Some Americans are cooling off on global warming

Jun 28, 2013
Some Americans are cooling off on global warming

A complaint-worthy winter has led to a drop in the number of Americans who believe that global warming is real, according to a University of Michigan survey.

The percentage of Americans surveyed who think there is solid evidence of global warming remained at a majority, or 63 percent, in the spring. That's down from 67 percent surveyed last fall, which was the highest since 2008.

"This drop suggests that the solid rebound in acceptance of global warming among Americans observed in recent surveys has, at least temporarily, ended," said Barry Rabe, director of the Center for Local, State and Urban Policy at U-M's Ford School of Public Policy.

The results come from the National Surveys on Energy and Environment, a joint effort of U-M and the Muhlenberg Institute of Public Opinion at Muhlenberg College in Allentown, Pa.

"The fairly and slow arriving spring weather this year appears to have contributed to a slight decline in the number of Americans that think global warming is happening," said Chris Borick, the survey's co-author and director of the Muhlenberg Institute.

The telephone survey of 852 Americans between April 1 and April 14 had a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points either way.

Other findings include:

  • Of the 22 percent of Americans who do not think there is evidence of global warming, a growing number cite their personal observations of cold and snowy winter conditions as the primary factor influencing this belief (31 percent versus 18 percent last fall).
  • Among Americans who express doubt about the existence of global warming, 16 percent cite religious factors as the primary reason for their skepticism, compared to less than 1 percent in fall 2008.
  • The spring results provide continuing evidence that while may play a role in shifting individual positions on the existence of global warming, more often they tend to confirm existing beliefs on the presence or absence of .

Explore further: Monitoring heavy metals using mussels

More information: closup.umich.edu/national-surv… e-of-global-warming/

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

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 ...

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.

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 ...

Recommended for you

Implications for the fate of green fertilizers

18 hours ago

The use of green fertilizers is a practice that has been around since humans first began growing food, but researchers are warning that modern techniques for the creation of these fertilizers could have implications ...

User comments : 76

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Miles_OToole
3.5 / 5 (30) Jun 28, 2013
In other words, most Americans are science-illiterate and have the attention span of a fruit fly. News at 11.
Shootist
2 / 5 (38) Jun 28, 2013
Climate change is real. The climate does change, after all.

The arguments occur when trying to assess blame (AGW vs NoAGW) and palliative efforts (can man "help" the climate).

I don't believe (wo)mankind is forcing Climate Change. Why? Because there are no 500 year old dairy farms in Greenland, nor 500 year old vineyards in Scotland. There were once, but it is too cold now (or at least it hasn't been warm enough, long enough).

I also don't believe (wo)mankind can either affect the global climate or cause the climate to respond to her will. At least not without exploding the equivalent of every nuclear weapon in the US and Russia armory, or building orbital solar shields. And I'm uncertain of the nukes because there have been NUMEROUS meteor impacts that have injected more energy into the environment than all the nuclear weapons on the planet combined, yet have failed to do more than cause regional disruption of the eco system, and NO global climate change. (nuclear winter is false).
Grallen
3.8 / 5 (23) Jun 28, 2013
Average global temperature is trending upward in tandem with the increase in greenhouse gases. Greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere are increasing in tandem with human production of those greenhouse gases.

In vs Out. We are a source of greenhouse gases that is just slightly more forceful than natures ability to correct it. We are tipping a scale and even though the scale is massive and we are only tipping it a little: the consequences build up.
runrig
4 / 5 (25) Jun 28, 2013
.............I don't believe (wo)mankind is forcing Climate Change. Why? Because there are no 500 year old dairy farms in Greenland, nor 500 year old vineyards in Scotland. There were once, but it is too cold now (or at least it hasn't been warm enough, long enough).


Not true - the Romans introduced a liking for wine and the demand waned when they left. We prefer beer here.

I also don't believe (wo)mankind can either affect the global climate or cause the climate to respond to her will. At least not without exploding the equivalent of every nuclear weapon in the US and Russia armory, or building orbital solar shields. ......... yet have failed to do more than cause regional disruption of the eco system....


A driver needs to be permanently present - we are not continually letting off nukes in their hundreds.
I suggest you educate yourself on GHG theory - this is a good guide:
http://scienceofd...-effect/
Claudius
1.6 / 5 (32) Jun 28, 2013
Average global temperature is trending upward in tandem with the increase in greenhouse gases.


