their increased temps are causing problems at both poles. We know what is happening to the north but the subtle changes to the south demand closer investigation as they have in the past ,and will in the future, undergone rapid deglaciation raising global sea levels by tens of metres. If we sit and do nothing but watch then we face the very real prospect of witnessing a rapid de-glaciation over the coming years. If we are beyond the point of no return then surely we should be planning for the inundations to come?

I agree with the many who believe that over the next few years the events we witness will leave most right thinking folk in no doubt that we are beyond 'natural cycles' but sadly we will also be at a point where humanity is a mere passenger on a ride he fashioned tens of years before.

We will face social disruption, climatic disruption and the loss of a fare percentage of the global population.

Maybe best not to look eh?

Edited February 5, 2008 by Gray-Wolf

[Guest mycroft]

Natural warming, changes in ocean circulation.Changes in synoptic patterns and man made pollutants. and lack of understanding by mankind (science )of how our climate,atmosphere works in all it cycles,..oh and a blinkered media.

[Hiya]

A human exacerbation of natural warming, to what extent I am unsure.

[Yeti]

I am a firm believer in AGW and have been for many years. I also believe that if we do not make enormous changes to our unsustainable lifestyles now, many more consequences could ensue: take, for example, the methane hydrates in the ocean floor. These deposits contain vast quantities of methane (far more greenhouse gas is down there than we could pump out in a hundred years). They are released by increased CO2 in the oceans - but nobody knows what the "critical concentration" is.

What strikes me most as odd in the AGW debate is the sheer inability to acknowledge a need for extreme precaution in this issue - even by those for whom global warming seems entirely natural. Even though the greenhouse effect can be demonstrated in a testube, there will always be people who either deny such evidence or cannot reconcile themselves to admitting it; that is simply human nature. However, whether we are in control of it or not, the world is undeniably warming and will produce the same effects as if it were being created by ourselves. Surely this very fact should lead everybody - if human beings truly are reasonable creatures, which is another debate entirely - to commit themselves wholly to preventing global warming whether it be in our power or not. There is disagreement over AGW, and therefore one party must be correct. Naturally, we do not know which party is correct, and so two logical absolute possiblities follow:

• We more or less ignore global warming and behave as we are currently
  

• We do all in our power to try and stop global warming as a result of assuming that the AGW hypothesis is correct
  

Exacting option one would mean that one of two things could happen:

1. Life continues as it is (or better) with more economic growth and better living standards, with perhaps a slight natural warming peaking to a non-catastrophic level
   
2. A severe warming occurs due to human activity, leading to super-mass extinction, potential loss of millions/billions of lives (depending on severity)
   

Exacting option two would produce the following:

1. Temporary slight economic decline for industialised nations due to costs invested in renewable energy etc. with perhaps a slight natural warming peaking to a non-catastrophic level but no severe AGW
   

This is perhaps where the discrepancy lies: to me it seems common sense to follow the second option if only out of fear for the first. If, however, one is so utterly blinded by one's own opinion then there seems to be little wrong with option one. Bear ever in mind, however, the previous paradigm shifts in science and the need for precaution becomes glaringly apparent. In my opinion it is in everybody's interest to do all we can to prevent a global warming even if man's footprint is small (with which, of course, I disagree entirely). Breaking down each argument into its logical causative consequences reveals a choice between either a small cost or potentially too large cost which could never be repaid.

For the people of my (i.e. the youngest) generation, the future lies chiefly in the hands of the older coevals (as well as ourselves). I do not see any room for taking such enormous risks.

[Duncan McAlister]

The globe is warming, a large amount of this warming can be attributed to humans. Action to tackle AGW needs to be regulated by governments, for example through carbon rationing. Action is ineffective at an individual level because it is impossible for everyone to make a 90% their own CO2 emissions, the structure of national life forbids it (millions have to commute to work, we have to eat, we have to heat and light our homes, and these are just the bare essentials). Even if it were possible, most people are just simply too busy or apathetic. I think the regulation and rationing needed will be on a scale not seen since World War II.

[biffvernon]

We're off to Hell in a handcart and it's all our own stupid fault.

[Guest diessoli]

G'Day,

The questions whether the global climate is warming and, if, so, what the causes are, are questions that can only be answerd by science.

Those are very challenging problems and require input and efforts from a wide range of disciplines.

I don't consider myself to be able (at least not yet) to come to my own conclusion regarding those questions.

However other, more clever and experienced people (some of whom I know personally) have reviewed the available scientific material and have come to the conclusion that the earth is warming in an un-precendented way (at least when compared to the last 2000 or so years) and that it is very likely that we humans are responsible for most of this warming. As long as I don't see any compelling evidence contradicting this consensus, I will accept it and even defend it.

My background in atmospheric physics and access to people with knowledge in climate science give me a limited ability to judge some of the scientific material. Otherwise I would not post here.

I believe that humanity has enough certainty about AGW and the potential risks to justify policies that try to deal with the problem. There is still a lot to be learned in climate science, that is for sure, but scientists should no longer have to make an effort to convince people of the reality of AGW but instead focus on improving our capabilities of predicting the changes that are ahead (which btw. is actually happening).

Cheers

[jethro]

Instead of just posting my previous thoughts on this subject I will try to expand and add a few details, hopefully clarifying my take on this.

