Another depressing poll result from one of the more reputable sources:
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted Sept. 30-Oct. 4 among 1,500 adults reached on cell phones [excellent!] and landlines, finds that 57% think there is solid evidence that the average temperature on earth has been getting warmer over the past few decades. In April 2008, 71% said there was solid evidence of rising global temperatures.
Why the drop?
According to the experts that appear in the Guardian's story, it's the economy and corporate propaganda:
Michael Dimock, the associate director of the Pew Centre, said the economic crisis and the struggles over healthcare reform had squeezed out climate change and the environment as issues of concern. "The public is just not as focused on global warming and environmental [issues] as they have been in the past."
But James Hoggan, a PR executive and author of Climate Cover-Up, blamed an intense lobbying campaign against global warming legislation now before the Senate. "I would say a big part of this problem is this campaign to mislead Americans about climate science," he said. "This is a very sophisticated group of people who know how to create doubt and confusion and they have done a very good job of it."
Both hypotheses are probably valid -- to an extent. But I have simpler explanation. Here's a couple of graphs will explain it. First, the average annual temperature of the United States, as generated by a nifty little online tool at the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.
It's a very short time frame because we're not trying to explain global warming and this is actually more data than we need. It's important to note that we're only talking about the United States here precisely because my hypothesis is that many if not most Americans only care about what's happening at home.
Here's the same graph, with the Pew numbers, expresses in percentages who accept that there is "solid evidence of global warming," superimposed on the NCDC data. I use these because they were the easiest to extract from the report. Support for anthropogenic global warming is also falling.
Back in 2005 and 2006, when the U.S. was breaking every record in the books for warm summers and winter, people were more likely to believe the scientists because there was no conflict with their own experiences. That's no longer true, so support for the science declines.
Figuring out how to get people to disregard their own sensory data in favor of graphs in a PowerPoint presentation, newsmagazine (or a blog post) is proving tricky. And just so we don't leave anyone with misleading impressions, here's a graph from NASA of global temperatures. The heavy red line is the five-year mean, which better expresses trends.
- Log in to post comments
I praise the American people for their resilience in the face of the greatest lie in modern history.
I know some of the people in our office remember all the scare about the ozone hole back in the 90's, and how that worry just seemed to evaporate. Breeds a bit of skepticism that these environmental scares are simply fads (btw, what did happen with that?).
There's a general distrust of complicated science when it requires lifestyle changes. Look at all the financial models that were proved drastically wrong in the recent crisis. Average people won't make a sacrifice based on a model.
Coldest October since records have been kept here in Nebraska. We had the earliest frost I can remember. North Platte had well over a foot of snow on October 9. The corn crop was late because of the late spring and cool summer; now heavy rain (snow 100 miles west of here) is keeping the harvesters out of the fields. They're not even going to get back out for a few more days. When they do harevest it, if they harvest it, the grain will be wet and will spoil quickly, which will hurt the price.
Try telling a guy who's lost most of his annual income because of unseasonable wet and cold that we really need to jack up his fuel and fertilizer prices because of a warming planet. I dare ya.
Oh, by the way, our senator, Ben Nelson, is likely to be a swing vote on cap-n-trade. No points for guessing which way Ben will swing.
The first and second charts might make a little more sense* if they displayed more than one date point.
*Well, not to anon, but anon's not in the sense biz.
There is another reason as well. The transition was never made by the press. Bigfoot is still a possibility, not a myth.
SkepticElf,
Concern over the ozone layer has evaporated because the ozone situation has stabilized over most of the Earth, and this has happened because during the 90s the production of the CFCs that were destroying it was phased out. We've stopped worrying about this because we fixed the problem, not because there never was one.
Just a painful reminder that global warming denial will not end when we implement a solution, rather, the lack of an immediate effect will prove we don't have any control over the climate, and the eventual stabilization of temperatures will prove there was nothing to worry about in the first place.
We've stopped worrying about this because we fixed the problem
I thought the Montreal Protocol just stopped making things worse, not actually fixed anything.
"I thought the Montreal Protocol just stopped making things worse, not actually fixed anything."
Same thing, really. While it'll take decades for the CFCs released to leave the ozone layer completely the fact that we've drastically reduced input means that the ozone will recover (and has been recovering). So long as we don't go back toward making more CFCs then we're golden.
As far as James' point I can easily see people reversing their opinions when the average started cooling. Back in the 90s our area (renowned for drought) was experiencing, big surprise, a drought. However, many didn't think we were entirely because there was no effort to restrict water use. When the county finally did then people started believing it more ... until it rained. Then all talk or awareness that this drought prone area could still be in a drought (and we are, oh boy are we ever) vanished.
Actually, the news is even worse than the numbers would seem. Past experience has shown that people tend to exaggerate their concern for environmental issues when talking to pollsters. Despite decades of polls showing very high numbers (e.g. 60 t0 80 percent) on environmental issues, when it comes time to go to the polls, these issues take a back seat.
Right now, global warming is a losing issue at the polls.
The obvious lesson for advocates is to try a new way of pitching the issue because what their doing now isn't working.
What is depressing about people coming to their senses? The depressing thing is that at one point 91% of the democrats bought the scam hook, line and sinker. That's what happens when you weight politics more than science and you invest in an issue emotionally rather than rationally.
What these comments by anon and k demonstrate clearly is the woeful lack of scientific knowledge in the United States. It's a tragedy.
I agree with this explanation. This year, as we've had unusually cool & rainy weather, I have overheard quite a few well-educated people saying, perhaps half-jokingly, "I'm not buyin' this global warming theory!"
I felt upset when I learned, upon further inquiry, that one friend meant it in all seriousness. Until I reminded myself that this friend owns two houses that sit on seashore property just above the high tide line.
Note that the people that deny global warming aren't climate scientists.
This has as much to do with the money fossil fuel businesses funnel to groups like the George C. Marshall institute.
P.S. Please fix preview.
GLOBAL WARMING: AMERICAS PERILOUS FIGHT
You have heard a lot about âglobal warmingâ lately and the causes of this warming. This movement to battle âclimate changeâ stands behind the assumption that: 1) the earth is warming and that it is unusual; and 2) that human activity, especially carbon emissions, is the sole or main cause behind this warming. Scientists agree that (co2) carbon dioxide, known as a greenhouse gas, traps heat inside an atmosphere, therefore, causing the average global temperature to rise. But those assumptions alone do not provide logical explanations of âclimate changeâ when you consider just some of the other elements that affect our planet.
What is in debate is the predominant causes of our apparent recent warming and more importantly, the cost of trying to slow down, or eliminate this warming, and if it is even possible to make a substantial difference. Please consider all the factors discussed in this article and do your own research to come to your own conclusion. Consider who benefits most from this movement, their actions, and the repercussions that will inevitably devastate the United States and its citizens if we allow our government, foreign and special interest groups, at break-neck speed, to enact their plan to combat âglobal warmingâ.