This has not been true for about 16 years. The "lul" in warming in the last 16 years while CO2 levels have continued to skyrocket actually falsifies the AGW CO2 hypothesis.
tadchem
4 / 5 (18) Jun 28, 2013
Pew finds that, of 19 issues mentioned, "global warming" ranked 13th in priority among Democrats, and 19th of 19 among Republicans.
http://www.people...warming/
In spite of the media attention, Americans have not been persuaded it is as important as, say, terrorism, education, health care, taxes, etc.
axemaster
4.4 / 5 (21) Jun 28, 2013
I don't know why people continue to cite historical stuff when talking about global warming. It's irrelevant. Physics tells us that if you add energy to a system it will heat up. We have a satellite in orbit measuring energy flux at the Earth's surface. It indicates positive overall power. Therefore the temperature of the Earth will increase.

Not so complicated folks. They could have done these calculations back in the 1700's, if they wanted to.

In other news, somebody tried to throw a brick through a window in building 7 this morning here at MIT.
Shootist
1.7 / 5 (29) Jun 28, 2013
runrig

don't try to teach me the history of my people. The Doomesday book reports on all the Vineyards in Scotland, ca. 1250 CE. Look it up.

You may also look up how cooling weather in the 13th century drove the British Isles and Scandinavia to use diminishing crops (because of cold weather) of grain to make beer.

Claudius
1.8 / 5 (25) Jun 28, 2013
The Doomesday book reports on all the Vineyards in Scotland, ca. 1250 CE. Look it up.


Domesday Book
runrig
4.4 / 5 (19) Jun 28, 2013
runrig

don't try to teach me the history of my people. The Doomesday book reports on all the Vineyards in Scotland, ca. 1250 CE. Look it up.


I can second that - don't try to reinvent the history of my people - I'm British! thank you very much.
Regardless of wine the temperature proxy tells all with regard to the warmth of the MWP - it is now warmer than during the MWP. Wine production has rather more complexity to it than temperature like the market for it. I have researched it - you give me the link to prove your case.
runrig
4.4 / 5 (21) Jun 28, 2013
runrig

don't try to teach me the history of my people. The Doomesday book reports on all the Vineyards in Scotland, ca. 1250 CE. Look it up.



Idiot - the Doomsday book was written in 1086!
VENDItardE
1.6 / 5 (28) Jun 28, 2013
runrig

don't try to teach me the history of my people. The Doomesday book reports on all the Vineyards in Scotland, ca. 1250 CE. Look it up.



Idiot - the Doomsday book was written in 1086!


idiot - it's the Domesday book. idiot
Porgie
1.6 / 5 (28) Jun 28, 2013
ITs not real. It was created by left wing radicals to drive home political causes they determine useful. In fact the data began being recorded in the 50s during a geological cooling trend. Now that we are in a geological warming trend, it provides the left with dire data indicated that progress and job creation is bad for America and the world because its causing heating. Factually not so. Also, too much data has been found redacted, edited, created, or just plain falsified supporting warming cause by greenhouse gases.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (18) Jun 28, 2013
runrig

don't try to teach me the history of my people. The Doomesday book reports on all the Vineyards in Scotland, ca. 1250 CE. Look it up.



Idiot - the Doomsday book was written in 1086!


idiot - it's the Domesday book. idiot


A typo with an extra "o" makes me an idiot?

You contesting the 1086 date then ?

"Hypocriticising, especially for a fault that the critic then displays him/herself. A simple tactic, often this is pedantic criticism of grammar, spelling or punctuation in a post which itself contains proof-reading errors to provoke exasperated responses from others."

http://www.dailym...lls.html
runrig
4.5 / 5 (17) Jun 28, 2013
runrig

don't try to teach me the history of my people. The Doomesday book reports on all the Vineyards in Scotland, ca. 1250 CE. Look it up.



Idiot - the Doomsday book was written in 1086!


idiot - it's the Domesday book. idiot


So Shootist isn't an idiot I see - even though he also spelled it with a "oo".
Hypocritical Troll.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (18) Jun 28, 2013
runrig

don't try to teach me the history of my people. The Doomesday book reports on all the Vineyards in Scotland, ca. 1250 CE. Look it up.



Idiot - the Doomsday book was written in 1086!


idiot - it's the Domesday book. idiot


"Important Facts about the Domesday Book - 1086
Interesting information and important facts:

The document is also known as the Doomsday Book, the Book of Winchester and the Great Survey

The Middle English spelling of Domesday is Doomsday"

http://www.middle...book.htm

Idiot.
Oh - and hypocritical TROLL

Go and teach your grandmother to suck eggs

http://en.wikiped...uck_eggs
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.6 / 5 (20) Jun 28, 2013
"A complaint-worthy winter has led to a drop in the number of Americans who believe that global warming is real, according to a University of Michigan survey."

-Thats ok. Im sure many of them have already changed their minds back again.

"LAS VEGAS, Nev. — A high pressure system that has parked itself over parts of the west will bring weekend temperatures close to record-breaking levels.

