WSJ: Are Humans Responsible for Climate Change?
By Barry Ritholtz - December 8th, 2009, 5:30PM
Wow, the results of this WSJ poll was surprising:
>
chart courtesy of WSJ
>
And they teed up the poll with this description:
This decade is on track to become the warmest since records began in 1850, and 2009 could rank among the top-five warmest years, the U.N. weather agency reported on the second day of a pivotal 192-nation climate conference.
What do you think is causing the warm-up? Is it human activity on the planet, or a natural cycle?
>
Source:
Current Decade on Track to Be Warmest on Record
Associated Press
WSJ, DECEMBER 8, 2009
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126027972598681805.html
December 8th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
After the multi-decade of delusion that we’ve just seen, why exactly is this at all “surprising”?
December 8th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
I think that this says more about the quality of the average Wall Street Journal reader (low), and the fact that someone freeped the poll.
December 8th, 2009 at 5:40 pm
I guess people are loosing confidence in experts opinion.
December 8th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Any poll that shows Americans agreeing on 90% of anything is automatically suspect.
You could ask Americans if they thought Jesus gave birth to Elvis on the wing of the Hindenburg, and 15% would agree.
I wouldn’t be surprised to find that, say, 60% or even 70% of Americans don’t believe climate is driven by human activity, but 90%? Bullshit.
December 8th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
I wonder how this poll group would have responded to the following question:
Who was responsible for the economic crisis:
a). Human Beings
b). Government
December 8th, 2009 at 5:49 pm
you should see the poll at the dailykos
December 8th, 2009 at 5:53 pm
This “poll” is about as reliable scientifically as an ESPN poll.
December 8th, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Humans may not be responsible for climate change, but I think ahab is.
Just kidding, ahab. Glad to see you quoted Cormac McCarthy last night. I hope you enjoyed The Road. I am about to start Blood Meridian.
December 8th, 2009 at 5:57 pm
“You could ask Americans if they thought Jesus gave birth to Elvis on the wing of the Hindenburg, and 15% would agree. ”
so . . .uh . . .not true then?
anyway- sounds about as plausible as jesus being born to a virgin mother- more than 15% of the people are still buying that one-
the big lies last the longest
December 8th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
When the watermelons use a three card monty to get rid of the Medieval warming period and the following little ice age, cheered on by the Al “i”m not a moron Gore’s” what do you expect?
December 8th, 2009 at 6:02 pm
Once again, this is what happens when people believe in “the end justifies the means.” All credibility is lost. Be it WMD in Iraq or Falsified Hickey Stick Graphs and “hiding the decline” in climate science.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
CNBCS-
yeah- it’s funny- “The Road” was rather depressing- but it has staying power due to the imagery it creates- we’ll see if the movie can do it justice- it’s the only book I have read of his-
and at long last- my dry spell on the Ritholtz FF league has ended and the Austrians handed the Blankfiends a loss!
dropping injured Turner sure created some controversy- CFA had a point- but the dude has only had 1 loss all season- and yet he is crying-
in fact you and he were the biggest crybaby’s on the league- a zero $$$$ league no less
December 8th, 2009 at 6:11 pm
…@ahab- its not about the money, its about the power
December 8th, 2009 at 6:12 pm
Yeah, ahab, I didn’t appreciate CFA being a crybaby. That fine young man should have known The Great CNBC Sucks would never allow ANYBODY to try to move in on my Ritholtz FF league crybaby franchise without a fight.
I showed him, huh?
PS: As I told my future ex-wife Maureen, The Road movie was technically proficient, but did not achieve the same severe emotional reaction that the novel delivered. I think it was over-edited.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:13 pm
I’d say that’s not really a poll. I’d also say a lot of polls are suspect. I’d also say a lot of data/charts are suspect, too. BLS, anyone?
Barry, I get that you’re a bit of a believer in AGW. Given your skepticism of many gov’t data points, have you reconsidered your AGW position based on the now obviously politicized science of climate change/global warming since the whole e-mail scandal?
December 8th, 2009 at 6:18 pm
“its not about the money, its about the power”
so true Wes- so true- first victory on the Ritholtz FF league- then the world- lol
December 8th, 2009 at 6:33 pm
Go back to the 14th century and conduct a poll:
Do you believe the earth goes round the sun ?
December 8th, 2009 at 6:34 pm
@CNBC Sucks,
Haven’t seen the Road movie yet, but the book was awesome. I finished it during the summer and felt like it was raining and grey for at least a week after despite the warm sunshine everywhere.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
CNBC Sucks: blood meridian is radically different (as an earlier book) and reads much more like Faulkner if I remember right. Some of the passages in the all the pretty horses trilogy are road-esque- might try those.
Also, at first I was like “whoa! those poll numbers are freaking terrible!”
Then I remembered that I loathe humans anyway, and I think we, as a species, deserve either global warming or nuclear disaster for being a parasitic and asinine species (with all these gifts what have we done with them?).
December 8th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
Is this a BCS blogpost poll?
— Boise St.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
The 90% of people who believe an increase in carbon dioxide in earth
’s atmosphere has nothing to do with warming are the same people who believe deregulation had nothing to do with the current financial state this country finds itself in.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
fatelephant
Maybe true, and it must have been about the time of the last global warming period. However, then as now, it was the government/religous-sponsored scientists that were clinging to this opinion.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
lalaland-
as the late great Kurt Vonnegut said prior to his death-
the sooner we’re all gone the better off the planet will be- and that the seeds of our destruction was the invention of fire- probably true i guess-
so if that’s how we feel- let’s get on with it-
as the “brother” said in “Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle” when he was reminiscing about tasty White Castle sliders and upset about the burger shack he was working in-
“let’s burn this mother fucker down” *
* this is pardoy- ahab does not condone violence of any kind- and is basically just a big nancy man
December 8th, 2009 at 6:48 pm
The “worry” that there is some sinister movement that uses false data to coerce people into changing their behavior for the benefit of the environment is odd. What’s wrong with less toxic crap being spewed into the air and water?
It’s like second hand smoke, smokers could find some study that says that it isn’t harmful for those around them or just believe it isn’t. But what’s the point? So you can blow that crap in the air around people who don’t choose to inhale it?
The argument that changes in behavior are financially detrimental to business and hinder productivity assume that industrial innovation has reached its peak, that we can’t figure out how to do things cleaner AND more efficient. It’s defeatist.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
init4good-
i don’t believe- as i said in a previous post- before long we’ll have Rosanna Rosanna Dana saying “never mind”-
and your contradicting yourself- you found out the financiers were lying to you – why such a believer now?
December 8th, 2009 at 7:00 pm
WSJ readers are more educated than the simpletons who listen to CNN and NBC propaganda. WSJ readers do not buy or drink the “peer reviewed consensus” Cool Aid.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Ahab/Wes re FF Which one is Pinky and which one Brain?
