Is the Public Perception of Global Warming Reaching a Tipping Point?

[Andre]

As I sain on the bottom of the former page, which is the lousiest place to get a post in: The big difference between southern and nothern hemisphere is putting big question marks to the role of greenhouse effect in the warming.

That has also been noticed here.

 

[jimmie]

Geological heating? Crustal heat flows are measured in mW/m2. Heat from human activities? Tens of mW/m2. Insignificant. Temperature record? Inadequate to say anything. Sea level rise? No decent mass balance. Cause and effect relationships among an inconclusive temperature record, decent sea level measurements, nonexistent ground water extraction data, Antarctic and Greenland ice cap volume estimates, and atmospheric CO2 content? "Insufficient data."

Bystander, you conclude that heat from human activities is insignificant and [high] temperature records are inadequate, yet maintain that there is "insufficient data" to make a conclusion on global warming.

What other conclusions have you established based upon "insufficient data"?

Perhaps, Bystander, the only global warming data that is insufficient is the amount you currently retain.

 

[Andre]

Anyway when you want searching for the bottom of the debate. That's here.

...My biases: The pronouncements of climate modelers, who don't do experiments, don't make observations, don't even confect theories, but rather [in my opinion] play computer games using huge programs containing dozens of separate components the details of which they may be largely ignorant, don't move me. I am much more impressed by direct evidence: retreating glaciers, longer growing seasons, the migration of species, rising sea level, etc.

I have lived long enough to have seen many doomsday scenarios painted by people who profited by doing so, but which never came to pass. This has made me a skeptic. Perhaps global warming is an example of the old fable about the boy who cried wolf, but this time the doomsayers are, alas, right. Maybe, but I can't help noting that some of the prominent global warmers of today were global coolers of not so long ago. In particular, Steven Schneider, now at Stanford, previously at NCAR, about 30 years ago was sounding the alarm about an imminent ice age. The culprit then was particles belched into the atmosphere by human activities. No matter how the climate changes he can correctly say that he predicted it. No one in the atmospheric science community has been more successful at getting publicity. NCAR used to send my department clippings from newspaper and magazine articles in which NCAR researchers were named. We'd get thick wads of clippings, almost all of which were devoted to Schneider. Perhaps global warming is bad for the rest of us, but for Schneider and others it has been a godsend.

Within the past 10 years or so at least four ... alarming books on the possibility of asteroid collisions with Earth were published. Such collisions, if they were to occur, would be incomparably more disastrous than global warming. I also started to read, again within about the past 10 years, The Coming Plague [published in 1995]. It painted a picture of future plagues so ghastly and sickening that I couldn't continue reading it. The shelves of bookstores groan under the weight of books proclaiming disasters of all sorts. Take your pick of how we all are going to die horrible deaths. Repent!

People who write alarmist books are either trying to make a buck or they have an axe to grind. For example, it is in the best interests of astronomers to scare us so that we'll pressure the government to support astronomy research more generously. The same is true for biology, medicine, atmospheric science [and all sciences]. This does not mean that the alarmists are wrong or even dishonest, merely that in assessing their claims we must always ask about the extent to which they will profit from our believing and acting on them.

When I was a young man I read Famine 1975! by the Paddock brothers, one a foreign service officer, the other a tropical agriculture specialist. This book profoundly affected me. The Paddocks confidently predicted massive famines in 1975, and I believed them. But the famines did not turn out as predicted. And this is just one example among many.

Skeptics about global warming are often painted as hirelings of the oil and automotive industries. Such claims irritate me. I have never earned a nickel as a consequence of my skepticism. Indeed, I have lost hundreds of thousands of dollars by it. First, you have to understand how a large research university operates. The professors are expected to obtain research grants, and in the atmospheric sciences these grants come mostly from government agencies...

 

[Bystander]

Bystander, you conclude that heat from human activities is insignificant

Do the math.

and [high] temperature records are inadequate, yet maintain that there is "insufficient data" to make a conclusion on global warming.

Learn the physics.

