Over the last few years, consensus seemed to have coalesced around the presence of global warming: it was real, and politicians from both sides of the aisle--including the GOP's 2008 presidential nominee, John McCain--said so.
Now that consensus is slipping, according to new data from the Pew Research Center's last national survey.
While belief in climate change has been in the 70-percent range since 2006, now, only 57 percent of Americans think there is "solid evidence the earth is warming"--a drop of 14 percentage points since April 2008.
The decline in certainty spans party lines, though it's most pronounced among independents--22 percent fewer of whom see evidence of global warming:
At the same time, Americans think climate change is a less serious
problem--which makes sense if fewer think it's a problem at all--as 35
percent say it's "very serious," compared to 44 percent in April 2008.
As a result, it would seem like a bad time for Democrats to be selling a comprehensive climate legislation (aka cap-and-trade) that has stalled in the Senate since the House barely passed it in June.
But Pew finds that Americans support cap-and-trade 50 percent to 39 percent, even as the question reminded them that the policy "could lead to higher energy prices."
The politics of cap-and-trade may or may not have something to do with the shift in attitude on climate change. With the cap-and-trade debate, climate change has been newly politicized: it was not a major issue in the 2006 elections, and in 2008, Barack Obama and John McCain both saw it as a problem and proposed similar strategies for dealing with it.
In 2009, cap-and-trade has been met with harsh resistance--from Republicans, business groups, and conservative activists like those at FreedomWorks, which made cap-and-trade a big part of its summer agenda. With Democrats preoccupied by health care, there appears to be a more organized messaging effort against cap-and-trade than for it.
But most of that opposition has centered around the cost of cap-and-trade, rather than the science behind climate change--though it's possible that anti-cap-and-trade messaging has led Americans to view the cost of the policy as a cost of belief in climate change.
According to Pew, the cap-and-trade debate has barely registered with the American public. So while it appears to be the main variable in public perceptions of climate since 2006, it might have little to do with Americans' changing views: a majority of Americans--55 percent--say they have heard nothing at all about cap-and trade plans being developed in Congress, vs. 14 percent who say they've heard a lot and 3 percent who say they've heard a little.
It's quite possible that anti-cap-and-trade messaging has seeped into America's unconscious mind, affecting opinion on global warming even as the public says it's heard very little about the legislation being proposed. But it's dubious that, on a conscious level at least, politics has much to do with the change.
So John McCain even said that it was true? Who cares? Do politicians know more about this than anyone else who can look at the information and make their own assessment? I have never believed it. The entire premise is quite bizarre.
Somehow the average temperature from 1950-1980 is deemed the utopian ideal temperature for eternity. That strikes me as very odd. If you look at any graphs from that time you see that the temperature varied dramatically from year to year and decade to decade even in that small window. The common sense, and scientific method, by the way, would be to look back at the temperature history over time. Even though we have extreme potential accuracy in using anecdotal evidence like weather described in documentation, depicted in artwork, the clothing requirements of earlier cultures, the food and cultivation methods etc. the proponents of this theory will only accept the 150 years that they believe accurate thermometers existed, although I would hard pressed to believe that units from a hundred years and back were all very accurate to one or two degrees. Even so that is a ridiculously short amount of time to determine the "proper temperature for all time", the concept that such a thing would exist is patently absurd. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that when the Vikings were farming in much of Greenland a thousand of years ago or so that it was not covered with snow and ice like it is now. It is well established that prior to the "little ice age" from 1300 to 1720 as it is known, the temperatures were warmer than now and as warm as they say it will be while the earth drowns. Interestingly the universally accepted existence of the cooling of that time did not even appear in the hockey stick graph used in the IPCC report. Don't even get me started on the chemistry of it, a miniscule amount of CO2 that doesn't hold heat as well as the much more prevalent water vapor somehow trumps the latter's effects? Not one shred of physical evidence or scientific research has proven the concept. It exists ONLY in computer models and after twenty plus years in the technology business I can assure you that not only is "garbage in, garbage out" a reality but it is also true that you can manipulate data to infer anything you want. Remember that the daily weather projections are done with very similar computer model methodology and you know that they are rarely right beyond 24 hours.
Regardless, the clear evidence is in the numbers now, we have had over a decade of "warming" since 1998. The CO2 level has gone through the roof but the temperatures have not, they have in fact, diminished. Remember the IPCC and all other proponents warned that unabated warming would occur due to the "tipping point" being reached with CO2 saturation. Their position can not accommodate ANY cooling. Its hogwash and anyone who believes it is an abject fool.
It might be, in part, that we've decided to believe our own damn eyes. I've been looking at the Gulf of Mexico for 30 years, and it ain't rising. Sorry, it's just not. Not even a teensy bit.
It didn't help very much when the scientists responsible for the information in the ICPP report lost it. Whoops...
It's possible that the simplistic characterization of the issue has lead to misunderstanding and now skepticism. We often talk about "Global Warming", but the real issue is "Climatic Instability". There is ample evidence of increasingly dramatic instability - droughts, floods, unusual seasonal variation, etc - throughout many parts of the world. Perhaps if there were a "basket of indicators" in popular consciousness, instead of just historical temperature levels, or whether or not the Gulf of Mexico is visibly rising, people might take the issue more seriously.
Wouldn't that be nice, "a basket of indicators". I take it your excepting the CPI-U concept. But then, I keep telling my wife that the CPI-U fell recently and she's knows that prices went up.
But isn't the glacier thickness, the global surface temperatures, the satellite temperatures a "basket"? They at least are a set where the noise doesn't wash out the average change.
What else can we include?
I don't like seeing the word "skeptical" used this loosely. How many Americans understand enough science to be truly skeptical about any claim made in this field, on any side of the issue? Look at the numbers in our society that apparently still believe in ghosts, guardian angels, astrology, Satan, the literal truth of scripture, and more. Science and scientists get ridiculed and shouted down in many parts of the country for contradicting people's religious beliefs. When did so many people supposedly find the time to elevate themselves to such a discerning new level of free thought? I think they may just be listening to different sources of noise, or they got bored or distracted, but skeptical? Doubt it.