Billions of years ago, our young planetâs developing atmosphere consisted of mainly carbon dioxide. It is believed that when the first microscopic bacterium and fungi appeared, they, as do plants today, took in carbon dioxide, and as a byproduct, gave off oxygen. Over millions of years, this process developed our atmospheric levels of oxygen to the 21% that we enjoy today. If we maintain enough vegetation to offset our current co2 emissions, then we should be able to maintain co2 levels. But then again, that may be too simple, and would thus eliminate the grand opportunities provided to those who lobby for this multi-billion dollar industry to fight against âglobal warmingâ.
Consider the fact that throughout earthâs history, global temperatures rise and fall, just like a heart-rate monitor. Global warming and cooling is a natural process of our planet. It has been happening since our planet formed an atmosphere billions of years ago. Global temperature charts show that lows havenât been as substantial in the last 600,000 years. We are currently in an ice-ageâthe defining conditions of an ice-age being simply that ice be present on our planets surface (Arctic and Antarctic ice caps, glaciers, Greenland, etc.). Atmospheric composition does have an effect on global temperatures, but if the pollutants from human production, which started during the Industrial Revolution in the mid 1800âs, is the main cause, then why are temperatures cooler now than they have been centuries before the Industrial Revolution.
In recent times, we have not hit the high temperatures that existed in our planets not too distant past. Although I must say that huge amounts of melting freshwater causes changes in the salinity of our oceans, thus affecting currents in our oceans and local weather pattern, therefore giving logic to the cooling we have recently experienced. The question is, are the causes of this ice-melt due to co2 emissions alone, or could it be the many other elements affecting our planet internally and externally, man-made and natural.
Carbon emissions are a part of life. We are a carbon-based life-form and therefore emit carbon every time we breathe, sneeze, cough, speak, pass gas, etc. This is the same carbon dioxide that is being disputed for causing âglobal warmingâ. The ratio of plants to carbon emissions is vital and probably the easiest, most efficient, and most economic form of atmospheric management concerning co2 emissions possible. Plant and save trees, for itâs not a financially corrupt and destructive path toward fighting âclimate changeâ like some of their proposals seem to be.
Our sun goes through natural patterns of activity itself. It undergoes an 11-year cycle, with low and high activity, known as the solar minimum and solar maximum. This cycle dictates sunspot activity, and therefore the amount of energy that radiates from the sun, thus reaching earth. A NASA resource states that, âThe sunspot cycle is behaving a little like the stock market. Just when you think it has hit bottom, it goes even lowerâ. They go on to say, â2008 was a bear. There were no sunspots observed on 266 of the yearâs 366 days (73%). To find a year with more blank suns, you have to go all the way back to 1913, which had 311 spotless daysâ.
Did our politicians and companies we wonât name here, bet on this trend, similar to playing the stock market? By the way in 1913, when this record low solar activity occurred, the Great Lakes experienced the worst winter storm on record with hurricane force winds, killing hundreds of people and destroying many ships while during the summer of that same year, North Americaâs record high temperature was reached at 134 degrees in Death Valley.
Consider how our planet orbits the sun. It is not a static path. It fluctuates over long periods of time. The pattern changes from circular, where at any point on the perimeter is equidistant to the center; to an elliptical (oval) pattern, where different distances are attained depending on where youâre at on that ellipse. The differing distances cause fluctuations in the amount of solar energy that our planet receives. Think of the seasons we experience, and the differing climatic changes, caused by a simple 22.5 degree tilt of our planet and its relation to the sun. These fluctuations in our orbital pattern alone can explain temperature differences.
Think of our magnetic field which salvages our protective atmosphere and keeps harmful solar radiation from raining down upon us. It is believed that the magnetic poles may be again switching positionsânorth to south, etc. This is weakening our magnetic field and has created a large gap of vulnerability over the Pacific Ocean. Water is an excellent source of heat storage, and this barrage of solar radiation may also be affecting oceanic temperatures, and therefore atmospheric temperatures. How about our depleted ozone layer?
The de-forestation, building, expansion, and the materials used in our constructions also make a difference on solar heat gain. Certain hardscapes and dark colors absorb and retain more heat than other materials and colors. This has encouraged talk within this current administration to paint rooftops and asphalt white for this very reason. Even though we know dark colors absorb and retain more heat, does this really sound like a logical solution. Well only if we use low VOC paint, right? What about the poor birds who may now freeze at the tops of frigid buildings? What about the increased icy conditions on the now chilly white asphalt roads causing accidents? What about the inefficiency and lack of home heat gain that some depend on in winter months? Well donât worry, Iâm sure our government, certain politicians and corporations will come up with the answers at your expense. After all, the more problems we face, the more solutions we need, and therefore, the more tax money that will be abused for almost any reason other than to truly provide what majority of Americans want.
Going green and utilizing sustainability is an important responsibility that all humans on earth share. Providing production from renewable energy that causes no alterations to our atmosphere, earth, or water supply is obviously a great thing, and we should head toward that direction. But itâs hard to swallow this push when it comes from politicians, ex-politicians, and corporations whose existence and/or substantial monetary or political gains may depend on the success of this movement. This makes us question their motivation and if they truly care about their cause, or is what drives them the benefits they will reap from its promulgation.
The inconvenient truth is that the changes our planet is undergoing are normal, and we will not be able to stop it. That is not to dismiss the fact that co2 emissions from production may also contribute to it, along with breathing, talking, etc. There has even been talk of taxing farmers because of the co2 emissions that their livestock emits, which inevitably will raise costs for US consumers.
This presidential administration wants to pass âCap and Tradeâ legislation which is a financially devastating joke. It taxes and caps the amount of co2 emissions companies can emit. Sounds great, right? Well, companies who want to emit more than their allowance can purchase rights to do so from other efficient companies who havenât reached their co2 limits. Who benefits from this? Our government, past and present politicians, and closely tied corporations. Who will suffer from this burdening taxâwe the people. The utility companies are not going to eat that enormous cost, they canât, and they will pass it down to consumers. It is believed that your monthly utility bill may raise $100 to a few hundred more a month. Barack Obama himself said, â. . . under my plan of a âCap and Tradeâ system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocketâ. But as long as were combating climate change, itâs worth it, right? We may soon all be in the dark as most Americans would not be able to adjust to this exorbitant raise in rates.
At a time when we face economic collapse, soaring unemployment, and soon to be hyper-inflation, is this good move for the people of our country; or is it good for those who are pushing for it. Consider this hypothetical situation: a huge corporation puts all their financial chips on this green movement. Their stocks have plummeted, and only the acceptance of this movement can save their investment. Not to mention the hypothetical CEO of this company runs a major media outlet who gave the current president seemingly non-objective positive coverage during their campaign. This CEO also became an economic recovery advisor to the president and now resides on our Federal Reserve board. Wouldnât that be absolutely sickening if that were true? America, do your homework!