I believe we have warmed in recent decades.

The temperature record says we have, different records give different figures so putting a precise figure on how much we have warmed is a tad tricky, none the less, they all record warming.

I believe there is a fair chance some of this can be laid firmly at our feet.

Any change we make to the planet must have an impact; nothing we do is without consequence. Some of this impact is caused by increasing levels of CO2 (sorry Hiya). As important are the many other changes we have made. Deforestation, agriculture, aerosols, population growth and CFC’s to name but few.

I believe some can be laid firmly at the feet of naturally occurring cycles.

The world got along just fine without us in the past; there are numerous cycles within cycles, within still more cycles. Cycles which are of such magnitude, it would, IMO be foolish to believe we can simply over-ride. The planet and climate are not static, change is the norm. Sometimes the planet is warming, sometimes it’s cooling, deciphering our input and impact with any degree of accuracy is still beyond our capabilities as yet. At best, I believe we are adding to an already naturally warming phase.

I believe what we know so far on the workings of the many climate drivers is merely the tip of a very large iceberg.

The collective knowledge of the natural world is incredibly sparse when compared to our knowledge of man’s input to climate. Just taking the major players alone reveals how inadequate our knowledge is; the Sun has been more active in recent cycles than it has been for many, many years and yet we do not accurately know how this impacts our climate. The experts are far from agreement. The oceans cover roughly 70% of the Earth’s surface, average depth of 3,790 meters giving a volume of 1,300 million cubic kilometres, that’s an awful lot of water; given that water vapour is THE biggest GHG. There are currents which do impact upon climate both locally and globally, the PDO, AO, NAO, all these have negative and positive phases, but we don’t know how or why these work or switch from one state to the other or when.

I believe many assumptions are being made when each and every climatic variation is assigned the cause of "climate change".

As I said, climate isn’t static, change is the norm but currently every variation is assigned the label of AGW. Our interest in and ability to measure doesn’t make everyday occurrences un-natural.

I believe there are political elements involved with the public statements being made, and the drive to establish AGW as fact, a done deal, is based at least equally upon this, as it is the science.

There are gains to be made, where there is money, there is the potential for corruption. Sad but true. My concerns here are that in the drive to reduce CO2 output, we will prevent other nations from realising their potential. Is this a motivating factor behind the political machine? I’d say it figures in there somewhere. Is the recent upsurge in concern and drive to reduce CO2 linked to the rapid growth of some nations and a desire to curb their growth and therefore power? Yes, I believe it is. The IPCC representing and presenting a scientific consensus to the world is, IMO a misnomer and a dangerous one at that, since its’ inception the IPCC has been a political body, not a scientific one.

I believe there is an element of "looming energy crisis" driving the political machine.

We have an impending energy crisis, we’re running out of fossil fuels and an economically viable alternative still seems a long way off. I expect every nation to defend to the end their reserves of oil, coal and gas. Is the drive to reduce our consumption, purely driven by a desire to reduce our carbon footprint or is there an element of eeking out supplies until we have an alternative? On a personal level, I’d say the former, on a government, world wide level, I’d say the latter.

I believe the natural climate drivers are being overlooked or viewed through AGW tinted lenses and an awful lot of assumptions being made which result in claims that these natural drivers are now super-ceded in our age of "modern winters".

Where does this leave me and my response, has it modified my behaviour? I’m a farmers daughter brought up with the adage of “we don’t own the land, we’re custodians for the next generation” and “want isn’t the same as need, we may want the biggest, best, latest but we don’t need it, our wants might prevent someone else satisfying their needs”, it made sense as a kid; it makes even more sense as an adult.

So, does all this make me a sceptic or a believer? You can decide. If I had to assign a title to myself, it would be Questioner.

p.s Apologies for the ramble, just trying to cover all bases as it seems I’ve confused the most people.

[I can't believe it's not better]

I can't understand why people don't believe in AGW. But, I can't see it being a problem for too long. Still, I suspect stuff will be hitting the fan for a while. And I suspect we'll lose a lot of biodiversity - but we're used to that.

[BLAST FROM THE PAST]

Don't like pollution or unnecessary or wanton destruction. CO2 is not a pollutant. 7-10 years is what I will look at for confirmation that GW is/has been natural forcing. Last decade not enough time but it has been a decade with no increase. Cycle 24 is already over a year late and has surprised AGW camp and is headed to be quieter/much quieter than cycle23. Deep solar minima approaching which IMO will provide 'obvious' cooling event and this should be 'visible' in timescale I have mentioned. If the factors fall into place and we continue to warm then that will be the answer for me, and also if we do cool then thats the answer too. Until then Natural......0.01% of the atmosphere doesn't do it for me.

BFTP

[stewfox]

I believe after it was flooded, (man made or natural event :lol: ) New Orleans could have spent $30 billion reducing CO2 out put by 50% to reduce global warming by 0.02c in the next 100yrs

Or it could spend $30 billion re-building new Orleans with improved flood defences /schools infra structure welfare etc

On a global level how much global warming is due to man or nature is open to debate

The question is where do you spend the money on lunches at Kyoto or raising the flood defences by 1m ?

Edited February 14, 2008 by stewfox