Global Warming, eh?

[Iamwhomiam]

I deeply appreciate your sentiments, eyeno, and I sincerely thank you for that. But I have too say that I am most curious about what's happening in Arkansas. I am baffled and I'm most curious about the project you referenced. Would you please help me to better understand your concerns? I really know nothing about the trillion dollar project you've mentioned and I honestly would like to know more.

Enough snark! Please elucidate.

I do know about the intoxicating powers of the grape! B&B is the only alcoholic beverage I indulge in, and right now I'm feelin' pretty good!

[brainpanhandler]

I'm not sure though anymore about the majority of people being sympathetic to the AGW cause, iirc, the recent Pew poll showed only 29% of the US population thought GW was a priority issue.

Not sure anymore? When were you sure? iirc? Maybe you could look it up for us and provide a link cause I can't find one that says that only 29% of the us population thinks/thought that gw is/was a priority issue. THE recent pew poll? Is there only one? How recent?Thought? Was? Past tense?

So much wiggle room. I don't mean to seem overly pedantic but really you merit it.

Can you please direct me to a source for this. I can't seem to find a pew poll that shows that "only 29% of the us population thinks/thought gw is/was a priority issue".

Somehow I imagine there's more to it. Can't imagine why.

Sure thing my friend bph,...and please note that my recall was in fact not accurate, the actual figure is Spoiler:25%...

You may be surprised to learn that I had posted a link on the Pew research results over on the 'global warming eh' thread, but apparently you guys were too preoccupied with expressing your deep desire to try and humiliate the messenger to notice.

Do please consider,.. if you CAGW folk (not you C2W) actually used the prerequisite logical step of the reading of posts on the matters under discussion to keep abreast before going straight for the messenger's juggler, it would not only make for a lot of saving of my time, it would make for a speedier acquisition of current understanding of the state of play of the many issues concerning global warming for you.

It’s “dead heat” – Americans rate global warming last

Thanks so much friend ben. When I have time and am at my computer I'll check the link.

If you want to read the survey itself, without going through the Anthony Watts summary of it first, the PDF is here:

LINK.

_______________

The thing is, though, Ben D (and everyone) --

That figure isn't reflective of how many people do or don't take the reality of global warming for granted -- or even how many think it's an important issue. (Sixty percent.)

In January 2012, in the context of the then-upcoming State-of-the-Union address, people were asked whether they thought the President and Congress should treat each of a whole raftload of concerns (including global warming) as if it was (1) a top priority; (2) important but not a top priority; (3) not that important; or (4) something that shouldn't be addressed.

IOW: They were more or less being asked what they most wanted the country to do for them immediately. And most people don't get a chance to tell the government their concerns all that often, if ever. Therefore, predictably, almost all of them ranked economic- and job-related issues (plus a survey-taker's choice of one or two of the commonest pet perennial concerns of the American public) as their top priorities.

So what that number really indicates is that on a constant basis, global warming is presently the top perennial pet concern of 25 percent of the American public. And -- since the percentage who rank it as important-but-not-a-top-priority has been relatively stable at about 35 percent from 2007 to the present -- it would also probably be fair to say that 65 to 75 percent of the American people are aware of global warming and take it seriously.

The only really notable movement in the numbers for that particular question has actually been in the shouldn't-be-addressed sector, which has doubled (8 percent to 16 percent) over the last five years.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34038&start=30


After looking at the poll itself I endorse C2W's analysis. In fact the summary table on page 20 clearly indicates that 60% of americans believe that "dealing with global warming" is either a "top priority" or "important but lower priority".

The only issue I would take with c2w's analysis is this wording: "(plus a survey-taker's choice of one or two of the commonest pet perennial concerns of the American public)". Maybe I am misunderstanding the way the survey was administered.

tsk, tsk, tsk ben.

[brainpanhandler]

You may be surprised to learn that I had posted a link on the Pew research results over on the 'global warming eh' thread

I was not surprised by it as should have been evident when I wrote:

here's a pretty recent one from Pew:
http://pewresearch.org/pubs/2137/global ... an-divide-

Yes. Thanks doc. I did see that poll, but it didn't seem to say that, "only 29% of the us population thinks/thought that gw is/was a top priority"

So I looked a bit more around the pew site with no luck and then decided I would just ask ben to provide a link since that's what he should've done in the first place and he's the one that keeps trotting out that poll.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=34038&start=30

Please keep up.

but apparently you guys were too preoccupied with expressing your deep desire to try and humiliate the messenger to notice.