Perhaps it's this "small window" problem that people have. If there is a short period of high snow fall in the Sierra's, they miss the point.
The variations over a few years is far greater than the average increase. Same with the stock market. The variation is greater than the average increase. But, it's undeniable to say that the stock market continues to increase on average over the decades. Even with the recent 40-50% losses, it's still higher than a half century ago. The average temperature for 2008 was remarkably lower than that of 2005. And 2008 was higher than 1976. The average was still higher.
Rain varies dramatically during the winter and across the continents. It's rained in the summer, on occasion, but that doesn't make the summer a rainy season. During the winter there are many days without rain, but that doesn't make the winter months not the rainy season.
Scientific evidence is based on numerous methods to determine the average temperate. And the evidence goes back millions of years.
There is no determination of the "proper temperature of all time". We might conclude that the recent warming has averted an ice age cycle. That would be good news. The only the contention that the average global temperature has consistently increased since the 1880s. But the evidence is that the temperatures are not the norm.
You can, if you like, download all the raw data from NASA. Take a look at the Vostok ice core data. This provides a baseline for temperatures going back millions of years.
None of the data uses different "thermometers" with different precision to compare temperatures this decade with last decade.
Confusing a recent one or two year drop in temperature with the average change over a hundred years is the problem.
The stock market has average upward trend since March but it was lower in on Oct 21st than it was on Oct 19th.
No one would say that because it was colder in December than it was in June, that this is proof that the average temperatures are dropping. That would be obvious foolishness.
The mistake is in confusing short term trend with long term trends. A solid scientific and statistical analysis separates the trend from the noise.
Let me point out how the reasoning fails. "the clear evidence is in the numbers now, we have had over a decade of "warming" since 1998. The CO2 level has gone through the roof but the temperatures have not, they have in fact, diminished. "
To restate this; We have had over a decade of warming since 1998. The CO2 level has "gone through the roof". Temperatures have diminished.
Which is it, there has been a decade of warming or temperatures have diminished? There is in the statement, the very failure in mixing up scales. There has been a decade of warming, CO2 levels have increased for a decade, last year temperatures diminished.
Frankly, I can't make any sense of the comment as it jumps about, grasping at singular anecdotes without a comprehensive and complete examination of the evidence. It doesn't look at the simple and obvious facts available. It doesn't look at the complete record in temperatures since the 1880's or in the temperature record going back millions of years.
There is a considerable difference between looking at the complete historical record and projecting that trend. The failure of a model to predict the trend doesn't change the historical data. And the only way to examine the historical data is to do a linear regression on the entire data. And it's remarkably easy. Excel will do it.
The undeniable facts are; average global temperatures have increased consistently since the 1800's. Average global temperatures are higher than they have been in millenniums. We don't need to know what caused it to get that.
What I find more interesting is that the temperature increase may have very well saved us from a new ice age. That we can control the average earth temperature is a wonderful thing. We may not be able to make it rain in the desert, but we have reached the point of affecting the weather of a global scale. And we can use this to our advantage. But first, we need to figure out what to get control of. We may not know what these record global temperatures mean. There is not history of temperatures this high. But it sure is a good idea to not find out without having some control over what we are really doing.
Being involved in IT (technology business) certainly doesn't lead one to correct conclusions about physics. But thankfully we don't need to have actually been in a head on collision, been in the IT business, have a degree in physics, or to be able to accurately predict our next accident to know that wearing a seat belt is a good idea.
John,
Did you notice the quotes around the word "warming"?
I did that intentionally and unfortunately you missed the point. The believers say that it has been warming and the sea has been rising and that we are on the precipice. THERE HAS BEEN NO WARMING!
Nor are the temperatures "higher than they have been in millenniums" which would properly be phrased millennia, YOU ARE WRONG. It was warmer in the 1200's than it is today and it had been for centuries, DO YOUR HOMEWORK, there were tens of thousands of years warmer than it is today in every one of the "warm" periods of earth's history. Every time an ice age changed the temperature peaked for thousands of years WAY higher that is is today. On your ice age comment, we are actually way overdue for one. This warm period is the longest in Earth's history, look at the Goreacle's chart, the accepted temperature history over the last 600,000 years. The peaks usually lasted around twenty thousand years, we have been warm on earth for over 30,000 and closer to 40,000 years, indicated clearly by the rise of Cro-Magnon man, modern humans in northern europe, displacing the Neanderthal man, the robust early human who survived through the ice age in isolated populations. This is all a longer and longer warming cycle that will eventually end with a dead planet like Mars. The sun will eventually diminish, get sucked into another galaxy or go nova and the solar system will DIE. You are a fool if you think that humans can alter ANY of that progression. No you don't have to be in the IT biz or anything else to know physics, but you DO have to do research on the very "evidence" that you woefully think I haven't examined comprehensively. I will tell you now I have spent an innumerable number of hours more than you have with your flippant assertions like "average global temperatures have increased consistently since the 1800's". The number of reliable global sources of temperature in the late 1800's (which is the data you are referring to comes from, NOT all the 1800's) was abysmally small, the data set is absurd. We DO know that climate has NEVER not changed! To think that somehow the temperature variability in the last 150 years is any more or less than has occurred for millenia (got that) is just plain stupid, devoid of any clear logical thought, and the following assertion that is was somehow attributed to humans is so laughable that that is exactly what I have to go and do.
Your not paying attention.
Here is an example,
I said, "... the temperature increase may have very well saved us from a new ice age." That would be like, we should have had one.
You said, "On your ice age comment, we are actually way overdue for one."
Do you see how you have managed to say what I said while your head is filled with some imagined argument?
I said, "do you believe that a hundreds of thousand of scientists and technicians over decades... " clearly referring to the data collection.
You said, "there are NOT thousands of scientists that concur that there is warming"
Again, you've created an argument that doesn't exist?
