Another blooming climate survey

[noggin]

Hi noggin,

I hope you are keeping well.

No. 2 for me as well. I am keeping good company with you and Mondy

Hi John,

I'm fine ta, hope you are too!

Yes, we are a small band of people, but there is no doubting of our passion in our beliefs. One day we will be proved right.

regards

noggin

IIt has also stimulated enough interest for a climate scientist to ask me to pursue similar research on opinion elsewhere, possibly leading to publication in a journal; more on that if it ever materialises.

:)P

Ooooh, how exciting!

I love an opportunity to say what I think, so if you have any more need for opinions P3, just give us the nod!

Nice to see that all opinions will be valid too.

Bump.

[Gray-Wolf]

So if not solar generated variation driving climate shift then what? It would have to be some 'in house' process that has generated 3 times the amount of warming that the suns variance possibly could?

If we strip away the only other 'in house process' (mans release of particulate/gaseous pollutants) then what is driving it?? I can see no other 'pattern of climate shifts that have been in play/due to come into play over the past 100yrs and even our entering the supposed 20 yr cooling period (for NW Europe) seems to have been greeted with unprecedented warming across NW Europe (good job we weren't entering the warm phase eh?)

I'm left thinking that the naysayers believe in some ,as yet invisible, climate driver that has never reared it's ugly head in the geological past (with such a rate of change) that had nowt to do with our primary driver (solar output), nor continental drift, nor volcanism on a grand scale, not meteorite/comet impact. In effect a 'bogeyman' that was something above and beyond current sciences measuring and calculating.

In the past 'minorities' grew as evidence piled up to make their 'beliefs' more commonly acceptable whereas (apart from the volume) 'naysayers' are dwindling as damning evidence of mans part in our changes amasses around them. Pretty soon they will be as endangered as some of the polar/mountain species of our good earth.

[Mondy]

In the past 'minorities' grew as evidence piled up to make their 'beliefs' more commonly acceptable whereas (apart from the volume) 'naysayers' are dwindling as damning evidence of mans part in our changes amasses around them. Pretty soon they will be as endangered as some of the polar/mountain species of our good earth.

Oh, don't you worry about us. There's only so much you can put to challenge some of the guff spouted out by the enviro-fluffies, that it becomes a little tiresome for we naysaysers.

Still, on the evidence of this thread, two extremes of the agw theory show the exact same percentage, with the majority NOT convinced with what you and others say about co2/humans being a big player; and we're doomed as such.

However, i'm sure P3 will want to write a conclusive summary to his findings, so best not scupper his thought process..

Ps, P3 - no more votes for a couple of days on this thread, mate....can we start to debate it properly soon?!

[Gray-Wolf]

Still, on the evidence of this thread, two extremes of the agw theory show the exact same percentage, with the majority NOT convinced with what you and others say about co2/humans being a big player; and we're doomed as such.

But the 'naysayers' position includes solar forcing which has been further clarified as not being involved in the warming whereas, since the poll began, more 'dire warnings' have been issued about our underestimation of warming.

In effect one position has become more extreme whilst the other is slowly being enveloped by the more 'moderate' understandings.

EDIT: In effect , if you were a 'newby' forced with a chioce of either extreme which would appear the 'safer bet' to not end up with egg on your face?

Edited April 21, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[parmenides3]

initial feedback coming shortly...

:)P

[parmenides3]

The following observations are an initial response and are entirely open to discussion and argument.

In case anyone should be tempted to take this too seriously, I'd point out that it was a very unscientific survey, the questions not properly formed, and some of the options not properly exclusive. So let's try and keep the discussions in perspective, shall we?

Option 8 was clearly ill-formed and did not cover anything not already available under 7, 9 or 10, so got no responses.

Option 4 was effectively the 'don't know/not sure' option: 5 of the 71 respondents to date are still not sure enough of the facts to have an opinion one way or another. This was 7.04% of the sample. So 92.96% did express an opinion, which is a reasonably good proportion.

Only one person chose what could be thought of as the 'hard denialist' option, that the is no warming: 1.41% of the sample.

A substantial proportion chose options 2 and 3, the broadly 'sceptical' view, viewing natural causes as the main culprit in global warming: 19.72% of the sample, combined. The sum of the first 3 options; 21.13%

By far the largest single response (more than 3 times greater than any other option) chose option 5 - that the IPCC overestimates the role of CO2; a large 36.62%. This is possibly one of the most interesting results of the poll, along with the next point:

Only 9.85% of respondents agree with the IPCC - what is generally considered/described as 'the scientific consensus'. There is a lot which could be discussed just from this one figure. Why do many more people not seem to trust the scientists than are willing to trust them? is just one question.