Why does our government seem so concerned about climate change when there is no definite proof that its main cause is from co2 emissions? Why arenât they as concerned with the true toxins and pollutants being dumped into our environment by some unscrupulous corporations? Iâll tell you why. Itâs because there is no money or political payback involved in passing legislation that forces individual companies to clean up their messes. But if we quickly went to âgreenâ sustainable energy, the coffers would be limitless.
We do not have the equipment, logistics, or infrastructure to carry out this movement. Therefore, we would have to spend billions of dollars to create and accommodate energy of this type. American taxpayers, and the sovereignty of our nation will carry this burden, while certain politicians, companies, and contractors live lavishly as they spew tons of co2 from their private jets to attend yet another conference on âclimate changeâ speaking of how we can do more to better our planet, while India, China, Russia, etc. continue to emit co2. We help and encourage other nations to build nuclear facilities, but we have no plans to really implement this as a dominant source of our energy needs. Wake up America!
Keith Mathis
Concerned Citizen for our planet, economic future, and national sovereignty
Wow.
Keith Mathis, you are one amazingly dumb motherfucker.
Ema, you rock!
Keith Mathis: TL;DR
SkepticElf: it's not a worry for people in the US because, with the Hole stabilised, it's never going to reach there even if it never goes away. Down here in NZ, where the Hole can reach up to some summers (the Hole increases in size every summer due to seasonal changes in the weather, just in time for sunbathing season), it's still very much on our minds.
"Comment 11
What these comments by anon and k demonstrate clearly is the woeful lack of scientific knowledge in the United States. It's a tragedy.
Posted by: kalahari | October 23, 2009 10:01 PM"
Much to my chagrin now, I was secretly pleased at the lack of scientific knowledge exhibited by the Americans that I met a couple of decades ago. It seemed that would mean there would be less competition from them for jobs for my kids. Unfortunately, I didn't anticipate the long term enviromental consequences.
About time.
I saw a poll in one of the Australian dailies that had 83% of respondents voting that manmade global warming is a scam.
Lets get science back into place as an objective, and openly debating, source of knowledge.
Let the carbon trading commodifiers fry in their own juices and go broke (Sorry, Al).
Let the Environmental lobby get back some credibility and start fighting for the real issues that have been passed over for the sake of this pseudo-science.
A lot of damage has to be corrected. Lets get on with it.
Weather definitely seems to encourage or discourage belief in Climate Change, but I think we also have to consider how casually people hold a lot of their opinions.
For one thing poll-taking methodology generally mitigates strongly against people taking neutral stances, so a lot of these responses do not reflect strongly held views, but rather a slight tipping of the scales of internal judgment.
And a lot of times that tipping is driven by something other than knowledge of the subject. A few years ago it may have been the impulse to seem concerned about the environment. Now it might be driven by the importance that this issue has developed as an identity marker for conservatives.
Lastly, to a great extent this is like taking a poll about what sort of sutures should be used in heart transplants. The vast majority of people have no grasp whatsoever of the technicalities.
What they do know, though is that climate change reform will mean they will spend more money on energy and a lot of other stuff and they don't want to do that. This reality was not nearly as stark a few years ago and a casual acquiescence to the idea of climate change for appearance's sake was much more possible.
Effectively addressing climate change will result in yet another significant upward redistribution of income, and I think a lot of people sense this. It's not an easy pill to swallow at the moment.
[Why? Because status is measured primarily through discretionary income. Addressing climate change will essentially raise the overhead costs of being alive, severely curtailing the amount of discretionary income for those at the bottom of the heap, while only marginally effecting it for those at the top.]
Another thing I see here: Going back to the sutures analogy. If asked what sutures heart surgeons should use, the vast majority would say "whatever the heart surgeon wants." People no longer seem to have this sort of reflexive confidence in science.
A serious question, admittedly borne out of ignorance, but I can't think my way through it, and need a bit of help. We all understand that greenhouse gases trap heat coming up from the Earth's surface and reflect it back to the surface. Here's my question. What is it about the CO2 molecule that makes it only a one way reflector of heat. Why doesn't it reflect an equal and offsetting amount of heat from the sun back into space?
Thanks in advance for any assistance.
@Bill Dillard:
CO2 DOES 'reflect' heat in both directions. But that's about 50% of the energy coming from the earth. The rest is 'reflected' back and thus reduces the cooling rate of the earth.
You can compare it somewhat to a window in a house: it traps some of the heat inside, but you will still lose heat through the window radiating heat to the outside world.
Thanks for the reply Marco, but I think I may have miscommunicated my question.
The comparison I'm making is not the total energy coming from the surface to the energy which makes it through the CO2 to escape back into space.
The offset I am asking about is one between (i)the heat coming from the sun which CO2 would presumably reflect back into space, and thereby never reach the Earth,and (ii) the heat coming from the earth which is then reflected back towards the surface. In other words, to whatever extent CO2 "greenhouses" heat from the atmosphere back to the surface, wouldn't it be "greenhousing" an offsetting amount of heat from the Sun back into space, resulting in no net warming influence of CO2 in the atmosphere?
Bill, now I understand your problem.
The Sun (mostly) emits (UV) radiation in a wavelength range where CO2 does not absorb. This radiation is, however, absorbed on earth, and transformed (in part) into (heat) radiation. CO2 can absorb this (heat) radiation coming from earth, and 'reflects' part of that back to the surface, thus reducing the cooling rate.
nothing new: law of small numbers, get hot under the collars for one or two summers,it's global warming, get cold and its' global freezing...
Wow Ema Nymton, you seem like a classy person. I am an average guy who studies architecture. I do not claim to be a scientist or geologist or an expert. I am just pointing out in my opinion, some people's motivation behind this movement and other factors which affect our planet.
I enjoy debate. I wish you would give me some of examples of why you think I'm a dumb motherfu**er. I do care about our planet; I also care about the economic future of my country. Ema, Do you honestly disagree with everything I said?
Ema said: Keith Mathis, you are one amazingly dumb motherfucker.
Indeed. While I haven't the time to deconstruct Keith's gaint steaming pile of nonsense there are some real knee slappers in it like this:
"Carbon emissions are a part of life. We are a carbon-based life-form and therefore emit carbon every time we breathe, sneeze, cough, speak, pass gas, etc. This is the same carbon dioxide that is being disputed for causing âglobal warmingâ."
Wow, no clue about proportions or anything. Bike to the store and use about 100W of power, if that, with proportionate CO2 output, drive there and your car will be putting out 100,000W or more the whole time again with proportionate CO2 output. But then idiots like Keith are not into quantification or in depth analysis. That would mean abandoning sophistry, lies and misdirection and taking up real science instead.
Keith the Concern Troll shat out: I am an average guy who studies architecture. I do not claim to be a scientist or geologist or an expert. I am just pointing out in my opinion, some people's motivation behind this movement and other factors which affect our planet.