December 8th, 2009 at 7:03 pm
Not surprising, considering the WSJ readership demographics.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Man, almost the same percentages as the polls they conducted asking the same question of monkeys.
What a coincidence!
December 8th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
I suspect many answered the poll question like me. I will readily admit that human activity has made some contribution but I’ll be damned if I am going to vote yes and further reinforce the actions of a corrupted and politicized science.
The bottom line is we do not know the extent to which humans have caused global warming and what specific actions are responsible for it. CO2? Aerosols? Conversion of forests to agriculture? Urbanization? Cow Farts?
December 8th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
what genius would give this pole, or hold a global warming conference, in the middle of WINTER!!!!!!!
December 8th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
A fine example of that particular herd following their Prime Directive.
“Which answer will piss off the Liberal Hippies”
December 8th, 2009 at 7:20 pm
@climategate-
i call bs -
you have just undermined your credibility
…and this has nothing to do whether or not climate change is naturally dominated or man influenced
December 8th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it’s evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don’t you know that you can count me out
Don’t you know it’s gonna be all right
http://blogs.dailymail.com/donsurber/archives/5507
December 8th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
It’s awesome that all the survey respondents have gone out and got their PhDs in Climatology. Oh that’s right, they haven’t!
Whether you’re a gambler, an investor, a farmer, you always hedge the unknown. Regardless of what people’s best uneducated guess is, we should implement the most practical “hedge” against anthropogencic emissions — reduce them!
December 8th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
When the waters start rising, all the denialists should be shipped off to Vanutatu, where they can all join hands and sing “onward christian soldiers” and pat Inhofe on the back as they sink beneath the waves.
No desperate loss to civilisation, or society.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:40 pm
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding over “hide the decline” means and its impact. The previous ginormous chart partially explained it correctly on either side. Basically it refers to the fact that various proxies (tree rings, corals, lake sediments) etc. are used to reconstruct temperatures going back 1000 years to see whether the surface temperature records that we have for the last 150 years or so are unprecedented. This reconstruction is compared against recent data to ascertain its validity. Not all tree rings show the rise in temperature in recent times. That doesn’t mean that there wasn’t warming recently – that evidence comes directly from temperature measurements. That raises the question of whether tree rings are good thermometers to yield information about the past. The main implication of throwing out all tree-related data in proxies makes the medieval warm period of comparable temperatures to today and therefore not unprecedented. That doesn’t mean that is the right thing to do, but there is a lot of discussion ongoing over whether the medieval warm period was global or only restricted to the northern hemisphere. That also does not invalidate the warming concerns since Kyoto protocol 1997 came about before the whole hockey stick paper even started with a publication by Mann in 1998. That concern comes, in my understanding, about the well-known greenhouse gas effect of CO2 and based on the good agreement of climatic models with temperature measurements which is obtained only by using a greenhouse gas effect from CO2 coupled with water vapor. Furthermore, multiple independent measurements such as boreholes corroborate the temperature measurements that we have from stations around the world – and this will be the next battleground i.e. to prove that the station data was cooked which is a tall order given the multiple ways in which the same 1F warming over the last 50 years was obtained. Nevertheless, it is coming.
Hide the decline does not, once again, mean that recent temperatures are declining. It refers to what information we have about the past.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:43 pm
Also, I might add — even if temperatures today are the same as the peak in the medieval warm period, based on our understanding, there is additional 0.5C warming already in the pipeline as the oceans warm up, but further warming if CO2 emissions continue to rise.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Fools – What has more influence on climate man or the sun? Is the sun constant?
If you cannot answer those simple questions and come to a logical conclusion, you are a FOOL.
10,000 years ago glaciers covered much of the US.
Did man melt those glaciers?
December 8th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
@Drewbie: 10 centimeters. Get out your ruler and see how long that is.
If everything that the AGW climate scientists are saying is correct and if we take the drastic measures being proposed to reduce carbon emission 80% by the year 2050 (which will be impossible by the way) then we will have altered the rise in sea levels by 10 centimeters over the do nothing scenario.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
6th grade science you fools.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
stop it already-
everyone is scaring me- the sea level’s going to rise and i’m going to drown-
or it’s going to get warmer and i’m going to be uncomfortable-
what am i saying- i like the water and warm weather-
never mind
December 8th, 2009 at 7:51 pm
A meteor formed the Gulf of Mexico.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
and has anyone considered- if it gets warmer- maybe dinosaurs will come back-
you know- like Land Before Time- that would be cool
December 8th, 2009 at 7:55 pm
Why are people so stupid?
December 8th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
February 11, 2009
On Darwin’s Birthday, Only 4 in 10 Believe in Evolution
http://www.gallup.com/poll/114544/darwin-birthday-believe-evolution.aspx
What do we expect from these people? Deep thought? A sense of responsibility to anything but themselves? They can only believe in something they can’t see if there’s no scientific evidence for it.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:00 pm
ahab, dude, you’ve got a gimormous mosquito on your neck.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:03 pm
The majority of respondents are still in the denial phase. Don’t blame humans…
December 8th, 2009 at 8:08 pm
This is why there are skeptics
http://joannenova.com.au/
December 8th, 2009 at 8:12 pm
We live in a closed and fairly well-balanced system. We really should understand the scientific ramifications of things we introduce into it, and the potential impacts of any imbalance or negative impact that might result from that introduction (CFCs/ozone/skin cancer ratios, for example). I really don’t think that rapid loss of arctic and antarctic ice is going to end up being a good thing for us (not to mention other already-observable phenomena of large amounts of atmospheric CO2/climate change).
December 8th, 2009 at 8:14 pm
Once you conduct (or participate in) a poll with a question such as do you BELIEVE …
science has already lost the battle. Once you express your belief, a.k.a FAITH, you are already being religious (using the word religious rather broadly) about it.
The thing to remember is that polls show peoples’ biases and have nothing to do with the truth.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
“Did man melt those glaciers?”
This is scepticism, if you can call it that, at a kindergarten level. Climate scientists and scientific sceptics are in agreement that the sun melted those glaciers.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Didn’t this latest study hit the wire today (Tues Dec
or yesterday? Meant to look it up and read some.
But how do I reconcile it with this?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092,00.html
Which is dated Nov 19 2009.
And it’s sort of funny that this latest study report arrived the day of (?) the start of the Copenhagen conference.
And I’m no global warming skeptic – bought a 2007 Toyota Camry Hybrid when it fist came out in 2006. Drive 9500 miles/yr. Etc.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
Look at this wordplay. The smart alecs at the wsj are co-conspirators with the un on this argument. The un’s pretense is to study “the risk of human-induced climate change.” The wsj says “…are humans responsible…”. The guilty party is already identified and all the tree huggers have to do is present any fact to support the premise.
