Two-thirds of Americans now believe global warming is real

Mar 05, 2013

(Phys.org) —An increasing number of Americans indicate that there is evidence of global warming, with 67 percent now expressing a belief that the planet has warmed over the past four decades, according to a University of Michigan survey.

It marks the highest level of belief in since a 72 percent-measure in 2008 and is up from 52 percent in spring 2010.

The results come from the National Surveys on Energy and Environment, a joint effort of the Center for Local, State, and at U-M's Ford School of Public Policy and the Muhlenberg Institute of Public Opinion at Muhlenberg College in Allentown, Pa.

"The only individual characteristic that reveals stark differences among Americans regarding the existence of global warming continues to be partisan standing," said Ford School Professor Barry Rabe, director of the Center for Local, State, and Urban Policy.

"For the first time since 2008, a majority, or 51 percent, of self-identified Republicans stated that they think global warming is occurring," he said.

The telephone survey of 998 Americans between Nov. 26 and Dec. 5, 2012, had a margin of error of 3 percent either way.

Other findings include:

•In comparisons between surveys before and after the of Sandy in October 2012, the importance of hurricanes as a factor cited by individuals in their belief that global warming is happening rose significantly.
•More Americans than at any time since 2008 attribute increasing entirely to the activities of man, with over 4 out of 10 individuals stating that human activity is the cause of the change.
•Among the shrinking percentage of Americans who doubt global warming's existence, there appears to be both a decreased impact of personal experiences on their views on this subject and an increased prominence for personal religious and political factors in the determination of their doubts.

Explore further: Study shows no lead pollution in oilsands region

More information: Report: closup.umich.edu/national-surv… ef-related-questions

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Support for climate change action drops, poll finds

May 08, 2012

Americans' support for government action on global warming remains high but has dropped during the past two years, according to a new survey by Stanford researchers in collaboration with Ipsos Public Affairs. Political rhetoric ...

American opinion cools on global warming

Jan 27, 2010

Public concern about global warming has dropped sharply since the fall of 2008, according to a national survey released today by researchers at Yale and George Mason universities.

Recommended for you

UN climate talks shuffle to a close in Bonn

9 minutes ago

Concern was high at a perceived lack of urgency as UN climate negotiations shuffled towards a close in Bonn on Saturday with just 14 months left to finalise a new, global pact.

Study shows no lead pollution in oilsands region

Oct 24, 2014

New research from a world-renowned soil and water expert at the University of Alberta reveals that there's no atmospheric lead pollution in Alberta's oilsands region—a finding that contradicts current scientific ...

User comments : 52

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

sennekuyl
3.8 / 5 (11) Mar 05, 2013
During winter? That is extraordinary!
ScooterG
1.7 / 5 (28) Mar 05, 2013
An extraordinary amount of money is being spent trying to convince the public that AGW is real and dangerous. These "researchers" are simply testing the effectiveness of the advertising campaign.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (16) Mar 05, 2013
FTA:

An increasing number of Americans indicate that there is evidence of global warming, with 67 percent now expressing a belief that the planet has warmed over the past four decades, according to a University of Michigan survey.


If I asked people if they thought gun violence was on the rise and they said yes...does that mean they believe gun control legislation is necessary?

"An increasing number of Americans indicate that they believe more gun control legislation is necessary, with 67 percent now expressing a believe that gun violence is on the rise over the past four decades"....

Just a TAD spurious....

In fact the article further states that in fact only 4/10 Americans believe in AGW. Was there a point in all of this that I'm missing?
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (18) Mar 05, 2013
And there's Scooter once again expousing his rhetoric of dem dere CONSPIRATORING bad peoples all spending all dat dere MONEY to convince dem poor people of dat LIE! Dem bad ol RESEARCHERS all CONSPIRING togeather to fool dem all!

Buffoon!

In fact the article further states that in fact only 4/10 Americans believe in AGW. Was there a point in all of this that I'm missing?


Yea there genius, the point is that as the evidence gets honestly reviewed by thinking people, more and more of them realize the truth of the matter. Apparently you don't fall into either catagory.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (13) Mar 05, 2013
Yea there genius, the point is that as the evidence gets honestly reviewed by thinking people, more and more of them realize the truth of the matter. Apparently you don't fall into either catagory.


