Global Warming "Deniers" are now the majority
The global warming "deniers" and "skeptics" are now the majority.
Only 34% still believe the theory that "humans cause global warming.".
SEE: The Latest Rasmussen Poll
Most people now understand natural climate cycles (planetary trends).
See Chart: Climate history of the last 12,000 years.
Holocene Temperature History
1. The temperature history shows clearly that our recent "global warming" is really nothing compared to the many pre-industrial "global warmings."
2. The temperature history shows that temperatures peaked about 8,000 years ago and we are now trending downward to the next ice age.
3. All of these pre-industrial global warmings are 100% natural. They happened before the industrial revolution or automobiles came along.
Did CO2 cause all of these pre-industrial warmings? The only plausible answer is "No" unless you believe Aliens in UFO's came along and beamed down giant cannisters of CO2. The temperature history is proof that climate warms and cools naturally.
4. The Holocene is the present interglacial (a warm spike between ice ages). These interglacials only last about 12,000 years so we are due for another ice age soon. To deny this is to deny basic Climate History 101.
see: Glacial-Interglacial Graph
It is interesting to note that our current Holocene interglacial (right side of graph) is the coldest interglacial recorded in the last 450,000 years.
Has the next ice age already started?
NASA has discovered that the Sun's output is suddenly dropping, and it is already "13% cooler."
SEE: NASA PRESS RELEASE-SOLAR OUTPUT DECREASING
The public has done their homework and fact checked Al Gore's movie. Fool me once - shame on you. Fool me twice...
...it ain't gonna happen. Sorry Al, once public opinion starts changing rapidly the pendulum never swings back.
People now understand that CO2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere, and 95% of the greenhouse effect is from natural water vapor.
Follow the Money
People now understand that Al Gore is Chairman of the for-profit Generation Investment Management(GIM), PROOF which is all about money ($$ Billions 'invested'). Gore is also a business partner in KPCB , another for-profit operation.
"Global warming" is about making windfall profits from "carbon trading", "cap and trade", etc. Certainly a non-profit organization could be created to handle "carbon markets" if it was not about making money.
When Al Gore goes to D.C. he should be treated like any other businessman or lobbyist trying to make a buck for his corporations. Either that, or he needs to walk away from these corporations.
"Computer Models" are totally unreliable.
Here is what an IPCC scientist had to say: Kevin Trenberth is head of the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research and one of the advisory scientists on the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
"None of the models used by IPCC is initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate."
The global warming skeptics are putting forward a lot of scientific data to educate the public ,
Only 34% still believe the theory that "humans cause global warming.".
SEE: The Latest Rasmussen Poll
Most people now understand natural climate cycles (planetary trends).
See Chart: Climate history of the last 12,000 years.
Holocene Temperature History
1. The temperature history shows clearly that our recent "global warming" is really nothing compared to the many pre-industrial "global warmings."
2. The temperature history shows that temperatures peaked about 8,000 years ago and we are now trending downward to the next ice age.
3. All of these pre-industrial global warmings are 100% natural. They happened before the industrial revolution or automobiles came along.
Did CO2 cause all of these pre-industrial warmings? The only plausible answer is "No" unless you believe Aliens in UFO's came along and beamed down giant cannisters of CO2. The temperature history is proof that climate warms and cools naturally.
4. The Holocene is the present interglacial (a warm spike between ice ages). These interglacials only last about 12,000 years so we are due for another ice age soon. To deny this is to deny basic Climate History 101.
see: Glacial-Interglacial Graph
It is interesting to note that our current Holocene interglacial (right side of graph) is the coldest interglacial recorded in the last 450,000 years.
Has the next ice age already started?
NASA has discovered that the Sun's output is suddenly dropping, and it is already "13% cooler."
SEE: NASA PRESS RELEASE-SOLAR OUTPUT DECREASING
The public has done their homework and fact checked Al Gore's movie. Fool me once - shame on you. Fool me twice...
...it ain't gonna happen. Sorry Al, once public opinion starts changing rapidly the pendulum never swings back.
People now understand that CO2 is only 0.038% of the atmosphere, and 95% of the greenhouse effect is from natural water vapor.
Follow the Money
People now understand that Al Gore is Chairman of the for-profit Generation Investment Management(GIM), PROOF which is all about money ($$ Billions 'invested'). Gore is also a business partner in KPCB , another for-profit operation.
"Global warming" is about making windfall profits from "carbon trading", "cap and trade", etc. Certainly a non-profit organization could be created to handle "carbon markets" if it was not about making money.