The H _ _ _ with looking at the science. The premise must be changed.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:21 pm
Damn those automatic smilies (and no preview here).
Dec Smiley was supposed to be Dec. the eighth.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:24 pm
patfla: That is one of the issues raised by Trenberth in the leaked emails. I don’t believe they have a solid explanation for it yet. I think they are looking, as the article suggests, at the El Nino/La Nina cycles. Nevertheless, climate refers to a 30-year average of weather.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
I don’t want to have anything to do with the WSJ or its readership. But I’m pretty skeptical about whether most the people calling the respondents stupid have actually examined any evidence to justify their view. Note that there IS lots of evidence that 1) the earth is currently in a warming trend and 2) the greenhouse effect will contribute to warming the planet, 3) that CO2 emissions contribute to the greenhouse effect, and 4) that people’s activities cause a lot of CO2 emissions. But all of those things put together don’t establish that the greenhouse effect is the primary cause of the current warming trend. As others have noted, there were bigger swings in both warming and cooling before people were making any significant contribution to anything.
It would be foolhardy and callous to risk assuming that the greenhouse effect isn’t causing the warming, but that’s not what the poll asked.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
thanx RB.
At the risk of shooting my mouth off before I’ve done my due diligence, the emails I thought came from a important climate research center in the UK whereas the results reported by Der Spiegel comes from Germany and in particular the Max Planck Institute (which I know of well).
And 30 yrs? What I read this morning is that the latest _decade_ will be the warmest on record and I think the Max Planck Institute result regards pretty much the last decade?
December 8th, 2009 at 8:29 pm
MA has made probably the best point-
let’s drop all the nonsense and hysteria- and venture to do things that make the air and water and the environment as close to what it would be w/o people slopping everything up-
and that is “as close as possible”- doesn’t mean mankind should eat its young and start living naked in the woods living off tree bark and available insects-
i don’t buy the global warming scare- but i do believe we should keep things nice and clean
December 8th, 2009 at 8:33 pm
For the record, the IPCC statement in its last report is that most of the 1F warming in the last 50 years was due to human causes, with a 90% confidence interval.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:35 pm
I think the main driver of global warming can be nailed down to ONE source…..polling data. Over the past 20 years, there has been an unprecedented growth in the number of polls on any subject. This has caused a great warming effect as it has employed people to practically do nothing but create carbon at their desk as they munch on Taco Bell and ask questions over the phone.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:36 pm
Marcus Aurelius go measure the effect of volcanoes, ocean seeps, undersea vents, sun spots, solar flares, solar winds, algae, termites, bovine flatulance, earth orbit, axis shift, solar magnetism, plate tectonics, jet streams, ocean currents, and stupidity.
December 8th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
patfla: I haven’t followed all the news reports, but nevertheless, global mean temperatures are computed based on, my understanding is, something equivalent to a 30-year average. When we refer to climate, it is over a 30-year period. Nevertheless, the media has somehow created the impression that CO2 is the only factor and that data must move in a straight line. If you want to learn more, this book excerpt from Richard Muller formerly of Berkeley who studies prehistoric climate patterns, but not the climate science of the warming type, might be a good start:
http://www.greengov.biz/pages/articles/PffP-10-climate.htm
December 8th, 2009 at 9:02 pm
Yes, maybe humans are partially responsible for the climate change, but I DO NOT want a huge carbon tax.
Among the ranks of the climate change crowd, there are no doubt quite a few who just want to increase the size of government.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:11 pm
Compare and contrast these articles’ titles as regards the climate summit in Copenhagen today:
Al-Jazeera
China attacks rich states at summit
WSJ
Rifts Arise at Climate Summit
Although, imo, WSJ has been heading seriously downhill recently. I assume as Rupert Murdoch’s influence is finally manifesting itself in editorial terms. These days, I can look at a WSJ article title (but the transformation isn’t complete yet) and pretty much dismiss out of hand some of the articles. As FOX-like rants.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:23 pm
You know I think the world is warming but who cares? it’s cold in the winter still. It would be better to ask do you live near the ocean, are the seas rising? @DL I want a gas tax, a carbon tax and a greedy rich bast@rds tax. Then I want tax credits for electric vehicles, solar panels and windmills, along with good old fashioned insulation, riding your bike to work and anyother energy saving credit you can think of.
Sons of greedy rich b@stards should have to forfeit 60% of their inheritances. You’ve all probably heard what I think should happen to greedy people themselves.
I think all that can be done without increasing the size of government.
Retoricals aside if we do not put a gas tax to bring the price up to 5 or 6 $ a gallon, soon, like yesterday, it will be no time before we are paying that to the oil producing countries, except there will be no cap at 5 or 6$ a gallon.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Excellent comment-whoring.
I’m totally skeptical about nearly everything and a radical anti-government anarcho-capitalist but the WSJ poll doesn’t even offer the most “correct” answer: “I don’t know”.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:29 pm
Yeah, MA, get off your lazy ass and start measuring volcano emissions.
Thfiv, it’s pretty much guaranteed that anyone who posts here and addresses the group as “You fools!” is either a troll or a cast member from Plan 9 from Outer Space who became real and posts on the internet.
Occam’s Razor suggests the former.
Climategate, you’re a pretty polished single-issue troll.
Who pays you guys and how can I get that gig? Is it one of those work at home and make $4000 a week deals? Or more like draw this cartoon kitty cat to see if you have artistic talent?
Fake background stories, please.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
@bsneath:
“This is why there are skeptics
http://joannenova.com.au/”
And these kind of websites feed from the “skeptics”. The maintain each other. I replied to this in the other thread:
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/12/climate-skeptics-vs-scientific-consensus/#comment-240417
rc
December 8th, 2009 at 9:32 pm
bsneath,
“Once again, this is what happens when people believe in “the end justifies the means.”
What about the funding of scientific mercenaries, of institutes dedicated to obfuscation, spin and constant lies? Does the “end justifies the means” also applies to them?…or only toward those who contradict a preset belief system of yours?
December 8th, 2009 at 9:33 pm
@thfiv, The effect of your stupidity causes me to point out that Algae, Termites and Bovine Flatulance are affected by human activity. Where’s the Beef?
It’s not the temperature that is going to kill so many people it’s the oceans, and the saltwater, inundating farmlands.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
I wonder what the poll would have read if the question were :
“Can the the earth absorb an unlimited amount of pollution?”
December 8th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
@patfla (8:19 pm)
A logical explanation is that the increase in heat energy is being used to melt the ice. When you boil water on your stove, the temp of the water stays at 212 F (100 C) until all the water has been changed into steam at which point the temp of the steam will increase if it continues to receive energy from a heat source.
