Where do you stand on AGW?

[HighPressure]

I have never been brave enough to initiate a poll before but I have become so frustrated with where the concessus actually lays on this issue. So I am putting forward 4 very simple options, your answer need not be based on anything other than your gut feeling or if you like real evidence. The only thing you have to do is go with the closest match to your views.

Edited July 7, 2007 by HighPressure

[Bobby]

Hmm, I voted for "The IPCC report and projections on AGW are about right" but a new option appeared and my vote went for that instead.

So count my vote for the "The IPCC report and projections on AGW are about right?" option. No need to be too worried though, those people singing songs at Live Earth will save us.

Edited July 7, 2007 by Magpie

[SnowBear]

I have gone for "Human's have some effect on GW but is as yet undetermined?"

I do believe we have had an effect on our climate, but to what degree is questionable, its an answer we will not get for another 50 or 100 years. NOAA even state that in their research they just don't know, so many things at play, including natural variables, cycles etc. Ones we may have influenced positively, ones we may have influenced negatively.

Regardless, we are a disgustingly messy species, and we need to tidy up after ourselves. If we bring the climate back into check, then thats a bonus on top of having (and leaving for the future generations) a cleaner planet.

[Chris Knight]

Global warming may be an artefact due to the way that global temperature averages are estimated.

Available ocean volume may be increasing allowing greater heat capacity.

Desertification, urbanization, changed patterns of agriculture and deforestation have resulted in less available water on the land masses, leading to changed patterns of temperature and climate on the surface. and warmer coastal waters in areas of high population.

none of the above.

[HighPressure]

Global warming may be an artefact due to the way that global temperature averages are estimated.

Available ocean volume may be increasing allowing greater heat capacity.

Desertification, urbanization, changed patterns of agriculture and deforestation have resulted in less available water on the land masses, leading to changed patterns of temperature and climate on the surface. and warmer coastal waters in areas of high population.

none of the above.

Unless you are suggesting that GW does not exist at all then surely you are suggesting that Human's do have an effect on Climate. I never said it had to be CO2 I said Human's?

[Optimus Prime]

2nd option because it's a fact humans have a negative affect of the climate but by how much is undercided

[jethro]

Good for you HP!

I opted for number two in the list; no surprise there then.

[Chris Knight]

Unless you are suggesting that GW does not exist at all then surely you are suggesting that Human's do have an effect on Climate. I never said it had to be CO2 I said Human's?

I am unsure that GW is real, but believe that human activities certainly affect microclimates, and therefore grosser climate effects in some way, e.g. aerosols, photochemical smog, and ozone destroying CFCs, as well as urbanisation, Jet vapor trails etc., but remain totally unconvinced on anthropogenic CO2 as a small proportion of natural CO2 having any effect on the atmospheric increases measured. Much more certain that human activities would contribute to overall cooling if we do not clean up emissions. 1950-1970 cooling has a lot more to do with increased ionizing radiation in the atmosphere due to atmospheric nuclear tests than the authorities let on - remember Wilson's Cloud chamber? Thus I have some empathy with those who believe that solar wind/cosmic ray balance affects cloud cover and the solar forcing is by far the most significant change seen over the last century. However there is a political force to blame CO2, and thus a demand for scientists to show increasing temperatures. If their models and observations show cooling, they would not get continuing support for research, would they? Thus warmer temperatures from urbanisation ie in Europe and the surrounding seas, higher SSTs from thinner Arctic float ice, and extrapolated temperatures from satellite observations unable to get direct measurements due to cloud cover etc., raise the global averages, rather than underestimate them. A few years time and we shall see a cooling trend since 2003 and wonder what all the fuss was about!

[Roger J Smith]

Where do I stand on it?

Wherever there's room, of course.

[Iceberg]

I agree that alot of the effects are undecided but, but think on balance things will be worse than the mid range IPCC predictions.

[biffvernon]

Where's the fith option?

"The IPCC report and projections on AGW are mindful of the need to arrive at a politically acceptable consensus so are cautious and may underestimate the impact of AGW."

[Admiral_Bobski]

I've put myself down for a number two as well.

CB

[Osbourne One-Nil]

I've gone for option 2 as well, but would add that even if we're not, what's the harm in assuming we are in some way responsible?

[Guest Viking141]

Option 2 for me as well. I think its typical human arrogance to assume that its pretty much all down to us. I rather suspect the big orange shiny thingy that we see in our sky might just have something to do with it. I think that our star is likely to be a tad more powerful than us puny humans.