California's Death Valley has a forecast of 129 for Sunday. That's not far from the world record for the hottest day of 134 logged in 1913.

The National Weather Service forecast highs of 118 in Phoenix and 117 in Las Vegas on Sunday.

And there's no relief at night. The low for Las Vegas for Sunday is 92."
djr
4.6 / 5 (19) Jun 28, 2013
"idiot - it's the Domesday book. idiot"

Runrig is an idiot because he spelled the name of the book with two o's. Shootist is not an idiot - even though shootist claims 500 years of vineyards in Scotland - in ca 1250 - as recorded in a book written in 1086. Wow VENDItardE - that is one credible argument..... Thanks for the chuckle though....
ormondotvos
4 / 5 (17) Jun 28, 2013
Hmmm, my statistics are that the average American has an attention span of one season. Cold winter=global cooling; hot summer=global warming. Definitely science by polling of fruit flies.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (20) Jun 28, 2013
Its funny that the determinating factor of whether or not to believe in global warming is, for 1/3 of those who do not believe, what the weather looks like outside their window. Exactly like Triplehelix.

Its funnier that Claudius continues to spout the same zombie argument that the lul (sic) in global SURFACE warming means there has been an pause in overall global warming.

Its funnier still that Shootist continues to make the wholly unsupported fantasy that there were dairy farms in Greenland, or that wine grapes were grown in Scotland at any time. The Domesday itself speaks only to vineyards mostly in southern England, the northernmost being possibly as far north as the Tees River. There is no mention of Scottish vineyards in that book. Shelly mentions one possible Scottish vineyard, but there is no actual evidence beyond his word on it.

So, as usual, we have a misconception wrapped in a wish, that is misrepresented as a fact. Who are the idiots?
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (19) Jun 28, 2013
Heres a good summery of the "vineyards in England" (PS Shootist - NOT SCOTLAND!!) myth.

http://www.realcl...sh-wine/
Stop
4.5 / 5 (19) Jun 28, 2013
Considering almost 75% believe a virgin could give birth, it's not surprising.
ryggesogn2
1.7 / 5 (30) Jun 28, 2013
I don't know why people continue to cite historical stuff when talking about global warming. It's irrelevant.


A valid climate model to predict the future should also retrodict, accurately reflect what happened in the past.
Mann's hockey stick was an attempt to eliminate the MWP to promote AGW.
Historical stuff is important.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (19) Jun 28, 2013
Mann's hockey stick was an attempt to eliminate the MWP to promote AGW.


That's a new one. Complete bs of course.
Howhot
4.3 / 5 (18) Jun 29, 2013
I don't know why people continue to cite historical stuff when talking about global warming. It's irrelevant.


A valid climate model to predict the future should also retrodict, accurately reflect what happened in the past.
Mann's hockey stick was an attempt to eliminate the MWP to promote AGW.
Historical stuff is important.


Of course most deniers are just blow-hard windbags on the issue of mankind created global warming; ie AGW. You deniers have no appreciation for the capabilities of computer modelers. For example; deny this little fact loaded graph.

http://www.nasa.g...ass.html

deepsand
3.2 / 5 (29) Jun 29, 2013
Average global temperature is trending upward in tandem with the increase in greenhouse gases.

This has not been true for about 16 years. The "lul" in warming in the last 16 years while CO2 levels have continued to skyrocket actually falsifies the AGW CO2 hypothesis.

A temporary change neither negates the long term trend nor changes the fact CO2 is but one input in a multivariate system, both of which you are either incapable of understanding or illogically refuse to accept.

Take away the CO2 that man has injected to the atmosphere and Earth would be cooler.
deepsand
3.3 / 5 (26) Jun 29, 2013
A valid climate model to predict the future should also retrodict, accurately reflect what happened in the past.[/quote]
Your implication that there exist no models that well account for past temperatures is, not only a naked assertion, but a false claim.

Mann's hockey stick was an attempt to eliminate the MWP to promote AGW.

Utter nonsense.

Historical stuff is important.

Past is not necessarily prologue. Current effects are not constrained to be the results of observed past causes.
Sinister1811
3.2 / 5 (22) Jun 29, 2013
There's no point arguing with deniers. It's like arguing with a wall. And all you can hear is the echo. lol
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (25) Jun 29, 2013
And, the echo isn't even your own voice.
runrig
4.2 / 5 (15) Jun 29, 2013
Here is a video addressing the great denier myth of the MWP

A time when the Doomsday Book ( note 2 o's - as I was taught from the original English ) was written.

http://www.youtub...index=44

Spoiler ....... Deniers will not accept it. Because of course it is an established fact, as all their myths are to them.

