Just trying to take the pulse of Clutchfans on manmade global warming. I'll try to make the poll as non-biased as possible. If you believe that AGW is a problem, I'd also appreciate it if you state your three biggest fears about it.
My biggest frear about AGW is that even if the entire world believed in AGW and believed that carbon emitters had to be banned, the enitre world would be too fearful to do anything about it. Absurdity then takes on a new level.
Where is: It's probably too late to divert, and though the West drove us headlong into hydrocarbon dependency, whatever happens in China will be the biggest determinate of the future. And GO SOLAR NOW! (Just like Bubba said)
I think global warming is partially natural and partially man-made. Scientists have only been recording temperatures for the last 200yrs or so, and there has been a natural cycle of around every 30-40yrs when the earth heats up, then cools again. The previous heating phase ended in the 40's and the earth was cooling until the late 70's. That being said, there is no doubt the things we do are having an effect as well. I know I recycle 50-70% of my garbage each week, and no longer buy bottled water. Both my cars are economical on gas mileage despite us being a family of 4 (I'll never buy and SUV because of the carbon emissions). Although there does need to be regulations, we can't clamp down too quickly. We have to be realistic. It has to be gradual, so that businesses and consumers don't have to take the economical hit too quickly. Also, we have to take some personal responsibility and each do our own part as well.
As I've said before even if global warming isn't manmade or that severe of a problem the side benefits to addressing it are worth it themselves. Developing renewable energy sources, energy independence and greater conservation.
I think AGW is real, but not as alarming as many make it out to be. But the reasons I support cleaner energy and lower emissions (and spending for it) has absolutely nothing to do with AGW. Using AGW as the main driver for that renewable energy spending is not a good idea; cleaner air and reduced dependence on foreign oil should be the main driver for that spending.
Global Warming is about 1/3 manmade, about 2/3 natural variation (relatively simple thermodynamic calculation). If you look at it as a whole, Global Warming's benefits outweigh its negatives.
A warmer planet better supports life in general. The largest benefit is longer growing seasons for the areas with the most arable land.
That's hilarious. This is exactly why they shouldn't call it "global warming", it should be called climate change. You are right to a certain extent, but problem is that you get extremes with climate change, for example long lasting drought, flooding, extreme weather, etc...This negates any advantage for "global warming". Just imagine what will happen if the sea current changes,....blahblahblah, I can name you more than one negative for any advantage you mention.
wes, ... yes and no. Life adapted to our planet as it is. Maybe a little warming is good, but if you get to a point of more and more warming, you could take a lot of the earth to a place where our current species wouldn't like it too much. That said, there's a reasonable limit, since the Earth radiates at T^4. So every little increase in temp has huge thermal output ramifications. I voted don't spend money. Just adapt. As judoka said, if it makes sense for other reasons, do it. But just to fight climate change? That horse is off and running, with billions of Chinese people urging it on too.
I support Pigovian taxes (specific carbon taxes) to counter AGW. So do most leading economists. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigou_Club (Three Nobel laureates, two former Fed chairmen, more influential economists than I care to count)
Except that is exactly what has been happening. Global warming is the best thing for your country ever, after the oil sands. Don't believe me, go talk to the farmers out in the prairie provinces. B-Bob, The Chinese have done more to fight climate change than you think. The pollution from their coal-burning power plants is reflecting a lot of energy, and partially explains the "missing energy" that climate scientists have been looking for since the late 1990s, that's causing their models to be consistently high. http://www.eenews.net/public/Greenwire/2011/10/25/1
Living through this summer's drought has been an interesting ittle lesson about extreme weather. It was interesting to see all the secondary effects -- breaks in the city water system from subsidence that we couldn't keep up with, a massive sell-off of Texas cattle to ranchers in other parts of the country, huge spike in wholesale power rates, a red tide that wiped out oyster harvesting season, widespread massive wildfires (ok, that was more predictable) -- a lot of downstream impacts I would not have foreseen. If climate change produces more of that, I don't want it.
I'm just talking in terms of loading the atmosphere with carbon. They have done that way ahead of where models predicted they were headed, due to the speed of development. The +/- on CO2 content contributed to trapping heat versus reflectivity of associated smog... I would have to leave to real climate scientists. If the smog was more important, then I don't see why the earth hasn't been cooling rapidly since the late 19th century (instead of warming), but that's just me.
As a layman, I wondered if the increasing temperatures wouldn't allow the atmosphere to absorb more water and hold down sea levels, increase cloud cover and reflective albedo to balance long wave reflection heat gain .... and everything will net out just fine The whole world would just be like Houston (used to be) warm, muggy and cloudy. But I don't think that's the way the models look, but I bet you can't really model the real complexity.
Those are actually good points. Some people think the increased water vapor (while not enough to change sea level that much) would really increase our albedo enough to reflect a good bit of sunlight. The Berkeley skeptic guy has long mentioned this as a possibility. I can't get over the basic idea that radiation goes as the fourth power of temperature. So if you temperature goes up just 3%, your radiated power (to space) would go up almost 16%. Just as one random numeric example.
First off - I love the responses I see in this thread - a lot of measured thought, not random left v right bashing. B-Bob, can you give me a link to read about the earth radiating at T^4 - I haven't heard of this before and don't understand your reference, so I'd like to read up on it. I happen to believe that we've had some warming - with the 1/3rd and 2/3rd balance that weslinder mentioned. I agree with B-Bob about the smart thing to do is to adapt. Spending money to to try and abate CO2 output - or trying to tax CO2 usage is a poor way to go. Let's take windmills for example. They aren't a good baseload technology - you need power plants that can spin up to replace them at any given point in time if you have have a lull in wind output. They are also a dirty technology if you look at the mining and everything else it takes to produce them. To meet our energy needs we need energy-dense power sources - hydro, fossil fuels, and nuclear. Hydro is almost tapped and environmentalists won't let you develop any further on that side even if you had some excellent locations. Nuclear is very energy-dense, but we need to move onto thorium - literally unlimited supply, and much less dangerous. We only went with uranium in the first place because we wanted to create a supply of fissile materials.
Secondly, I see at least half the posters think we should spend money on stopping CO2. What does that mean to you personally? Are you willing to pay a carbon tax? A further fuel tax? Higher energy bills? Have you ever bought one of those voluntary carbon credit things in an airport? How much is it worth to you personally per year?