Or go look up the definition of mil·len·ni·um Pronunciation (m-ln-m) n. pl. mil·len·ni·a (-ln-) or mil·len·ni·ums
Again, see how you've created an argument that doesn't exist?
(When someone starts talking about vocabulary, they are more interested in winning anything than they are about figuring out what the truth of the original question is.)
"Americans Grow Skeptical Of Global Warming. Why?" Because they are stupid, that's why. All of you who refuse to believe the scientific evidence of global warming would probably also not have believed that the earth was not flat or that the sun did not revolve around the earth or that humans ever landed on the moon! The stupidity of Americans is frightening.
Well done BayVillageKat. The "if you don't believe in Global Warming, you're stupid" argument has convinced me.
However if we're commenting on intelligence then I'd consider re-working:
"All of you who refuse to believe the scientific evidence of global warming would probably also not have believed that the earth was not flat or that the sun did not revolve around the earth or that humans ever landed on the moon!"
My seven year could type up a more coherent sentence and argument.
At one time I firmly believed in Global Warming. Now I'm not so sure.
How about, if you don't know that global warming is a real trend, then you haven't examined the basic evidence of mean surface temperature and ice core temperature data. I don't know if I can classify someone as stupid because they can't do a linear regression of the data. Depends on who one is being compared to.
There is the problem that there are a number of sub issues;
1) Historical evidence,
a) The direct evidence of average global temperatures
b) The direct evidence like the Vostok ice core data.
c) The indirect evidence like the glacier thickness.
2) Correlated evidence like CO2 levels.
3) Theoretical causes
a) increased CO2 has the "green house" effect
BTW, there's a reason it's called the "green house" effect
It is observable in green houses.
b) H2O in atmosphere
c) Solar activity
4) Predictive models
5) Statistical analysis and noise.
Items 1 and 5 are the most important. That's the basis that leads to the unmistakable conclusion that "it's going in that direction and getting bigger". It really doesn't matter what the cause is, what physics is, or whether the models can predict how fast it's gonna change.
If someone doesn't understand the basic evidence there's no convincing them.
If someone doesn't want to get the statistics, there's no convincing them.
If someone is convinced that the earth is to big, there's no convincing them.
I can only hope that it is human caused not something else because we can change it if we caused it.
Thankfully, solar activity and H2O levels don't match up. CO2 levels do.
And, the green house effect is an observable and demonstrable phenomena.
I really don't care if the prediction models suck. When I have to start building models to predict exactly how bad my budget will be next year, I'd be better off getting a second job. Then I don't need the models.
Let's see,
Scientific consensus says it's so.
Oil companies and their politicians say no.
It was really hot last summer - Proof of Global Warming
It was pretty cool this summer - now I'm not so sure.
Who you gonna believe, 98% of scientists, or you're lyin' eyes?
Science doesn't stand a chance.
Almost a poem.
It's always a little interesting to hear one (or often the same) global warming advocate start an argument with "If you don't believe, you probably thought the earth was flat!", then hear another follow it up with "Well, there is a scientific consensus!"
First of all, science is not based on consensus. As I stated above, at its most basic level, science is predicated on an experiment with some controlled and some uncontrolled variables, the results of which are able to be replicated. Until then, it is only theory, no matter how many scientists agree. Second, 98%? Did you just make that up?
Dawg - that's not exactly true.
There is a collection of data for one variable that demonstrates that there is a trend. There is a collection of data of two variables that demonstrates a correlation. Then there is a theory that says how one measurement is connected to another measurement.
There are natural experiments where nature falls in a particular way and we can collect data. There are laboratory experiments where we can control the variables and collect data.
Then there is the theory that explains how the data did what it did.
A lot of what we know about neurology and medicine are the result of natural experiments. Someone comes in with a gunshot wound to the head and has lost his ability to form memories. Examination of what got damaged tells us what that part of the brain did.
We can look at the data of population in the United States and recognize it's trend. I can do a curve fit to the population data with respect to time and come up with a formula that quantifies population growth.
We can look at the GDP and unemployment rates and find that the GDP tends to go down when unemployment goes up.
I've noticed that the price of a barrel of oil is correlated with the price of gasoline at the pump. I don't need to even have a hypothesis, a clue as to what causes what, or a model to explain it.
And I can do a statistical analysis on the data to determine the formula that best fits the data. Barrel of oil goes up by x amount, gas prices go up by y.
In doing the statistical analysis, I form a hypothesis, I state the null hypothesis, then I do the analysis. How I form the null hypothesis affects how I'm going to compare the variations in the data.
I can have a sense about how something might turn out, define an experimental hypothesis, define the variables, do an experiment, collect the data, then form my hypothesis, state my null hypothesis, then do the analysis.
I don't need to control anything in a natural experiment. I just need to demonstrate a correlation.
A correlation of a variable with respect to time to a statistical relevant level is sufficient for proof that the trend exists.
We always start with this, otherwise were wasting time chasing down things that have no trend.
I prove that global temperature changes with respect to time to a statistical relevant level and I've proven the trend.
--------------------------------
BTW, Seamus: spend some time with optical illusions or at a David Copperfield show and see how well those eye's work.
There's a difference between yourself and the global warming "it's a conspiracy" opponents.
Your making a reasonable and conscientious assessment of what you know and what has been presented. And your conclusion is "not convinced".
When a simple survey comes out, you get lumped in the group of people that say, "I don't believe in Global Warming" or "I don't know".
The problem with the survey is that is only asks a couple of really simple questions. Then when it's reported, the "I don't know" are lumped in with the "I don't think so".
And the global warming conspiracy "it's a conspiracy" opponents" say, "Look at how fewer people believe in global warming." See, they are on our side so we are right.
Same problem with politics. False choices. We might as just well conclude that because only 33% are hard left wing, then 66% of people disagree with the liberal agenda. Therefore 66% of people agree with the right wing conservative agenda. Therefore 66% are right wing conservatives.
Hey, I got a thought, 60% of people are in the middle and don't agree with either the 20% of right wing nuts or 20% of left wing nuts. DOH!
John,
I'll just reply to both of your responses here.