MikeBowler
1.9 / 5 (18) Jun 29, 2013
I don't know why people continue to cite historical stuff when talking about global warming. It's irrelevant. Physics tells us that if you add energy to a system it will heat up. We have a satellite in orbit measuring energy flux at the Earth's surface. It indicates positive overall power. Therefore the temperature of the Earth will increase.

Not so complicated folks. They could have done these calculations back in the 1700's, if they wanted to.

In other news, somebody tried to throw a brick through a window in building 7 this morning here at MIT.


a closed system would heat up if you added energy to it, but the earth isn't a closed system we are releasing heat into space
runrig
4.1 / 5 (14) Jun 29, 2013
............ Therefore the temperature of the Earth will increase.

Not so complicated folks. They could have done these calculations back in the 1700's, if they wanted to.


a closed system would heat up if you added energy to it, but the earth isn't a closed system we are releasing heat into space


That's just the point - more's coming in than is going out. So the Earth has to warm for it to escape.
Claudius
1.5 / 5 (23) Jun 29, 2013
A temporary change neither negates the long term trend nor changes the fact CO2 is but one input in a multivariate system


And when it is 20 years, 30 years, or more, will it still be "temporary?"

"Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850. What's striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined – matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere, ...The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline."

"The change in global surface temperature after the removal of the solar effect has shown zero correlation with CO2 but a nearly perfect linear correlation with CFCs - a correlation coefficient as high as 0.97."

Q.-B. LU
Department of Physics and Astronomy and Departments of Biology and Chemistry, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Neinsense99
3 / 5 (20) Jun 29, 2013

And when it is 20 years, 30 years, or more, will it still be "temporary?"

"Most conventional theories expect that global temperatures will continue to increase as CO2 levels continue to rise, as they have done since 1850. What's striking is that since 2002, global temperatures have actually declined – matching a decline in CFCs in the atmosphere, ...The cooling trend is set to continue for the next 50-70 years as the amount of CFCs in the atmosphere continues to decline."

"The change in global surface temperature after the removal of the solar effect has shown zero correlation with CO2 but a nearly perfect linear correlation with CFCs - a correlation coefficient as high as 0.97."

Q.-B. LU
Department of Physics and Astronomy and Departments of Biology and Chemistry, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada

Promoted twice, rejected by the knowledgeable scientific experts - twice.
Claudius
1.5 / 5 (23) Jun 29, 2013

Promoted twice, rejected by the knowledgeable scientific experts - twice.


Look who's the denier now!
runrig
4.6 / 5 (11) Jun 29, 2013

Promoted twice, rejected by the knowledgeable scientific experts - twice.


Look who's the denier now!


Claudius:

CFC's have a correlation since around 1960 whereas CO2 has a correlation from the geological past. Yes, it's a GHG, so it both leads and follows.

I await your or anyone elses causation for a CFC effect. It certainly isn't greenhouse as it comprises only 1% of the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and 13% of man's GHG emissions.
Claudius
1.4 / 5 (22) Jun 29, 2013
whereas CO2 has a correlation from the geological past. .


Yes there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature in the past. When temperatures rose, CO2 levels rose afterward. This is the inverse of what would be required to show CO2 causing temperature to rise.
geokstr
1.4 / 5 (22) Jun 29, 2013
Considering almost 75% believe a virgin could give birth, it's not surprising.

Absolutely, unlike the unshakable belief that once the proletariat take over the world that the state will wither away and leave us all in the socialist workers' utopia.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (12) Jun 29, 2013
whereas CO2 has a correlation from the geological past. .


Yes there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature in the past. When temperatures rose, CO2 levels rose afterward. This is the inverse of what would be required to show CO2 causing temperature to rise.


As I said in my post............." Yes, it's a GHG, so it both leads and follows"

Why is that so hard to understand?

When CO2 is in balance ( natural state of affairs over human life-time ) - temperature stable.
When temperature rising ( post glacial Milankovitch ) seas warm, land warms - CO2 slowly released - CO2 drives up temp further ( feedback ).
When temp falls ( glacial Milankovitch ) seas cool, land cools - C02 slowly locked away. Less CO2 cools atmosphere ( feedback ).
Current state of affairs - CO2 not in balance - atmosphere warms in order to emit more energy to space ( SB Law E~T^4 ). The current rate of rise in CO2 is WAY beyond any natural planetary process.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (23) Jun 29, 2013
Why is that so hard to understand?
...........The current rate of rise in CO2 is WAY beyond any natural planetary process.

