Comments on: Poll: Global Warming Worries Grow

But CBS/NY Times Survey Suggests Environment Won't Be Major Issue In 2008 Campaign

[frankly6]

The National Academy of Sciences studied every peer reviewed, published, scientific study done on global warming in the last ten years. Every single one of them agreed on three fundamental facts:


1. Global warming is real.


2. Global warming is caused by man.


3. The Consequences of global warming will be catastrophic to all life on the planet.


The scientific debate was over a long time ago. It's all over but the denying. There are only a hand full of loud-mouthed pundit idiots and Exxon funded hacks left spreading disinformation.

This is not a political issue. It's a survival issue.

It's time to come together to work toward curbing the effects of global warming.

[onlyfacts]

Rheola,

While local aberations are not a good indicator, I could too use them. I live in the South West portion of the US and just this year have experienced very low temperatures and it actually snowed three times this month alone. This is not normal and does not follow Global Warming prediction.

[rheola-2009]

Gaye5 and Onlyfacts.

I do try as far as is possible to evaluate both sides of the debate, I must admit I rely heavily on suggested sites posted here and alsewhere, which means generally, I see more dissenting sites to those agreeing, a straw poll of the suggested sites on this board will confirm what I mean.

I also use my own evaluation of the situation existing, as much as I can.

By this I mean physically in my own [admittedly narrow] locale, visually as portrayed in news items and of course those documentaries etc. published by various organisations. however I attempt to dismiss and completely ignore, those that appear to be presented to push one particular view, eg Al Gores, "an inconvenient truth", however I do not suggest they have no right to publish their view.

In all of this,it is impossible to escape from the bias of my own view, and I must accept, that like all others, my view could be flawed.
However I feel strongly, that is not so.

Gaye5.
with respect to Australia, the recent and heavy rain along the East Coast, together with in a large degree past rain events, they have rarely encroached more than 20 miles inland, exactly as the climate Scientists said would be the case, consistent with their projectionI again will have to go for a while, shall look in upon return.
Onlyfacts
If off for the night, have a good one.

[onlyfacts]

Which has been my point in my posting here. Science is science and its purpose is to question what we know now. Panic about a single molecule is diluting response to other pollution.

It is funny, but when people actually STUDY both sides then they find out that the political rhetoric is both false and true. While I believe the Earth is warming, I am still not convinced it is because of CO2.

If CO2 has always lagged temperatures, why are we adamant that CO2 is now causing temperature increases? We can't predict ENSO, PDO, NDO, etc. but we can definitely state that a single molecule will increase the planet's temperature by 2.5 to 4.5 degrees C?

More research please.

[co2max]

Yes, the divergence of the forcings makes it clear that the debate is FAR FAR from over. The science isn't it yet; it's still being harvested.
Hansen's biggest problem till very recently was that he was walking a tightrope between what he was allowed to say as a government official and what he said in public as a knowledgeable citizen. He put his position as director of NASA's GISS on the line by speaking openly about what he believed on the matter when OMB was feeding him lines for Congressional testimony.
In the late 1980's James Hansen even conducted studies trying to disprove some of his newfound understandings about the earth's climate and they only solidified in his mind what he had learned through the original analysis. It's very convincing.
I have laughed at global warming warnings for 20 years and have spent a lot of time studying the matter and reading all sides of the issue. It is becoming clear to me that there are some things to consider, but I am certainly not about to sound the planetary alarm. As far as I can see it, a little warming could be a good thing. Sure, it will inconvenience a portion of the world's population, but adaptation has been the rule of survival since the beginning.

[onlyfacts]

Hansen is a respectable scientist, and he has been getting away from most of the hype, but even he gets it wrong sometimes.

IT was BIG news when Hansen released pre-publication of the %u201CSmoking Gun%u201D study in 2005.

Heard MUCH about said SMOKING GUN since then???

Why?

Well the KEY to this article was the supposed rise in the ocean heat content.

This is not expressed as degrees Centigrade but instead it is reported in Watts per m^2 PER YEAR spread over a layer of ocean 750 meters deep!

The report claims the that the oceans are storing 0.6 W per m^2 per year.