Again, you make some good points, and you're right, I don't believe in conspiracies. Humans are, literally, too dumb and too emotional to have conspiracies. Very good at a lot of things, but keeping one big collective secret, not so much. I have discussed this with many people, some of whom I knew and some I didn't, and I found as many arguments and points of view I respected in both categories, regardless of whether they were on my side or not.
A couple of things about your examples, and it might show why I'm still a little skeptical.
As far as the neurology and medicine, the gunshot (you might be referring specifically to the railroad worker with a spike that went through his head, lived, but with huge personality changes), yes these did indicate some areas of the brain for study. However, we have since demonstrated remarkable tools, specificially fMRI and similar imaging techniques, that allow us to see where, for instance, the bloodflow and glucose goes in a person's brain when he or she does math equations, and we deduct from there that that part of the brain is involved with math reasoning.
Neurology also has the benefit of easier systems. For example, much of what we know about the neuron comes from a species of squid that has neurons that are actually visible to the naked eye. Because most neurons function in a similar way, and this one in particular happened to function very similar to human neurons, it allowed for much simpler study, and from there more complex experiments arose.
The population study is a very interesting point to raise, because of its similarity. With (obviously) limited ability to run controlled experiments, statisticians and census workers in I believe the early to mid 80's released a series of studies and books indicating that the world would be overpopulated by some ridiculous year, like 2005 (I lost the link to this and can't seem to find the specifics). The point is they looked at the statistics for the time and concluded that at that current rate, the world would be overpopulated, there would be a crisis, they had to DO something. Obviously, this did not come to pass, because people's behavior changed of its own volition, which is just about the only thing you can count on human nature for. I don't mean to compare this to global warming, nor do I intend to compare the Global Freezing scare to global warming, because I think both differ on scale, but there are lessons to take and apply.
You mention sets of data and correlations, but another of the basic science rules beat into my head is that correlation is not causation. I agree with you that there has been a warming trend of late, as I stated earlier, but I would also posit (as I'm sure you would agree) that weather by day, month, year, and decade, trend or aberrant, is always changing. As some others have pointed out, there is strong evidence that the earth has been warmer than this before, indicating that it is not "unnatural" for us to have our current average temperature.
Essentially, there are 2 reasons I'm still skeptical. First, because climate science does not enjoy the luxury of being able to isolate small parts, as most other science disciplines do, it means that any theory or observation must take into account all variables at once. Computers have helped us do this, but again, models are based on human input, and inherently flawed (as far as science is concerned) the moment a person's assumption is incorporated (this is why the FDA mandates double blind studies in medicing - even knowing which drug is which has been demonstrated to influence outcomes). Along these lines, once this greenhouse gas/CO2 correlation was established, very little effort was put forth come from any other direction. What I mean is, most studies focus on proving or disproving CO2's effects, rather than starting from scratch somewhere else (for instance, decreasing sun spot activity correlating with the static or even slightly depressed direction of average temperature in the last several years).
The measurements are my second reason for skepticism. While I see your point in systemic vs. random error, that was not what I meant. You assumptions seem to be based on a static method of measuring temperature, which is where I see the problem. I think that, today, we don't have a thermometer in Bob's backyard. Today we have satellites, methods of measuring different levels of the atmosphere, surface temperature, ocean temperature at multiple deaths, and many are digital. This was not true for the beginning of the data set. In the late 1800's, or the early to mid-1900's, it was people writing down temperatures. Surface temperature is inherently variable and subject to conditions on the ground, and not a good measurement for average temperature. You can argue that this is random error, but I think there are several confounding variables that push it higher, one of which is the urbanization warming phenomenon. Surface temperatures in places that become cities and grow increase in temperature faster than those places around them, in large degree because of cement.
My point in bringing up the temperatures is not that I think that they're 100% unreliable, and you are correct, you have to start accepting data at some point. My problem is that because of the huge number of variables (this is likely the most complex system man has ever tried to study; Butterfly effect anyone?), each time you accept something that is 98% certain (and, because of the above, I don't think that a lot of our temperature data is that certain), you compound the level of uncertainty. This quickly becomes a problem when the debate centers around a few degrees and their cause. Pairing imperfect data with something that cannot, within the limits of our science, be proven, is the reason I continue to be skeptical.
I'm going to stick something up front. Not because I'm arguing up front but because it would be a really good point if shown.
I still have yet to see anything that temperatures were warmer at some other point in time. I've read the unreferenced assertions. I just can't find it. I really wish someone would show that.
If this can be demonstrated, it blows the foundation of AWG out of the water. If the temperature was this high at some point in the past, or better yet two points, it would really change the view. I get that there is that thing called the Midieval Warming Period. (What that was about would be a really cool discussion) But, the 2004 temp is still way above the Midieval Warming.
So I got some guy that says CO2 lags in the Vostok but he hasn't done run the numbers. I've got some guy that says there was a period warmer than 2004 temps, but no regression presented. You get what I'm saying.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your points are well taken. My examples were really only intended to show that controlled lab experiements aren't really the complete picture of how things progress.
We've got simple time-series examiniation of the data. Don't need anything else to say, "yeah it really is trending".
A lot of the arguments jump right up to the IPCC model and claim it's all bogus because the IPCC model isn't good enough. All this demonstrates is that the IPCC model isn't good enough. But then I really don't care about the IPCC models.
But before I can get into the cause, I have to have reasonable conclusion on the basic historical data. If the historical data is wrong, there is no history of warming, it's all a mute point.
So, I'm looking at the historical temperature data. There's the Vostok ice core data, the ground temp data, the satellite temp data. Now, I've got the sea level data from both sea level gauges and satellite telemetry.
And the question is, is the data good? Is it reasonable to conclude it will continue to trend? And, why do we care?
I mean, if someone said, "Yeah, the data is solid. So let's move on to the next one, cause or ancillary effects." That would be a different conversation.