A much stronger argument can be made for the corrupt motives of the vastly wealthy fossil fuel industry in this than for the underpaid climate scientists who research this stuff. Liars like you always try to impugn the motives of the scientists since they cannot argue based on facts.
Thanks Marco. That explains it.
Keith said, Ema Nymton, you are a one arrogant sack of steaming liberal moon-bat dung.
Obviously, you suffer from some deep-rooted insecurities and blatant arrogance. Again, I am not an expert, but if you are, then civilly explain to me what you disagree with. Are we not carbon-based life? Do we not emit co2. Obviously, I do understand about proportions. I think you can see I was simply saying that the co2 is co2 no matter where it comes from; I wasnât speaking of who or what sources emit more co2. I am not trying to reach scientists, or arrogant asses like yourself who think they know it all. I am trying to reach average people like myself.
I do agree with you about the big bad oil companies, but then again, I can honestly debate both sides. You already have your mind made up. That is why you pick silly non-relevant parts of my post to argue with instead of the other stuff. I donât claim to have the answers, I am just asking average people to consider what Iâve said. Not everyone is as astute you oh great one. Please donât call me a liar, because I am not. I am speaking honestly about what I know, and giving my opinions. Are you one of those disgruntled underpaid climate scientist that you speak of? That would explain a lot.
`Concerned Citizen
First of all I'm not Ema. I'm yet another person who sees through your bullshit. There are lots of us. I'll slow down and try to use small words to explain it you.
Keith spewed: Obviously, I do understand about proportions. I think you can see I was simply saying that the co2 is co2 no matter where it comes from; I wasnât speaking of who or what sources emit more co2. I am not trying to reach scientists, or arrogant asses like yourself who think they know it all. I am trying to reach average people like myself.
No you don't understand. You can't tell the difference between 100 and 100,000. That's the problem with posting on scientific matters when you're an ignorant lame-ass innumerate motherfucker Keith.
Keith Redux: That is why you pick silly non-relevant parts of my post to argue with instead of the other stuff.
No Keith. I picked one of the few parts of your garbage that wasn't just weasel worded sophistry and that I thought people could easily be shown was wrong with a simple explanation from basic physics.
Keith Part Tres: Atmospheric composition does have an effect on global temperatures, but if the pollutants from human production, which started during the Industrial Revolution in the mid 1800âs, is the main cause, then why are temperatures cooler now than they have been centuries before the Industrial Revolution.
And finally, yes Keith, you're a liar. The above isn't even remotely true.
Sorry Meatballs,
First of all, I never fucked your mother, so quit calling me a motherfucker. Its not bullshit. Thanks for slowing down so a guy like me can try and understand your brilliance. As far our current global temperatures being equal or not as high as they have been, it depends on which diagrams and charts you go with. Iâve seen both, ones that support your disagreement, and ones that support my view. Again, I am not a liar, nor am I trying to fight with you meatsauce. I wanted to discuss this issue with you, but I see that your blind arrogance will not allow that. Good luck on trying to persuade others in the future. You are doing a wonderful job. You never answered my question about being a disgruntled underpaid climate scientist. I am an average guy going to college. Tell me a little about yourself meatmallet.
`Concerned Citizen
The midwest USA is happy about global warming because when you lose your home from all the jobs being outsourced to China, living on the street isn't so bad in the winter.
Another way to look at it is that you could care less about the global environment when your personal world has collapsed in rubble all around you.
These polls are to generate click-stream revenue, that's all.
Funny how the denialists think they gained ground. Don't worry, the entrenched ideology,"that man has no impact", has not changed in 2000 years...
the caveman perspective remains the caveman perspective today... hit man on head, take his natural resources, take their wives, burn the buildings and torch the crops, slaughter their cattle... you know.. the good old shock and awe days
Concerned Citizen
There can't be two charts. There is a fact based chart that shows trends in global temperature, that chart is the only chart.
Second, your first comment is so long-winded I won't give a complete stranger that much time. Try and get to the point in two or three paragraphs.
Keith the Constipated Shitizen wrote: I wanted to discuss this issue with you, but I see that your blind arrogance will not allow that. Good luck on trying to persuade others in the future. You are doing a wonderful job. You never answered my question about being a disgruntled underpaid climate scientist. I am an average guy going to college. Tell me a little about yourself meatmallet.
You didn't come here to "discuss" anything. You probably post the same dimwit rant all over the place to confuse as many people as you can. I'm not a climate scientist but I am a scientist. I know how stupid it is to accuse the scientists, as you do, of being some big rich powerful vested interest when a typical oil executive probably spends more on caviar alone than most of us make in a year. The fact is that you can't "debate" what you don't understand. You are here to post a bunch of misdirections and outright lies in the hopes that no one will bother to challenge it.
And no, the global temperature doesn't depend randomly on which charts you like. The consensus scientific view is that the planet is warmer today than in any recorded period in history. Of course, the global temperature in the past becomes less well defined that it is today as proxy data must replace direct measures. Missing or imprecise data, however is not an excuse to make statements like you did such as:
Atmospheric composition does have an effect on global temperatures, but if the pollutants from human production, which started during the Industrial Revolution in the mid 1800âs, is the main cause, then why are temperatures cooler now than they have been centuries before the Industrial Revolution.
Again, you would know all this if you were scientifically literate and not just a pathetic poseur.
I'm no anthropologist, but there is a rumor that some dude way back when cleared the forest to build Giglamesh or some city.
Today the area is desert. What was a lush forest is no longer. This may have occured before the 18th century.
Burning forests to grow corn has been releasing carbon for centuries.
A nation lined with highways and massive cities of cement are actually very real, you can see them from space. These constant heat sinks help change the way an all natural earth would respond.
What is hotter, a field of wildflowers or a stadium parkinglot covered with cars turning 130 degrees warm on the inside from the hot sun.
There are nearly 1 billion cars, little solar ovens that get hot enough each day to roast a chicken. That's before you start the fires in the engine. ONE BILLION CARS
I didnât accuse scientists of anything. I was accusing US government politicians, special interests groups, a particular corporation, etc. I agree that the fossil fuel industry is rife with corruption and abuse. But trading it in for another system that is already setup for this corruption and abuse is absurd. Obviously, I do want to debate, otherwise I wouldnât keep posting and asking for it. In fact, I love science and appreciate scientists. I respect and thank you for the work you do. I am just giving my opinions, as I am not an expert, but simply trying to get average non-scientific people to understand, research, and realize that co2 is not the only, and may not even be the most significant factor of climate change. I do not claim to know more than a scientist, but that doesnât mean I cannot express my opinions and knowledge.
`Concerned Citizen
check this site and their chart.
