What does it mean to "believe in climate change"?

[unbeliever]

I don't do polls, as the poll data tends to be used incorrectly to draw conclusions. Just like yours.

 

I find that absurd. Do you vote in elections.

 

Don't vote then. Just state your answer in words.

[Cyclone]

Yes.

Anybody who didn't vote is considered to have abstained.

If they don't like it they can vote at any time.

 

I suppose the problem would be that this is a self selecting group of people who are voting.

 

It's not a cross section or representative due to the nature of the forum and the way people choose to read/not read/vote/note vote on any given title and poll.

 

---------- Post added 03-08-2015 at 09:53 ----------

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selection_bias

[RootsBooster]

I find it frustrating that people tell me they believe in climate change but are unable to tell me what that means. The key is the CO2 sensitivity of the climate system.

Basic global warming physics, which few question, states that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere should increase average global temperatures by 1ºC. I and others often refer to this as anthropogenic global warming (AGW). Does accepting this make you a believer?

 

Climate modellers tell us that according to their simulations, there are positive feedbacks in the climate system and therefore doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere will increase global temperatures by between 1.5ºC and 4.5ºC depending on the model. Do you have to believe this to be a believer?

 

In order for global warming to be a serious threat, the CO2 sensitivity of the climate would have to be I think at least 2ºC per doubling since a doubling is an awful lot of CO2 and the governments of the world are generally aiming to keep the temperature rise below 2ºC. Anything much over 2ºC per doubling is sometimes referred to as catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW).

Anything less than this, and the drastic and very expensive measures being takes to reduce CO2 production are probably unnecessary.

 

Does a believer take the mean value of the models: 3ºC per doubling? Or are you a believer if you think it's toward the lower end, say 1.5ºC per doubling?

Perhaps a true believer assumes the worst case, of 4.5ºC per doubling.

 

I honestly have no idea. Nobody who I've asked on this forum who describes themselves as a believer will give me a figure. I'd really like to know.

 

Since I'm bound to be asked, I've often been called a denier, but I fall into the often quoted statistics along the lines "the vast majority of scientists believe mankind is changing the climate", and anybody using that statistic is clearly claiming me as a believer.

My opinion is that the modelling is not to be trusted and I strongly suspect that the CO2 sensitivity of the climate is around 1ºC per doubling.

 

The poll, you have options for believers and skeptics, but none for denyers/believers of the opposite. Is this intentional?

[El Cid]

 

I'm sorry, but I genuinely don't understand what you mean by your first paragraph. Could you please clarify.

 

As to the second, rest assured that this forum is not the only place I debate these matters.

 

What I meant to write was - There isnt a poll that asks whether people believe in climate change or not, just skeptical.

I am skeptical about the UK be a member of the EU, but that does not tell you if I want to stay in or leave the EU, it tells you very little.

 

I have written a few letters to local papers, generally when people write in, with incorrect facts, as I see them.

[unbeliever]

The poll, you have options for believers and skeptics, but none for denyers/believers of the opposite. Is this intentional?

 

A denier and a sceptic are different terms for the same thing.

Deniers is a pejorative term used by believers for sceptics.

[SnailyBoy]

I find that absurd. Do you vote in elections.

 

Don't vote then. Just state your answer in words.

 

Yes, I vote in elections.

[Mikes10]

The formulation of the topic and the supporting arguments given by the original poster leave a lot to be desired.

 

Doubling of CO2? from what to what? In the 1960s CO2 concentration was about 300 parts per million (ppm), at present

it's about 400 ppm, and rising at the rate of 2 ppm per year. In previous climate cycles ( based on the analysis of ice cores )

analysis of any particular cycle indicates the lowest and highest values of CO2 concentration were 150 ppm and 300 ppm respectively.

 

The period between ice-ages is about 100,000 years. The CO2 concentration is low when cold and high when hot- a change of about

150 ppm in 50,000 years, that gives a rate of change of about 0.003 ppm per year. With our addiction to oil we have increased the

rate of change over 600 times.

 

As a rough guide an increase 150 ppm of CO2 is equal to an increase of 1 degree Celsius ( average sea surface temperature ).

 

So maybe the original poster can give us his starting value of CO2 concentration.