But, I don't think we're really ready to go there. Maybe the experts are, but we're not.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The problem with alot of the dialog is that it goes after the exaggerated issues. Is the IPCC model off? Are the ice caps going to melt and flood California. They are assuming some ideal temperature. whatever.
Maybe tommorrow it will suddenly roll off. Population will at some point. I think we can reasonably agree on what things happen to cause population to trend down. All too often, they aren't pretty. The stock market "rolls off", like it did in November.
Wouldn't it be nice if the temperature reached some balmy level and stayed there. And the Antarctic might be a nice continent if it wasn't covered with ice. Not to mention that there's a lot of cheap property in Canada that is a bit cold right now.
There are much less catestrophic issues to consider but if there is no agreement that temps are higher than the historical record, there's not much point in the conversation.
If we want to go beyond the question of whether the data is good, it's not even the cause that's an issue. Suppose its something natural that we can't do anything about. Suppose it does roll off naturally. Then we're at the issue of the effects.
Like I said, not sea level rise, what do I care about someones Malibu beach property. But these little things like moderate droughts, insects, crops that can't grow when the season is a month too soon, they are a tiny bit of a concern.
There are a lot of problems with the rate of change exceeding what biological systems can manage. It took a good fifty to a hundred years for farmers to get the wheat crop right so that it would survive the exact climate conditions of the prarie states. And that was with substantially less population.
Now there is a real pain in the assets, having to redo all the crops so that they handle a change in the onset of the season. Throw in pests, lose some beach property along the Malabu coast, reduce the water availability in central California, lose a few yards of prime real estate around NY, change the balance of beatles in the forests. That has the potential of capping the population a bit lower than the expected 390 million by 2050. (Long way off and only another 85 million or so.)
Good? Bad? Can't really discuss that while were arguing over IPCC models and some supposed higher temp in the past.
Stan, I agree with you for the most part: I don't like being called stupid when I have considered the arguments and read some of the science, and it's counterproductive to resort to ad hominem arguments.
John Fitzgerald: from the arguments I've heard, the data are not so reliable as you think. I'm not saying you're wrong, but there are a surprising number of variables that go into temperature, ranging from where you take the temperature (space? cities? oceans?) to what instruments you use (thermometers? ice cores?).
With that said, I tend to believe the earth is warming, but my skepticism revolves around the cause. Measuring, which one would think would be the easy part of the argument, can get me part of the way there, but the complexity of our atmosphere and planet makes me wary of essentially unprovable "science" claiming they know the answer, and that it has to be CO2, the models say so. I don't mean to disparage models or those who formulate them, but reduced to the basics, at some point models have to based on assumptions. Science, as was taught to me from a young age, is basically an objective experiment with a hypothesis and variables that, when repeated, is replicable. At this point, I don't believe we have the technology to do that.
Why? Why are Americans growing skeptical of Global Warming?
Because there is not a consensus regarding anthropogenic global warming. That's Why! http://www.oism.org/pproject/
Because its freeking Cold Outside! http://www.iceagenow.com/Record_Lows_2009.htm
Because....Anthropogenic Global Warming is a myth... an easy evil to distract moral idiots from the real evils of big government and islamofascism...
Dawg:
There is no doubt that there are numerous variables that go into temperature measurements.
And the error that is introduced may be systematic or random.
The thing about random error is that over a huge number of measurements, the errors cancel out or create a spread that is identifiable as error, regardless of the cause.
Systematic error adds consistently. If a temperature gauge has systematic error this year, it has the same error next year. Systematic error doesn't affect the direction of change.
The thing about the collection of measures is that it is a very large sample. That's why the data isn't based on one single thermometer in some guy's backyard.
It's also why both surface temperature, ocean temperatures, and satellite temperatures are all part of the collected data.
It is understanding the underlying statistics, which is actually a study of noise and error, that is just as important.
What basic science, in school, doesn't present is the original data. Every experiment includes the experimental noise. Every basic model is based on finding the major process beneath the noise. When you use the basic physics equations for motion to predict the location that a projectile will land, there is a randomness. But saying that model is faulty or inaccurate misses the fact that the model presented to you in class wasn't the complete model. The complete model includes the random variance. It includes the variance that occurs due to air friction, variance in the instrumentation, and whatever random factors affect the data.
If you believe that a thousand technicians over the past half century were doing a lousy job in measuring temperature, well there's not much to discuss.
At some point, you have to decide if the measurement is good enough.
The fundamental question isn't whether the actual warming is .3 or .5 degrees in a century. The question is, does the mass of data lead to the conclusion that it is not zero, or negative, to a 99.9% level of certainty.
I can't prove to a 100% level of certainty that my car will start up tomorrow morning but I don't get up an hour early every morning to fix it either. My measurements and data leave me with the unmistakable conclusion that to a 99.9% level of certainty, it will. And, a couple of times it didn't. But, on average it does.
What you will find is that the temperature data is solid and overwhelming.
I'm not talking about some weather model equivalent to predicting that Hurricane Kathy is going to hit Florida next week. I'm talking about the actual measurements of multiple gauges in thousands of locations over the globe taken multiple times a day over fifty years.
I'm reminded of the joke about the engineer and the mathematician at the cocktail party. They see a good looking woman across the room and the mathematician comments, "You know, if I walked half way there, then half that distance again, and kept repeating it, I'd never get there." The engineer proceeds to do exactly that, stopping when he's a foot away from her, turns to his friend and says, "Close enough".
The point is that thousands of people have poured over the data, picking it apart, making sure it is close enough. And in the final analysis, to an incredible degree of certainty, yeah, the average temperature is warming.
I've met paranoid delusional people. What they need are meds, not reason. I ask 100 scientists and 98 say global warming. I'm going with the 98. He talks to 100 scientists and two say there are questions about it. He says, "See, there is no consensus." He says its "an easy evil to distract moral idiots from the real evils of big government and islamofascism"?
The fundamental question is, do you believe that a hundreds of thousand of scientists and technicians over decades have some hidden agenda or are just plain stupid?