Humiliate? Hmmm. Yes, you could do with some humility, but that's not really my intent, per se. Maybe a fringe benefit.

My intent is to show that you are clearly, unequivocally and without the slightest shadow of a doubt insincere. Your tactics are fairly obvious to most here at ri I assume. You'd probably have much more luck elsewhere.

logical step of the reading of posts on the matters under discussion

About that... I never got around to investigating the pew poll results (though I did intend to and did eventually in the heartland thread), 1) because I figured something like what c2w's analysis was probably true (especially since you have a history of cherry picking your quotes and data) and 2) my life is a bit busy at the moment and I don't really have a lot of free time to dick around with you.

And really ben, I understand that you enjoy using this tactic of accusing your opponents of precisely what you yourself are guilty of. It offends their sense of justice and gets them all indignant and bananas. I get how that is great fun for you.

Frankly you no longer have any credibility here. None. Or if you do it's with nitwits.

I will henceforth always refer to pages 20 through 22 of this thread and especially this quote from you on page 21 of this thread: "It's a given that Judith Lean aligns herself with the AGW skeptics. Get over it already and stop wasting my time and obfuscating the facts..." when illustrating my point that you are unable to understand climate science even when it is dumbed down for the layman or you wish to intentionally confuse people. Because there really isn't any other conclusion I can draw.

[Ben D]

From the Heartland Exposed: Inside the Climate Denial Machine....

So as not to derail this thread too much with a seemingly insignificant side issue with the denier trolls I think I'll bump the global warming, eh? thread and we can continue there wrt the pew poll from January 2012 which shows that only 25% of americans believe "dealing with global warming" should be a top priority.

It's apparent you make a distinction as to which threads you can derail and which ones you shouldn't...

...and please don't bother to keep these inane jibes going in my direction on this or any other thread, because as well as derailing, you don't understand that I am just a figment of your imagination, and the battle you think you are having with me is only happening in your own mind...

Mumbles to oneself...how is it some people don't know that actual reality is on the other side of their mental conceptualizations?

[Iamwhomiam]

Oy!

"...and please don't bother to keep these inane jibes going in my direction on this or any other thread, because as well as derailing, you don't understand that I am just a figment of your imagination, and the battle you think you are having with me is only happening in your own mind..."

Again, Ben... your think much too highly of yourself...

You're much more akin to a boil on one's arse, at least in my imagination.

But seriously, Ben, are you trying in your own subtle way to tell us that that your basis for your denial of AGW is merely a figment of your imagination?

[Ben D]

I thought about where to post this, so to reduce thread proliferation, I've posted this here, I can't see why this thread can't be used for articles like this that are relevant to the subject of global warming..

Hmm, interesting find by the Kiwis,..so many things factor into climate change, it seems we never stop learning...

NASA Satellite Finds Earth's Clouds are Getting Lower

by Alan Buis for JPL
Pasadena CA (JPL) Feb 23, 2012

Earth's clouds got a little lower - about one percent on average - during the first decade of this century, finds a new NASA-funded university study based on NASA satellite data. The results have potential implications for future global climate.

Scientists at the University of Auckland in New Zealand analyzed the first 10 years of global cloud-top height measurements (from March 2000 to February 2010) from the Multi-angle Imaging SpectroRadiometer (MISR) instrument on NASA's Terra spacecraft.

The study, published recently in the journal Geophysical Research Letters, revealed an overall trend of decreasing cloud height. Global average cloud height declined by around one percent over the decade, or by around 100 to 130 feet (30 to 40 meters).

Most of the reduction was due to fewer clouds occurring at very high altitudes.

Lead researcher Roger Davies said that while the record is too short to be definitive, it provides a hint that something quite important might be going on. Longer-term monitoring will be required to determine the significance of the observation for global temperatures.

A consistent reduction in cloud height would allow Earth to cool to space more efficiently, reducing the surface temperature of the planet and potentially slowing the effects of global warming.

This may represent a "negative feedback" mechanism - a change caused by global warming that works to counteract it. "We don't know exactly what causes the cloud heights to lower," says Davies.

"But it must be due to a change in the circulation patterns that give rise to cloud formation at high altitude."

Fancy that,..Gaia must be really alive with it's own awareness and all...