Option 7 might be termed the 'worried' response, 9 and 10 the 'alarmed/alarmist' response. 7, the 'balance' to option 5, was only 5.63%, 9 and 10 combined was 19.72%; the three combined 25.35%

The proportion of people who responded with a choice which suggested that the IPCC is exaggerating the role of CO2; options 1,2,3 and 5, was a very substantial 57.75%

The proportion for whom the dangers of CO2 are greater than the IPCC suggests, are the same as above; 7, 9 and 10: 25.35% The 'strongly alarmist' options were 9 and 10 (which were not well-formed and not mutually exclusive); 19.72%

The 'broad middle ground' might be argued to be the responses which include option 6 and the answers either side; 52.11%

So; is there any indication of a 'public consensus' on climate change and global warming? Not really; although the proportion of responses to options which, in the broadest sense, agree that GW is happening and CO2 is a contributor, was 71.83%.

The most 'statistically' significant number is the 36.62% who opted for 5. If you eliminate the don't know and the option 8, the mean response rate per option would be 12.5%; if you include the 'don't knows', 11.11% ; so, three times the mean. No other single option exceeded the mean response.

From this, you might be able to suggest that, if there is a consensus, it is that the IPCC is overstating the case for CO2 to some degree or another.

You might also suggest that, in this context, the majority thought it was only doing so a bit.

Given the previous poll, where we had a sort of 20 - 50 - 30 split of 'sceptic' - 'mainstreamer' - 'alarmist' , it is hardly surpising to see the more polarising options both gain similar scores, around the 20% mark. But this seems to imply a tripartite division of opinion amongst the NW 'community'; never mind the names, or labels, nearly as many people think at one end or other of the debate as think 'in the middle' - a 40 - 50 split (with 10 unsure).

What does this tell us about our attitude to science? What does it tell us about our ability to trust authority? I am sure there are many other, more interesting questions to ask; these are just in the way of starting the discussion.

Now; argue away at your heart's content...

Oh, and thanks for voting ... again...

:)P

[Admiral_Bobski]

But the 'naysayers' position includes solar forcing which has been further clarified as not being involved in the warming whereas, since the poll began, more 'dire warnings' have been issued about our underestimation of warming.

I haven't seen it written anywhere that solar forcings are not involved in the [current] warming - just that solar output is not, in and of itself sufficient to explain the observed warming.

Two things here, though. Firstly, there's the issue (once again) of whether or not solar (and other) forcings have been given the correct strengths. Secondly, those who agree with AGW like to remind us skeptics that nobody ever claimed that CO₂ was the only driver of the currently observed warming. Similarly, why is solar output constantly dismissed as not being strong enough to explain the currently observed warming? Why can solar output not be just one of many factors in the current warming?

CB

PS - Sorry if this isn't the place for debate at the moment, but I couldn't let that one pass!

EDIT - But I see that we are now open for business! Good timing there...

Edited April 21, 2007 by Captain_Bobski

[Gray-Wolf]

I haven't seen it written anywhere that solar forcings are not involved in the [current] warming - just that solar output is not, in and of itself sufficient to explain the observed warming.

Two things here, though. Firstly, there's the issue (once again) of whether or not solar (and other) forcings have been given the correct strengths. Secondly, those who agree with AGW like to remind us skeptics that nobody ever claimed that CO₂ was the only driver of the currently observed warming. Similarly, why is solar output constantly dismissed as not being strong enough to explain the currently observed warming? Why can solar output not be just one of many factors in the current warming?

CB

PS - Sorry if this isn't the place for debate at the moment, but I couldn't let that one pass!

EDIT - But I see that we are now open for business! Good timing there...

I'm not sure that anyone is dismissing the 0.3*C that solar forcing could be responsible for but, as you say it only explains part of what is happening. Many of the other forcings are a result of current 'warming' (dark water as opposed to snow cover, ocean current variations, bottom freshening at the pole etc. etc.) so finding the most resonable agglomeration of 'forcings' seems to be what we're about.

Neither do I think many people would believe that climate science is very close to perfectly explaining the phenomina we are living through but surely they are on the right track (and not all deluded by the same 'misunderstanding).