What other conclusions have you established based upon "insufficient data"?

Greenhousers depend upon insufficient data, I do NOT.

Perhaps, Bystander, the only global warming data that is insufficient is the amount you currently retain.

Tell ya' what, sport --- you submit a paper to any journal that's worth the powder to blow it to hell with the kind of thermometry global warming arguments are based upon, and you'll be laughed off the planet. The meteorological record contains station measurements from thermometers accurate to plus or minus 1 K (2 F); these thermometers are placed in "standard" instrument shelters which are recognizable by any chemical engineer as very inefficient heat exchangers (collected radiant energy is transferred to air moving through the enclosures); the dependence of measured temperature on wind speed is NOT accounted for in the record, is 0.3 K to 1 K above true air temperature at 1 m/s, rises as a function of shelter and thermometer emissivities at lower velocities, and drops off at higher velocities. Wind "shadows" around weather stations have increased over the past century with increased population and the associated building and development activities. The global mean temperature is constructed from a "selection" of station records that swaps stations in and out of the average with fewer constraints than the DJIA applies to swapping index stocks --- "bad juju" for any statistician. The temperature record is so thoroughly shot through with errors in method and conservation of method as to be TOTALLY USELESS, therefore, "INCONCLUSIVE for any purposes.

 

[Bystander]

(snip)Again, I can't judge because I don't know the tehcnique they use to take data from an ice core, but (once more) I'm not a climatologist!(snip)
I can't tell you that particulars of what is required to accurately judge the gblobal warming issue. (snip)

You got a physics degree? You are a climatologist; mass, length, time, temperature, amount of substance, current, luminous intensity, little Newtonian physics, conservation laws, some QM, thermo, and you're there.

 

[Mk]

Do the math.

Learn the physics.

Greenhousers depend upon insufficient data, I do NOT.

Bystander, I know it is too much to say, but you could have been nicer.

The meteorological record contains station measurements from thermometers accurate to plus or minus 1 K (2 F); these thermometers are placed in "standard" instrument shelters which are recognizable by any chemical engineer as very inefficient heat exchangers (collected radiant energy is transferred to air moving through the enclosures); the dependence of measured temperature on wind speed is NOT accounted for in the record, is 0.3 K to 1 K above true air temperature at 1 m/s, rises as a function of shelter and thermometer emissivities at lower velocities, and drops off at higher velocities. Wind "shadows" around weather stations have increased over the past century with increased population and the associated building and development activities. The global mean temperature is constructed from a "selection" of station records that swaps stations in and out of the average with fewer constraints than the DJIA applies to swapping index stocks --- "bad juju" for any statistician.

Wow.

 

[Bystander]

Bystander, I know it is too much to say, but you could have been nicer. (snip)

"Nicer" is reserved for people who conduct themselves to deserve "nicer." "Subtle" hints to those who feel that AGHGW is a problem and who have degrees, training, or other background in the physical sciences that they apply the degrees, training, and background to the problem don't seem to have had any effect the previous hundred or so times the topic has come up on the forums --- the "blunt object applied to the side of the head" becomes necessary. Lousy science with a polysyllabic name (climatology) is still lousy science when it ignores long established measurement methods and physical principles; people with degrees in physical sciences who cannot recognize lousy science need to "resign" their degrees and take up door-to-door canvassing for the democrats.

--- and, yes, I realize, Mk, that it's not you who asked for less than "nicer" response.

 

[Pythagorean]

You got a physics degree? You are a climatologist; mass, length, time, temperature, amount of substance, current, luminous intensity, little Newtonian physics, conservation laws, some QM, thermo, and you're there.

I'm on my third year towards a physics degree. My biggest issue with the global warming issue is conceptualizing the math that describes what people are describing in words. I've looked over Mann's article. I see what looks like a probability distribution function, but still, I don't understandand it enought o judge whether it works.

If you're ignorant of the way the Earth systems work (just by not studying them) you could be ignoring important factors. Seriously, I don't even know how the climatologists can come up with a prediction without having sensors placed every cubed meter all around the world, taking data in sync.