Still, I never did think we were living in and on something dead,...since my body is alive, it is logical that the organs of my body are alive, and if my organs are alive, then the cells that make up the organs must be alive, and if the cells are alive....I'll stop there as you get my drift..

And since I am alive, and the birds, and the animals, and the fish, and the trees, etc., then the Earth is alive and if the Earth is alive then the Solar System is alive, and if the Solar System is alive, the the Milky Way Galaxy is alive, and if the Galaxy is alive, then the Universe is alive..I'll stop there as you get my drift..

There is a ONE that is All.

Please forgive me for going on so, the glory of the underlying unity of all that exists overwhelms me at times...

[Hammer of Los]

...

I don't know what Ben D thinks of himself.

But I for one do think very highly of him.

I don't know why you guys argue so much when the fact is nearly all of us agree on nearly everything.

Or so it seems to me.

I like agreement.

Blessed are the peacemakers etc.

...

[Iamwhomiam]

Very nice words, Hammer.

I'm no so easily deceived by the wolf in sheep's clothing, nor can I confuse a war monger for a peacemaker.

I'm glad to learn you think highly of Ben D.

Unfortunately, I feel he represents a foul and destructive force; a plague upon mankind many now are feeling bearing down, oppressing us.

Indeed, blessed are the peacemakers.

May you grow to recognize them.

[Ben D]

First let me congratulate Hammer of Los for your kind words, I am humbled that you would do that knowing full well the hostile reaction it could evoke,...and did!

HoL, I've always enjoyed reading your posts as they seem, regardless of the topic, to be considerate and respectful of other RI posters, even though you aren't always treated in kind, and for that you set an example for all of us...to treat others as you yourself like to be treated. Many thanks for your contribution towards the evolution of a more amicable environment here on the RI board. Ben..

Latest from the WSJ on the public debate that started by the WSJ opinion piece signed by sixteen scientists.

Please note this is an update on the state of play between the sixteen scientists and Kevin Trenberth and 37 others, so don't blame me for what they say if you disagree with it, and don't expect me to defend their scientific analysis, they are many pay grades above me and do it effectively enough on their own.

There is a link to the letter from Kevin Trenberth and his team if you want to reference it in the link below.

Concerned Scientists Reply on Global Warming

The authors of the Jan. 27 Wall Street Journal op-ed, 'No Need to Panic about Global Warming,' respond to their critics.

FEBRUARY 21, 2012

Editor's Note: The authors of the following letter, listed below, are also the signatories of "No Need to Panic About Global Warming," an op-ed that appeared in the Journal on January 27. This letter responds to criticisms of the op-ed made by Kevin Trenberth and 37 others in a letter published Feb. 1, and by Robert Byer of the American Physical Society in a letter published Feb. 6.

The interest generated by our Wall Street Journal op-ed of Jan. 27, "No Need to Panic about Global Warming," is gratifying but so extensive that we will limit our response to the letter to the editor the Journal published on Feb. 1, 2012 by Kevin Trenberth and 37 other signatories, and to the Feb. 6 letter by Robert Byer, President of the American Physical Society. (We, of course, thank the writers of supportive letters.)

We agree with Mr. Trenberth et al. that expertise is important in medical care, as it is in any matter of importance to humans or our environment. Consider then that by eliminating fossil fuels, the recipient of medical care (all of us) is being asked to submit to what amounts to an economic heart transplant. According to most patient bills of rights, the patient has a strong say in the treatment decision. Natural questions from the patient are whether a heart transplant is really needed, and how successful the diagnostic team has been in the past.

In this respect, an important gauge of scientific expertise is the ability to make successful predictions. When predictions fail, we say the theory is "falsified" and we should look for the reasons for the failure. Shown in the nearby graph is the measured annual temperature of the earth since 1989, just before the first report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Also shown are the projections of the likely increase of temperature, as published in the Summaries of each of the four IPCC reports, the first in the year 1990 and the last in the year 2007.

These projections were based on IPCC computer models of how increased atmospheric CO2 should warm the earth. Some of the models predict higher or lower rates of warming, but the projections shown in the graph and their extensions into the distant future are the basis of most studies of environmental effects and mitigation policy options. Year-to-year fluctuations and discrepancies are unimportant; longer-term trends are significant.



From the graph it appears that the projections exaggerate, substantially, the response of the earth's temperature to CO2 which increased by about 11% from 1989 through 2011. Furthermore, when one examines the historical temperature record throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, the data strongly suggest a much lower CO2 effect than almost all models calculate.