YES they are STUPID and so are you, there are NOT thousands of scientists that concur that there is warming, there may be short term ups and downs but NOT caused by humans and NO SIGN that this is any sort of long term trend, there are over thirty thousand scientists and PHDs who have signed the petitionproject.org petition, they outnumber your paltry collection of politicians and their on-the-payroll sycophants by a factor of over 1500, of the original 2500 "expert reviewers" for the first IPCC report only 200 were even remotely connected to any type of scientific research. Moving forward there were 52 scientists that authored the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policy Makers. You are probably pretty puffed up with all your commentary here but you should really do yourself a favor and stop reading headlines at the CSM or NYTIMES and start reading ALL the information available for CONTENT. Please don't continue to delude yourself that you are somehow informed on this subject.
See, I appreciate DAWG, as he has reasonable concerns. He says, "Hmm... I don't know because....." And they aren't easy to answer concerns. Are the measurements accurate? How do I know? How can I reasonably conclude they might be? Doesn't experimental proof depend on these scientific methods that I've been presented with?
I'm presenting him with the best honest answers I have as I've had the same questions.
Your not paying attention.
Here is an example,
I said, "... the temperature increase may have very well saved us from a new ice age." That would be like, we should have had one.
You said, "On your ice age comment, we are actually way overdue for one."
Do you see how you have managed to say what I said while your head is filled with some imagined argument?
I said, "do you believe that a hundreds of thousand of scientists and technicians over decades... " clearly referring to the data collection.
You said, "there are NOT thousands of scientists that concur that there is warming"
Again, you've created an argument that doesn't exist?
Or go look up the definition of mil·len·ni·um Pronunciation (m-ln-m) n. pl. mil·len·ni·a (-ln-) or mil·len·ni·ums
Again, see how you've created an argument that doesn't exist?
Do you ever calm down enough to let reality get past that internal intensity?
Using ALL CAPITAL LETTERS doesn't make your point any more relevant. And, as someone noted, saying, "YOUR STUPID" only demonstrates your basic lack of intelligence.
When you are capable of doing a statistical analysis on the original data, do show me how you've concluded that it is incorrect.
If the original data is incorrect, by all means, show the correct data. If you have data that shows temperatures were warmer in ... whatever...
But, what I find, 100% of the time with people that use derogatory terms, or ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, or assume my source, or just present the sense that they need to CALM THE FCUK DOWN, when I bother to look up there source or examine their information, it's complete BS. This is typically because they are looking for an argument to start with.
This is what happens when your adrenaline levels have been too high for too long. It causes brain damage.
(Dude, you decided to call me stupid. What did you expect?)
------------
"You say either and I say either, You say neither and I say neither
Either, either Neither, neither, Let's call the whole thing off.
You like potato and I like potahto, You like tomato and I like tomahto Potato, potahto, Tomato, tomahto, Let's call the whole thing off" - Louis Armstrong.
I think the growth is skepticism toward global warming is due at least in part to the fact that it has been growing colder over the past years.
Your right, temperatures fell considerably in the past couple of years. That though doesn't change the average trend. In 1998 they were remarkably higher. In 1976 they were cooler than they are now. But the average just keep on going up.
It's the same sort of problem with watching the stock market. The market is all over the map. It trends upward every day for two months then suddenly drops 150 points in three days. And the swing is much larger than the trend.
And the temp change it isn't a big average upward trend, like 4 tenths (.04) of a degree per year. The single largest swing in one three month period was .81 degrees. And then the next year it dropped down by .81 degrees.
But it just keeps going up on average.
And the larger data set has the average temperature higher than it has been in milleniums. Like as hot now was it was cold during the ice ages.
That's were I'm stuck at saying, "Yeppers, sure look like it."
Then comes the "what's the cause" part. CO2, H2O, cow farts?
I hear a climate guy say, CO2 is correlated, H2O isn't. I hear some other guy say, "I'm an engineer and H2O can cause it."
Well, let's see, some guy that designs printers, some guy that studies climate...Hmmmm... Some guy that says "CO2 can cause it and that CO2 is correlated", some guy that says "H2O might cause it but I haven't bothered to do the work to show that it is correlated but I'm an engineer."
Let's put it this way. My doctor tells me that smoking causes cancer. My uncle, who designs telephones, says he's been smoking for decades and he doesn't have cancer. Hmmm.......
for those of you who are considerably younger than i am: why is it that the same scientists who are screaming about global warming today are the same scientists who were screaming about the coning ice age in the seventies. has science changed or has political correctness changed. al gore is not a scientist so maybe his opinion should be discounted.. the science does not support global warming caused by humans. the science has ignored global warming and cooling trends in past history. the science has ignored natural phenomenom ie volcanos, earthquakes etc. can someone explain the problem with the political scientific community. wait a minute, they depend on federal funding to form their unbiased opinions. do any of you think federally funded scientific opinion is based on who feeds the family
I'm just a stupid engineer - you know, the type of people that design bridges that don't fall down, or airplanes that fly, or cars that start whether it's -40 or +100. We don't give a d*mn about theory; we just see what happens in practice.
Physicists used to say that bumblebees couldn't fly. Engineers called "shenanigans" since bumblebees obviously do fly. Physicists said baseballs can't curve. As a former pitcher, I can tell you the chumps who I struck out with my lousy nickle curve would disagree. All the scientific data and degrees and prestige mean bupkis to engineers; we're only interested in what is, not what your theory predicts it might be.
And so, more and more of us, and more and more normal people (who have a disturbing tendency to believe their lyin' eyes instead of sophist argument) are calling "shenanigans" on the AGW crowd. I challenge anyone here to name ONE - that's ONE - of the doomsday scenarios predicted by the AGW crowd that has even the remotest basis in observed fact. Temperature measurements are heavily biased to North America and Europe, where urban heat island effects are greatest and yet unacknowledged by the AGW proclaimers. A number of websites have shown that so-called "official" temperature sites violate any number of principles, such as being placed to close to air conditioning exhaust, pavement, etc. Frightening scenarios of rising ocean levels just are not playing out. Scare stories about arctic and antarctic ice disappearing are exposed for the canards they are.