How can you measure something that could be all over the world in different densities? How do you know you're not missing a huge chunk that's unusually concentrated somewhere? How do you know there's not a system of Earth that condensates and hides greenhouse gasses but then later releases them? The data still seems blind to me

Unfortunately, it's become a big political event too, which plunges even more blatant assertions (propaganda) into the situation.

the oil companies and economists clearly don't like the implications of global warming, and the alarmists don't want to lose their research, their prestige, or their name (or, ultimately, their funding).

Who do you trust? Someone said theirselves earlier, but you'd be a fool to think you're the only one clean of idealism. You could as easly fall into a subvonscious vacuum of decision while looking over the data, yourself. We need consensus from thorough thinkers, not good arguments from people who are in still in high school debate class.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Global Warming
Frequently Asked Questions

...Can the observed changes be explained by natural variability, including changes in solar output?


...Over several centuries, it may be possible to observe the effect of these orbital parameters, however for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.

...The IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios determines the range of future possible greenhouse gas concentrations (and other forcings) based on considerations such as population growth, economic growth, energy efficiency and a host of other factors. This leads a wide range of possible forcing scenarios, and consequently a wide range of possible future climates. [continued]

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q10

Take it from the experts or choose to use do-it-yourself science.

 

[jimmie]

I don't see any input regarding the data from Dr. Corell and his study.

Dr. Corell says his data of global warming is unassailable, and I believe him.

Would anyone like to debunk Dr. Corell's data?

 

[Mk]

I actually like "do-it-yourself science" better, it takes more work, but it is more fun; it takes more time, but you learn more; you discover the inner-workings of the situation and draw your own conclusions you can trust—and change.

Only "listening to the experts," is kind of like being a sheep for me.

 

[chroot]

Well, if the "experts" are the schmucks at the IPCC who are now using the hockeystick graph as evidence, then I'd rather stick to do-it-yourself science.

After my research into the topic, I came to the same conclusion that Bystander came to: all of the evidence so far presented for global warming is nothing more than statistical shenanigans. The so-called experts have cherry picked their data points and coddled their statistical methods to -- lo and behold -- arrive at the conclusion they wished to arrive at.

I'm not saying global warming is absolutely not happening. All I'm saying is that the noise floor for this kind of global measurement is very large, and the signal, if any, remains for now buried deeply within it.

I remain unconvinced, yet I still strongly agree with more stringent environmental policy and conservation efforts.

- Warren

 

[Ivan Seeking]

MK, that's fine if you intend to devote the next ten years of your life to the subject. Otherwise, do-it-yourself science is for crackpots. The controversey wrt this subject is all the more proof that this is the domain of experts.

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/7348/piratesarecoolct8.jpg

 

[Mk]

Hey! That's my favorite graph!
http://mwnx.net/users/mac/Climatology/Pirateschart.jpg
Who took the "copyright information" away?

And I do intend to devote part of my life to it.

 

[Pythagorean]

MK, that's fine if you intend to devote the next ten years of your life to the subject. Otherwise, do-it-yourself science is for crackpots. The controversey wrt this subject is all the more proof that this is the domain of experts.

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/7348/piratesarecoolct8.jpg

[/URL]


YARRRRRR! They're onto us!

 

[Andre]

take it from the experts

Indeed. let's take it from an expert

 

[Andre]

I don't see any input regarding the data from Dr. Corell and his study.

Dr. Corell says his data of global warming is unassailable, and I believe him.

Would anyone like to debunk Dr. Corell's data?

Check the post immediately following yours and do click links.