But nothing of the kind can be inferred from the article. In order to do that we'd have to have some kind of question in the poll, or prior data from previous similar polls to suggest this. We get neither from this article, or at least we do get one that suggests people believe that the Earth is getting hotter, whatever else that implies isn't in the question. We get instead two numbers which may or may not suggest that more and more people think AGW is real or an issue.

FTR: I do believe AGW is an issue that is not only real, but needs to be addressed practically and technologically....and quickly.
Maggnus
3.5 / 5 (13) Mar 05, 2013
MM, seriously are we reading the same article? There are many similar previous polls, and they even allude to some of them in the article. Am I missing your point?

And if I jumped on you a little quick, my appologies. It can be hard to tell with some.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (12) Mar 05, 2013
Maggnus,

FTA:

"More Americans than at any time since 2008 attribute increasing global temperatures entirely to the activities of man, with over 4 out of 10 individuals stating that human activity is the cause of the change."


Ok so what we can infer from that is that 40% of Americans believe in AGW. We can also infer that this percentage used to be smaller in the past...which is kind of obvious because at one point no one was even aware of it. So more detailed data would be nice. Nonetheless that's not 2/3rds of Americans.

FTA:

An increasing number of Americans indicate that there is evidence of global warming, with 67 percent now expressing a belief that the planet has warmed over the past four decades, according to a University of Michigan survey.


All we can infer from that is that many Americans can look at data and/or read thermometers. They are missing the crucial point in that phrasing of the question.

My point is (cont.)
Modernmystic
2.2 / 5 (13) Mar 05, 2013
(cont) that most Americans aren't WILLING to admit that humans are responsible for the obvious increasing temperatures. They're willing to admit the sky is blue, the Earth is round, and it's getting hotter BUT they're not willing to accede to the political demands the "other side" is pushing for if they admit responsibility.

At least I'm seeing no evidence of that in this article, or anecdotally in my life in general. If you want to bring them along charts and graphs aren't going to get you there. They CAN read, they CAN reason, and they are AFRAID of the solutions proposed...more than a frying planet apparently.

I suggest offering more technological solutions like nuclear, solar/wind (as decentralized adjuncts), cleaner coal, and especially fusion research (which is the real winner). If we keep pushing carbon taxes and what is being perceived as political power grabs over the most vital sector of the economy we will probably continue to just spin wheels. There's my two cents...
Maggnus
3.4 / 5 (8) Mar 05, 2013
MM: Ok I see what you're saying. I think you've missed the point of the article (lol assuming I haven't!); to wit, 2/3rd's of Americans now "believe" in global warming, of which 40% believe it is the result of man made activities.

Which also means that 60% of the 2/3rd's are accurately described by your comment. Another 30% of the whole population apparently can't read, can't reason and are clueless of any possible solutions! :)

Pretty sad state of affairs over all. And your suggestion is worth more than 2 cents!
ayesdi_fdesay
3.2 / 5 (13) Mar 05, 2013
An extraordinary amount of money is being spent trying to convince the public that AGW is real and dangerous. These "researchers" are simply testing the effectiveness of the advertising campaign.


Oh god, just stop with the bullshit. It's actually the other way around
http://www.rootst...e_denial

The fact that even this many Americans believe AGW is real is quite fortunate given the influence of these groups.
ScooterG
1.7 / 5 (23) Mar 05, 2013
An extraordinary amount of money is being spent trying to convince the public that AGW is real and dangerous. These "researchers" are simply testing the effectiveness of the advertising campaign.


Oh god, just stop with the bullshit. It's actually the other way around
http://www.rootst...e_denial

The fact that even this many Americans believe AGW is real is quite fortunate given the influence of these groups.


LOL...if it (agw) was real science conducted in real scientific ways by real scientists, there would be no need for polls - or public support for that matter.

Scam, scam, scam.
FrankHerbertWhines
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 05, 2013
NO.......we don't.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (19) Mar 05, 2013
An extraordinary amount of money is being spent trying to convince the public that AGW is real and dangerous. These "researchers" are simply testing the effectiveness of the advertising campaign.