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www2.nationalreview.com/d…
I didnât accuse scientists of anything. I was accusing US government politicians, special interests groups, a particular corporation, etc. I agree that the fossil fuel industry is rife with corruption and abuse. But trading it in for another system that is already setup for this corruption and abuse is absurd. Obviously, I do want to debate, otherwise I wouldnât keep posting and asking for it. In fact, I love science and appreciate scientists. I respect and thank you for the work you do. I am just giving my opinions, as I am not an expert, but simply trying to get average non-scientific people to understand, research, and realize that co2 is not the only, and may not even be the most significant factor of climate change. I do not claim to know more than a scientist, but that doesnât mean I cannot express my opinions and knowledge.
`Concerned Citizen
check this site and their chart
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.forces.org/images3/gl…
In 1999, I attended a talk at the University of Minnesota, where two U.S. delegates to Kyoto gave a presentation that "global warming" was not happening (showing cropped data from balloons indicating a cooling trend). While the facts are clear, politicians deny the science. While Americans are startled that Iran's president Ahmadinejad "denies the holocaust", the rest of the world is just as startled that U.S. politicians "deny anthropogenic global warming"
The amount of human generated CO2 in the future will depend entirely on availability of stuff that we are able to burn.
Windmills and battery cars aren't going to change that. There are too many people on the planet to bring about grand solutions. There is stuff to be burned and we will burn it. (and we wouldn't stop it even if we could)
Even so, I hope the climate protesters enjoyed themselves today. These things are a lot of fun even though they accomplish nothing at all.
Concerned citizen:
you posted the longest reply here, with a lot of "detail", and then admit you're not an expert. So why make that posting in the first place? What can you hope to contribute if you are coming from an acknowledged position of ignorance?
Dont confuse apparent reality with reality: dont confuse what make sense to you, with what is supported by scientific evidence. (most of what you present is pseudo-science and opinion: fortunately most people reading your post seem to be aware of that reality...the public at large might not be so aware: that classifies you as a dangerous fool!!!)
The main issues with global warming are :
it is insanely difficult to model climate
we have little really reliable date to work with (to build accurate historical trends).
Consequently it is difficult to be definitive! That leaves just enough room for the corporate vested interest groups to operate, and spread disinformation.
I must also criticize your headline:
GLOBAL WARMING: AMERICAS PERILOUS FIGHT
LOL
such arrogance..it isnt an "American issue" (thats why the word "global" is used).
You gave yourself away before you ever started!!
Anyone with even a basic understanding of the complexities of our global environment understands the potential catastrophes that could follow any significant climate change: consequences far bigger than any current economic considerations!
Bottom line, we are idiots if we expect a political solution: politicians will only act when their re-election is at stake, or there is a serious awakening and education among in the general population. Sadly, the first would be too late, and the second is very unlikely.
Rick has a point, maybe larger than he realizes. Richard Heinberg wrote a book exploring some of those ideas. Anybody read it? I would think the James, as a journalist, might be interested in this book, "Blackout: Coal, Climate, and the Last Energy Crisis.
@concerned citizen #38
The graph you link to is an interesting one. Why? Because the site already refers to the Briffa issue, but only let's the graph end at one of the strongest La Nina's of the last few decades. Add the temperatures measured up to August (or September) 2009, and suddenly you see the outrageous way some people distort the facts.
Back in 2005 and 2006, when the U.S. was breaking every record in the books for warm summers and winter, people were more likely to believe the scientists because there was no conflict with their own experiences. That's no longer true, so support for the science declines.
Sounds very much like an instance of the .
Figuring out how to get people to disregard their own sensory data in favor of graphs in a PowerPoint presentation, newsmagazine (or a blog post) is proving tricky.
Based on the concept of semantic priming, I'd bet the poll responses would be different if the question used the phrase climate change rather than global warming. The phrase global warming most likely primes the thought of warm vs. cold temperatures (elucidated by your account of why support has declined), which is an overly simplistic view of how climatologists seem to be thinking about climate change.
And just so we don't leave anyone with misleading impressions, here's a graph from NASA of global temperatures. The heavy red line is the five-year mean, which better expresses trends.
I think the graph alone primes the simplistic view of climate change as rising global temperature.
What gets me on the side of being convinced of climate change, is evidence for melting polar ice caps, along with my thought process of exactly what makes ice melt, and why evidence for melting polar ice caps would be accompanied by evidence for rising sea levels.
What would make me increasingly convinced, is data showing (at minimum), the correlations between changes in global temperature, carbon emission rates, ozone depletion rates, sea level and sea temperature rise, polar ice cap size, biodiversity changes, etc., across the same time period indicated in the NASA graph.
One talking point that gains a lot of traction and which I think is a big reason behind falling interest in global warming is that one of the "global" surface temperature averages, HadCrut3, still (as of August 2009) shows a small negative trend since the beginning of 1998. (I say "global" because it doesn't include the most rapidly warming part of the world, the Arctic.) Thus you get people saying things like no global warming since 1998 etc even though we can't say anything about climate with less than 30 years of data.
However, what I want to point out here is that this talking point looks like it's about to disappear with the publication of September's anomaly which will probably be at least the 0.55 deg C necessary to make the trend from 1998 positive. This is based on UAH's and GISS's September anomalies, both of which are very warm. Of course, even if the September HadCrut3 doesn't quite reach 0.55 deg C, it's just a matter of waiting for the trend to go postive which will happen sooner or later.
The fact is, the alarmists ascribe a power to man (changing the weather) that simply does not exist. Do you guys have any common sense left at all?
This history of this scam shows that it was created by the UN to further it's goal of a super-national government. Many others have joined in because of the huge amounts of money involved, and hey, a lot of people are falling for it.
Funny how the only proposed solutions to this 'problem' involve new taxes, raising existing taxes, bigger, more powerful world government, and lowering the standard of living for billions of people. Some though, will MAKE billions (hey Al).
That so many, otherwise rational people, fall for the AGW scam amazes me.
bcronos,
>the alarmists ascribe a power to man (changing the weather) that >simply does not exist
Because humanity hasn't been able to change /absolutely anything/ on planet Earth.
>This history of this scam shows that it was created by the UN to >further it's goal of a super-national government.
Ah! The Paranoia.
@bcronos:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/RainMake.htm
Of course, we also know that one big volcano has a major effect on global(!) weather. And yet, you don't believe all the stuff we throw into the atmosphere does anything?
Koncern Balloon outgassed: Obviously, I do want to debate, otherwise I wouldnât keep posting and asking for it.
You're certainly asking for it. Hard to deny that. Some kind of masochism is on display here. Oh and the National Review is not a legitimate scientific reference just another dick-in-hand right wing propaganda pounder.
Koncern Ballon kontinued: I respect and thank you for the work you do. I am just giving my opinions, as I am not an expert, but simply trying to get average non-scientific people to understand, research, and realize that co2 is not the only, and may not even be the most significant factor of climate change. I do not claim to know more than a scientist, but that doesnât mean I cannot express my opinions and knowledge.
