Do you believe in climate change?

[xchrom]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/mar/23/climate-change-believe-in-it


Climate change is not a matter of belief, but of empirical evidence. Photograph: Etsa/Corbis


This may seem like an odd question for a climate scientist to ask, but it is one I am constantly asked now. The typical discussion starts: "I know that the climate is changing, but hasn't it always changed through natural cycles?" Then they will often give an example, such as the medieval warm period to prove their point.

Those asking the question include a wide range of people I meet in the pub, friends, politicians and increasingly even some of those active in sustainable development and the renewable energy businesses. What I find interesting is that I have known many of these people for a long time and they never asked me this before.

Recent studies show that public acceptance of the scientific evidence for man-made climate change has decreased. However, the change is not that great. The difference I find in talking to people is that they feel better able to express their doubts.

This is very hard for scientists to understand. The scientific evidence that humanity is having an effect on the climate is overwhelming and increasing every year. Yet public perception of this is confused. A Cardiff/Ipsos Mori study on public perceptions of climate change, published in 2010, identifies a number of possible contributory factors: the move from being a science issue to a political issue may have introduced more distrust; "cognitive dissonance" – where people modify their beliefs about uncomfortable truths – may be a factor; people may have become bored of constantly hearing about climate change; or external factors such as the financial crisis may have played a role. There is also increased activity among sceptical groups to obscure the scientific evidence in order to influence public opinion.

[cindyperry2010]

1. yes

[life long demo]

2. How could anyone not believe in climate change

after this last winter. It was like spring began in Dec/Jan. I live in PA and people I speak to about it are worried what summer is going to be like after this winter that we had.

[slackmaster]

3. Climate change over time has been the norm for the entire history of the Earth

According to available geological and fossil information.

[lastlib]

5. Human activity as a contributing factor is new.

This has to be the central fact of the debate. The question now should be not whether believe in it (it's not the tooth fairy) but what do we need to do about it?

[jpak]

13. Anthropogenic climate change is real - and supported by the peer reviewed science

anything else is horseshit

yup

[slackmaster]

22. I don't deny anthropogenic climate change, but I think I see it a little differently than some

We're not the first kind of life on Earth to grow to a point where we affect the climate.

[freshwest]

4. I believe it's happening, as predicted by the military decades ago and that we must prepare for it.

All of this 'controversy' is about NOT changing our way of living which is now destroying the carrying capacity of this planet. And that requires a fundamental change in our priorities.

Right now, those with the wealth to do so are preparing. Mainly in acquiring the basics of life, land, water, etc. from what they have gleaned from those who are not aware.

There are so many voices out there. In the so-called 'woowoo' category, we have the old prophecies from the native peoples and the desert religions, telling us of changes that will make our lives unbearable, even if we give up all the rudiments of our civilized society.

We have a form of devolution taking place, memorialized in the writings of people such as David Korten and many others who are telling us to embrace nature. We have a shorter timeframe to change our lives and connect.

[RobertEarl]

6. The question is:

Does one believe the hard science that claims at a certain level of CO2 in the atmosphere, the weather and climate will change?

Or is one so goddamn stupid to argue about that science?

[OKIsItJustMe]

7. I don’t want to be too pedantic but I feel the phrases…

…“at a certain level” and “will change” are part of the problem.

Even people who accept the science are seeing this as a future problem to be addressed some day, but not now. (i.e. that some day we will reach that “certain level” and “the weather and climate will change.”)

The weather and climate are changing today.

[RobertEarl]

11. Above 350 it causes change

If you don't get that, how can you expect stupid people to get it?

People who accept the science are TODAY calling for limits. But no one is listening because they are too stupid?

[OKIsItJustMe]

14. I’m sorry, but you’re wrong

First: We’ve already overshot 350ppm. So, if changes start at 350ppm, they’ve already started (as I said.)


Second: 350 is not a magic figure. Temperatures were warming before we hit 350ppm.


Third: returning to 350 ppm is not magic either. James Hansen et al, did not say that if we get back to 350 ppm all will be rosy: (This is from the paper which proposed the 350 ppm target.)
http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874282300802010217

[font face=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][font size=3]…

We suggest an initial objective of reducing atmospheric CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] to 350 ppm, with the target to be adjusted as scientific understanding and empirical evidence of climate effects accumulate. Although a case already could be made that the eventual target probably needs to be lower, the 350 ppm target is sufficient to qualitatively change the discussion and drive fundamental changes in energy policy. Limited opportunities for reduction of non-CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] human-caused forcings are important to pursue but do not alter the initial 350 ppm CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] target. This target must be pursued on a timescale of decades, as paleoclimate and ongoing changes, and the ocean response time, suggest that it would be foolhardy to allow CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] to stay in the dangerous zone for centuries.

…[/font][/font]

The idea was that bringing levels back down to 350 ppm is a first goal, which will (in itself) require “fundamental changes in energy policy.”

[RobertEarl]

15. I'm not wrong

And you are all over the place. No wonder stupid people who might follow you are confused.