Maybe you either mistrust the scientists ;

1/ 'cause they have it all wrong

2/ 'cause they haven't got 'all the pieces'

either way their is at least 17% of folks who don't seem to trust what they are being told!

[Mondy]

Actually, i'd split the whole answers down one stage further.

There is warming and CO2 may cause some of it, but the science is too uncertain to be sure. The IPCC probably underestimates some of the natural forcings and overestimates the role of CO2

+ the other questions above that one could all be lumped together in varying degrees of sceptism. Your 100% true sceptic - to your not sure, but sure enough that the world won't end.

That gives a total of 65% who are definetly NOT overly concerned with the agw theory, and more going along with natural forcing.

The other 35% is self-explanatory.

So. In summary:

65% to the 'Naysayers

35% to the 'alarmists

:lol:

Of course, the minority 35% willview it differently

It's actually a good survey because it shows people are reading more in to Global Warming, whether it be doom or not. In the past how many would just vote yes, i agree with Global Warming - endof?

[Gray-Wolf]

From being in here a lot I tend to see that many folk (from the 'weather threads' or 'Lounge' areas) do not bother with the enviro thread much and so we only attract the 'extremists' (those willing to provoke the responses of the 'regulars') onto our threads. As such it isn't a wide reaching poll as many folk from our membership will not have thought about/voted in here.

To be real it should be a 'Paul' conducted survey of the total membership and not just the 'enviro-nutters' from in here!!!

Edited April 21, 2007 by Gray-Wolf

[parmenides3]

Actually, i'd split the whole answers down one stage further.

+ the other questions above that one could all be lumped together in varying degrees of sceptism. Your 100% true sceptic - to your not sure, but sure enough that the world won't end.

That gives a total of 65% who are definetly NOT overly concerned with the agw theory, and more going along with natural forcing.

The other 35% is self-explanatory.

So. In summary:

65% to the 'Naysayers

35% to the 'alarmists

:lol:

Of course, the minority 35% willview it differently

It's actually a good survey because it shows people are reading more in to Global Warming, whether it be doom or not. In the past how many would just vote yes, i agree with Global Warming - endof?

Er...no. 57.72 % think the IPCC is exaggerating the impact of CO2. The 'naysayers' are around 21%, the 'alarmists' 19.8%: those who agree that CO2 has an impact on warming = 71%. You forgot to factor out the 'don't knows'.

It should be clear to anyone that there are three, not two strong responses; the two opposites and the middle ground (52%): you can claim the middle ground if you want Mondy, but who is going to take you seriously?

:)P

[Mondy]

but who is going to take you seriously?

And what exactly is that supposed to mean?

[Gray-Wolf]

And what exactly is that supposed to mean?

We (you and I) are not exactly 'middle ground, say nowt' merchants are we? As I have said about the poll a small group of 'vocal' folk have tended to monopolise the last 6 months of climate/environment thread. We may all have grown in our 'understandings ' of our beliefs but, for the lurkers, we are 'known quantities'. Would you like to, as a 'newby', post your POV in here after reading back a few months?

[Mondy]

I get your point, GW. However, as you state, this is the Environment thread - within, a very good [specifically], weather site. Now, i don't recall anywhere in this section mentioning that sceptics or pro's could not debate the environment with regards global warming.

If that is not the case, you have to question why have an environment section in the first place.

Global Warming is there to be discussed. Full stop..

Would you like to, as a 'newby', post your POV in here after reading back a few months?

Why not? A different voice is surely welcome; especially on a topic like this.

But, i do think, perhaps like you, the same old faces appear again and again debating the right and wrongs of each others posts, which has no doubt not helped the subject in question.

That was a serious reply btw..

[Gray-Wolf]

I get your point, GW. However, as you state, this is the Environment thread - within, a very good [specifically], weather site. Now, i don't recall anywhere in this section mentioning that sceptics or pro's could not debate the environment with regards global warming.

If that is not the case, you have to question why have an environment section in the first place.

Global Warming is there to be discussed. Full stop..

Why not? A different voice is surely welcome; especially on a topic like this.

But, i do think, perhaps like you, the same old faces appear again and again debating the right and wrongs of each others posts, which has no doubt not helped the subject in question.

That was a serious reply btw..

I think maybe you have me a little wrong. It's like us all being on a PS2 ,as a group, and playing the same old ,same old.

We're all becoming pretty darn good at the game even if we can't beat each other so what of a 'newby' who has the daunting prospect of not only learning to play the game but taking constant 'defeats' as they learn?. I think many would not bother trying (I have a poor view of my fellow man/woman)

And yes, I feel this is the right place to debate our views (though I wish this poll was better responded too!!!)