Oh god, just stop with the bullshit. It's actually the other way around
http://www.rootst...e_denial

The fact that even this many Americans believe AGW is real is quite fortunate given the influence of these groups.


LOL...if it (agw) was real science conducted in real scientific ways by real scientists, there would be no need for polls - or public support for that matter.

Scam, scam, scam.

The only scam here is the pretense that yours is an informed and rational intellect. :rolleyes:
Maggnus
4 / 5 (12) Mar 05, 2013
LOL...if it (agw) was real science conducted in real scientific ways by real scientists, there would be no need for polls - or public support for that matter.

Scam, scam, scam.


Lol and if you had the ability to understand what you read, or even the ability to formulate a coheent idea, you might be viewed as something more than the empty headed schill you are! A laughably inept schill to boot!
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (12) Mar 05, 2013
NO.......we don't.


Oh yay, ol one tooth pitching in with his entire repertoire of knowledge on the subject.
Budding Geologist
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 06, 2013
"LOL...if it (agw) was real science conducted in real scientific ways by real scientists, there would be no need for polls - or public support for that matter."

It requires polls and public support because AGW is a reality which accepting and responding to it requires changes in our economy which harm many powerful interests. The coal, oil, and natural gas industries would be destroyed if we tried to eliminate GHG admissions. In addition power costs would maybe double, which power intensive industries do not welcome. These companies spend millions of dollars lobbying. This is a democracy where millions of dollars spent trying to change public opinion can result in favorable policy, it also effects public campaigns when companies can run political ads against politicians who might hurt their profit margins. You argue there is a campaign to convince people of the "scam" that is AGW. Where is the interest as powerful or wealthy which can compete against these to push it?
sennekuyl
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 06, 2013
The polls don't support the science, the polls support changing legislature because people are beginning to understand the science. It is the humanities that are putting out these polls --- for their own science, I might add* --- not climatology or the many other sciences that interact (to some degree) with it. That is the problem; politics hasn't kept up with the science because the common person hasn't kept up with the science.

Sometimes that has been for good reason, sometimes due to jumping to conclusions based on the findings... But as the joke goes, if AGW measures are overstated, are humans really going to be upset they live in an efficient, less environmentally damaging society? (A little bit if they aren't comfortable and are inconvenienced.)

* Denial of the science of Climatology has been a gold mine for statistical analysis, demographics & political sciences. It is fantastic.
The Alchemist
1.3 / 5 (15) Mar 06, 2013
Come on guys, if AGW were real, it would be obvious and there would be a simple and intuitive way of predicting it, *that* just about any one could understand and apply.
Son of a gun, there is:
http://www.facebo...4557455/
Honestly, the controversy and mis-direction are the mystery.
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (20) Mar 06, 2013
Come on guys, if AGW were real, it would be obvious and there would be a simple and intuitive way of predicting it, *that* just about any one could understand and apply.

Utter rubbish.

Even the most simple of the Physical Laws of Nature are neither obvious nor intuitively understood by the vast majority of people. Hell, far too many have trouble with simple Arithmetic and Logic.

And, even many of those who claim to have an understanding of such matters, such as you and your fellow denialists, are sorely lacking for that which you here claim should be easily attained.
thermodynamics
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 06, 2013
Modernmisepeak: You said:

"More Americans than at any time since 2008 attribute increasing global temperatures entirely to the activities of man, with over 4 out of 10 individuals stating that human activity is the cause of the change."

The quote was taken out of context (not that you would do something like that). The whole quote was:

"More Americans than at any time since 2008 attribute increasing global temperatures entirely to the activities of man, with over 4 out of 10 individuals stating that human activity is the cause of the change."

Look at the difference of the quotes. You imply that only 40% believe in AGW. That is not what it says. Instead it clearly states that: "...attribute increasing global temperatures entirely to the activities of man..." Do you see a difference?

Continued:
thermodynamics
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2013
Continued for ModernMispeak: What it really implies is that 40% believe man is the ONLY cause of AGW which means that 27% more (to get to 67% of those who see global warming and say that man may have some distribution of impact which is not defined in the article but probably will be in the paper (which I intend to read to see how well this article was written). In other words, the remaining 27% could fall anywhere from thinking there is a 1% influence of man to those who think there is a 99% influence of man. I actually fall in this range of people who have looked hard and long at the science and put human activity in the 60% - 80% range now with that changing to a greater influence as time goes on and things don't change. So, Modernmispeak, did you purposefully leave out the clarifiers that makes is clear what the thoughts of the 40% hence the other 27% were? I smell misdirection.