The Trenberth letter tells us that "computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean." The ARGO system of diving buoys is providing increasingly reliable data on the temperature of the upper layers of the ocean, where much of any heat from global warming must reside. But much like the surface temperature shown in the graph, the heat content of the upper layers of the world's oceans is not increasing nearly as fast as IPCC models predict, perhaps not increasing at all. Why should we now believe exaggerating IPCC models that tell us of "missing heat" hiding in the one place where it cannot yet be reliably measured—the deep ocean?

Given this dubious track record of prediction, it is entirely reasonable to ask for a second opinion. We have offered ours. With apologies for any immodesty, we all have enjoyed distinguished careers in climate science or in key science and engineering disciplines (such as physics, aeronautics, geology, biology, forecasting) on which climate science is based.

-snip-

[Iamwhomiam]

Ah, yes, Ben... Yet another economic discourse from you on why it's just too expensive to regulate polluting industries.

Do the authors of the letter deny earth's climate is Warming?

There is more at play than CO2. Like Carbon Black. Funny this warming pollutant's not mentioned by the authors.

-snip- in one of your posts, tells me I should read the entire article, and Lo and Behold, what do we have here:

"It is true that the years 2000-2010 were perhaps 0.2 C warmer than the preceding 10 years."

"This long term-trend is quite likely to produce several warm years in a row. The question is how much of the warming comes from CO2 and how much is due to other, both natural and anthropogenic, factors?"

And finally, comes the punchline:

"A premature global-scale transition from hydrocarbon fuels would require massive government intervention to support the deployment of more expensive energy technology."

Hands off my pollution!

The energy will become cheaper. It will not have the negative health effects burning carbon based fuels does nor will we have to bear the tremendous health related costs for caring for those loved ones made ill, nor will these emerging clean technologies pollute our environment.

[Ben D]

-snip-

"It is true that the years 2000-2010 were perhaps 0.2 C warmer than the preceding 10 years."

-snip-

Yes of course, I see that in the graph, and it's been accounted for in the 0.8 degree C warming over 130 years, but can you also see that there has been no increase in warming this century.

That's what Chris Jones was on about the lack of warming in the last whatever years in the Climategate emails...global warming has been in a pause over the last 12 to 14 years, and that's why all the projections (again see graph) over time by the IPCC/AGW lobby are showing that their computer climate models using CO2 as the main driver remain in error.

Surely everyone can see that....

[Nordic]

[Simulist]

:deadhorse:

Precisely. More constructive engagement might be had with a chatbot.

[Ben D]

Hey Nordic, aren't you and Simulist doing what you accuse HMW of doing, jumping in to make some inane comment that has nothing constructive to do with the thread subject..

Anyways, since you are here, you may get something out of this 4 min video,..as well as everyone else of course...

National Geographic Milankovitch Geo. Cycles affect how and when Earth enters an ice age or global warming

[tazmic]

Ah, yes, Ben... Yet another economic discourse from you on why it's just too expensive to regulate polluting industries.

Do the authors of the letter deny earth's climate is Warming?

There is more at play than CO2. Like Carbon Black. Funny this warming pollutant's not mentioned by the authors.

-snip- in one of your posts, tells me I should read the entire article, and Lo and Behold, what do we have here:

"It is true that the years 2000-2010 were perhaps 0.2 C warmer than the preceding 10 years."

"This long term-trend is quite likely to produce several warm years in a row. The question is how much of the warming comes from CO2 and how much is due to other, both natural and anthropogenic, factors?"

And finally, comes the punchline:

"A premature global-scale transition from hydrocarbon fuels would require massive government intervention to support the deployment of more expensive energy technology."

Hands off my pollution!

The energy will become cheaper. It will not have the negative health effects burning carbon based fuels does nor will we have to bear the tremendous health related costs for caring for those loved ones made ill, nor will these emerging clean technologies pollute our environment.

So in other words, you don't care about the science. As anthropogenic CO2 is such a good proxy for pollution, the ends - reducing pollution - justify the means - arguing like the science is settled.

Ben's post shows how the models have little demonstrable predictive value, which to me means the science isn't yet settled, which has been my approach all along. What does it mean to you?

Or do you really not care about the science? But just want to fall back on claiming, spuriously, that 'it's warming though isn't it!?' and that 'there are other things making it warmer!' (are they included in the settled science models that don't work? Is that perhaps why?) and then just incoherently talk about pollution lovers?