Out of the entire atmospheric makeup, only one to two percent is made up of greenhouse gases with the majority being nitrogen (about 78 percent) and oxygen (about 21 percent). Of that two percent, "planet-killing" carbon dioxide comprises only 3.62 percent while water vapor encompasses 95 percent. And of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions.
So you really have to be deeply entrenched in the AGW Alarmist cult, to believe that 3.4 percent is WAY beyond any natural planetary process.
djr
4.1 / 5 (14) Jun 29, 2013
"So you really have to be deeply entrenched in the AGW Alarmist cult, to believe that 3.4 percent is WAY beyond any natural planetary process."

Or one of the 95% of climate scientists who believe this. http://www.wunder.../928.asp

Of course you Antigoracle know better than all these climate scientists - because?..... Oh yeah - trolls on the internet do not have to have a reason.
djr
4.2 / 5 (15) Jun 29, 2013
Claudius: " When temperatures rose, CO2 levels rose afterward."

Once again the question is raised. It has been addressed a thousand times - but hey - it never hurts to throw it out there again - makes you feel good right Claudius?

http://www.realcl...and-co2/

Of course - there is always the other question - which of course Claudius will not even atempt to answer - "If greenhouse gasses are not causing the current warming - what is?"

Here is the 100 year temp data to support the assertion that the temperature is rising. Notice the 40 year surface temp plateau fom 1940 to 1980. But while the surface temps were flat, the other indicators continued to show warming (ice sheets, ocean temps, ocean levels, glacier melt).

http://www.woodfo.../to:2013

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (25) Jun 30, 2013
whereas CO2 has a correlation from the geological past. .


Yes there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature in the past. When temperatures rose, CO2 levels rose afterward. This is the inverse of what would be required to show CO2 causing temperature to rise.

This has been explained to you countless times.

By now it is apparent that you are either incapable of understanding the underlying mechanisms or you are unwilling to accept that which does not support yor desired conclusions.
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (24) Jun 30, 2013
Why is that so hard to understand?
...........The current rate of rise in CO2 is WAY beyond any natural planetary process.

Out of the entire atmospheric makeup, only one to two percent is made up of greenhouse gases with the majority being nitrogen (about 78 percent) and oxygen (about 21 percent). Of that two percent, "planet-killing" carbon dioxide comprises only 3.62 percent while water vapor encompasses 95 percent. And of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions.
So you really have to be deeply entrenched in the AGW Alarmist cult, to believe that 3.4 percent is WAY beyond any natural planetary process.

Given that this has been explained ad nausem, it is clear that you are simply too deeply entrenched in the denialist cult for being able to grasp and accept reality.
anti-geoengineering
1.4 / 5 (19) Jun 30, 2013
Global warming is geoengineering. There is nothing natural left. Just look up and watch a good nexrad radar site like college of dupage. I believe it's being intentionally induced by geoengineers.
DirtySquirties
1.7 / 5 (23) Jun 30, 2013
Fall 2012: "It was hot during the summer! The globe must be warming."

Spring 2013: "Oh! It was cold during the winter! The globe must not be warming."

Fall 2013: "Wow! It was hot during the summer! Go figure! The globe surely must be warming!"

Spring 2014: "The winter was cold! The globe is definitely not warming!"
runrig
4.4 / 5 (13) Jun 30, 2013

Out of the entire atmospheric makeup, only one to two percent is made up of greenhouse gases with the majority being nitrogen (about 78 percent) and oxygen (about 21 percent). Of that two percent, "planet-killing" carbon dioxide comprises only 3.62 percent while water vapor encompasses 95 percent. And of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions.
...


Anti:
It's irrelevant what percentage CO2 is in the atmosphere - it is the temperature thermostat. Whether it's 1% or 90%. We, mankind, have increased it by 40% in 200 years.
WV is a self regulating constituent of the atmosphere - you know.... Evaporation - condensation - rain/snow - repeat - repeat etc. The hydrological cycle overturns in periods of days. CO2 in centuries that is why it is DIFFERENT. Can you please print this post off and pin it to your forehead or something least you "forget" again.
Mr Anderson
3.5 / 5 (17) Jun 30, 2013
This has not been true for about 16 years. The "lul" in warming in the last 16 years while CO2 levels have continued to skyrocket actually falsifies the AGW CO2 hypothesis.


The "lull" in my aging since I look trimmer, fitter, healthier, and younger than I did 16 years ago actually falsifies the aging hypothesis. I am going to live forever.
Mr Anderson
3.4 / 5 (16) Jul 01, 2013
Out of the entire atmospheric makeup, only one to two percent is made up of greenhouse gases with the majority being nitrogen (about 78 percent) and oxygen (about 21 percent). Of that two percent, "planet-killing" carbon dioxide comprises only 3.62 percent while water vapor encompasses 95 percent. And of the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, humans cause only 3.4 percent of annual CO2 emissions.