Is English a third language for you?
Have you ever had to write a scientific paper?
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (8) Mar 06, 2013
Your childish Ad hom aside Thermodynamics I stand by my original point, which is that we can't infer how many Americans believe in AGW beyond the 40%, since AS YOU YOURSELF SAID, and I quote:

In other words, the remaining 27% could fall anywhere from thinking there is a 1% influence of man to those who think there is a 99% influence of man. I actually fall in this range of people who have looked hard and long at the science and put human activity in the 60% - 80% range now with that changing to a greater influence as time goes on and things don't change.


We are no closer than we were before we read this article to understanding public opinion on AGW by your own admission, though for whatever reason the authors apparently thought it important to point out that 67% of people think it's been hotter recently. I don't...call me crazy.

So thanks for agreeing with my main point even though you were oblivious to the fact that you were. Did you just want to pick a fight?
Lilly Anne
2.6 / 5 (9) Mar 06, 2013
Come on guys, if AGW were real, it would be obvious and there would be a simple and intuitive way of predicting it, *that* just about any one could understand and apply. Son of a gun, there is www facebook com #! groups 454689344557455 ... Honestly, the controversy and mis-direction are the mystery.
How are you able to include active links in comments here? That isn't supposed to work!

The climate is a complex dynamic system. I believe there are multiple, bad, ominous, dire effects on the climate and environment due to use of fossil fuels. Our (relative) inability to make accurate predictions about the rate and type of change that will follow doesn't mean that there is no cause for concern. There's computational science, as well as physical science, using observational data. The latter is quite convincing to me.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (7) Mar 06, 2013
Come on guys, if AGW were real, it would be obvious and there would be a simple and intuitive way of predicting it, *that* just about any one could understand and apply.
Son of a gun, there is:
http://www.facebo...4557455/
Honestly, the controversy and mis-direction are the mystery.


Alchemist you've added that same link on 2 articles, but it only takes the person clicking it to their own facebook page. I'm not sure what you're trying to show, so rather than linking to it please outline what it says.

The way this quoted comment reads, you are suggesting that human-induced global warming is not occurring. Elsewhere you have suggested you agree that it is. Clarify where you stand please.
thermodynamics
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 06, 2013
ModernMistake: As I mentioned above I went back and read the paper (downloaded as PDF from the link in the article). It verifies my interpretation of the 40% being a floor for believing that ONLY anthropogenic causes are warming the earth. The full paper breaks out the other groups that consider the warming to be natural variation and those that see a combination of the two. The paper is well written and easy to understand. I suggest you try reading it. Once again it shows that you didn't even read the news article correctly so I am not sure the full article will help much.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (8) Mar 06, 2013
As I mentioned above I went back and read the paper (downloaded as PDF from the link in the article). It verifies my interpretation of the 40% being a floor for believing that ONLY anthropogenic causes are warming the earth.


So? I said as much, and the article verified that as well, who are you trying to convince of something here?

The full paper breaks out the other groups that consider the warming to be natural variation and those that see a combination of the two.


It does no such thing. It asks "What is the primary factor that has caused you to BELIEVE that temperatures on Earth are increasing" (emphasis mine) and then breaks that down. That is NOT the same thing as asking someone what they think the CAUSE of the WARMING is. Credulity and cause are not the same thing.

Had it asked "What is the primary factor that you believe has CAUSED the increasing temperature of the Earth" you'd have a point. They didn't and you don't.
VendicarE
3.9 / 5 (9) Mar 06, 2013
ScooTard would rather ignore the warnings of the worlds scintists and bring humanity to a crushing end.

"An extraordinary amount of money is being spent trying to convince the public that AGW is real and dangerous." - ScooTard

Some evil men just like to watch the world burn.

Some ignorant men are their facilitators.

Which is SkooTard?

VendicarE
4 / 5 (8) Mar 06, 2013
Real scientist Richard Alley has some interesting comments for the ScooTard...