 

[Mk]

After my research into the topic, I came to the same conclusion that Bystander came to: all of the evidence presented was found to be nothing more than statistical shenanigans. The so-called experts have cherry picked their data points and coddled their statistical methods to -- lo and behold -- arrive at the conclusion they wished to arrive at.

http://mwnx.net/users/mac/Climatology/CRF-temp.png
This graph was groundbreaking. Until of course in peer review it was found that all of the evidence presented was nothing more than statistical shenanigans. The so-called experts, Shaviv and Veizer, have cherry picked from 12 asteroids and coddled their statistical methods to—lo and behold—arrive at the conclusion they wished to arrive at. Their academic integrity has been lost, by their despicable acts a single http://www.envirotruth.org/docs/Veizer-Shaviv.pdf .

 

[Mk]

http://img181.imageshack.us/img181/7348/piratesarecoolct8.jpg

[/URL]
I don't think that graph is entirely accurate, or maybe the instruments for measuring were not recently callibrated. I knew 20 pirates personally in 2000.

 

[Mk]

Then again, I'm not really much of a pirateologist.

 

[chroot]

There's a 12-pirate systematic error inherent in the measurement apparatus, Mk.

- Warren

 

[Bystander]

Well, hell --- let's "take it from the experts:"

What is the greenhouse effect, and is it affecting our climate?
The greenhouse effect is unquestionably real and helps to regulate the temperature of our planet. It is essential for life on Earth and is one of Earth's natural processes. It is the result of heat absorption by certain gases in the atmosphere ...

"Certain gases?" Any gas blanket produces a greenhouse effect.

Are greenhouse gases increasing?
Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point.

Wrong again; if one wishes to assert that there is no net flux between the biosphere and atmosphere, and no net flux between the hydrosphere and atmosphere, one may conclude that fossil fuel use is the main contributor to CO₂ concentration increase in the atmosphere. There are no measurements of the other two fluxes; the large exchange rates among biosphere, hydrosphere, and atmosphere effectively prevent them. Is there any reason to assert that they are "net zeros?" No.

Is the climate warming?
Yes. Global surface temperatures have increased about 0.6°C (plus or minus 0.2°C) since the late-19th century ...

Covered this earlier.

Is the hydrological cycle (evaporation and precipitation) changing?

Their answer speaks for itself --- three paragraphs of "waffle-speak" (suggest, perhaps, appears) to the effect that they have no idea.

Is the atmospheric/oceanic circulation changing?

When isn't it? Irrelevant.

Is the climate becoming more variable or extreme?

Seven paragraphs of "waffle-speak."

How important are these changes in a longer-term context?

"Longer-term" is limited to a few thousand years as far as the data they trust; "Based on the incomplete evidence available, the projected change of 3 to 7°F (1.5 - 4°C) over the next century would be unprecedented in comparison with the best available records from the last several thousand years," translates to, "Gee, if this wild-assed guess of ours means anything, this would be something no one's seen before," that is, nothing.

Is sea level rising?

Well, "DUH." We got out of an ice age 10-15ka back --- aquifers were full, and they've been relaxing --- 1-2 mm/a current rate is consistent with the 3ka time constant hydrologists use for a "global average" recharge/discharge time for aquifers.

Can the observed changes be explained by natural variability, including changes in solar output?

Let's use their own PR department's "waffle-speak" again, "However, our understanding of the indirect effects of changes in solar output and feedbacks in the climate system is minimal. There is much need to refine our understanding of key natural forcing mechanisms of the climate, including solar irradiance changes, in order to reduce uncertainty in our projections of future climate change."

​

"Do it yourself?" It's been shot, skinned, cut, dried, stuffed, mounted, and gathering dust in libraries for nearly a century; it's "done" science, and it was "done" by "experts" who had no political, funding, or publish or perish axes to grind.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

"Certain gases?" Any gas blanket produces a greenhouse effect.

Not any gas blanket, IIRC only gasses with three molecules or greater can absorb heat sufficiently to have an appreciable effect on global warming, thus C02, H20,CH4, and NO2 are all greenhouse gasses but O2 isn't. Unless I was miseducated, or misinformed.

Also a more important graphical factoid that I take as highly dubious, that graph of Pirates vs Global Average Temperature is wrong, there's no way there were only 17 Pirates in the world in the year 2000, I think that graphs a damn joke, can you back that garbage up with some real scientific evidence!