When Al Gore goes to D.C. he should be treated like any other businessman or lobbyist trying to make a buck for his corporations. Either that, or he needs to walk away from these corporations.
"Computer Models" are totally unreliable.
Here is what an IPCC scientist had to say: Kevin Trenberth is head of the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research and one of the advisory scientists on the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
"None of the models used by IPCC is initialized to the observed state and none of the climate states in the models corresponds even remotely to the current observed climate."
The global warming skeptics are putting forward a lot of scientific data to educate the public ,
Advertisement
I have to admit that I was completely skeptical of your claims, but the random font size/color won me over.
May 11, 2009 7:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, it's not random. When we read in sudden big bold text that "The next ice age [age, age] might already have started [...ted, ...ted, ...ted]," can't you just feel the truth penetrate the front of your skull in waves?
Is it television that's made people so bad at formulating convincing arguments? The hormones in the milk?
May 11, 2009 8:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
You really don't get it, do you? Past warmings have not been a problem BECAUSE the CO2 levels have been low. CO2 levels are now much higher than they have ever been in the past -- I've just listened to a UM scientist describe his work with ice cores showing precisely this. Temperatures are currently higher than they have been in the past and the CO2 will keep this temperature here.
Your argument is analogous to the following: I've had the kids in the car (with the windows down) when it was 85 in July -- no problem. I've had the kids in the car with the windows up (in December) -- no problem. So why are you upset that I'm leaving the kids in the car with the windows up when the temperature is 75?
Doesn't matter what the majority think -- it matters what the scientists know -- and the vast majority of those with the most knowledge are not on your side,
If you're right and my side prevails -- we lose some economic growth. If I'm right and your side prevails -- we all fry.
May 11, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"myth that "humans cause global warming."" The graph you link to does not show changes in the last 300 years (read the text to it). The graph to look at on your link is 'Reconstructed Temperature' - this clearly shows a sharp upward temperature in the last 10 years. The only plausible explanation is human activity.
"our recent "global warming" is really nothing compared to many pre-industrial "global warmings."" If you mean - in the last 2000 years - that's rubbish - see the 'Reconstructed Temperature' graph. If you mean 'at the end of the last Ice Age temps rose very significantly' - that's true, but irrelevant to how WE deal with temp rises today.
"95% of the greenhouse effect is from natural water vapor" - where's your source?
Even suppose the next Ice Age is almost here (no evidence but never mind) - don't you think we should save some natural resources to deal with it?
May 11, 2009 9:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
"don't you think we should save some natural resources to deal with it?"
Nah. Crude will fall from the sky like manna. You just have to have faith. ;^)
May 11, 2009 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure what "scaled electron temperature" of the solar wind means, and how a change in that quantity for the solar wind couples to temperatures on the surface of the earth.
Can you explain more?
Clearly, a 13% decrease in that quantity does not affect the earth proportionately, as would a change in the output of the sun itself, since a 13% decrease in the 288 degree Kelvin average surface temperature of the earth would drop the average surface temperature to 250 degrees Kelvin or about - 9 degrees Fahrenheit. This would cause the earth to ice over rather quickly.
May 11, 2009 9:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe, just maybe, this is really the Time Cube guy, just working up to revealing the "full truth" to us out here in the bloggy hinterlands.
Just Google it - I refuse to link...
May 11, 2009 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
What does it matter? We're all gonna die because God is enraged about legalized gay marriage in Maine anyway. Whether the means is global warming, evangelical crazies launching Stratcom's nuclear weapons, or a horrendous flu pandemic generated in a hog gulag somewhere, or even all of the above, all that really matters is that the "good" people are enraptured into heaven and the world ends according to their version of scripture.
May 11, 2009 10:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that the Doctor is going for an "I told you so" more than anything else.
Normally, when these polls on Americans' grasp of science come up, it's to lament, you know, Americans' poor grasp of science. Here, the polls and ignorance are swapped, and the result is pretty weak.
Like putting out a housewater with fire.
May 11, 2009 10:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well said.
May 12, 2009 2:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dr. Goldstein-
While I will willingly consider the possibility that you are right- and indeed as a Geologist (with no ties to the oil industry whatsoever), there is certainly merit to your claims, there are some important points that need to be addressed that you essentially disregard.
1) The late 1800's jump in global temperatures (coinciding with the end of the little Ice Age that had run from around 1300 AD onward) coincides perfectly with the increase in industrial activity associated with the Gilded Age.