In the same way, we might not see the average temp change significantly until all of the ice at the poles has melted. If I’m right, all that increase in energy from increased levels of CO2 is going into the breakage of the molecular bonds in the ice.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Given that Aspen seem to like CO2 and the fact that there isn’t an “unlimited” amount of CO2 or pollution or your exhaled breath (whatever term you like), the “earth” can probably absorb a lot.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/78655447.html
December 8th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Drewbie, you are an enlightened Gem, this is the first I’ve heard from you, but I like you a lot already!
December 8th, 2009 at 9:46 pm
Wow, a whole 10% of WSJ readers say it’s human-made? Al Gore should celebrate!
December 8th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
Badtrader yes you are correct, there is a latency to the curve at freezing and boiling.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
@rc – “The[y] maintain each other”
Um, kind of like the climate scientists that maintained each other in the e-mails? Really, I can’t think of a better example of maintaining each other than scientists fudging the data, hiding the data, censoring, subverting peer review, and overall using intimidation to hold on to power. Have you actually read the e-mails?
December 8th, 2009 at 9:47 pm
@bman Wrong
Check out sea algae.
Termites do not need houses.
Bovine includes wildebeast and bison.
Pick up a 6th grade science book.
Instead of watching the Simpsons or South Park, watch Blue Planet.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
OMG-
who fucking cares?
badtrader- if it is determined that the ice will melt regardless- what then- should humanity take a group jump off a bridge?
and besides- if the sea rises- land prices will increase-
is that not a good thing- lol
December 8th, 2009 at 10:04 pm
@badtrader, I don’t think that’s it. Remember that the greenhouse effect is one of trapping radiation from the earth of heat received from the sun that would have otherwise got reflected back into space.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
@ izimbra (8:27 pm) There have been bigger swings in temp but those swings took much longer I believe. The main evidence (as I understand it) that CO2 is responsible is the RATE OF CHANGE of the temperature is now much higher which coincides with the rate of change of the level of CO2.
@ Ahab (9:56 pm), Humanity may not need to jump. The bridge may eventually be underwater.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
@Thfiv
Glad to be your wrong, but you should read about algae blooms.
Wildebeasts, I bet there’s a lot of them polluting up the atmosphere, I hope I get to see one before I die.
Termites don’t need houses for sure but guess what you take the bark off the trees and slice em up into two by fours and use them in houses all over the place including in warm climates I bet you make it nice and easy for termites to make babies. (eggs >larvae > pupae > adults, to be precise)
I think it was 6th grade in my science class when I started correcting my science teacher. That didn’t go over well, however, She later apologized because I was right.
I don’t watch tv. I am well read however.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
.. “radiated into space” I should have said (specifically infrared radiation to which CO2 is very responsive).
December 8th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
OK. I admit it. I skipped ahead about 50 comments to post mine, but promise to go back and read them later…
Anyway.
Has anybody suggested that these people just poll and poll and poll and poll until they get some “muckraking-worthy” results, then only print those?
Maybe the choices were “yes” and “not yes” (glumping the “not sure’s, don’t cares, confused by the question, scared by the interviewer, etc. into the “no” column?
Maybe, due to a computer malfunction, they called the same (extremely tolerant) person 4,900 times?
December 8th, 2009 at 10:14 pm
@ RB (10:04 pm) Exactly and that radiation is being used to melt the ice instead of heat up the earth. Once all that ice is melted, the temp of the earth will then start rising much faster. Take a bucket of ice and stick it under a fire. The temp of the ice won’t go above 32 F (0 Celsius) until all that ice is melted at which point the temp of the liquid will start increasing.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
OK. Finished the rest of the comments.
Look — let’s just forget the whole thing and keep on obsessing on stupid global warming, or stupid global cooling, or stupid climate change, or stupid El Nino, or whatever.
I’d much prefer the “madness of crowds” being mad about something largely irrelevant, rather than something dumb but dangerous, you know, kind of like they did in Europe, say 60-ish years ago?
December 8th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Hey. You know, some of the mad Physicists have postulated the even madder idea that computing adds to the Entropy of the universe for some insane reason or other to do with heat or math or 10-dimensional wiggly things.
Maybe they should ban computing at this Climate Conference of theirs…
December 8th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
I am pleased to be able to post a chart of some relevance to this discussion
http://www.math.nyu.edu/~gladish/teaching/eao/water-phase-diagram.jpg
December 8th, 2009 at 10:24 pm
@badtrader, perhaps, but the current worst-case forecast is well before that scenario. The IPCC forecast calls for a 2C to 5C increase at current rate of emissions. The top-end of the range would be the catastrophic scenario and would not even be the worst-case scenario that Hansen envisions (where warming seas release methane from the seabeds). The variability, as I understand it, is due to the range of sensitivity to clouds. Therefore, IPCC calls for emission cuts that cap the increase at not more than 2C. Notes on how to calculate CO2 sensitivity, as scientists know it today:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/
December 8th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
[Note that the sceptical point of view is that you have to use lower sensitivity values than in the above]
December 8th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
Here’s another nice plot, notice the flat transitions while energy is still added to the system.
This illustrates Badtraders point very well.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/phase.html
December 8th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
@ RB (10:24 pm) Well you obviously know a lot more about the scenarios than I do. I just know the physics of it being that I have a MS in Mechanical Engineering and have studied thermodynamics thoroughly (partly because I find it really interesting).
In my last response to you, I said, “the temp of the ice wont’ change until all the ice is melted,” I should have said, “the temp of the ice / liquid mixture won’t change until all the ice has melted into liquid.”
As long as there’s ice at the polls the earth’s temp can’t increase significantly because any excess heat energy will go to melt the ice. Once ALL the ice is melted, uh oh, we’re in trouble because now that energy will no longer be absorbed by the ice.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:36 pm
Bergstren there is always schrodingers cat to keep in mind. Do you want to open the box and be guilty of inhumane treatment of animals?
December 8th, 2009 at 10:40 pm
@bman — if you stab the box with a fork a few times, you don’t HAVE to open it.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:42 pm
badtrader, I understand your point and I’ve certainly forgotten my thermodynamics, but I think warming due to a global CO2 increase cannot be heavily restricted by a local one (at the poles). Besides, even in say the Antarctic, the temperature at the interior is about -30C to -50C and even 5C warming is not going to result in ice melting there, but it calves off glaciers at the edge of water. The scientists’ point that long-term CO2 increase is a good historical number ( highest in ~650,000 years of history) is because CO2 is a well-mixed gas. Therefore, we can have global warming without the local influence. I don’t think we need to bring the energy for breaking ice into the picture, in my opinion.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:45 pm
@BR — “Wow, the results of this WSJ poll was surprising”
Really? Given the proclivity of people (Americans, at least, but I suspect all people are like this) to:
1) be polarized by extremists on both sides of any issue
2) to repeatedly insist upon evaluating complex situations by single-number metrics
3) form opinions based solely on the opinions of others who are just as unqualified as they are themselves (I know that every computer expert has had to explain at one time or another why their 20+ years of experience and training trumps the opinion of some idiot’s buddy down the street) — without ever bothering to lift a finger to try and get the least little bit educated. Surely you have seen this in your own areas of expertise!