Me and captain Jack Mcgraw had a band o' steely eyed, oak timbered, water rats that numbered more 'an 52 in 2000, course since the old captain died we fell apart somewhat, but we're still pirates you lilly livered land lubbers!

 

[Bystander]

Not any gas blanket, IIRC only gasses with three molecules or greater can absorb heat sufficiently to have an appreciable effect on global warming, thus C02, H20,CH4, and NO2 are all greenhouse gasses but O2 isn't. Unless I was miseducated, or misinformed.
(snip)

Any gas --- you have been "misinformed." Heat leaves a body by radiation, it's gone; heat leaves a body by radiation, is absorbed in a gas blanket, it ain't; heat leaves a body by conduction to a gas blanket, it ain't; heat leaves a body by conduction to a gas blanket, is convected away from surface, it ain't. Gas blanket radiates, conducts back to body.

 

[Mk]

Also a more important graphical factoid that I take as highly dubious, that graph of Pirates vs Global Average Temperature is wrong, there's no way there were only 17 Pirates in the world in the year 2000, I think that graphs a damn joke, can you back that garbage up with some real scientific evidence!

Me and captain Jack Mcgraw had a band o' steely eyed, oak timbered, water rats that numbered more 'an 52 in 2000, course since the old captain died we fell apart somewhat, but we're still pirates you lilly livered land lubbers!

But seriously, there have got to be hundreds of thousands of professional pirates. Estimated worldwide losses of US$13 to $16 billion per year due to modern piracy, particularly in the waters between the Pacific and Indian Oceans, off the Somali coast, and in the Strait of Malacca and Singapore, which are used by over 50,000 commercial ships a year. A recent few huge heists and a small surge in piracy off the Somali coast spurred a multi-national effort led by the United States to patrol the waters near the Horn of Africa to combat piracy. While boats off the coasts of South America and the Mediterranean Sea are still assailed by pirates, the advent of the United States Coast Guard has nearly eradicated piracy in American waters and the Caribbean Sea. No more traditional pirates. Now they got little inflatable boats, MAC-10s and Kalishnakovs.

http://www.icc-ccs.org/main/index.php
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20041101faessay83606/gal-luft-anne-korin/terrorism-goes-to-sea.html

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Thanks MK I was aware of some of the stuff modern day pirates were getting up to and I'll check out your links later when I have more time(tea break at work) These days I've heard they're more like small armies on water, experienced, quick and armed to the teeth, not so much different from 1646, but back then 'o course we was privateers not pirates, fighting the Kings enemies for booty, 'slong as we left them English luggers alone we was given cart blanche, ahhh them was the days. Even Port Royal would let us into port, seeing as we was bringing them such excellent nobs for ransom.

@ bystander I can understand that heat might be transferred between any gas, I'm speaking about heat capacity though. Because with a 3 molecule system two atoms are able to move around another atom, meaning they can store much more heat in their structure, I was told this was the reason why other diatomic or monatomic pairs weren't considered serious threats to overall global warming, again if it isn't the case, I need to throw my textbooks in the bin. If you can imagine the amount of movement in a diatom, now think about 3 atoms or 4 and you can see the latent heat capacity becomes quite rapidly significant. Anyway I don't think it really matters, I think pirates are more important don't you

 

[Bystander]

(snip) bystander I can understand that heat might be transferred between any gas, I'm speaking about heat capacity though. Because with a 3 molecule system two atoms are able to move around another atom, meaning they can store much more heat in their structure, I was told this was the reason why other diatomic or monatomic pairs weren't considered serious threats to overall global warming, again if it isn't the case, I need to throw my textbooks in the bin. If you can imagine the amount of movement in a diatom, now think about 3 atoms or 4 and you can see the latent heat capacity becomes quite rapidly significant.(snip)

"N" atoms in a molecule result in "3N" degrees of freedom, 3 translational, 2 rotational for linear molecules and 3 rotational for others, and 3N-5 vibrations for linear and 3N-6 vibrations and internal rotations for others; this is the "equipartion principle." There is nothing wrong with your textbooks --- something is missing from your understanding of the difference between "heat capacity" and "heat transport."