So what? You do realise that if temperatures go up by 3'C by 2100, that's actually only a 1% difference in the overall temperature from absolute 0 to 300 Kelvin.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (23) Jul 01, 2013

Anti:
It's irrelevant what percentage CO2 is in the atmosphere - it is the temperature thermostat. Whether it's 1% or 90%. We, mankind, have increased it by 40% in 200 years.
WV is a self regulating constituent of the atmosphere - you know.... Evaporation - condensation - rain/snow - repeat - repeat etc. The hydrological cycle overturns in periods of days. CO2 in centuries that is why it is DIFFERENT. Can you please print this post off and pin it to your forehead or something least you "forget" again.

That's a reasonable theory, but when it does not measure up to observation, then it becomes unreasonable to stick with it as you in the AGW cult do.
Mr Anderson
3.8 / 5 (16) Jul 01, 2013
Yes there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature in the past. When temperatures rose, CO2 levels rose afterward. This is the inverse of what would be required to show CO2 causing temperature to rise.


And when CO2 levels rose afterward, it further enhanced the warming triggered by the lead forcing. Regardless of whether CO2 is leading or secondary climate forcing, it is a climate forcing.

Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 01, 2013
That's a reasonable theory, but when it does not measure up to observation, then it becomes unreasonable to stick with it as you in the AGW cult do.


Yet every single day there are articles on this site reporting the OBSERVATIONS of scientists of the changes they are seeing as a result of global warming. You're a hypocrite.

When temperatures rose, CO2 levels rose afterward. This is the inverse of what would be required to show CO2 causing temperature to rise.


This doesn't even make sense! C'mon Claudius at least try to use some logic when you spout your denialist bs. As was so well stated by Mr Anderson above, and as has been pointed out to your stubborn self many times, CO2 is both a driver AND a feedback effect. You're just being purposefully obtuse.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (25) Jul 01, 2013
That's a reasonable theory, but when it does not measure up to observation, then it becomes unreasonable to stick with it as you in the AGW cult do.


Yet every single day there are articles on this site reporting the OBSERVATIONS of scientists of the changes they are seeing as a result of global warming. You're a hypocrite.

It's obvious that those like you in the cult, blinded by your ignorance, cannot comprehend the difference between GW and AGW.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (14) Jul 01, 2013
It's obvious that those like you in the cult, blinded by your ignorance, cannot comprehend the difference between GW and AGW.


Ah, so you're back to agreeing there is global warming again I see. At least till the next article, right againstseeing? You have become so deeply fixated on denying the obvious and espousing your particular view of the conspiracy you see all around you, you are loosing track of your own argument.

It is Your ignorance, YOUR steadfast clinging to an increasingly obviously untenable position, that shows up clearly in your posts. You are the very epitome of what you claim to be against.

I guess that explains how you could unconsciously choose a handle that literally means "against seeing".
axemaster
4.7 / 5 (14) Jul 01, 2013
It's obvious that those like you in the cult, blinded by your ignorance, cannot comprehend the difference between GW and AGW.

Ah! A classic crackpot tendency! To quote from a much-beloved physicist:

"Quacks, like criminals, often blame others for their own crimes. They call real science "belief". If you try to explain to a quack the actual physics at even high school level, he will immediately claim that you are the one who is ignorant."
runrig
4.7 / 5 (14) Jul 01, 2013

That's a reasonable theory, but when it does not measure up to observation, then it becomes unreasonable to stick with it as you in the AGW cult do.


You continue to regard CO2 GHG theory an absolute - as though that is the only driver of the climate system. There are overlying cycles within as well - ENSO, aerosol, solar. When these are taken away the upward slope is still there. Where do you think global temps will go to when the next El Nino arrives? No complex system will exhibit a constant in rate of change without wiggles.
See this:
These are temp trend lines for the ENSO type warm/cold/neutral.
AT the moment we have shifted to the blue line. In 1998 we were on the red.
http://blog.chron...ines.pdf
Neinsense99
3.3 / 5 (19) Jul 01, 2013

Promoted twice, rejected by the knowledgeable scientific experts - twice.


Look who's the denier now!

Your argument does not follow.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (12) Jul 01, 2013
Assuming the accuracy of this study, given the conditions in the south western US, there will be a sudden swing to belief in AGW.

Funny and sad; why can't they just research the science with an open mind that ignores the shrill cries of denialists? People have the capacity to make up their own minds, they just don't have the will.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (21) Jul 02, 2013

Anti:
It's irrelevant what percentage CO2 is in the atmosphere - it is the temperature thermostat. Whether it's 1% or 90%. We, mankind, have increased it by 40% in 200 years.
WV is a self regulating constituent of the atmosphere - you know.... Evaporation - condensation - rain/snow - repeat - repeat etc. The hydrological cycle overturns in periods of days. CO2 in centuries that is why it is DIFFERENT. Can you please print this post off and pin it to your forehead or something least you "forget" again.