Well actually, the most parsimonious explanation that the actual scientists who study this have come up with is that yes, it is the CO2 that's warming the climate right now. So, shorter translation of Keith the Koncern Balloon: I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about, but I'm going to keep talking anyway.
bcronos:
You have provided no science, and only talk about what politicians have proposed as a "solution", which is no real solution at all.
Dont confuse your dislike of certain politicians (or politics), and the seemingly American paranoia about "taxes" with anything that has scientific meaning (and dont claim to be rational based purely on being opinionated).
"This history of this scam shows that it was created by the UN"
Evidence for this being...?
Climate change is not about increased taxes or bigger world government. You just cannot see beyond your own nose, which can only smell money it seems....
I find it amusing that "Keith Mathis, Concerned Citizen" posts a great big wall of text, full of lies and delusions, and he thinks he's being "polite". Nope. It's never polite to delude people.
At a gut level, I don't really 'get' the whole movement of "I am not an expert, but I obviously understand this better than people who spend their working lives in that field do." We see it a lot in climate issues, though, and we see it in biology -- I've lost count of the number of times I've personally been approached by someone saying "I'm not a biologist, but it's obvious to me that evolution can't work." Or for that matter, "I'm not a doctor, but I don't see how doctors could be so dismissive of homeopathy."
Not only do people value the "evidence" of a shallow and immediate interpretation of their senses over a complex and sometimes nonintuitive interpretation of complex data -- these situations also play into the often-noted American devaluation of expertise, over-valuation of "the [brave maverick] 'average' guy who shows up mainstream wisdom", and the populist resentment of an "elite" who dares tell people that their feelings and "common sense" interpretations are wrong.
The question you need to ask the "I'm not a scientist, but" crowd is a simple one: what evidence would you need to change your mind?
I've worked on and off on the biological consequences of climate change for 15 years. I can rattle off a dozen or so lines of evidence that if true, would cause me to abandon the science of climate change all-together. In fact, I'm always seeking out such evidence. The trouble is folks like Lindzen and Michaels "got no game" so to speak.
When you get a new hammer, everything looks like a nail. When you know that you are right, confirmation bias ensures every new observation only bolsters your position.
In response to moronic characterization of climate change as a "scam", I offer a message sent recently to RealClimate.org. Here's the executive summary: the tipping point isn't when people accept climate change, it's when people realize that we're already past the tipping point.
For all you climate change advocates, I'm sorry. The real issue is learning to deal with an ice-free planet.
**************************************************************
Prosperity Bow Wave Sinks Climate Remediation Efforts?
Dear climate scientists,
Where are the economists on your team?
The title of this message, intended to get your attention, will prove prescient within 20 years. Climate change is driven by 2 billion humans in 1950 turning into 9 billion in only 100 years time, aided and abetted by an ongoing explosion is consumerism and dramatic improvement in global governance. If you stop and think about root cause, the real climate villains are John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, Adam Smith, et al. Tyranny and oppression, with associated impacts on investment, discovery and manufacture, were surely the best friend planet Earth ever had. By solving many infectious diseases and by - in proportional terms - drastically lowering loss of life in international conflict - we have invoked the law of unintended consequences to the Nth degree.
I am the polar opposite of a climate change skeptic. The pattern of climate change discovery over the past ten years is irrefutable. Global warming impact is a rapidly accelerating trend. When MIT refined its climate model with better economic forecasts, 400 spins projected huge 21st century temperature increases, the low end of which exceeded the IPCC's timid 2003 estimates. Every new discovery points to larger temperature increases, faster ice melt, etc. Human population doubled over the past 50 years and so did the rate of annual increase in atmospheric CO2. Stepping back to consider something as simple as +7,000,000,000 people in only 100 years, a rapidly warming world makes perfect sense. How else could it be?
My "prosperity bow wave" theory states that the combination of improving governance, exploding population, expanding consumerism and maturity of the developing world's population will collectively consume increasing levels of carbon-sourced energy, even as meaningful efficiency improvements are made in energy-consuming devices. Someone else may have coined "prosperity bow wave" and I'd be appalled if a few economic scholars haven't published on this topic. However, I haven't read anything along these lines and developed the theory without plagiarizing any one's work. Here's an outline:
* America's consumer society has taught or compelled global producers to make stuff less costly. Such "stuff" includes room air conditioners, now made in China, which are cheaper in real terms now than 20 years ago. This process brings hundreds of energy-consuming devices within closer reach of billions of people around the world.
* The entry-price for consumer consumption of carbon-sourced energy is also driven down by improvements in production technology (Tata Nano is exhibit A) and by exponential increases in manufacturing scale. Compare the real cost of cell phones now vs. 10 years ago. Witness the impact of Moore's law on computer ownership. Look at the production numbers of these devices now vs. 10 years ago.
* Consumer finance has spread rapidly in the past 20 years, enabling expansion of the energy-consuming class. Witness the advent of home purchase finance in Brazil and Indonesia. Motorbikes burning dirty fuel have replaced bicycles in Hanoi, consumer loans must be the accelerant for this trend. Brazil and Indonesia are home to ~400 million people, or, about 33% more than the US.
* Growth in the energy-consuming class will out-pace efficiency improvements made in devices that consume carbon-sourced energy. China replaced America as the #1 CO2 emitter two years ago. Even if America became carbon-free tomorrow, Goldman Sachs projects an additional 2.3 billion entrants to the global middle class by 2030, more than 7x current US population.
* UN population projections show 9.1 billion people by 2050. While this figure is widely noted, what's been missed is the redistribution of population by age category within countries. Historically productive countries noted for industry and high energy consumption will see their 15-64yo segment fall below 60% of total population - in some cases to ~50% (e.g., Japan). Meanwhile, the developing world will see the opposite. Countries now burdened with large populations of non-productive children will develop workforces that comprise 65% or more of total population, in a few cases, more than 75% of total. The populations of some developing nations will exceed large European countries before 2050. Eight of the 20 largest population countries in 1950 were in Europe. By 2050, the Top-20 will hold only one European country (Russia). Assuming the decades-old trend towards representative, transparent government continues, the developing world should see an explosion in productivity and prosperity. Let me simplify the impact on climate change with a question: how many of the 1 billion people now living in Africa would like to have more meat in their diet, live in an air-conditioned house, drive a Nano, etc.? By the time they can act in the affirmative, there will be a lot more of them.
* Certain energy-consuming devices have long life spans. Automobiles routinely last 10-20 years and coal-fired power plants live 40 years or more. Computer and consumer electronics have on-balance increased per-capita energy consumption, the source of which for many is coal. The life spans of such devices represent sunk costs which serve to delay implementation of devices that use less energy.
