The Great Global Warming Poll

[dead0man]

Apologies if this has been done (if it has, it hasn't been recent).


edit-I just realized 3 and 4 were basically the same.  4 should be along the lines of "we're already farked pretty bad, but it won't be that horrible if we act now"

[John Dibble]

Where's the option for "part man, part nature, and I don't know exactly what the effects will be"?

[Franzl]

man made, but the effects could be minimized if it were attended to properly.

[Хahar 🤔]

man made, but the effects could be minimized if it were attended to properly.

^^^^

[??????????]

Option 8.

[7,052,770]

our opinions are irrelevant.  Only the opinions of climatologists matter, and they favor option 3.

[Frodo]

Primarily natural, but we clearly have had an influence on it, exacerbating warming that is otherwise cyclical.  The trillion dollar question here is how much of an impact have we had.  That will be determined within the next several decades as we leave a positive PDO and NAO phase, and enter into a cooler negative PDO and NAO regime.

[Sam Spade]

Generally, I suspect most of it is natural, through the sun mainly.  But part of it, at least, is man-made.  The question is how much, and science doesn't really have a grip on this part to say the least (temperature predictions over the last 20 years have been laughable, to put it mildly)

[Sbane]

Generally, I suspect most of it is natural, through the sun mainly.  But part of it, at least, is man-made.  The question is how much, and science doesn't really have a grip on this part to say the least (temperature predictions over the last 20 years have been laughable, to put it mildly)

The real variable and something science truly cannot predict is how the feedback loops of this earth will react to these changes. Say due to the sun our planet is naturally warming but it is getting worse due to us.  What warming does is melt icecaps and we are making it even worse. Why this is bad is because ice sheets do a large part in reflecting back the sun's energy into space. The less ice there is the warmer the earth gets. So even a little reduction in ice due to us could lead to far greater consequences.

[J. J.]

Where's the option for "part man, part nature, and I don't know exactly what the effects will be"?

Ditto. 

[Bluegrass Cruiser 420]

our opinions are irrelevant.  Only the opinions of climatologists matter, and they favor option 3.

Opinions are not science as they have nothing to do with the scientific method.  Proving that many so-called scientists are out to get as much gov't funding as they can by any menas necessary.

[DownWithTheLeft]

our opinions are irrelevant.  Only the opinions of climatologists matter, and they favor option 3.

Opinion still being the key word, and their is certainly far from a consensus.

My option is not up there, I believe in climate cycles and that the earth may actually be entering a slow dissent into an ice age, not warming.  However, I wholeheartedly believe man has nothing to do with it

[Franzl]

However, I wholeheartedly believe man has nothing to do with it
[/quote]

It's very comforting that you believe that. That makes me want to go buy a new SUV.

[DownWithTheLeft]

However, I wholeheartedly believe man has nothing to do with it

It's very comforting that you believe that. That makes me want to go buy a new SUV.
[/quote]
That does not mean that the SUV does produce pollution, pollution is still bad and oil dependency is still bad, it just ain't warmin da earth

[War on Want]

number 3

[Franzl]

However, I wholeheartedly believe man has nothing to do with it

It's very comforting that you believe that. That makes me want to go buy a new SUV.

That does not mean that the SUV does produce pollution, pollution is still bad and oil dependency is still bad, it just ain't warmin da earth
[/quote]

global warming doesn't really fit the libertarian ideology, huh?

[DownWithTheLeft]

However, I wholeheartedly believe man has nothing to do with it

It's very comforting that you believe that. That makes me want to go buy a new SUV.

That does not mean that the SUV does produce pollution, pollution is still bad and oil dependency is still bad, it just ain't warmin da earth

global warming doesn't really fit the libertarian ideology, huh?
[/quote]
That has 0 to do with it, I'm not one of those people that uses science only when it fits my purpose.  I try to look at all things, you know, sort of an anti-liberal

[Franzl]

However, I wholeheartedly believe man has nothing to do with it

It's very comforting that you believe that. That makes me want to go buy a new SUV.

That does not mean that the SUV does produce pollution, pollution is still bad and oil dependency is still bad, it just ain't warmin da earth

global warming doesn't really fit the libertarian ideology, huh?

That has 0 to do with it, I'm not one of those people that uses science only when it fits my purpose.  I try to look at all things, you know, sort of an anti-liberal
[/quote]

ummm.....sure...if you say so

[Verily]

our opinions are irrelevant.  Only the opinions of climatologists matter, and they favor option 3.

Opinions are not science as they have nothing to do with the scientific method.  Proving that many so-called scientists are out to get as much gov't funding as they can by any menas necessary.

The least convincing argument is one of semantics.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Global Warming is a cult. A more rational Scientology (or perhaps more accurately, Anabaptism? Or even modern day Flagellantism?)

However this does not exclude any of the above options being true.

[minionofmidas]

our opinions are irrelevant.  Only the opinions of climatologists matter, and they favor option 3.

Opinions are not science as they have nothing to do with the scientific method.  Proving that many so-called scientists are out to get as much gov't funding as they can by any menas necessary.