2) The increase in atmospheric CO2 during this period is profoundly indisputable- and there is no scenario where that is a good thing, global warming or not, we can't go pumping all this carbon into the atmosphere that took the planet billions of years and the effort of every organism up until Homo sapiens to sequester in the Earth as petroleum, coal, and natural gas.
3) Throughout Earth history, major spikes in the markers we geologists use to track atmospheric CO2 through time spike just before decidedly warm periods over the ages. That said, there is also evidence for CO2 spikes right before major cold periods. Clearly this one swings both ways- and who's to say which one we are actually swinging towards right now? We will not know until it is much too late (a similar problem to what we can expect with regards to peak oil- we won't recognize peak oil until 5-10 after its been reached, a scary thought to be sure).
4) The Earth has gone in and out of icehouse and greenhouse periods several times over the aeons. Indeed, a Greenhouse Earth has been far more common than Icehouse Earth. We have been in an Icehouse Earth phase for about 40 Million years, since the Antarctic Ice sheet first started to form. The principal controls on this matter appear to have been pole-to-pole oriented oceans, and continental landmass over or near the poles, together with atmospheric CO2. The role of solar output in terms of geological history is moot, as there is no way to determine it, and consequently, it is suspect at best to apply it now in projections for the future.
5) As you can see, I'm personally rather conflicted on the issue; and indeed Geologists and Climatologists DO NOT see eye to eye on this matter- largely stemming from the time scales in which we work. But, irregardless of the disagreement on the what/how/why, how can you possibly argue that we should still keep going on the train wreck we are on? Oil and coal will run out- CO2 is only one of the environmental problems generated by coal, we need to work hard on other solutions; solutions that are inexhaustible, such as wind and solar. Otherwise, the energy crisis we will face will render this debate absolutely moot. I respectfully ask you to look at this from that perspective. It is a take that everyone, regardless of their view on anthropogenic climate change.
-HHG
May 11, 2009 10:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Very well put. Especially #5. Everyone has so much political/policy justification tied up in global warming it clouds objectivity on both sides of the debate. Hanging every proposed action on the framework of global warming makes it more difficult to advocate for policies that should have strong justification regardless of the causal factors for warming.
You seem up on the issue ... mind telling me what you think of my new pet theory?
I wonder if global warming models aren't taking into account heat being directly pumped into our water system bypassing the atmosphere entirely. Specifically, I wonder about the nuclear plants dumping millions of gallons of superheated water directly into the oceans (via fresh water systems). The hot water is diluted with cold to avoid cooking the fish - but that shouldn't effect the actual quantity of heat being added to the system.
I'm just getting into the software model guts (gotta have hobbies), but so far I can't find any place where this is taken into account. It would really explain why the ice seems to be melting far more quickly than the atmospheric-based models are predicting. Sure would love to see them overlay the increase new plants with the rate of increase to OHC (ocean heat content).
May 11, 2009 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I suspect that heat may be the producer of localized, rather than global, effects. The amount is far too small, and the dispersal too wide, to have as much effect as absorption from reduced albedo at the poles as the ice caps thin and melt.
We are also seeing an increase in sunlight transmission (in) as we reduce particulates in the upper atmosphere.
Look at the poles first. Their systems are both the most delicately balanced and the most critical in terms of maintaining something near global dynamic thermal equilibrium.
May 11, 2009 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tough to say- you would really need someone who studies ocean temperature patterns and currents to get a proper analysis of that. My feeling (although it is by no means an expert opinion) is that the effect in that case is ephemeral and local at best, but then we do know that the addition of large volumes of cold or fresh water into the ocean can trigger regional cooling periods (the 8,000 year ago cooling period was caused by pro-glacial lakes that covered most of central Canada draining into Hudson's Bay), so the concept of local variations of water salinity and temperature triggering climatic changes is certainly plausible, but I would hesitate to suggest it could have a worldwide effect.
I'm starting my PhD in the fall, working with rocks deposited during a periods ~700 Million years ago known as 'Snowball Earth' in which the entire planet, down to low-latitude regions, was covered glaciers and thick sea-ice (some have suggested the oceans were frozen solid- this is a load of hooey, but the sea-ice could easily have been several 100's of meters thick). I'll be focusing on oceanic circulation and chemistry, so over the next 4 years, there's a good chance I'll be able to provide some insight on this issue. If I can figure out how to get Firefox to let me blog here, I might make some posts about it. We'll see.