[parmenides3]

And what exactly is that supposed to mean?

What I am trying to say is that describing anyone who questions the strength of the forcing of CO2 as a 'naysayer' is disingenuous, and most people will recognise that. Most regulars on NW will also recognise that your personal opinion on climate change is fairly obviously represented by the first three options in the poll. If you wish to agree that CO2 is playing a role in warming the atmosphere, if less than the IPCC says, that's fine by me, but it isn't really what you'd call 'naysaying', is it?

:)P

[jethro]

What I am trying to say is that describing anyone who questions the strength of the forcing of CO2 as a 'naysayer' is disingenuous, and most people will recognise that. Most regulars on NW will also recognise that your personal opinion on climate change is fairly obviously represented by the first three options in the poll. If you wish to agree that CO2 is playing a role in warming the atmosphere, if less than the IPCC says, that's fine by me, but it isn't really what you'd call 'naysaying', is it?

:)P

Not so sure about that assumption P3, I voted for the 5th option but I consider myself more of a naysayer than anything else. Science has proven Co2 is a greenhouse gas, no doubting that and I would be amazed if even the most hardened naysayer would argue otherwise. But, and it's a big but, giving the IPCC a big thumbs up as having it all nailed is another matter entirely. There's still an awful lot of the natural world to research and understand before scientists can be anywhere near certain; at least that's my view, the view of a naysayer.

[noggin]

I understand that temperatures on other planets are increasing also. Not that I have measured them myself, of course! How can that be accounted for? (the temperature increase I mean, not my not having measured them! )

[parmenides3]

Not so sure about that assumption P3, I voted for the 5th option but I consider myself more of a naysayer than anything else. Science has proven Co2 is a greenhouse gas, no doubting that and I would be amazed if even the most hardened naysayer would argue otherwise. But, and it's a big but, giving the IPCC a big thumbs up as having it all nailed is another matter entirely. There's still an awful lot of the natural world to research and understand before scientists can be anywhere near certain; at least that's my view, the view of a naysayer.

Jethro; I think I am distinguishing between CO2 'naysayers' and IPCC 'doubters; I have always understood Mondy's use of the term 'naysayer' to mean those people who argue that CO2 is not having an effect on the global temprature, or so little effect as to be insignificant. There is a substantive difference between the first three options and option 5, which was the majority's choice.

Where I think Mondy gains kudos is in the very small number who appear to be willing to trust science to have, if not the definitive answer (BTW: they don't claim to), then at least the best available answer. I also think he should be pleased that so many people think that the impact of CO2 on the climate is exaggerated; more than half of the sample. I don't think I would class you as a 'naysayer' by your description of yourself, but a ;doubter'. Is that a fair response?

:)P

[HighPressure]

Well I am still doing my best to do my own research and I got to say that its difficult to make the leap to saying that the very tiny quantity of CO2 we are emitting can have such an impact on our climate without something else going on. We are in a natural warming period that seems to me to be nailed on, we have just blown a whacking great hole in the Ozone layer and I have not finished my reading yet but very difficult for me to discount a link? Can't really find anything in the wobble theories as although they happen, haven't read anything to seriously suggest one was happening now. Solar flux seems to be real enough so I am left with the following on my list:

All greenhouse gases not just man made CO2 but all CO2 and I include CH4 from cattle.

Depletion of the Ozone layer.

Solar Flux

I have found nothing to backup the theory that GW is entirely natural, I am of the opinion that man has effected earth's climate but remain unconvinced that simple reduction in man's CO2 emission will have any meaningful effects on climate.

My current thinking is that man may well have triggered a climate change but this is far more complex then just a tiny amount of man made CO2.

[Gray-Wolf]

I agree with you H.P. Man alone is the only forcing that not only continues but also increases (logarithmically?).

In stress loading tests you keep adding more and more 'load' (in small increments) until the subject fails and breaks.

If we (man) are 'loading' the environment/climate system then we are doing so by adding exponentially larger loads each time and yet still some folk seek to dismiss the 'loading' as of little consequence to the environment/climate system.Why and how could this be so?

[jethro]

Jethro; I think I am distinguishing between CO2 'naysayers' and IPCC 'doubters; I have always understood Mondy's use of the term 'naysayer' to mean those people who argue that CO2 is not having an effect on the global temprature, or so little effect as to be insignificant. There is a substantive difference between the first three options and option 5, which was the majority's choice.

