Gallup: Americans’ Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop

Judith makes a forecast - Cartoon by Josh http://www.cartoonsbyjosh.com

Multiple indicators show less concern, more feelings that global warming is exaggerated

by Frank Newport, Gallup News

PRINCETON, NJ — Gallup’s annual update on Americans’ attitudes toward the environment shows a public that over the last two years has become less worried about the threat of global warming, less convinced that its effects are already happening, and more likely to believe that scientists themselves are uncertain about its occurrence. In response to one key question, 48% of Americans now believe that the seriousness of global warming is generally exaggerated, up from 41% in 2009 and 31% in 1997, when Gallup first asked the question.

1997-2010 Trend: Percentage of Americans Who Believe the Seriousness of Global Warming Is Generally Exaggerated

These results are based on the annual Gallup Social Series Environment poll, conducted March 4-7 of this year. The survey results show that the reversal in Americans’ concerns about global warming that began last year has continued in 2010 — in some cases reverting to the levels recorded when Gallup began tracking global warming measures more than a decade ago.

For example, the percentage of Americans who now say reports of global warming are generally exaggerated is by a significant margin the highest such reading in the 13-year history of asking the question. In 1997, 31% said global warming’s effects had been exaggerated; last year, 41% said the same, and this year the number is 48%.

Americans Divided on Causes of Global Warming

In a sharp turnaround from what Gallup found as recently as three years ago, Americans are now almost evenly split in their views of the cause of increases in the Earth’s temperature over the last century.

2003-2010 Trend: Are Increases in the Earth's Temperature Over the Last Century Due to Human Activities or Natural Changes?

In 2003, 61% of Americans said such increases were due to human activities — in line with advocates of the global warming issue — while 33% said they were due to natural changes in the environment. Now, a significantly diminished 50% say temperature increases are due to human activities, and 46% say they are not.

Americans Less Sure About Scientists’ Beliefs

Since last fall, there have been widespread news accounts of allegations of errors in scientific reports on global warming and alleged attempts by some scientists to doctor the global warming record.

These news reports may well have caused some Americans to re-evaluate the scientific consensus on global warming. Roughly half of Americans now say that “most scientists believe that global warming is occurring,” down from 65% in recent years. The dominant opposing thesis, held by 36% of Americans, is that scientists are unsure about global warming. An additional 10% say most scientists believe global warming is not occurring.

1997-2010 Trend: What Do Most Scientists Believe About Whether Global Warming Is Occurring?

The percentage of Americans who think most scientists believe global warming is occurring has dropped 13 points from two years ago, and is the lowest since the first time Gallup asked this question back in 1997.

Implications

The last two years have marked a general reversal in the trend of Americans’ attitudes about global warming. Most Gallup measures up to 2008 had shown increasing concern over global warming on the part of the average American, in line with what one might have expected given the high level of publicity on the topic. Former Vice President Al Gore had been particularly prominent in this regard, with the publication of his bestselling book, “An Inconvenient Truth,” an Academy Award-winning documentary movie focusing on his global warming awareness campaign, and Gore’s receipt of a Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

But the public opinion tide turned in 2009, when several Gallup measures showed a slight retreat in public concern about global warming. This year, the downturn is even more pronounced.

Some of the shifts in Americans’ views may reflect real-world events, including the publicity surrounding allegations of scientific fraud relating to global warming evidence, and — perhaps in some parts of the country — a reflection of the record-breaking snow and cold temperatures of this past winter. Additionally, evidence from last year showed that the issue of global warming was becoming heavily partisan in nature, and it may be that the continuing doubts about global warming put forth by conservatives and others are having an effect. A forthcoming analysis here at Gallup.com will examine shifts in global warming attitudes in recent years among various demographic and political groups.

Read the entire poll results at Gallup News

About these ads
This entry was posted in Climate News, Opinion. Bookmark the permalink.

138 Responses to Gallup: Americans’ Global Warming Concerns Continue to Drop

  1. Ecotretas says:

    Another hockey-stick???
    Ecotretas

  2. R.S.Brown says:

    What we need is an advertising campaign in a big time
    newspaper to stop this trend in badthought !

  3. Milwaukee Bob says:

    OT
    In- WUWT, “IPCC announces “independent” review” Curiousgeorge asked for a link to the Energy Sec. Chu remarks. Thought others might be interested also.
    WSJ
    MARCH 8, 2010
    Politics and Policy
    Energy Secretary Steven Chu on the administration’s game plan

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704869304575104

  4. And partisan = ideologues with vested interests versus free thinkers.

  5. alex verlinden says:

    absolutely great cartoon ! … :-)

    just 137kb and saying it all … everything and everybody is in it …

  6. obruinsma says:

    Fortunately common sense is on the increase

  7. Mike Haseler says:

    Is global warming exaggerated?

    There’s a simple test anyone can do to see whether it is. First write down all the measurable possible advantages of hotter weather: longer growing season, less winters deaths, higher food yield. Then go and read so called scientific papers on the effects of “global warming” and divide them into two groups: those that mention the obvious benefits and those that don’t.

    Now label the groups: “biased, bogus environmental propaganda” and “research which at least attempts some scientific impartiality”.

    In my case, it was 99 “scientific” papers in the bogus clap-trap pile, and one don’t know. Which I think means we can be >99% certain the harmful effects of any global warming are exaggerated.