As an engineer, I say "AGW is interesting, but not proven", and I also say "AGW is increasingly disproven by the measurements". CO2 levels have doubled since 1900, but the "models" (many of which are not released for review) predict huge increases in sea levels which we haven't seen. It's funny how the AGW charlatans talk about "lagging influences", etc., but then proclaim that if we don't do something in (12, 24, 48 months - pick a number!), ocean levels will suddenly and dramatically rise. They remind me of gamblers who, having lost, try to make it all back by doubling their bets. We have a word for that type of gambler: "loser". I suspect it applies to the AGW clowns as well.
As a Canadian Engineer who has followed this issue for years, I'll second that. It may be warming but anthropogenic carbon emissions of a fraction of a percent of the natural flux are not likely causing it ... and since water vapour is largely in the same radiation absorptive range and we can certainly do nothing about it ....
Oh yeah. Our polar bears are fine thanks ;-)
You mean, like the Larsen B ice shelf?
"Larsen B sector collapsed and broke up, 3,250 km² of ice 220 m thick disintegrated, meaning an ice shelf covering an area comparable in size to the US state of Rhode Island disappeared in a single season.Larsen B was stable for up to 12,000 years, essentially the entire Holocene period since the last glacial period, according to Queen's University researchers"
Yeah, there was this article a hundred years back that suggested all the air would get sucked out of railroad passenger car if it went over 60 miles an hour. And, of course, there were flight engineers that were convinced the sound barrier couldn't be broken. And on and on...... Every year some stock market reporter claims that the market has historically dropped in September, which the data doesn't support. And yeah yeah Scientific American articles start with a basic experiment and results then spin a wonderful science fiction story which basically justifies the possibility of something wonderful to attain more research funds.
That's fine, but it doesn't address this data, this time, this year. Saying that some physisist some time claimed that baseballs can't curve is no better than claiming that AWG is incorrect because some physisist some time claimed that baseballs can't curve.
We could do analogies to the yearly CDC flu vaccine, generalized analogies to all sorts of things all day. For every analogy to some guy that said something, you can come up with an analogy for some other guy that later said something else.
No one said bumble bees can't fly. Certainly no consensus of aeronautic engineers. That's patently absurd as a statement from anyone. Find the quote and read it, I'll bet you $10 the statement was that given what we know about aerodynamics that shouldn't be able to. That's just an admission that not enough was known about aerodynamics.
Your an engineer, he was a physicist, I know a doctor with an opinion. Credentials aren't an argument. Saying "I'm an engineer" sounds more like ego stroking than analysis. How do I know your not just like the guy that said that baseballs can't curve. He did look at the fact that baseballs did curve. Your not addressing the fact that the historical record demonstrates an average increase in temperature that exceeds any temperature seen in the record.
As an engineer, have you run the regression against sun spots, H20, and precession? What was your conclusion on those? Was there a correlation?
It's the same sort of anecdotal wide reaching kind of argument that had some guy claiming people couldn't fly. I might just as well conclude that the AGW proponents are like the guy that said bumble bees can't fly.
The question is, this data, this year, in detail.
Your skipping over the data and going after the conclusion. I'm not interested in the conclusion, just the data. What is the data, what does it show.
I'm still waiting for that analysis or reference that gets to the core data, either the Vostok core data, the earth surface temperature or the satellite surface temperature data that demonstrates the data is in error. Not some general statement of "temperature measurements are inherently inaccurate" or "They could have put the thermometer near an air conditioner."
Like someone said, "we're only interested in what is, not what your theory predicts it might be." So, what is the data?
"Well, it could be that..." is no better argument against AWG than it is for AWG.
What I still get is that people that talk out of their assets accuse everyone else of talking out of their assets.
John,
I believe in the validity of "AGW," but my belief is predicated upon the consensus of specialists who have studied the issue rather than upon my own independent consideration of the data / evidence. Might you know of any relatively accessible (i.e., less technical) sources that provide an overview of the issue and a consideration and refutation of the strongest counter-arguments? As the global warming issue becomes increasingly politicized, I would like to have more arrows available for my argumentative quiver other than "because scientists say so."
Thanks,
Chad
Chad,
"other than "because scientists say so." Yeah, no kidding.
"relatively accessible (i.e., less technical)" Wouldn't that be nice.
I'd also like to be an informed voter. You'd be surprised how effective an informed email to our legislators can be.
I like Wikipedia. It's the closest I can get to "relatively accessible".
For me, it's been more like I ignore the insults and BS and try to prove the opposing view is right. In the end I find that the evidence just keeps building up. So I find the less emotionally latent the material is, the more trustworthy.
Wiki gets a bad rap due to a few unscrupulous people that have taken advantage of the open forum. But, for the more contentiously argued issues, they've got solid moderation. People with an agenda always yell "bias" when something doesn't entirely support there position. Or when they want to stick some opinion piece in the reference section. And, of course, Wiki is "biased". Yeah, so is a standard physics book when it presents Newton's formulas and not psychokinesis or the theory of "Intelligent Falling".
Wiki is an excellent starting point. All the references can be followed and they actually support the information presented.
It has the "Global Warming" section and includes a "Debate and Skepticism" sub-section in the "Global Warming" section.
It includes "Global warming controversy" and "Politics of global warming" sections.
A whole host of the proponent arguments are more against imagined arguments like "CO2 levels have doubled since 1900, but the "models" (many of which are not released for review) predict huge increases in sea levels which we haven't seen." Who said "huge increases in sea level by 2010?"
So I checked and what I find is that "Additional anticipated effects include sea level rise of 0.18 to 0.59 meters (0.59 to 1.9 ft) in 2090-2100 relative to 1980-1999" That would be about .07 - .23 inches per year.
So I checked this and it's been at about .078 inches per year. On the low side of the prediction. Okay, on the low side.
Now, in checking the assertion that AWG "predict huge increases in sea levels which we haven't seen", I'm stuck with both historical data that demonstrates warming, historical data that demonstrates sea level rise, and that the IPCC model predicted the sea level rise reasonably enough. And it's not like I'm gonna notice a .07 inch increase at my ocean beach property in Malibu. (Yeah, I can only dream.)