That's a reasonable theory, but when it does not measure up to observation, ...

Not only is it not merely an hypothesis, but a set of conclusion well grounded in the known and well understood Physical Laws of Nature, but you claim that such are contradicted by observations is patently false.
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (21) Jul 02, 2013
That's a reasonable theory, but when it does not measure up to observation, then it becomes unreasonable to stick with it as you in the AGW cult do.


Yet every single day there are articles on this site reporting the OBSERVATIONS of scientists of the changes they are seeing as a result of global warming. You're a hypocrite.

It's obvious that those like you in the cult, blinded by your ignorance, cannot comprehend the difference between GW and AGW.

It is amply evident that you are unable to distinguish between Science and pseudo-science.
MikeBowler
2.1 / 5 (17) Jul 02, 2013
............ Therefore the temperature of the Earth will increase.

Not so complicated folks. They could have done these calculations back in the 1700's, if they wanted to.


a closed system would heat up if you added energy to it, but the earth isn't a closed system we are releasing heat into space


That's just the point - more's coming in than is going out. So the Earth has to warm for it to escape.

first let me point out that i never specified whether overall the earth is heating up or cooling down i just pointed out that heat does escape the earth

second it seems that under your assumptions the earth won't experience any more ice ages?? if science is right about there having been multiple ice ages in the past with hot spells in between then it seems pretty inevitable that somewhere in the predicted 2 billion years that the earth has left that it will experience at least one more ice age
runrig
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 02, 2013

a closed system would heat up if you added energy to it, but the earth isn't a closed system we are releasing heat into space


That's just the point - more's coming in than is going out. So the Earth has to warm for it to escape.

first let me point out that i never specified whether overall the earth is heating up or cooling down i just pointed out that heat does escape the earth

second it seems that under your assumptions the earth won't experience any more ice ages?? if science is right about there having been multiple ice ages in the past with hot spells in between then it seems pretty inevitable that somewhere in the predicted 2 billion years that the earth has left that it will experience at least one more ice age


I read that as: It's not a closed system therefore it's not heating up !
I was refering to the GHE and not overall orbital effects.
The matter of Ice ages is one of summer insolation in the NH. The Milankovitch cycles explain the mechanism.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (22) Jul 02, 2013
Honesty from environmentalists:
"Mongolian neo-Nazis rebrand themselves as environmentalists"
http://www.guardi...ntalists
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 02, 2013

second it seems that under your assumptions the earth won't experience any more ice ages?? if science is right about there having been multiple ice ages in the past with hot spells in between then it seems pretty inevitable that somewhere in the predicted 2 billion years that the earth has left that it will experience at least one more ice age


2 billion years is a very long time. So lets bring it down to a more manageable period of 1 million years. Using the past million or so years as a guide, it would be expected that there be a handful of ice ages over the next million years. The last few interglaciers, including the one we are in right now, last somewhere around 12,000 years on average. It has been 11,500 or so years since the last ice ages, suggesting that this current interglacial period should be coming to an end. Using proxy climate data of the last 4000 years, it seems that the earth was, indeed, cooling. Were we headed for another ice age? We'll never know..cont..
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (12) Jul 02, 2013
..cont..We'll never know because suddenly, in the last 125 or so years, the Earth has experienced a warming trend that is unprecedented in geologic time. Unprecedented in the speed of the temperature rise, and unprecedented in the sudden influx into the atmosphere of CO2, a long-lasting greenhouse gas. The amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere has overwhelmed the carbon cycle of the planet, with the net result that CO2 levels have passed the 400 parts per billion (PPB) mark, something not seen on this planet in some 3 million years. Because of the longevity of CO2 in the atmosphere, it means that for the next 100,000 or so years we will very likely not see an ice age. Or, if we see one, it will be very muted as compared to past ones. Beyond that period: who knows, a lot of things can change in 150,000 years. Imagine where our ancestors were 150,000 years ago.
MikeBowler
2.2 / 5 (17) Jul 02, 2013
I read that as: It's not a closed system therefore it's not heating up !
I was refering to the GHE and not overall orbital effects.
The matter of Ice ages is one of summer insolation in the NH. The Milankovitch cycles explain the mechanism.
well obviously you read it wrong, i told you explicitly that i never specified whether i was saying the earth is heating up or cooling down, just because i said that i believe that an ice or two (or more will occur) doesn't mean that i deny that the earth is currently heating up, don't try and twist my *%^(£*( words!!! i never mentioned hemispheres when refering to ice ages so adding that to your argument is pointless, facts are facts ice ages have occured (according to science) and probably will again, end of!!!
MikeBowler
1.9 / 5 (14) Jul 02, 2013
..cont..We'll never know because suddenly, in the last 125 or so years, the Earth has experienced a warming trend that is unprecedented in geologic time. Unprecedented in the speed of the temperature rise, and unprecedented in the sudden influx into the atmosphere of CO2, a long-lasting greenhouse gas. The amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere has overwhelmed the carbon cycle of the planet, with the net result that CO2 levels have passed the 400 parts per billion (PPB) mark, something not seen on this planet in some 3 million years. Because of the longevity of CO2 in the atmosphere, it means that for the next 100,000 or so years we will very likely not see an ice age. Or, if we see one, it will be very muted as compared to past ones. Beyond that period: who knows, a lot of things can change in 150,000 years. Imagine where our ancestors were 150,000 years ago.