 

Personally, I think we are well on our way to a 3 Celsius rise by the end of this century. With the receding of artic ice,

nations will be fighting over the rights to drill and extract the hydrocarbon drug we are all hooked on. We won't need the

oil to keep warm, but to drive our air-conditioners and keep cool.

[El Cid]

A denier and a sceptic are different terms for the same thing. Deniers is a pejorative term used by believers for sceptics.

 

I have never used the word 'denier' myself, and a skeptic is "a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions".

Strange as we might think, some people think the whole thing is a big con, and dont believe it at all.

[unbeliever]

I have never used the word 'denier' myself, and a skeptic is "a person inclined to question or doubt accepted opinions".

Strange as we might think, some people think the whole thing is a big con, and dont believe it at all.

 

I think I left such people viable options on the poll.

 

---------- Post added 03-08-2015 at 10:16 ----------

 

The formulation of the topic and the supporting arguments given by the original poster leave a lot to be desired.

 

Doubling of CO2? from what to what? In the 1960s CO2 concentration was about 300 parts per million (ppm), at present

it's about 400 ppm, and rising at the rate of 2 ppm per year. In previous climate cycles ( based on the analysis of ice cores )

analysis of any particular cycle indicates the lowest and highest values of CO2 concentration were 150 ppm and 300 ppm respectively.

 

The period between ice-ages is about 100,000 years. The CO2 concentration is low when cold and high when hot- a change of about

150 ppm in 50,000 years, that gives a rate of change of about 0.003 ppm per year. With our addiction to oil we have increased the

rate of change over 600 times.

 

As a rough guide an increase 150 ppm of CO2 is equal to an increase of 1 degree Celsius ( average sea surface temperature ).

 

So maybe the original poster can give us his starting value of CO2 concentration.

 

Personally, I think we are well on our way to a 3 Celsius rise by the end of this century. With the receding of artic ice,

nations will be fighting over the rights to drill and extract the hydrocarbon drug we are all hooked on. We won't need the

oil to keep warm, but to drive our air-conditioners and keep cool.

 

I thank you for adding useful information, and for making a constructive contribution to the debate.

In the interests of fairness, I've updated the OP, to draw to attention to your challenge to it.

I don't think that anything you've said invalidates the poll.

 

Since we're discussing a temperature rise from doubling. it doesn't matter where the start point it. Such an equation is independent of the start point. Although, just so you don't think I'm being awkward, convention is to calculate from 1990 and I'm content to work from that.

 

It seems to me that it is your opinion that one can expect a little over 2ºC per doubling. Is that correct?

 

Or are you saying that the relationship between CO2 and temperature is linear and each extra 150ppm adds 1ºC?

If so, I think I would have to contest that. It's not the opinion of the IPCC or any of the experts we depend on for policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

 

Also, your figures look inconsistent to me:

At a rate of 2ppm/year, the CO2 level in the atmosphere would rise by 170 ppm by the end of the century (85 years). If it takes 150ppm to increase the temperature by 1ºC how are we supposed to get to 3ºC?

Perhaps I've misunderstood?

 

 

---------- Post added 03-08-2015 at 10:40 ----------

 

Yes, I vote in elections.

 

Good.

I'm still not seeing an answer, or a reasoned challenge to the nature of the question.

 

---------- Post added 03-08-2015 at 10:57 ----------

 

I suppose the problem would be that this is a self selecting group of people who are voting.

 

It's not a cross section or representative due to the nature of the forum and the way people choose to read/not read/vote/note vote on any given title and poll.

 

---------- Post added 03-08-2015 at 09:53 ----------

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selection_bias

 

Unfortunately that's the nature of these polls.

Do you think that I've set this poll up in such a way as to attract deniers and repel believers?

That was absolutely not my intention.

 

I suspect it's more a problem that a great many people have formed a strong and passionate qualitative opinion on this matter and struggle with a quantitative question. I thought that the last 2 options on the poll would deal with that issue, but perhaps not.

 

I think an awful lot of people think that the climate change question is very much simpler than it actually is.

Edited August 3, 2015 by unbeliever

[RootsBooster]

A denier and a sceptic are different terms for the same thing.

Deniers is a pejorative term used by believers for sceptics.

 

You might want to read up on the term skeptic/sceptic. It's not the same as denial.