But some will remember THIS report that came out more recently:

Researchers found the average temperature of the upper ocean rose by 0.16 degrees Fahrenheit from 1993 to 2003, and then fell 0.055 degrees Fahrenheit from 2003 to 2005. The recent decrease is a dip equal to about one-fifth of the heat gained by the ocean between 1955 and 2003. They analyzed data from a broad array of ocean moorings, floats and shipboard sensors, and supported their results with data from NASA's Jason and Topex/Poseidon satellites.

Which BLEW Hansen's "Smoking Gun" out of the water.

P.S. Anyone interested should note WHO the references are to in the Hansen article and how SELF REFERENTIAL he tends to be. Many of them are his own and one of the Co-Authors of this study was responsible of the ONE study that the Ocean Temps were based upon.

[co2max]

Gaye5 - Quite right. I get very impatient with the climate zealots who zero-in on the potentials of human causality and act and talk as if all natural factors that drive or contribute to global warming have been shut down. Far from it.
In fact, I am finding that the credible scientists are finally speaking up about this aspect of the "debate" and wanting to make it clear that the sun, earth orbit parameters, and such things really do matter and even factor into the possible run-away feedbacks that periodize the cycles.
Just as we are increasing CO2 content in the atmosphere, so too we are worldwide finally reforesting the land about as fast as clearing it of trees. And the trees that are standing love carbon dioxide, so they scrub the air just a bit faster than they did a century ago. (It's not much faster, but it's happening nonetheless.)

[co2max]

The planetary greenhouse seems to be a contentious thing, but a number of extremely well qualified and capable scientists, namely James Hansen (NASA Goddard Inst. Space Sciences) and Lonnie Thompson (Univ of Ohio-glaciologist) have spent their lives studying the problem and have even surprised themselves to learn what is likely going on over at least the past fifty years.
It is not difficult to measure the level of carbon dioxide that was present in the atmosphere in 1850. Likewise, it is easy to measure what the CO2 concentration is today. CO2 has risen from 290ppm 160 years ago to about 375-380 recently. Lately, CO2 content has increased by 1.3 ppm per year. This is a measure increase which can also be derived through modelling output carbon dioxide emission extrapolated from hydrocarbons (coal, oil, gas) that have been combusted and also accounting for ionization of CO2 in the upper atmosphere, absorbtion by the oceans through chemical weather of the rock and photosynthesis.
It is becoming clear to me that human presence on this rock is tipping the balance of atmospheric content toward a more "carbonic" nature. There is still a fair amount of unclarity about just how much warming is provided by this greenhouse gas content, but it really does deserve some attention. It's not worthy of panic by any means, but ignoring the situation would be nuts.

[gaye5]

CO2Max, I definetly agree with you that we are a factor, but It scares me that people dont look at other factors also, thus perhaps by not being warned of other causes we are not ready for what could happen in the future..
We also have people like Dr. Erik Pianka, who is of the extremist wing of the environmentalist movement, and who advocate the mass culling of humanity via plagues and state sanctioned bio-terrorism, in order to "save" the earth from the disease of humanity.

[co2max]

Climate change is an ongoing and cyclical action. The earth's climate never stops changing. Throughout the history of the planet, natural forces have been the only force that generated these cycles. Humans are here now and able to see "something" going on and the first impulse is to say, "Wow, I wonder how we caused that?"
We have been able to measure by direct means recent atmospheric conditions (past 160 years) and more historic activities in the planet's past using proxies (ice cores, deepsea sediments, tree rings, etc.) that give us a good idea of how much greenhouse effect was in action over the past many thousands of years and as well retrace orbital parameters and solar activity in accordance.
The end result of all these factors makes it hard to ignore the possibility that humans are not completely benign inhabitants. This is especially true as we become present in ever increasing numbers. One example of comparison: Volcanoes.
The average year output of CO2 from volcanoes is just less than 1 billion tons. Human activity of all kinds emits now about 25-30 billion tons and is growing. If we accept the idea that at about 1/3 of all that output remains aloft in the atmosphere, the mathematics tells us that our actions are equal to about 10 times all the volcanoes, at the very least.
I do not subscribe to the idea that we CAUSING climate change, but I have at least begun to admit that we are a factor.