* While global governance has greatly improved over the past few decades the political process regarding energy has not. America's ill-advised push into ethanol was clearly aimed at supporting the corn economy. If we were serious about ethanol as a solution, we'd license Brazilian technology and grow sugar cane, or, more directly, drop the $0.50/gallon tariff on Brazilian ethanol. Brazil built its ethanol economy more than 25 years ago, you'd think we might take a lesson. Ongoing resistance to nuclear power is ludicrous but evidence of political paralysis. The worst evidence for failure of political will is coal. The only solution to carbon-based energy is to increase it's cost. Cap and trade schemes merely create cost liquidity around an overall tax-driven increase in cost. Government must trusted to invest carbon taxes in energy conservation technologies, such as high-speed rail, scaled bio-diesel and turn-key geo-thermal plants. Imagine government as the biggest venture capitalist, funded by carbon taxes. I believe that the geo-thermal pump problem (temperature resistance must be increased to 650 degrees) would be quickly solved with such backing.
* Add education to the mix, given the strong correlation between education attainment, prosperity and energy consumption. Yes, education cuts both ways but the 1st cut is always increased prosperity. For example, the first consumer good people buy more of as their prosperity increases is meat. This trend cuts across national, ethnic and cultural lines. Witness the run-up in pork prices in China 2-3 years ago, when pork increased 70%. As you know, meat production is more energy-intensive than even transportation. No amount of education will prevent people enjoying rising economic status from improving the diet of their children.
While science should ultimately save Earth from becoming Venus, improvements in energy consumption will not be available to enough people over the time frame needed to avert wholesale loss of ice cover. The differing speeds of scientific, political and economic processes render current climate preservation goals moot. Personal actions within environments of rising prosperity, such as increased meat consumption, will form the bow wave that displaces gains made in device-specific energy use. Northern Canada will again become a temperate zone, the oceans will rise roughly 200 feet, about 1 billion people will be displaced and, if the US can finally adopt rational immigration policies, we'll be able to repopulate and reinvigorate Detroit, west Texas, rural Kansas, rural Nebraska, etc. There will be losers (Bangladesh, Florida, New Jersey) and winners, same as in any period of momentous change. New Orleans is a lost cause. Watch for market signals, such as real estate prices in North Dakota or volume of applications for Canadian citizenship, as people realize the inevitable and adjust to it. The price of home insurance in coastal areas and abandonment of markets such as Long Island and Florida by Liberty Mutual and State Farm (respectively) suggests that the free market is already reacting. Allstate has quietly red-lined coastal markets by increasing financial requirements for new policies. One could argue that, by its very nature, the insurance industry is the "tip of the free market spear" regarding long-term climate impact.
Climate science must embrace and to an extent subjugate itself to the dismal science.
Otherwise, it could be worse.
@ Chris O'Neill
The first column for the HadCrut3 data you linked to is recognizable as year/month data since the 1800s. What do the data in the remaining columns signify? My guess is that they are delta changes in temp at different points on the globe that are used to calculate average global temps for each month since the 1800s?
At a gut level, I don't really 'get' the whole movement of "I am not an expert, but I obviously understand this better than people who spend their working lives in that field do."
Might be a combination of increased access to the internet and a little knowledge being a dangerous thing.
The delusion that one knows more than the experts is called the Dunning-Kruger effect. Darwin observed the same thing WRT attitudes about evolution: "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
Knows and knows not (variations)
Interesting discussion, Mal.
Is this related to a tendency of experts to see the world in terms obnly of their expertise, and miss connections which are obvious to the less expert, or those expert in different fields?
I'm sorry I don't have a fancy name for this phenomenon - perhaps "academyopia" may suffice for now?
Tony Jeremiah:
The format for the data I linked to is here and the covering page for data and format is here.
@ Chris O'Neill
So the HadCrut3 data is raw data showing average temps from the 1800s with various standard error/uncertainty measurements around each average.
Question(s):
Are you familiar with climate research that have put the null hypothesis (e.g., global increases in temp are not due to human activity) vs. the research hypothesis (e.g., global increases in temp are due to human activity) to the test?
I came across this siteabout past and future ice ages. It was mentioned that past glacial cycles as determined by ice samples from Antarctica are accompanied by specific changes in (presumably) global temperature and greenhouse gases.
Given this past data, is it possible to determine if the observed temp changes (i.e., the HadCrut3 data) are predicted by observed amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (which would support the null hypothesis), or, if global temps (and/or greenhouse gases) are significantly higher than what would be predicted by past data? The latter would support the research hypothesis (i.e., climate change is due to human activity), given that temperature and greenhouse gases during past ice ages could not have been influenced by human activity (e.g., in terms of technological advancements taking place around and after the industrial revolution).
PEAK OIL & OIL DEPLETION = ANCIENT OLD COW PRINCIPLE
The oil companies, governments, auto industry and news media refuse to understand peak oil and oil depletion. The best comprehendible example is the "Ancient Old Cow Principle." The old cow has been milked for too many years, but now gives diminishing milk and butter. The old cow is now relentlessly being milked to the last drop. Somehow, the oil companies, governments, auto industry and the news media find this "Ancient Old Cow Principle" incomprehensible, in spite of the fact that they have successfully milked (bilked) and shoveled huge piles of manure for decades.
Force feeding (more oil depletion allowances) does not appear to rejuvenate the old cash cow any longer. The old cow is just worn out. This is not very difficult to understand, but the oil companies, governments, auto industry and news media argue that the "Ancient Old Cow Principle" is simply too complicated to fathom, and desperately clutch to the old cow's nearly empty udder. Frantically they keep on squeezing and squeezing in desperation, but then they realize that the old beast is giving out. If the "Ancient Old Cow Principle" has missed its logical visualization, then I have considered to providing a video clip attached to my e-mail showing actual "live cows" with large udders being milked to their last drops, by courtesy of the farmers from the Great Dairy State of Wisconsin.
Peak oil and oil depletion is real, just sit back and watch the show with fascination. However, from past experience, successful perception and comprehension of the "Ancient Old Cow Principle" cannot be guaranteed, and evidently remains highly suspicious and is arguable among oil companies, governments, the auto industry and the news media. For solutions to Carbon Dioxide Emissions and Hydrogen Energy Regeneration, please see my website at: http://www.MZ-Energy.com. Publication is authorized with my name.
Manfred Zysk, M.E.
manfred5@canby.com
bcronos @ #46:
So, in the imaginary world inside your head, "common sense" is absolute and unquestionable proof beyond any possibility of doubt that human beings cannot possibly cause any change in the weather under any circumstances. Therefore, in your imaginary world, acid rain cannot possibly occur.
Well, here in the REAL world, it DOES occur.
Where's the "common sense" in denying reality?
Tony Jeremiah: It's a little bit more complicated than that, and has to do with feedbacks.
WARNING: This is an oversimplified fast basic explanation.
In the past, temperature has varied up and down not only with CO2 but also with insolation as a driver -- the Milankovitch factors (there's quite a good explanatory page at http://www.homepage.montana.edu/~geol445/hyperglac/time1/milankov.htm) change how much sunlight high latitudes get, and when, which drives either warming or glaciation. However, the changes in insolation are not thought to be enough by themselves to drive more than half (at maximum) of the temperature change -- this is where the feedback of CO2 comes in.