The least convincing argument is one of semantics.

...and for almost twenty years, the bulk of government funding for climatologists went to the tiny majority that could be bought into silence that way.

There's not been a serious debate about anything but minor details for twenty years.

[Ban my account ffs!]

None.

I believe that the warming of the planet is a combination of things and that even the manmade portion of it has been blown out of proportion.

Here is a good example that tells you almost immediately that the climate is cyclic.  This is the annual mean temperature for the state of Arizona.

This is the period 1911-2007.  There's a pretty clear warming trend, right?

Notice the cooling period during the mid-20th century, caused by atmospheric circulations that have recently reverted back to those stages again.  More cooling is likely to follow.



But that's not telling the whole story.  The temp record actually goes back to 1895 for the state:



When you see this, you think.. well, what happened before 1895?  We don't really know.  The desert southwest has been very sensitive to climate change and that is easy to see.

[Frodo]

None.

I believe that the warming of the planet is a combination of things and that even the manmade portion of it has been blown out of proportion.

Explain the increasing acidification of the oceans.  Is that also being blown out of proportion?

[12th Doctor]

Where's the option for "part man, part nature, and I don't know exactly what the effects will be"?

^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Ban my account ffs!]

None.

I believe that the warming of the planet is a combination of things and that even the manmade portion of it has been blown out of proportion.

Explain the increasing acidification of the oceans.  Is that also being blown out of proportion?

No.  In fact, the acidification of the oceans is a very underreported but serious problem.

My point is that there are natural variables that are not human caused that are affecting energy distribution between ocean and atmosphere.

The Pacific ocean, being the largest ocean, has a great impact on global weather patterns as well as climate trends that can last years or even decades.

The yearly fluctuations are generally caused by ENSO or El-Nino Southern Oscillation, in which the equatorial Pacific near South America sees either warmer than normal temperatures (El-Nino) or cooler than normal temperatures (La-Nina).

The El-Nino phase tends to increase global temperatures and increase global precipitation.  This also has the effect of putting more water vapor in the atmosphere, which warms the planet even more because water vapor is a good heat trapper.

The La-Nina phase tends to decrease global temperatures and decrease global precipitation.  Winters become colder in the north and warmer in the south because less water vapor is in the atmosphere.  Basically, El-Nino tends to moderate climate variations (warmer in the north, cooler in the south) while La-Nina amplifies them (cold int he north, warm in the south).

Underneath all this is a longer-term cycle called the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, and it has really only been researched since the '90s.  There are two phases to the PDO, positive and negative.

During the positive phase, which occurred from 1910-1945 and again from 1975-2007, an area of warmer than normal water forms in a horseshoe shape from the north Pacific, hugging the western coast of North America, and spans across the equatorial Pacific, with cooler than normal water in the middle.  Overall, however, the amount of warm water is greater than the amount of cool water, so the global temperature goes up.  This phase not only allows more El-ninos to develop, which warm the planet, but they also amplify and intensify the El-ninos.  They suppress La-Nina development and intensity.

During the negative phase, which occurred from 1945-1975 (the global temperature cooled during this period), an area of colder than normal water forms in a horseshoe shape from northern Japan over to the Gulf of Alaska, down the west coast, and then across the equatorial Pacific, with warm water in the middle.  This amplifies La-Nina conditions and lowers global rainfall.  This has the effect of making the seasons more extreme and cooling the planet overall.

Since last spring, scientists believe the Pacific ocean has reverted to its negative phase.  This is clearly illustrated by the conditions currently occurring in the ocean:



There have been numerous reports out recently that scientists are now expecting that the planet might not warm at all over even cool slightly over (at least) the next 10 years, and possibly 25 years.

There are even longer term cycles and other variations that are affecting our weather.

The sun increased in intensity at a fast clip from 1890 and 1960, where it plateaued and has remained since.  Solar activity in the past 70 years is more intense than any point in the past 1000 years.  Despite its peak, the planet's temperature cooled ever so slightly between the switch to the negative PDO phase in 1945 and 1960 when the sun reached its highest intensity.  The planet cooled even faster between 1960 and 1975 when the sun had remained constant.

All this despite rapidly rising CO2 concentrations.

So, how much has CO2 warmed the planet?

Well, most of the warming prior to 1975 was caused by natural variables like the increasing solar intensity and an ocean cycle that amplifies warming.  Since 1975, we were in a natural warming phase, so some warming was expected.  The planet, if all the natural variables we are aware of are taken into account, should have warmed to just slightly warmer than the peak it reached in the early 1940s.. but it warmed much more than that.. so unless there is something we have not even discovered yet (which is possible, but unlikely), CO2 is mostly to blame.  But we must also remember that aerosoles, like sulfur dioxide, which reflect sunlight into space before it reaches the surface, cool the planet, and they have been greatly reduced since the 1980s.. so the warming trend has been even stronger as a result of that.

As a great estimation, I'd say the CO2 contribution to global warming is about 10% of the total warming that has occurred in the past century.. so, about 0.1*F...