"if it (agw) was real science conducted in real scientific ways by real scientists" - ScooTard

http://www.youtub...index=26
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (12) Mar 06, 2013
What happened to 'global climate change'?
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2013
facebook.com/#!/groups/454689344557455/
You may need to log-in, then cut and paste.

The way this quoted comment reads, you are suggesting that human-induced global warming is not occurring. Elsewhere you have suggested you agree that it is. Clarify where you stand please.

Thx... We're discussing CO2 elsewhere, but to summarize-we can see the effects of AGW, loss of glacier/polar ice caps, current changes, etc..
However, "denialists" can easily see CO2 can not cause it. AGW-ers have the Al-gore-ithm that "proves" CO2 is causing AGW, can see the effects above, and so don't think too much more about it.
I believe in what I see, but also what I calculate-and AGW is occuring, but CO2 is a false path.
deepsand
3 / 5 (14) Mar 07, 2013
What happened to 'global climate change'?

What happened to your brain?
thermodynamics
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 07, 2013
Alchemist: You said: "I believe in what I see, but also what I calculate-and AGW is occuring, but CO2 is a false path."

Can you please put forward any scientific proof for your claim that CO2 is s false path? I can go back to fundamental heat transfer from either a physics or mechanical engineering course on radiant heat transfer in active gases and show that we have been engineering radiant heat transfer for 150 years and we can do that pretty well. The complexity comes in where everything on the planet and in local space interacts. However, CO2 and its interactions are well known. Just how do you rationalize that it is a "false path?"
deepsand
3 / 5 (14) Mar 07, 2013
... "denialists" can easily see CO2 can not cause it.

Mistakenly conflates all types of skeptics, trend, attribution and impact.

And, mistakenly assumes that all attribution skeptics "see" the same things.

Lastly, draws a conclusion based on facts not in evidence, namely that those attribution skeptics who discount radiative forcing are correct.
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2013
@thermo-
Actually working this on another discussion, and there are actually 10 powerful reasons not to believe in CO2. I will post them when this thread is dried up.
But as a tid-bit.
H2O is a powerful GH gas. Without it the temperature of the Earth would both drop dramatically, and have larger day/night variation. H2O is a broad spectrum absorber and even in the driest desert 1200x more prevalent in the atmosphere than CO2. H2O absorption spectrum overlaps most of CO2's, which has two narrow bands, and 1200 times even the slightest of overlaps...
For disjointed sparring, and a recent intelligent conversation w/Maggnus and the top 10, see...
http://phys.org/n...ost.html
The Alchemist
1.4 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2013
@Thermo-
The previous link has an immature top 10, page 5 of...
http://phys.org/n...est.html
Has the top ten.
Sorry about the drivel, runrig and howhot have good comments, the rest... non-concrete.
deepsand
3 / 5 (14) Mar 07, 2013
H2O is a powerful GH gas. H2O is a broad spectrum absorber and even in the driest desert 1200x more prevalent in the atmosphere than CO2.

Continues to ignore the fact that the rles of all GHGs are cumulative.

H2O absorption spectrum overlaps most of CO2's, ...

Which is not the same as H2O and CO2 absorbing photons of precisely the same quantum energies/wavelengths.
deepsand
3 / 5 (14) Mar 07, 2013
Sorry about the drivel, runrig and howhot have good comments, the rest... non-concrete.

Translation: Ignore that which rebuts me and for which I have no good defense.
VendicarE
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2013
Sadly RyggTard was repeatedly dropped on it's head at a very young age.

"What happened to 'global climate change'?" - Ryggtard

http://www.woodfo...83/trend
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (10) Mar 07, 2013
What happened to 'global climate change'?

What happened to your brain?

AGWites started calling it GCC when their predictions didn't meet their doom and gloom predictions. Temperatures stopped rising.
When has good science ever been a popularity contest?
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (13) Mar 07, 2013
When has good science ever been a popularity contest?

How would you ever know the difference?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2013
When has good science ever been a popularity contest?

How would you ever know the difference?

How deep!
So you think science should be whatever public opinion says it is.
Maggnus
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 07, 2013
How deep!
So you think science should be whatever public opinion says it is.