Cold water holds considerably more CO2 than warm water, and frozen tundra sequesters CO2 (and methane) away from the atmosphere. As the oceans warm and tundra thaws, with changes in insolation (the amount of sunlight that reaches the surface of the earth) as the primary driver, more CO2 is released into the atmosphere. However, once CO2 and methane are in the atmosphere, they retain heat, heating the atmosphere even more -- which acts to release more CO2 -- which acts to heat the atmosphere more, and so on, in a positive feedback loop. By including positive feedback from greenhouse gases we can account for the actual scale of temperature differences between ice-age glaciations and glacial retreats. (In reverse, when it's cooling, it generally takes a change in insolation to allow the northern ice cap to grow a bit, which not only reflects more sunlight back out into space and prevents it from being absorbed by dark open water, increasing the sea ice, this also further cools the ocean, which draws more CO2 out of the atmosphere, which allows the atmosphere to lose more heat, so sea ice grows and reflects away even more sunlight rather than it being absorbed by water, which cools the water further, which can then absorb more CO2 from the atmosphere, and so on.)
Anyway, right NOW, going by the Milankovitch cycles alone we ought to be in a mild, slow cooling part of the cycle, aiming at another glaciation in roughly 10,000 years; and although I could well be outdated in this, I think that we ought to expect about 280 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere naturally. HOWEVER, what we have is about 380 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, which is the highest it has been in at least 650,000 years, and well above what ought to be the norm for this point in the Milankovitch cycles -- and furthermore, we know that much of this increase is the result of burning fossil fuels because of isotopic signature -- carbon from fossil fuels has a much lower 13C/12C ratio than is "natural", and this has affected the isotope ratio in the atmosphere. And, from all available evidence (denialist yawping to the contrary) we are hardly in a cooling trend -- although there have been a lot of ups and downs over the last century, including frequent 3-year dips in temperature as various other ocean current cycles affect weather, the longer-term trend has been steadily up -- see the bottom graph of the post above.
What this tells us is that CO2 isn't just a feedback, it is acting as a driver itself right now. Climatologists have known for decades that CO2 has to act as a positive feedback in natural cycles in order to account for the magnitude of changes in the past; given that we know it can and does push warming cycles beyond where the changes in sunlight would go, there is absolutely no physical reason why it wouldn't act to change the amount of heat retained in the atmosphere even in the absence of changes in sunlight.
Anyway, though, the very short answer is that neither the level of CO2 nor the temperature are what we should be seeing from natural cycles. Which is a concept that the climate change denialists don't seem to grasp, along with the whole concept of "feedback". I hope this has helped somewhat, though.
Oh, and Tony and Mal:
Yes. All of that. Indeed.
I think the Dunning-Kruger effect comes closest to giving me a gut-level understanding of this -- if people lack the meta-knowledge to assess real levels of expertise, then of course it becomes so much easier to overinflate assessment of oneself, and if you have no real understanding of what it takes to understand a field then it's easier to ignore your lack of this experience, or just never perceive the lack of experience in the first place. Somehow I still can't rid myself of the niggling "but how do you not see how stupid this is?" feeling, though.
But then, I got to have the experience of graduate school -- and as far as I can tell, the whole purpose of grad school is to teach you how much you don't know about what you thought you knew, and knock the stuffing out of your overinflated self-confidence. :-/
Seriously. Seriously...ok look. read this headline:
http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/21/18-leading-scientific-organizatio…
the TOP SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTIONS OF AMERICA for darwin's sake! if you take a gander at the APS website, they also agree...but for some reason aren't on the list. So then, from where is the *belief* (and I emphasize belief because AGW is not a religious tome or the "best ice cream flavor"...do you "believe" in gravity? silly question)derived that this is all a scam? Did Glenn Beck tell you to think that? Where'd he get his PhD in a physical science? or...o no, these might be the same people that conveniently and smugly confuse "weather" with "climate", "science" with "opinion", "facts" with "stubborn ideology", "global" with "texas", "trend" with "today", "induction" with "deduction", "reason" with "faith", "up" with "down", "left" with "right", "you" with "me" and "happiness" with "plasma television." All makes sense now...
@ Luna_the_cat
When learning something knew, I always like to follow the Occams razor principle, and then work my way up. (Also somewhat in accordance with Einstein's quote that "things should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler.")
Anyway, though, the very short answer is that neither the level of CO2 nor the temperature are what we should be seeing from natural cycles.
This is the type of statement that increases my confidence in the science of the subject matter, because it implies logical positivist (and not political) thought is involved. I agree with your explanation and summary because it sounds the same as the website I linked to @60 for Chris O'Neill.
But then, I got to have the experience of graduate school -- and as far as I can tell, the whole purpose of grad school is to teach you how much you don't know about what you thought you knew, and knock the stuffing out of your overinflated self-confidence. :-/
:) This should be true. Robert Sternberg also points out that even intelligent, skilled, and well-educated people can make such errors due to the egocentrism, omniscience, omnipotent, and invulnerability fallacies.
@Jock Shockley #58:
I'm glad you asked, Jock ;^). The following excerpt from this article seems relevant to the topic:
To counter disinformation: Change the frame:
Use terms such as:
âCLIMATE DISRUPTIONâ
Or âhuman-caused environmental disruption
Or âsevere weather instabilityâ
Instead of the usual:
⢠âClimate Changeâ is too wimpy
⢠âAnthropogenic Climate Changeâ and âGreenhouse Effectâ are too technical or wordy
⢠âGlobal Warmingâ is counterproductive because of resultant uneven temperatures that industry-spokespeople use to mislead a semantically-naïve populace, âFirst the scientists thought there would be global cooling. Now they claim that warming will destroy us.â They don't tell the truth about fluctuating temperatures in a complex system.
We need to disrupt our complacency
Thus, lets promote the renamed: âCLIMATE DISRUPTIONâ
More direct and powerful terms (as well as visuals such as melting ice sheathes) impress upon the public that an urgent environmental crisis is already underway, producing ecological havoc and biosphere instability. If not addressed with all due recourse it will result in disastrous consequences for the interdependent global economy, quality of life and veritable survival of our species.
Concerned Citizen: if you go spend some time at www.realclimate.org you can learn quite a bit about climate change from climatologists. These are folks who know atmospheric statistics, chemistry and statistics and you'll see that there's no legitimate debate that the earth is suffering global warming due to human activity. You should also know that representatives of the Pentagon have recently testified to this fact to our Congress as it will have an impact on our national security.
Atmospheric PHYSICS, not statistics, sorryfor the miss-typing
For a non-technical explanation of what the current expert consensus is see,
http://climatecongress.ku.dk/pdf/synthesisreport/