[blitzen]

1 for me because we have been told that it has all happened before with the evidence there for all to see. We are an untidy/lazy lot however, and no harm would come of clearing up the messes we leave behind ourselves.

Blitzen.

[mushymanrob]

I've gone for option 2 as well, but would add that even if we're not, what's the harm in assuming we are in some way responsible?

exactly!... we shouldnt be disrespecting our planet wether or not we are killing it.

[John Cox]

Same for me as Blitzen, No. 1, (what a surprise!).

When will mankind get of their high horse and stop thinking how influential they are on the weather. The sun has a much more profound effect than us for one (but lets not open that debate again).

[Bobby]

Option 2 for me as well. I think its typical human arrogance to assume that its pretty much all down to us. I rather suspect the big orange shiny thingy that we see in our sky might just have something to do with it. I think that our star is likely to be a tad more powerful than us puny humans.

Small things can have a huge affect. Most of the oxygen in our atmosphere comes from small life forms.

Humans are just another life form.

[olly aitch]

I have been lurking on this site and others for two to three years now. I assiduously read all posts and links ,both for and against agw. I have finally plucked up courage to add my "pennysworth" for what it is worth. I have just read the posts and have opted for option 2. I particularly noted viking 141's response and would concur with this viewpoint 100%. I believe that I am open minded,but have not yet see any incontrovertible evidence of agw. I obviously accept that there has been warming ,but think a lot is whithin natural cycles.

[HighPressure]

I have been lurking on this site and others for two to three years now. I assiduously read all posts and links ,both for and against agw. I have finally plucked up courage to add my "pennysworth" for what it is worth. I have just read the posts and have opted for option 2. I particularly noted viking 141's response and would concur with this viewpoint 100%. I believe that I am open minded,but have not yet see any incontrovertible evidence of agw. I obviously accept that there has been warming ,but think a lot is whithin natural cycles.

Glad we could get you to post WELCOME!

Please keep the votes coming it will be interesting to see the results in a day or two's time. I am actually quite surprised by the way the vote is going.

[jethro]

I have been lurking on this site and others for two to three years now. I assiduously read all posts and links ,both for and against agw. I have finally plucked up courage to add my "pennysworth" for what it is worth. I have just read the posts and have opted for option 2. I particularly noted viking 141's response and would concur with this viewpoint 100%. I believe that I am open minded,but have not yet see any incontrovertible evidence of agw. I obviously accept that there has been warming ,but think a lot is whithin natural cycles.

Welcome aboard Olly, glad you've decided to join in.

[noggin]

Same for me as Blitzen, No. 1, (what a surprise!).

Hi, John....nice to see you, hope you are fine!

I have given the question a great deal of thought....I wanted to use my head rather than my heart and wondered if it would be sensible to go for No. 2. But I really cannot believe that man has any influence over the climate.....the Sun is so powerful....without it, how long would life survive on this Earth? How can we possibly think that we can have any influence against it's power?

So, I have plumped for option No. 1.

PS Welcome, olly!

Edited July 9, 2007 by noggin

[Essan]

But I really cannot believe that man has any influence over the climate.....

So if you have a 100,000 sq mile rainforest, from which daily evapo-transpiration causes the formation of afternoon thunderstorms, and you then chop that forest down, the thunderstorms will still develop just the same?

And what about UHIs? Proof positive that humans affect the climate, even if only on a local scale :lol:

Or sulphur aerosols? If those emitted by a volcano affect global temps, surely those produced by human activity must do so as well?

And if you have lots and lots and lots of little regional changes to climate, how does the overall global picture look?

My opinion is that natural climate change continues to affect the earth, but in addition human activity is also affecting the climate in many different ways in different places. Humans are causing climate change - but not necessarily to the degree or in the ways that most people think.

I've plumped for option 2 because I think that's closest to my opinion :o

[Devonian]

Why would someone not think the IPCC right?

Well two possibilities come to mind. That they think the scientists involved are being political (led or leading), or that they think they know better than them. My view is that if there is politics involved it's to water down not exaggerate what the science is telling us, and I most certainly don't think I know better than the IPCC.

I voted for the IPCC option.

[pottyprof]

My view is that if there is politics involved it's to water down not exaggerate what the science is telling us

Unless your cosy job relies on you agreeing with the politics..

Option 2