Guffaw! Its not the fact he got dropped on his head that is so sad, its the he keeps banging his head with a rock thinking it will shake his eyes loose from their stuck position that is truly sad.

What a maroon!
VendicarE
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2013
It never occurs to RyggTard that the "CC" in "IPCC" stands for "Climate Change".

"AGWites started calling it GCC when their predictions didn't meet their doom and gloom predictions." - RyggTard

Even though he has been told at least a half dozen times.

This is a lesson to all parents.

Do not drop your children on their head. They will become stupid, and possibly chronic liars like RyggTard.
VendicarE
4.6 / 5 (9) Mar 07, 2013
Oh man. The comedy is coming thick and hard.

The following comment is actually from someone who thinks that science is what a Corporate PR Agency tells him it is.

"So you think science should be whatever public opinion says it is." - RyggTard

Meanwhile Climate Scientists and other thinking people are well aware that the polling is measuring the views of the American people, and not defining science.

A good first approximation to approximating Libertarian/Randites like RyggTard is to take every truth and negate it. Formulate a conspiracy around the correct belief, and then spend your day whining about how the truth is a theft of your Liberty.

But this IS the way at least 30 percent of the U.S. Republican population thinks.

That is why they are constantly voting and working to destroy their own country.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (11) Mar 07, 2013
The gist of the story is that if a majority believe it to be true, it must be true.
That's pure democracy in action.
VendicarE
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2013
Now RyggTard changes his claim.

"The gist of the story is that if a majority believe it to be true, it must be true." - RyggTard

Earlier he said the gist of the story was to define what climate science was through polling.

The fact of the matter is that Conservatives like RyggTard are congenital liars, and they will say or do anything in order to further their ideological treason against their own nation, against mankind, and against nature.

I have never encountered a Libertarian/Randite who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.

RyggTard is no exception to that observation.

deepsand
2.7 / 5 (12) Mar 07, 2013
When has good science ever been a popularity contest?

How would you ever know the difference?

How deep!
So you think science should be whatever public opinion says it is.

Non-responsive to the question of how you personally might be capable of discerning the difference.
thermodynamics
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 07, 2013
@Thermo-
The previous link has an immature top 10, page 5 of...
http://phys.org/n...est.html
Has the top ten.
Sorry about the drivel, runrig and howhot have good comments, the rest... non-concrete.


You need to pay attention to what Magnus and others are saying. The heating value of all fossil fuels used by humanity is much less than that of sunlight. Approximately 400 Quads of energy used by people annually and approximately 8.2 million Quads of solar energy falling on the earth each year.

http://www.statis...tistics/

When you look at that you should be able to see why retaining some of the heating from the sun is much more effective than heating the earth directly (not to mention that radiation would balance the extra direct heating anyway). Listen to Magnus.
anti-geoengineering
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 10, 2013
sure it's warming a bit,"thanks" to aerosols and geoengineering...
ValeriaT
1.2 / 5 (13) Mar 10, 2013
IMO the global warming is real and it's result of both anthropocentric, both cosmological reasons (the cloud of neutrinos at the galactic plane in particular).
baudrunner
1 / 5 (11) Mar 10, 2013
Polls don't really tell us everything. 40% of Americans "believe" in global warming and the other 60% deny it and prefer to believe in Climate Change. I'm with the majority. I also believe that ice ages may have been the result of nuclear winters following catastrophic nuclear warfare. Skeptics laugh at that but we have the capability to create another ice age now, so why not then?
The Alchemist
1 / 5 (6) Mar 21, 2013
@Thermo, I have been well aware of the heating value of the Sun vs. fossil fuels for 30 years.
The arguement is: Is 60 ppm of CO2 insulation contributing to Global Warming, or...
Is enough waste heat to melt 5.4 million (x10) cubic meters of ice per day contributing?
178200000 joules/gal of gasoline
10200000 gal/day (MULT.)
1.81764E 15 joules/day (same as a Nuke)
1.00E 06 ml/m3
4.186 joules/deg
4.19E 06 joules to heat 1 m3 1 deg
4.34E 08 m3 heated 1 deg/day
5.44E 06 m3 ice melted per day
the world burns about 10x this in fossil fuels daily
(with thanks to Vendi)