If anyone REALLY wants to learn something about the global climate change situation (and I am absolutely certain that 99.9% do not — even of the august body of commenters here), then I recommend that they read the (by now certainly outdated in detail, but not in methodology) work of Dr Wm Ruddiman (start with ISBN-10 0691133980 for a layman’s approach), and watch him build up a model of global climate, using all the data he can find and trying various explanations and models to fit the data to the theories.
Then compare that methodology to any of the populist theories promoted by ideologues, and see how well THEIR explanations hold up and model things like the drop in global temperature that occurred during the Black Death in the Middle Ages, or the record of CO2 in arctic ice cores vs global temperature going back well before man ever existed on this planet. If their notions only model well against the past 50 or 200 years, they are idiots and no one should listen to them for any length of time at all. Kinda like a model of TA that modeled well over the past 6 months, but fell apart when you went back any further than that.
Personally, I think it’s due to all those moon rockets back in the 1970s, punching holes in the bubble that keeps out the evil space rays.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:49 pm
@rustom 5:40 pm
“I guess people are loosing confidence in experts opinion.”
Nope — it’s that people believe that they ARE experts, and if not, then listening to the bloke on the barstool next to them will make them one.
Learning, quantitative analysis, logic, reason are not necessary, just give them a meme that conveniently represents their own innermost wants, and that’s the gospel truth!
December 8th, 2009 at 10:50 pm
“It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it.”
— Upton Sinclair, author (1878-1968)
December 8th, 2009 at 10:54 pm
@ RB (10:42 pm) I read your response. Like I said you obviously have studied this a lot more than I have so I’ll leave it at that. One thing we can agree on is what you said in your first response to me: an increase in CO2 traps more radiation from the earth so global warming due to an increase in CO2 makes perfect sense if one believes in physics and chemistry (unfortunately a lot of the US population apparently doesn’t). I enjoyed the discussion.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
we know that the scaremongers associated with the IPCC cannot be trusted. As important as the planet is, we need a community of climatologists that is not precommitted to a theory or — worse yet — to a policy prescription. The UN agenda is obviously driven by the many despotic nations of the world that seek to use climate change to shake down the wealthy nations of the world, in concert with an intellectual elite that favors socialism over capitalism and with special-interest groups seeking massive government subsidies. The Kyoto Treaty, which imposes limits only on certain nations (the wealthier ones), could never work, since it will only shift industrial activity to nations without limits (the poorer ones), with no net reduction in carbon emissions.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:56 pm
Ok, guys.
I’m sorry for global warming.
There, I’ve said it. I’ll stop now. I feel much better now.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
@badtrader, enjoyed the discussion. I just reported what I’ve read though, no expertise myself. @constantnormal, yes, I’ve seen Ruddiman’s explanation for the drop after the Black death. Havent’ read the book, but I gather that he says man has been influencing temperature ever since the days of rice paddies.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
@bman (10:32 pm) Thanks for the link. That’s exactly the point I was making.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
ITS FOX NEWS FOR CHRIST SAKES.. YOU’RE SURPRISED?
December 8th, 2009 at 11:17 pm
Constant and RC – are you two scientists?
December 8th, 2009 at 11:20 pm
@badtrader – It’s easier to measure long term rise rate of the ocean levels, and they are not rising at unusually fast rates – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise
December 8th, 2009 at 11:35 pm
@RB melting Icebergs is not going to affect ocean water levels very much, and may actually decrease them slightly, but you mention calving glaciers, and that is where you get th sea level rise. if the glaciers become icebergs they go from being on land to being in the sea. In that case their mass gets balanced against all the water in the oceans, and that mass is not insignificant. I think the energy for melting ice is relevant, In that the time it take for the extra heat energy to melt the ice, gives hot air space for all the Rupert Murdogh’s of the world. Say I’m biased, I’ll give you that lever, but prove me wrong if you dare.
There are a lot of variables in our system but there’s been one constant the last couple hundred years, and that has been mankinds, and in particular our very own US born disregard for our ecosystem, and the effects of our pollution. Boyles law does come into play here: it’s where all the water slides into the sea. If you get into the bathtub the water rises an inch or two. If your glaciers melt or become icebergs the water rises similarly
What I’ve read the math works out between 1.5 feet and 4.5 feet. Think about how many hectares that may affect.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:47 pm
Everyone needs religion, some people get it from Christ, some from Atheism, some from political ideologies, and some from putting be being green and combating climate change.
- Think about the “religious fervor” of some prius drivers. Even making fun of their fervor has hit mainstream media.
Entertain the idea the climate change isn’t man made and try thinking about it like a substitute religion for a little bit and see where it takes you. You don’t actually have to believe that but try it as a thought experiment and see where it takes you.
As a Catholic I often try to put myself in the point of view as an atheist and see how my view of the Church changes and what happens when I think that way. It’s a fun little experiment when trying to understand the other side of view.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:49 pm
[I didn't dispute the water level increase forecast, just in case, though we don't understand the mechanism ... Also see Muller link above where scientists expected Antarctic ice to increase due to warming contrary to measurements]
December 9th, 2009 at 12:10 am
Thor,
Good guess. I suppose I have to disclose now that I am a climate scientist, although I am not Gavin Schmidt, contrary to what bsneath assumed in the other post.
rc
December 9th, 2009 at 12:15 am
Theodore D. I pity you. I survived Catholic brainwashing, you can make it if you keep trying. I can see you are experimenting with the fringes, perhaps it gives you a thrill to experiment with other points of view. It should, most of us are facile with switching points of view, readily, as needed as a matter of course in our daily working world. Just when you think of completely overcoming all your adversaries, and having the final right word, just before Peter ushers you beyond purgatory and into the pearly gates, consider how the lions felt, chasing down those christians oh so many years ago, the exhiliration of finally being able to do the right thing. Are you any better?
Stewardship is a flawed half assed attempt to legalize the exploitation and raping of our environment for corporate benefit. Corporate benefit is ruled by greed which is a sin, in case you have forgotten.
So keep your holier then thou, under your breath.
December 9th, 2009 at 12:22 am
Dumb question!
Did they mean SOLELY responsible (if so the answer must be no). Or were humans a CONTRIBUTING factor (in which case the answer must be yes).