May 11, 2009 1:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I've been studying some of the research from David Pierce. I went ahead and asked him his thoughts(I've been nervous to contact him for some reason) ... and he got back to me pretty damn quick.
Apparently, conventional wisdom tends to agree to agree with your take:
(Part I)
May 11, 2009 5:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
But he also points out that there hasn't been much research done, and directed me to an article in the New Scientist called Heat we emit could warm the Earth. This in turn provided a link to the underlying research paper on the subject which indicates:
So, really back close to square one. The issue looks significant, and clearly it needs to be included in modeling; but the shortcoming may not support my theory about the source of warming effect under-prediction in the current models ... which is what I'm really after(the real answer, not vindication of my theory). A big part of me wants to just start a global model from scratch using GL structures that can be pushed to one of the new parallel processing GPUs ... a bunch of this crap is in &#*$%# Fortran for chrissake (how 1987!).
(Part 2)
May 11, 2009 5:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its tricky and complicated business.
I'm well aware of the urban thermal effect, which warms the aquifer and bedrock under cities, and the potential lasting effects of that, as aquifers can have several-thousand year recharge times. Additionally, the influx of warm water in an area of the ocean (say, the Nuclear plant at Seabrook, NH) can have a devastating effect on the local marine life. Also, temperature variations change the solubility of many chemicals, which means that warm water has at least a moderately different composition that cooler water.
Bottom line, the actual net effect of any of this is difficult to properly discern, but that just means that more studies need to be conducted as part of risk assessment
May 11, 2009 5:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't forget all of the carbon locked up in limestone. There is probably more carbon in lime stone, marble and fosilised coral than the mentioned fossil fuels.
Enough heat could start the release of that carbon and lead to a runaway greenhouse effect. The hotter it gets the more carbon boils out. The more carbon boils out the hotter it gets.
May 11, 2009 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do you know how much it takes to remove the CO2 from calcite (CaCO3)? The kilns used to produce lime (CaO) run at several hundred degrees, and that is how the CO2 is produced and released. Acid rain is a greater natural threat to this than heating of the planet, by a factor of numerous orders of magnitude- and even that is pretty negligible.
That said, you are right about exponentially more carbon being locked up in limestone and non-economic black carbonaceous shales.
May 11, 2009 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
holyhandgrenaid you say The role of solar output in terms of geological history is moot, as there is no way to determine it, and consequently, it is suspect at best to apply it now in projections for the future.
I see your point, I guess there is no way to study past solar activity is there? But don't we understand the way it works well enough to at least make rudimentary projections?
May 11, 2009 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
There are models, and a lot of assumptions, but they tend to conflict, and generally there isn't a whole lot of evidence for any of them. However, I did see a talk a few years ago by a guy who can apparently measure, geochemically, how many cosmic nano-particles hit a rock while it was exposed in a terrestrial environment (so not in the ocean). However, I don't think this has been applied to any time that is Pre-Pleistocene glaciation, because the markers tend to be faint, and you need to be sure if, when, and how long the rocks in question were exposed. So, someone is trying, but I'm not so sure I would expect it to go anywhere. For now we essentially have whatever models and assumptions help any given researcher's goals.
Certainly none of these models (any for glacial and greenhouse periods prior to the most recent) would not be very useful. Which is very convenient to folks who simply want to peg any trends we see on solar cyclicity.
May 11, 2009 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oy.
Good denial-debunking from Chris Mooney:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/20/AR2009032002660.html
May 11, 2009 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
You grossly misstated the Rasmussen Poll. Kan Yuo Komprehend Wat Yuo Reed?. The survey population in this poll was not a sample of "The Public", but instead "Likely Voters". The sample size was just 1000, and it is unclear whether Rasmussen has been able to overcome the inherent bias of only phone-polling using land lines, not cells. A recent estimate now places US household with only cellular phone service at 20%. An opinion poll is just that, opinion, and has nothing to do with whether contemporary climate change is being predominently by human activity.
You misstated what the linked NASA press release said, and even titled it deceptively.