Where I think Mondy gains kudos is in the very small number who appear to be willing to trust science to have, if not the definitive answer (BTW: they don't claim to), then at least the best available answer. I also think he should be pleased that so many people think that the impact of CO2 on the climate is exaggerated; more than half of the sample. I don't think I would class you as a 'naysayer' by your description of yourself, but a ;doubter'. Is that a fair response?

:)P

I'm not entirely sure what title I'd give myself; picky, pedantic mare perhaps? I suppose "naysayer" infers an absolute denial whereas "doubter" has a broader scope, so your assessment is a fair one. As usual. If I were to describe my views, the description would run along the lines of: We live in an unstable climate of ups and downs, always have, always will. We would probably be in a warming period regardless of man's input but that input could quite possibly have enhanced natural warming. I'm not sure we can prove that though as we don't have verified observations from a long enough time period from which to compare. There's no way of knowing how quickly temperatures rose in the past as far as I know. I also think only in relatively recent times would mankind have got so het up over this subject. It's a strange quirk of human nature to always need a cause for concern. Or in the case of world leaders, a cause to unite the masses. A hundred years ago most people's worries would have been more concerned with the basics of putting enough food on the table to eat or surviving the latest outbreak of Cholera. A warmer than usual summer/winter would probably have been seen as a blessing, no more. The ability and time to worry about problems doesn't make the problem any bigger except in the mind of the worrier. Please don't read that as dismissive, it's not intended that way, I'm just tired of everything being attributed to GW. It's the latest must have accessory.

[noggin]

Well said, Jethro. Excellently put, if I may say so.

Beats my boring and tired old "it's the current bandwagon" for eloquence.

Edited April 25, 2007 by noggin

[jethro]

Well said, Jethro. Excellently put, if I may say so.

Beats my boring and tired old "it's the current bandwagon" for eloquence.

Cheers Noggin.

Despite all the current warming trends, I fully expect a downturn in the not too distant future. I can't wait to hear all the woes of " we did it, we reached the tipping point, it's all our fault" or the arrogant " yeah, we contained and diminished our Co2 output, just look what we've achieved now, see we told you it was us warming the world". A tad harsh perhaps but with a grain of truth?

[Devonian]

Cheers Noggin.

Despite all the current warming trends, I fully expect a downturn in the not too distant future. I can't wait to hear all the woes of " we did it, we reached the tipping point, it's all our fault" or the arrogant " yeah, we contained and diminished our Co2 output, just look what we've achieved now, see we told you it was us warming the world". A tad harsh perhaps but with a grain of truth?

Jam tomorrow eh? I've been hear such things for decades.

Btw, how distant is 'the not too distant future'?

I'm not entirely sure what title I'd give myself; picky, pedantic mare perhaps? I suppose "naysayer" infers an absolute denial whereas "doubter" has a broader scope, so your assessment is a fair one. As usual. If I were to describe my views, the description would run along the lines of: We live in an unstable climate of ups and downs, always have, always will. We would probably be in a warming period regardless of man's input but that input could quite possibly have enhanced natural warming. I'm not sure we can prove that though as we don't have verified observations from a long enough time period from which to compare. There's no way of knowing how quickly temperatures rose in the past as far as I know. I also think only in relatively recent times would mankind have got so het up over this subject. It's a strange quirk of human nature to always need a cause for concern. Or in the case of world leaders, a cause to unite the masses. A hundred years ago most people's worries would have been more concerned with the basics of putting enough food on the table to eat or surviving the latest outbreak of Cholera. A warmer than usual summer/winter would probably have been seen as a blessing, no more. The ability and time to worry about problems doesn't make the problem any bigger except in the mind of the worrier. Please don't read that as dismissive, it's not intended that way, I'm just tired of everything being attributed to GW. It's the latest must have accessory.

Isn't the another strange quirk of human nature which to seeks to deny the concernes raised by some by attacking the character of those who raise such concerns as (in this case) worriers (often spun up into 'scaremonger' 'chicken little', 'liars' even)? I wonder what some people would have been saying on Easter Island as the trees we gradually chopped down. 'Don't worry there's no lack of trees, it's all just scaremongering.' I rekon....

Do you think people like me somehow like the kinds of verbal beatings we get? Or do you think I have the views I have out of some kind of misplaced sense of mischief?

Edited April 25, 2007 by Devonian