But you are right about you being sorry, I'll give you that. Try not to be, would be my advice.

Make it simple, and they may get it. Above 350ppm the climate dramatically changes.

Surely you are not claiming otherwise?

[OKIsItJustMe]

16. Yes, I am claiming otherwise

We are already above 350 ppm, and have been for 20+ years. (We’re not talking about a future event here.)

Warming was already taking place before he hit 350 ppm. (We used to call it “The Greenhouse Effect.”) Dramatic changes were noted in the 70's but the warming started well before that:


Please, read what Hansen et al really said about 350 ppm:
http://dx.doi.org/10.2174/1874282300802010217

[font face=Times, Serif][font size=5]Target Atmospheric CO[font size="1"]₂[/font]: Where Should Humanity Aim?[/font]

…

[font size=2]Abstract: Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3°C for doubled CO[font size="1"]₂[/font], including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6°C for doubled CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica. Decreasing CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] was the main cause of a cooling trend that began 50 million years ago, the planet being nearly ice-free until CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] fell to 450 ± 100 ppm; barring prompt policy changes, that critical level will be passed, in the opposite direction, within decades. If humanity wishes to preserve a planet similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on Earth is adapted, paleoclimate evidence and ongoing climate change suggest that CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] will need to be reduced from its current 385 ppm to at most 350 ppm, but likely less than that. The largest uncertainty in the target arises from possible changes of non-CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] forcings. An initial 350 ppm CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] target may be achievable by phasing out coal use except where CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] is captured and adopting agricultural and forestry practices that sequester carbon. If the present overshoot of this target CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] is not brief, there is a possibility of seeding irreversible catastrophic effects.[/font]

…[/font][/font]

[RobertEarl]

17. I give up with you

You are just wanting to argue about nothing of any consequence. I guess because i am new here?

For the rest of you who don't quite get it, know that we are going to see more and more changes the rest of our lives and it isn't going to be easy.

The ports will flood and shipping will be severely hampered. Millions of refugees will be displaced and crops will be harmed. More storms and more extreme weather events due to climate change will be your new world order.

[OKIsItJustMe]

18. It’s not because you’re new

I'm sorry if I have offended you. That was not my intent.

My point simply is that climate change is not something to worry about some day, it is happening now, and has been happening for decades. Returning to 350 ppm is an initial goal, in an effort to avoid even worse climate change.

[Rain Mcloud]

8. Hundreds of thousands of Scientist's

around the World agree that Global Warming is happening and is caused by mankind.
Is the scientific evidence perfect? No,not today.
Will the factors be understood better tomorrow? Yes and the day after that will bring more information.

The public perception is forced by a dis-information push funded by corporation's who do not wish to lose profits or have them diminished by paying taxes nor lose their corporate welfare from subsidies.
The higher the profits for these entities means more re-election money for politician's who are in on the take.

The People have the power at the ballot box to vote out politicians who choose to side with the corporations against the common good and the will of the people.
They know this and that knowledge scares them to death.

Soon people will have choices as more technologies become affordable for the masses.
Photo Voltaics panels for the home have dropped in price by more than half in the past three years.
Solar water pre-heaters are now commercially available for the home.
Electric vehicles are approaching the Chicken/Egg scenario where enough demand increases production which in turn lowers prices which raises demand again.
Battery capacity and thus range is expanding yearly and projected to drop in price around 30% by 2017.
High Speed Rail is in development across much of the Nation which will reduce fuel consumption of passenger airlines. Many may find this attractive due to the invasive nature of the NTSA screenings.

There is more than one way to vote,vote for the future by buying environmentally friendly products,early and often.
Power to the People!

[hatrack]

9. Terrible question;"Do you believe in ghosts?" "Do you believe in magic?" "Do you believe in love?"

Its not about "belief".

The questions that need to be asked are:

"What is the empirical evidence in this matter?"

"Is that evidence valid?"

"Can that evidence be reproduced?"

"Do the conclusions drawn from this evidence have predictive value?"

We already know the answers to these four questions, and there are mountains of evidence to support those answers.

Why in BLUE FUCK are we even talking about what we "believe"? As this election season has shown, Americans, or at least a substantial minority of them, will believe any Goddamned idiotic bullshit they want to if they find it emotionally satisfying to do so.

Alien abduction afficionados, birthers, Trilateral Commission nuts, 9/11 truthers and the Tea Party all have their own sweaty, paranoid beliefs, to which they cling with the clawed and spitting fury of a cat gutting a catnip mouse. They believe with all their hearts, and it doesn't matter a damn what they believe.

[XemaSab]

10. You don't believe in love?

That's the last heart you're getting from me.

[hatrack]

12. Huey Lewis himself couldn't have phrased it better!

[OKIsItJustMe]

20. This is (of course) exactly what the author was saying…

From the OP: “Climate change is not a matter of belief, but of empirical evidence.”