And, if you really want to pick the IPCC prediction apart, there is a section of "Uncertainties and criticisms regarding IPCC results"
Okay, now I really expected the IPCC model to be way off. LOL Of course, there's always the ad hoc argument. They changed it after and then burned all the original reports.
But, I'm still stuck with the historical sea level rise problem along with the historical temperature record. And I get that models are constantly refined.
It's like ever time I try and prove one of the opponents arguments are true, I end up learning more about the historical data demonstrating AWG. I don't mind the fundamental questions that I can get from the opponents, I just really don't like the tone of "your stupid" or "I'm an engineer" or whatever.......
(BTW, this bit, starting from "huge increases in sea levels ", I was writing as I was going though looking into it. Your reading it exactly as it was played out for me. I was so expecting to not find a change in sea level. After all, some one said that there was no change. LOL)
The Wiki controversy section does start with "The global warming controversy is a dispute regarding the nature, causes, and consequences of global warming.... " as well as "and whether the increase is wholly or partially an artifact of poor measurements."
It says, "Skeptics contend that stations located in more populated areas could show warming due to increased heat generated by cities, rather than a global temperature rise[citation needed]" (And a good citation would be valuable.)
That is my fundamental concern, if the measures have a systematic error in the measurements so that there is a change that appears that isn't there. That's really tough to get from instrumentation.
Following through Wiki, I find [http://ams.allenpress.com/archive/1520-0477/87/8/pdf/i1520-0477-87-8-1073.pdf] "EXAMINATION OF POTENTIAL BIASES IN AIR TEMPERATURE CAUSED BY POOR STATION LOCATIONS"
The basic conclusion is "Analysis of a small subset of U.S. Historical Climatology Network data does not find a time-dependent bias caused by current poor station siting."
And the article points out that, "If the homogeneity adjustments are appropriately accounting for all artificial changes at the stations, then an adjusted temperature time series from the poorly sited stations should be very similar to the time series from the stations with good siting. The trends from the poorly sited stations may be a little higher or a little lower, but they should still be.."
Basically, if the station is off in absolute measure by say 1.5 a degree this year, it's off by 1.5 next year and the difference between the two reading is still precise. The systematic error cancels.
The study of how errors affect data is, well just that, a study itself. I have a small book on it. Wiki's got a really short article. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observational_error] An important point is, "In statistics [and science], an error is not a "mistake". Variability is an inherent part of things being measured and of the measurement process." But it's a bit too accessible.
It doesn't lead to the appropriate examination of why you can look at a small subset of stations and assess all of them. It doesn't demonstrate how you can conclude that systematic error in time-dependent measurements don't effect the rate of change. It doesn't quite bridge the gap between defining systematic and random error with the article "EXAMINATION OF POTENTIAL BIASES IN AIR TEMPERATURE CAUSED BY POOR STATION LOCATIONS".
To get there requires an understanding of how instrumentation has error, all instrumentation, and how statistical analysis finds the pattern beneath the noise.
Any question of AWG climate models are meaningless if there's no agreement that temperatures are as hot now as they were in the last ice age. There's no point in even considering the cause if there is no agreement that it exists.
On the flip side of the coin, the collection of stations are used for purposes other than for the AWG conspiracy. It's not like the left wing radical tree hugging AWG conspirators funded and built the temperature measurement stations in 1790 so they could implement cap and trade in 2010.
At the same time, it's not like they were designed to eak out long term historical trends either. But because they weren't designed for that purpose isn't an argument that they don't show the trend either.
Maybe all the stations, being generally for local weather reporting, is affected by local growing population and therefore goes more every year. But then doesn't "urban heating" leak out? It's not like the rest of the atmosphere is somehow isolated from the urban heating.
Perhaps the temp instrumentation has creep, that is at a real 68 degrees F, it keeps reading higher and higher temp each year due to it wearing out or something.
Perhaps the difference from one year to the next just isn't as big if there is creep, so it's not like .04 a year but like .03 a year.
When I look at the trend over the past century, the first question is, "Yeah, so?" But when I look at the current temp compared to the temps during glacial and not glacial periods, it's not a "yeah so?" It's like double what the glacial periods were. It's more like "No siht".
There is some adjustment that is made to match up the Vostok ice core data to the global surface data. How is that accomplished? One is actual thermometer measurements, the other based on the relative proportion of certain isotopes of atmospheric gases due to temperature. There is a good question.
But to say, well they just want to get funding ignores the same argument for the supposed scientist that are opponents. They to "just want to get the funding. And if anyone has a better motivation to skew things to get funding, it would the the opponents, not the ones doing the science. The guys doing the science already have the funding.
And you better believe that two guys with funding are busy pouring over the other guys data looking for errors. They can only hope that the other guy swecred up and they can get his funding too.
What frustrates me most is that these arguments like "Oh, they just want the funding", which fall apart when you just turn the situation around, is just a bunch of noise that distracts from the more useful questions like "do the different records match up".
I totally expect someone to say, "well you can't prove you exist so how do you know the temperature records really exists." My only answer there is "I drink therefore I am".
But the bottom line for me is that people get convicted of murder on less evidence. I wear a seat belt based on less evidence. That warning on the side of cigarette packages are based on less evidence.
Until someone comes up with a decent reason why all the evidence is carp, I'm stuck with global warming. Every time I try to poke honest holes in it, it just comes up stronger.
It's interesting how people change the level of "proof" that they require depending on .....
Usually, it's not about any objective proof but based on their authority figure; the bible, the boss, their political leader, the person that can come up with the most clever insults, the engineer they admire, the person with the gun, the guy they admire because he makes bank....
They've really already decided based on their self image wrapped up in their perception of their authority figure is right. Then they go forward gathering the "evidence" that supports what they've already decided. You can't really convince them because that would make their authority figure "wrong" which would make their self image "wrong".
But that's another story.