The real question is HOW MUCH have humans contributed to the problem?
Here is a post I made elsewhere on this topic:
The Urth IS warming OVERALL. The big question is how much can be traced to humans. Even if you feel that human industry has had zero effect on increasing temperatures, the body heat generated from 6+ billion people has to be contributing a lot more heat than say, when there were 3 billion people on the planet.
The ever increasing number of people on the planet surely contributes to some degree of global warming as the additional heat gets trapped in the atmosphere.
Anyone for birth control to help control global warming? No, didn’t think so. Now THAT would really get the ‘Pubs and religious groups going! [lol]
Turning to the atmosphere, much (all?) of what I read in the MSM about atmospheric gases contributing to warming is focused on CO2. BUT the real problem isn’t CO2, it is METHANE (CH4).
Here’s a good article with links to methane stories from Discover magazine:
===============
10 Ways Methane Could Brake Global Warming-or Break the Planet
The enigmatic gas is a valuable fuel and a dangerous digestive waste product.
http://discovermagazine.com/2008/aug/04-10-ways-methane-could-brake-global-warming/
=====================
And here are some cool climate maps to play with:
=============
Earth climate history
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
=============
December 9th, 2009 at 12:23 am
>What I’ve read the math works out between 1.5 feet and 4.5 feet.
If all the ice resting on Greenland and Antarctica falls into the sea (which could happen quite quickly – all it takes is for it to melt enough for water to form underneath it to turn into an ice skating rink – then the figure is a LOT more that 4.5 feet.
Greenland contributes to 7 METRES of sea level rise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise#Greenland_contribution
Antarctica a further 60 METRES.
It doesn’t have to melt completely for this to happen, it just has to break up and drop into the ocean – go dump 4 icecubes in a glass full of water to see the IMMEDIATE effect.
All these people touting 10 centimetres are looking at the figures for sea level rise due to thermal expansion of the water already in the sea.
It is IMPERATIVE we stop pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere before we reach the runaway chain reaction point. This point may have been reached already, because warming waters are already triggering releases of stored carbon AND methane (much worse) from undersea storage areas and the melting permafrost in the arctic region is releasing the same from soils.
One way to look at things is this.
If the tree huggers are right, but we do nothing, the downside is planetary destruction.
If the denialists are right, but we take steps anyway, what is the downside? POSSIBLE slight financial stress for the world economy, but a move away from oil energy to renewables?
I vote we do something NOW, and forget worrying about who is right and who is wrong. Doing something and being wrong will cost a lot less than doing nothing and being wrong.
December 9th, 2009 at 12:40 am
Ok, one problem the European Green gasbags forget is Americans mostly don’t like math. so I’ll translate Greenland is a Sea level increase of 7 meters = ~22feet. Plus 60 meter for Antarctica ~+180 feet. I’m not putting a link in to the convertor here, I’m just doing rough math and throwing out the decimals.
So translating for Drewbie, because I’ve already told you I’m biased, but I can still do math, That looks like a 22-180 foot increase in sea level, how do you like them Hectares?
December 9th, 2009 at 12:44 am
Wrong Question. The real question should have been “who cut down the last tree on Easter Island” You might want to add the following book to your reading list.
“Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed”
Jared Diamond – Author
December 9th, 2009 at 1:04 am
“Learning, quantitative analysis, logic, reason are not necessary, just give them a meme that conveniently represents their own innermost wants, and that’s the gospel truth!”
The real heart of this “issue”. What does the meme say about the followers? That they like to sit around and listen to old, crusty, angry guys talk about injustice.
I prefer to listen to cute 20-25 year old females who are trying to get me to make a difference and save the world.
All that listening to the not so scientific ‘climate gate’ types points out is that you have a very miserable wife sitting at home on the couch who thinks you are a jerk. Why not work on that?
As for the science debate- I know enough about science and large scientific studies to know that I would have to study for a decade before being able to offer an opinion on the smallest part of this debate.
December 9th, 2009 at 1:07 am
Here’s a look at the eastern US coastline in an ice-free world…
http://www.climateandfuel.com/pages/usa.htm
but don’t say you weren’t warned.
The arctic sea ice is disappearing fast.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2009-107
Once that goes, the sunlight no longer gets reflected off that ice, and all that extra energy is absorbed by the darker seawater. -> Arctic seawater temp rises. -> Arctic air temp rises. => Arctic permafrost melts, releasing huge quantities of extra CO2 and methane. (we’re now at the “no going back” stage – no amount of man-made CO2 reduction can help us now) -> Air temp rises even more. -> Greenland ice melts enough for chunks to start sliding off into the sea. -> sudden sea level rises around the globe cause numerous ecological disasters (think coastal nuke stations and oil storage/refineries permanently underwater) -> Rising sea levels caused by Greenland ice melt causes shelf ice in Antarctica to be partially submerged, causing it to snap off the edges of the land-based ice. -> Antarctica no longer surrounded by shelf ice, but darker sea water that absorbs suns energy and heats up, and then it’s good night nurse for the rest of the people on the planet living below the 60 metre mark.
http://climateprogress.org/2009/06/14/sea-level-rise-greenland-ice-sheet-melting/
December 9th, 2009 at 1:17 am
RC – I had a feeling you might be a climate scientist.
You poor thing – have you been tearing your hair out listening to all this pointless blather from people who think the world is actually cooling because it snowed in Houston last week?
December 9th, 2009 at 2:04 am
Per the original question “What do you think is causing the warm-up? Is it human activity on the planet, or a natural cycle?” I think the cause is NATURAL CYCLE.
The null hypothesis is “natural cycle”. To disprove the null hypothesis because of “human activity” is extremely difficult with highly coupled non-linear events with any degree of confidence.
Just by observing that human activity has generated more carbon dioxide, one cannot assume that this human activity is directly linked to a recent warming trend. The world is much too complex for that simple assumption!
Only recently, there has been any direct reliable/redundant measurement of global temperatures with satellites and/or temperature networks. Prior to the last 40 years, there is inherent uncertainty with temperature measurements or assumptions on proxy temperature data.
Although scientists have made great strides in forecasting, there still is uncertainty on computer models to predict the future. The sun/earth climate system is very complex and very dynamic. With sophisticated models developed, there hasn’t been enough time long term reliable data time to verify the model. The computer models cannot even accurately predict effects of carbon dioxide increase in the last ten years!
December 9th, 2009 at 2:16 am
“Drewbie Says:
December 9th, 2009 at 1:07 am
The arctic sea ice is disappearing fast.
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.cfm?release=2009-107”
Drewbie, look at the link below and make your own observation. 2007 artic sea ice seems to be the “low water mark” and 2009 seems to be following the trend back to nominal.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
December 9th, 2009 at 2:18 am
mmdwave, you’re ignoring the THICKNESS of the ice.