The Release is actually titled, "Solar Wind Loses Power, Hits 50-year Low". The trend was not "sudden", given the time scales involved. Solar Wind data has only been recorded for about 50 years, and this decrease began in 1990, 38% of the dataset's time duration. Clearly, solar variability has effect upon Earth's global temperature, yet Global Change scientists have not simply ignored it. Al Gore being founder and chairman of Generation Investment Management is not indicative of his dishonesty, but instead evidence that he truly believes what he has been championing for many years, and it is not just about Climate Change. It uses many other metrics for deriving its investment strategy: future concerns about possible Global Pandemics, Focusing on real needs of low-income consumers for the co-creation of value; the changing perceptions of consumers within dominant economies, in the emerging cultural paradigm shifts of post-consumerism/post-materialism; Investment implications from an increasing global population's fresh-water demands; and the investment implication from the changing global demographics. A primary Generation's strategy is to invest in sustainable technologies.
You slander Gore, implying he's just been hyping global climate change to make money off of this investment firm, yet he puts effort into and bets his future reputation on what he has been preaching, and is a strong proponent of Sustainable Capitalism. You instead stick you head up where the sun don't shine, and reemerge with sample of what you discover while there, which are in reality other people's waste-piles of dishonest research, and and mimicking the protagonist in "Gullible's Travails", repackaged it as truth. You slam Gore for working on a for profit venture that is aligned with his social philosophy. These things only prove that you are being dishonest when claiming to be a libertarian too.
Oh yeah, the blog post's lame formatting is a massive fail.
May 11, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
How this became a politically polarized issue is endlessly fascinating. Do you guys really think that some evil cabal of liberal scientists got together at a secret conference and faked this whole global warming thing up because they hate rich people or the west or their mothers or something?
May 11, 2009 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I just realized that I asked question of a guy who posted a blog that had eleven extra-large shouty font changes as if I expected a coherent answer.
Never mind.
May 11, 2009 4:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
ROFLMAO!
May 11, 2009 7:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
There was once a time in America, when conspiracy theorists were an almost insignificant portion of the total population, and they were almost always extreme right-wing loons, like Birchers, American Independent Party members, and White Supremacists. Conspiracy Theories have become a cottage industry for a burgeoning class of paranoid entrepreneurs, who have successfully made marketing forays into the left-side of the political bipolarity too. Tom Bell, Alex Jones, and Ron Paul have all made strong left-sided inroads to increase their base. It is useless using logic against one who is a conspiracy true-believer, facts cannot penetrate their thickened skulls.
Astro-turfing policy orgs constantly pump disinformation into the datastreams too. Here is Dr. Goldstein, from B.C., Canada, who laughably claims he is a libertarian. Can you say: Fraser Institute?
May 11, 2009 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
The MSM really doesn't help this issue either. They tend to say really stupid stuff that often goes well beyond what the scientists themselves are saying - but the public just assumes the scientists are being quoted directly. Progressives tend to criticize people like Will because he misconstrues for minimization purposes while applauding those who misconstrue to maximize concern. It's sort of a self-reinforcing dynamic.
I think the skepticism represents a breakdown in trust between the public and the media - who the public relies on to convey dispassionate accurate information. The scientists doing the research are very sharp and generally don't play politics at all, but it's very challenging to access their work directly and have it make sense. The average person can't really judge the science for themselves. It becomes an issue of trust not logic.
May 11, 2009 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell it to the polar ice caps buddy...
I am no scientist but a poll on what america understands about global warming...
in addition to the margin of error you should factor into error for people who get their information from Fox News and cereal boxes (well okay, this may be an unfair dig at cereal box readers) etc. because they are really just passing on the opinions of a few people who essentially work for the oil and gas, 'let's keep things the same' guys.
I am going by my intuition. The Earth and Nature have some natural tools at their disposal to respond to the idiocy of man, seasons to shift, earth changes happen.
Polar ice caps melt... that's a problem. Not good. We should look at what we can do to slow that down.
Either way, we need to do a better job in using natural resources and taking care of our environment.
May 11, 2009 7:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell it to the polar ice caps buddy...
I am no scientist but a poll on what america understands about global warming...
in addition to the margin of error you should factor into error for people who get their information from Fox News and cereal boxes (well okay, this may be an unfair dig at cereal box readers) etc. because they are really just passing on the opinions of a few people who essentially work for the oil and gas, 'let's keep things the same' guys.
I am going by my intuition. The Earth and Nature have some natural tools at their disposal to respond to the idiocy of man, seasons to shift, earth changes happen.
Polar ice caps melt... that's a problem. Not good. We should look at what we can do to slow that down.
Either way, we need to do a better job in using natural resources and taking care of our environment.
May 11, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
sorry don't know why that posted twice.
May 11, 2009 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, I never knew working with a FOR-PROFIT company would negate or nullify one's beliefs.
May 11, 2009 8:06 PM | Reply | Permalink