Planetary surfaces with no gas blanket lose heat only by radiation; with a gas blanket, they can conduct heat to the blanket; if the blanket is of sufficient density, convection cells are established, carrying the heat to some altitude above the surface (tropopause for earth), at which altitude the gas can only lose heat by radiation (conduction from a minimum temperature to higher T does not occur, and there is no colder sink to convect to); gases have lower emissivities at planetary surface T and lower than the solids (or liquids) of the planetary surfaces.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Since no one bothered to answer the question in the OP...

YES! Global warming IS hot. The most recent example: I learned last night that even in SUVland, formerly known as San Diego, California, hybrids are all the rage!

YAY! The tide has turned, the consensus is here, and now the skeptics will have to prove their point to mainstream science before anyone will pay attention.

 

[Mk]

YES! Global warming IS hot. The most recent example: I learned last night that even in SUVland, formerly known as San Diego, California, hybrids are all the rage!

I've been all over the US in the last year, and... I haven't seen one of those places! But we could guess San Diego as a first guess...

YAY! The tide has turned, the consensus is here, and now the skeptics will have to prove their point to mainstream science before anyone will pay attention.

Somebody was paying attention in the first place to hear skeptics?

 

[twisting_edge]

The most recent example: I learned last night that even in SUVland, formerly known as San Diego, California, hybrids are all the rage!

The problem is they are all the rage for all the wrong reasons. The moment the public fixates on some other "fashionable thought", they'll go right back to buying SUVs. I'm definitely one of the skeptics, but I also think you really ought to hedge your bets. I just don't think you ought to cut off your leg for fear you might stub your toe, which is what a lot of the proposed solutions amount to.

The funny thing is how often I get lectured (I live in one of the "bluest" counties in the nation) about global warming by the very same people driving SUVs and sports cars. My morning commute consists of joining a line of SUVs (at least until I get out of town) with perhaps one sedan or compact every five to ten spots.

I actually started keeping track of my fuel consumption last March after one such "discussion". I average just over a third of a gallon/day, and that includes the drive to work (don't have much choice there: rents within walking distance to work do not exist, it is all $5M+ estates).

The nicest thing about the current regime? I get to ride to work every day the weather permits, and pass it off as social responsibility. Most people look at you a little weird for riding a motorcycle to work, but the moment you bring up global warming, you've got them on the back foot. You're getting 60 mpg. They're driving an SUV. They become the bad boys.

When handed lemons...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

What has also changed is that petro is now a matter of national security. We don't even need GCC to argue for alternative fuels and technology, but with the current trends, the public sentiment for change is stronger than I have ever seen.

When I was a kid, only hippies and junkmen worried about recycling. The times have changed.

Regarding biodiesel, when I approach the same sorts of people who all but hung me from a tree [threatened my life] for being an environmentalist, and ask if they would rather give their money to oil sheiks or Oregon farmers, guess what the answer is every time?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Somebody was paying attention in the first place to hear skeptics?

Rush, Fox News, and hate radio in general has been making a mockery of the subject for years. They play to the "let's all hate the liberal environmentlists" mentality.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I find this to be most encouraging
http://www.nearbio.com/nearbio/index.shtml

 

[SticksandStones]

Bill Nye and some other people are on Larry King right now discussing Global Warming, if anyone is interested.

I don't have much else to contribute to this thread, unfortunately.

 

[cshum00]

Well the most popular theory about global warming is the carbon dioxide trapping infrared energy inside the planet.

There is another one that other scientists are trying to prove that it is the result of the change of polarization in the planet.

Have anyone considered this one? Related to Gaia Hypothesis:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis"
Only using the theoretical part that Earth regulates its matter composition, but what about energy? We are converting a lot of mass into energy and of course carbon dioxide might make a role to trap the energy too.

Also another solution to global warming, have anyone considered converting heat energy into matter?