December 9th, 2009 at 3:32 am
bman – thanks for the pity. I love it when I put a little thought experiment out there and someone ridicules it as well as my religion. Kudos to you for your enlightened thinking. I’m guessing from your little rant there that you might suffer from schizophrenia, I have a family member who does and he also kinda goes off on little rants like that throwing many a stone along the way. I have trouble with him because I am not sure what part of his behavior is his fault and what part is based on his sickness. I usually just chalk his horrible behavior up to his sickness and let it go.
If you’re not sick… Not sure what you were shooting for with that rant. I wasn’t really talking about stewardship at all… Nor was I talking about lions eating Christians in rome…I was arguing along the lines that some people are looking to fill a void which I would argue is religion, but could be argued is just a deep seeded belief in something (even nonbelief). I was trying to throw thought experiment out there saying IMAGINE that global warming were all bs, then look at it from that angle and see how people arguing for it looked. You know squashing naysayers, and monopolizing “peer review” journals. Not saying I don’t believe in climate change just saying the other side should have a voice too.
But I think you furthered my point by having the same hate for my “brainwashing” as you do for someone who doubts the church of climate change. Are you better?
December 9th, 2009 at 3:42 am
pwned
December 9th, 2009 at 8:36 am
Theodore D.,
it’s, a lot, like that..
BR,
you didn’t happen to get this Post idea from Bernays’ ‘updated Classic’: “How to Drive Comments”, did you?
http://clusty.com/search?input-form=clusty-simple&v%3Asources=webplus&query=Edward+Bernays
December 9th, 2009 at 9:04 am
90.5% of undereducated, sophomoric, Fox-watchers opine that climate change is not related to human activity – well then, I’m totally convinced. It must be so. After all, the legitimation of scientific fact should not be left to a handful of arrogant specialists. No sir. Who the hell do they think they are with their countless empirical tests and careful methods to tell the rest of us what may be true or false?
These highfalutin bozos need to learn a thing or two about democracy. It doesn’t matter what they try to demonstrate scientifically, but instead what the rest of us think, no matter how ridiculous it might seem to them. Presently, we (the 90.5%) feel that we are not being properly served by all scientific hubbub going around about global climate change. We suspect that this is yet another trick of the liberal left to interfere with the good Lord’s plan for the rest of us to grab and waste as much as we can before we kick the bucket, or to stop us from cranking out yet more and more grasping, narrow-minded philistines just like me.
Now if we could just stop wasting time on all that climate change nonsense and get back to discussing things people like me can appreciate, like:
Getting even lower taxes.
Imposing stable – or better yet – rising real estate and financial asset prices irrespective of family incomes or any other anchor in reality.
Maintaining a small, God-fearin’ government, except for law enforcement and military, medicare and social security (got to protect my fair share of goodies from all those hungry bastards out there that God told us need to multiply.)
Promoting free market and hard work (unless it means my company’s subsidy is gone or that I also have to compete on equal footing in world markets.)
Reinstalling “family” values in your government. MY family values that is.
Winning the “war” on terrorists and other dark, strange looking foreigners who don’t appreciate our kind help fixing their countries.
Finding out if Tiger Woods really did cheat on his wife with all those sinful women and what should be done about it.
December 9th, 2009 at 10:06 am
My two cents, based strictly on my common sense…. Co2 is symptomatic to global warming, but not a large causation factor. I think the main root cause is global deforestation, and reduction of plant bio mass. This causes a net reduction in the CO2/oxygen plant cycle, but the larger issue is the net effect on the weather cycles, and resulting precipitation cycles that goes with it. Reduction of forests and plants means less abaility to absorb atmospheric heat, which then gets reflected back into the atmosphere, and also has an inhibiting effect on the production of clouds and water vapor.
The reduction of snow cover on Kilamanjaro over the last century is a perfect regionalized example of the larger global effect. Deforestation of the lowlands surrounding the mountain have had the net effect of decreasing the local preceipitation to levels that don’t allow for the replenishment of the snows on the mountain. Same thing is happening with our glaciers too, on a larger scale.
The larger political implementation of this is a bit more profound. Carbon tax transfers will have absloultey ZERO affect on the continued deforestation of developing countries. They only taxe gas emissions. Of course politicians figured out that you can’t just blanketly take the money of industrialized countries just because South America is slash/burning their forests, you can only tax them for things they are actually doing, i.e. consuming fossil fuels. This is why I think the >issue< of Global Warming is a scam. Its a wealth transfer mechanism. Much like our current pending Health Care plan, if only we 'Do Something', we will delude ourselves that we are improving the situation. No – we won't we will only be doing what the special interests want us to do: Empty our pockets more, and ignore the ongoing problem as it continues to fester.
December 9th, 2009 at 10:22 am
The only thing I agree with Stephen Dubner of Freakonomics fame about this climate e-mail incident is that it is a Rorschach test about human caused global climate change. If someone on this thread is a real skeptic (that is skeptical about the hypothesis that human activity supplementing the CO2 that goes into the atmosphere as part of the natural cycle is “forcing” (the technical) a planet wide warming and equally skeptical about the opposite hypothesis, that human activity in burning huge amounts of fossil fuels has no effect and that all that is occuring is either routine variability or driven by natural forces), I suggest reading a general popular introductory on Geology like Richard Fortney’s “Earth: An Intimate History or John McPhee’s “Annals of the Former World.” They at least give you a context of the science and for judging the various disputes and, because they don’t address human global warming, except in passing. Most important they are not a polemical as the popular books and blogs one will find on the subject. They mostly want to tell an interesting story in an interesting way.
One thing reading these books will tell you is that we are (or at least until we invented agriculture and civilization), in an Ice Age, a period where large continental glaciers oscillate between advancing and retreating, the advances and retreats being triggered by oscillations of the Earth’s rotation on its axis and wobbling in its orbit. However, those forcing factors become triggers, and the likely overall cause of the Ice Age, is probably (notice the use of words like probably, meaning the most likely hypothesis based on the best available evidence as we currently understand it) is that a general cooling period of millions of years became an Ice Age about 3,000,000 million years ago as tectonic plate movement caused circumstances that cause CO2 to be taken out of the atmosphere at a faster rate, lowering the equilibrium level for CO2 in the atmosphere, primarily through the mechanism of weathering of exposed rock in the Himalayas and Tibetan plateau, created as India crashes into Asia. Ironically, the advances of the glaciers, by covering rock in the Northern Hemisphere, slows this weathering process and causes a build up of CO2, raising the equilibrium level in the atmosphere and eventually starts a a warming process, along with a slight increase in solar energy resulting from the orbital cycles mentioned above, to start melting the glaciers. There have been seven major glaciations over the last 700,000 years, which in the deep time of Geology is basically last evening. Some of the inter-glacials lasted 15,000 years and some lasted 50,000. The best “guess’ right now is that we are in a 50,000 year interglacial.