i downvoted this post in a drunken rage, admins please undo my vote if possible
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 02, 2013
[ don't try and twist my *%^(£*( words!!! i never mentioned hemispheres when refering to ice ages so adding that to your argument is pointless, facts are facts ice ages have occured (according to science) and probably will again, end of!!!


Whoa there big fella, pretty sure runrig just misunderstood. No twisting of the words was meant I'm sure.
MikeBowler
2.1 / 5 (17) Jul 02, 2013
[ don't try and twist my *%^(£*( words!!! i never mentioned hemispheres when refering to ice ages so adding that to your argument is pointless, facts are facts ice ages have occured (according to science) and probably will again, end of!!!


Whoa there big fella, pretty sure runrig just misunderstood. No twisting of the words was meant I'm sure.
perhaps lets see what he has to say, i'm just fed up of people using bias against or misinterpreting what i say
deepsand
3.1 / 5 (19) Jul 03, 2013
Honesty from environmentalists:
"Mongolian neo-Nazis rebrand themselves as environmentalists"
http://www.guardi...ntalists

Dishonesty from Rygg.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (9) Jul 03, 2013
perhaps lets see what he has to say, i'm just fed up of people using bias against or misinterpreting what i say


Pardon me for saying this (pointing out the obvious?) but if people are misinterpreting what you say, then perhaps you should try to say it more clearly? Just sayin.....
MikeBowler
1.7 / 5 (12) Jul 03, 2013
perhaps lets see what he has to say, i'm just fed up of people using bias against or misinterpreting what i say


Pardon me for saying this (pointing out the obvious?) but if people are misinterpreting what you say, then perhaps you should try to say it more clearly? Just sayin.....

i said it as clearly as i could unless you're refering to grammar? which you could have been clearer about yourself, and if you want to nitpick what i said you could at least be clearer about what you don't understand its 7.34am and i am too tired to review what i said
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (20) Jul 03, 2013
Sorry, Mike Bowler, but you were far from being so clear as you think.

In response to
Physics tells us that if you add energy to a system it will heat up.
you said
a closed system would heat up if you added energy to it, but the earth isn't a closed system we are releasing heat into space


By giving the impression that you were rebutting, and failing to acknowledge that the Earth is absorbing more insolation than it re-radiates, the most reasonable interpretation of your post was that you are either a trend skeptic or an attribution skeptic.
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Jul 03, 2013
Sorry, Mike Bowler, but you were far from being so clear as you think.

In response to
Physics tells us that if you add energy to a system it will heat up.
you said
a closed system would heat up if you added energy to it, but the earth isn't a closed system we are releasing heat into space


By giving the impression that you were rebutting, and failing to acknowledge that the Earth is absorbing more insolation than it re-radiates, the most reasonable interpretation of your post was that you are either a trend skeptic or an attribution skeptic.


Thanks deepsand - you said it for me.
MikeBowler
1.6 / 5 (9) Jul 03, 2013
Sorry, Mike Bowler, but you were far from being so clear as you think.

In response to
Physics tells us that if you add energy to a system it will heat up.
you said
a closed system would heat up if you added energy to it, but the earth isn't a closed system we are releasing heat into space


By giving the impression that you were rebutting, and failing to acknowledge that the Earth is absorbing more insolation than it re-radiates, the most reasonable interpretation of your post was that you are either a trend skeptic or an attribution skeptic.


i attempted to clarify
a closed system would heat up if you added energy to it, but the earth isn't a closed system we are releasing heat into space
with
first let me point out that i never specified whether overall the earth is heating up or cooling down i just pointed out that heat does escape the earth
deepsand
2.8 / 5 (17) Jul 04, 2013
Said "clarifications" not only did not acknowledge the existence of an imbalance between insolation and re-radiation, aka radiative forcing, but went off on tangents wholly unrelated to that core issue.