Sadly, however, “belief” is a real concern:
http://www.npr.org/2011/09/07/140071973/in-their-own-words-gop-candidates-and-science

[font face=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][font size=3]“I believe the earth gets warmer and I also believe the earth gets cooler. And I think history points out that it does that and that the idea that man, through the production of CO2 — which is a trace gas in the atmosphere, and the man-made part of that trace gas is itself a trace gas — is somehow responsible for climate change is, I think, just patently absurd when you consider all the other factors, El Niño, La Niña, sunspots, moisture in the air. ... To me, this is an opportunity for the left to create — it's really a beautifully concocted scheme because they know that the earth is gonna cool and warm.”[/font][/font]

[RobertEarl]

19. CO2

When CO2 is compressed it becomes what is known as dry ice.
Yep, it becomes solid. Ice cold.

So think about what happens when CO2 expands....the reverse of ice...... it holds heat.

When it expands in the atmosphere it holds heat from the sun. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more heat it holds. CO2 in the atmosphere has increased since you were born, and it will be much higher than it is today, when you die. The atmosphere will continue to warm.

Be prepared.

[OKIsItJustMe]

21. What on Earth does “Dry Ice” have to do with it?

Yes, “Dry Ice” is frozen CO[font size="1"]₂[/font], and yes, CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] is a greenhouse gas, but, when CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] sublimates from solid to gaseous, it draws in heat from its surroundings, cooling them off.

I don’t see what you’re trying to say with your analogy (as much as I like analogies.)

[RobertEarl]

23. Stop and think

Why is it that it will take 50 years before we see the effects on global warming just from the CO2 in the atmosphere today?

[OKIsItJustMe]

24. Because global scale changes take time, and the greenhouse effect is relatively subtle

I don’t see your point.

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5775

[font face=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][font size=3]…

WW: Some scientists have argued that we have already reached tipping points in some regions of the world. Do you agree? If so, what are they and can we avoid them?

JH: We need to distinguish tipping level and the point of no return, as explained in our new “Target CO2” paper. The tipping level is the level of greenhouse gases that will lead to large, undesirable, even disastrous, effects. We have reached the tipping level for several important effects. That is why we must go back in CO2 amounts at least to 350 ppm and possibly lower. The point of no return is when the dynamics of the process take over and it is out of our control, we cannot stop it, e.g., the ice sheet from disintegrating, because of positive feedback and warming in the pipeline. Some phenomena have enough inertia that we can afford some overshoot of the safe CO2 level, provided that we get back to a lower amount fast enough. The ice sheets and sea level may be in that category. Unfortunately, Arctic sea ice has reached the point where we are going to lose all of the warm season ice within the next few decades.

…[/font][/font]

The excess CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] which is currently in the atmosphere will continue to trap heat, and the Earth will continue to warm, until (presumably) a new equilibrium is established.

http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2012/20120127_CowardsPart1.pdf

[font face=Times, Times New Roman, Serif][font size=3]Global warming due to human-made gases, mainly CO[font size="1"]₂[/font], is already 0.8°C and deleterious climate impacts are growing worldwide. More warming is "in the pipeline" because Earth is out of energy balance, with absorbed solar energy exceeding planetary heat radiation. Maintaining a climate that resembles the Holocene, the world of stable shorelines in which civilization developed, requires rapidly reducing fossil fuel CO[font size="1"]₂[/font] emissions. Such a scenario is economically sensible and has multiple benefits for humanity and other species. Yet fossil fuel extraction is expanding, including highly carbon-intensive sources that can push the climate system beyond tipping points such that amplifying feedbacks drive further climate change that is practically out of humanity's control. This situation raises profound moral issues as young people, future generations, and nature, with no possibility of protecting their future well-being, will bear the principal consequences of actions and inactions of today's adults.[/font][/font]

[RobertEarl]

26. Right there in your own post

"..The excess CO2 which is currently in the atmosphere will continue to trap heat, and the Earth will continue to warm,..."

Tell ya what.... log off and go get the Bill McKibben book - "The End of Nature"... you may begin to wisen up and not fool yourself. (I read the book 12 years ago. And again 2 years ago). Then get back to us.

[XemaSab]

25. Um, what?

We're already seeing the effects.

Maybe this eastern heat wave is due to climate change and maybe it's not, but it shouldn't be in the 90s in winter in South Dakota.

The arctic ice, however, is crashing HARD, and that IS climate change.

[RobertEarl]

27. Like OK wrote

"The excess CO2 which is currently in the atmosphere will continue to trap heat, and the Earth will continue to warm,"

What that means is:

The excess CO2 that we ALREADY have now, today, will continue to trap heat for 50 years before it can trap no more.

The CO2 we are dumping NOW - TODAY into the atmosphere will trap heat for 50 years before it can trap no more.

That means, even if we stopped dumping CO2 today, the climate will warm for 50 more years. Yes, if we stopped today, it would be a sliding scale of heat trapping, and reach its max in 50 years.

The effects we see today are from the CO2 we've dumped up to 50 years ago!!

[OKIsItJustMe]

28. Welcome to the neighborhood, but

You might want to say hi to the mayor:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=about&forum=1127