By the way, one stupidest arguments made is that “Sun” is the cause Earth’s “warming” or “cooling” and the atmosphere has nothing to do with it. Actually, we have some real life natural experiments to control for the effect of atmosphere and the make up of an atmosphere on a planet’s temperture. They are named the Moon, Venus, and Mars. The Moon gets the same amount of sunlight as the Earth gets. However, it has no atmosphere to distribute it. Hence the sun side is around 300 degrees F, while the dark side of the Moon is around -350 degrees F. Venus, being closer than the Earth gets more sun, but not so much more to account for a 900 degree F surface. That is the result of its highly reduced atmosphere of CO2. Mars also has a reduced atmosphere, although far thinner than Venus’s, of predominately CO2. Mars CO2 makes it a warmer place than it would be otherwise (although still in a permanent Ice Age).
Basically, it comes down to this for me. We are, in burning vast amounts of coal, natural gas, and oil, and raising a lot of cattle and pigs, thereby raising the level of CO2 and Methane in the atmosphere. I don’t think the increase in CO2 levels as measured in the atmosphere is something either Chris de Frietas or William Singer deny, to name two famous climate change deniers. As these gases have a very predictable effect of trapping more of Sunlight that the Earth’s receives and radiates back into Space in the infrared spectrum, and in the past increases in CO2 levels are associated with planet wide increases in tempertures, I need some explanation as to what mechanism will prevent that from happening now? This is where the deniers have repeatedly fail to produce any hypothesis supported by data.
And now, I will slip into polemic mode myself.
Finally, you may all want to read closely the story about the article in Climate Research published in 2003 that is the subject of so much sturm and drang about these CRU e-mails. Chris de Frietas was one of the editors of that journal. He published a paper by two other deniers, Willie Soon and Sallie Balinuas. When other scientists read the article, they found that it made several statements that the authors (and its editor) did not provide any supporting evidence or explanation as as to how they came to those conclusions and complained to the journal. In the controversy, the editor in chief, and two other editors resigned, although those losing their positions were scientitsts who believed the evidence on balance supports the hypothesis that recent increases in global tempertures were primarily the result of human activity, Chris de Frietas remained in his postion at that time. So those actually being suppressed were those who came down on anthogenic climate change side. The publisher of Climate Research, in an article published to explain it all, wrote the following about the particular article in dispute that De Frietas put out as “good” science.
“Major conclusions of Soon & Baliunas are: ‘Across the world, many
records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the
warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the
last millenium.’ (p. 89) and ‘Overall, the 20th century
does not contain the warmest anomaly of the past millenium
in most of the proxy records which have been
sampled world-wide’ (p. 104). While these statements
may be true, the critics point out that they cannot be
concluded convincingly from the evidence provided in
the paper. CR should have requested appropriate revisions
of the manuscript prior to publication.”
http://www.int-res.com/articles/misc/CREditorial.pdf
The irony here is that De Frietas, Soon, Balinuas, Singer, Lonborg, and other scientists doing “denial” have manipulated data, publishing unsubstantiated conclusions, hid the methodology by which they reached their conclusions, ignored data that contradicts their conclusions, and accused climate scientists of doing their work because they are “greedy” for grant money all the while growing rich from funds provided by oil and coal interests such as the Koch family, writing popular polemics for conservative publishers, and lecture fees on the Conservative Movement lecture circuit.
December 9th, 2009 at 10:24 am
Theodore D.
That wasn’t a thought experiment, that was your attempt to interject un-rational thinking into a scientific discussion. I’ll agree I’m sick, I’m sick of ridiculous people like you who still believe in Santa Clause, and are trying to stuff your christmas stockings around where they don’t belong. I don’t care if you were going to mention stewardship, that is the stated christian belief with regards to the environment. It is a foolish notion that most three year olds grow out of.
I also don’t care to Imagine anything you suggest, It doesn’t matter how people look when they argue about climate change, what matters is how they will look when their homes towns and even lives are taken away by the sea.
However, I do like to Imagine how you would look being chased by a hungry lion, and sometimes might even long for a return of the good old days..
December 9th, 2009 at 10:33 am
What does this say about WSJ readers? Mission Accomplished!
December 9th, 2009 at 10:56 am
the whole debate is so idiotic that all the matter really illustrates is how completely energy companies dominate the political landscape in the U.S.
It’s funny that the CRU was magically “hacked” two weeks before the conference.
Fuck it. I, for one, am not going to participate in any type of rigged discussion on the subject. It shouldn’t even be a political issue in my opinion.
December 9th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
bman – That fervor sounds like religious to me…
Santa Clause rebuttal = straw man.
Unrational= Not a word.
Stewardship = Not relevant because I didn’t bring it up/ straw man.
Home under the sea argument = fear mongering (funny thing is I live on an island so this should work on me)
Looking forward to my death and the death of people with similar religious belief = Thank you internet forum for providing a great place where interested minds can disagree in a respectful manner.
bman = hate filled brainwashed individual who has some personal issues that he takes out on this forum. Last time I respond to him.
December 9th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
rickstersherpa: sound like interesting books. Regarding the greenhouse effect, the skeptic viewpoint is not to oppose the trapping properties of CO2. But the climatic models can account for warming only with appropriate positive feedback of more CO2 leading to more evaporation leading to more water vapor which also has a similar greenhouse effect. This is important because skeptics usually claim that there is much more water vapor in the atmosphere than CO2 and the fact is that the scientific explanation necessarily involves water vapor. On the other hand, more water vapor leads to more clouds which reflect some of the sunlight back into space. The variation in IPCC forecast is due to uncertainty of clouds. What skeptics like Lindzen, for instance, opposes is the positive feedback. Or the sensitivity parameters used.
December 9th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Here’s something interesting. Maybe a real benefit of increased CO2 will be that the Amazon jungle and other decimated forests will rejuvenate faster than we can cut them down?
==========
Study: Increased carbon dioxide benefits aspen trees
Star Tribune (Minneapolis)
Aspen trees, the backbone of Minnesota’s paper industry, are liking the extra carbon dioxide in the air linked to global warming.
New research published Friday found that aspen growth rates increased by 53 percent during the past half-century, as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased about 20 percent.
“Trees eat carbon dioxide for a living,” said Don Waller, study author and University of Wisconsin-Madison botany professor.
As carbon dioxide increases in the air, he said, plants can extract more of it and convert it to sugar through photosynthesis. That speeds up their growth.
…
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/environment/v-print/story/1365099.html
December 9th, 2009 at 5:50 pm
Good, I like getting the laste word