  8. Baa Humbug says:

    They are missing a key question

    Just your impression. Which one of the following statements do you think is most accurate-
    1-)Most Politicians who are trying to introduce New Taxes, Trading Schemes and Regulations (TTsR) believe that GW is occuring,
    2-)Most politicians who are trying to introduce TTsR DON’T BELIEVE GW is occurring,
    3-)Most etc etc are UNSURE whether GW is occurring or not.

    The results would have been interesting.

    I would have said 2 ofcourse

  9. Wouter says:

    I’ll respond in kind, by referring to a cartoon: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1271

  10. Geoff Sherrington says:

    The Mark 1 eyeball suggests to me that public opinion was swung by the 2007 IPCC reports. People might have realised that there was an oversell and that the portents of doom were not matched by changes in the daily lives of people. Nothing much had changed in the climate lifetime of most readers.

    Of course, the impact of CA enhancing WUWT , tAV, Niche Modeling etc, though hard to measure, could be showing in the figures. (Apologies if I have them out of historic order).

    The poll results are being driven by some effects; they are not a random walk concept.

  11. CodeTech says:

    At the moment, I see no other comments yet, but I’ll point out what I’m sure others will too.

    By my rough estimate, using a Fortran IV model developed at considerable time and expense and using the above raw data, slightly homogenized and a little pasteurized, I have come to the following conclusions:

    a. by 2014, EVERYBODY will believe AGW is completely exaggerated.
    b. by 2016, more people will believe climate change is natural than there are people. That is, greater than 100%.
    c. by 2020, the “Is Occuring” line will cross zero

    It’s worse than we thought!

    Congress should IMMEDIATELY increase their spending on propaganda. Oops, sorry, I meant Research, marketing, and positioning.

  12. RDG says:

    It is extremely difficult believing in things that are so hard to produce hard evidence to support. I am totally open to the fact there may be the tiniest of human influences but the effects being predicted are ridiculous on their face.

    When you predict and you are wrong over and over then get a grip and change your mind.

    Personally it was the sea level rise (upper level) changes predicted in the 4 IPCC reports over a 17 year period that ‘proved’ that these guys just don’t really have a clue for me.

    They adjusted their upper level predictions down by 85% in 17 years whilst bellowing ‘trust us’ for their catastrophic predictions for the next 100 years.

    It’s actually quite embarrassing being a human being when human beings can behave en masse like this.

  13. Joe says:

    Two years ago AGW was at the maximum hype with Gore’s “Inconvient Truth” and the peace price given to IPCC and Gore.
    These were massive amounts of media coverage.
    So wonder why the hype for “Green” everything started?

    There was absolutely no coverage of the scientists that became the “Deniers”.
    They were just given a very hard time to stick to the regime of the concensus (IPCC).

    Funding flowing with no regard for what was being done with it except it was going for something “Green”.

  14. BillD says:

    IMO, a cold winter is enough to change some of the general public. If we have a new record warm year with the El Nino, concerns about warming will swing back.

  15. Michael says:

    All hell is going to break loose soon. Get ready. All the scams are being exposed. Repo 105 seems to be the last straw.

  16. Milwaukee Bob says:

    On this subject- beyond Gore, the IPCC and even the Lame Stream Media, the ones that have caused the greatest amount of disconnect with the real status of the science behind GW for Americans (and others) is Nature, Science, Smithsonian, Scientific American, Discover, Etc. magazines. Many of us used to (and many still do) “believe” their reporting was well researched?, verified?, independently analyzed? separate from the source. To weed out the garbage. So as to be kind of “Fair and Balanced”. You know, info WITHOUT a political slant. How naive – – I was.
    The LSM prints whatever fills columns with, sensation. Understandable. And stupid in an age of untold numbers of info sources, not the least of which is the Internet. Thank You again, Anthony. But when the editors of a periodical such as the above START from an ideological point, it not only reduces their words to below the level of a super-market rag, it “misinforms” a large segment of he populace, not directly involved in climate science, that we want engaged and active in the discussion/process. And they wonder why, when the likes of The National Enquirer are reporting more accurately then them, we turn to the Internet. Talk about “forcings.”

  17. Just as I was commenting on the previous post, this new one appears. My comment may be more appropriate here. There is a long way to go:

    http://www.herkinderkin.com/2010/03/public-opinion-about-global-warming/

  18. Joe says:

    The Passing of a Pioneer Woman:

    Ms. Simpson, who died March 4 at age 86, didn’t have much success suppressing storms. But her discoveries about the nature of clouds and the formation and dynamics of hurricanes were some of the most significant in 20th century meteorology.
    Joanne Simpson helped show how hurricanes draw their power from warm seas. Armed with that knowledge, she set out to destroy one by sending a payload of silver iodide into the heart of a storm.
    Ms. Simpson didn’t quite achieve her goal of never retiring, but she used retirement to take a swipe at global-warming theorists, whose dire predictions she felt were over-reliant on computer models.

    Now there is a scientist! She too was also deemed a “Denialist”.

  19. Most politicians don’t care if they believe or don’t believe this or that, as long as what they are saying gives them more opportunity to grab more money and power. The very notion of “truth” (scientific or otherwise) is alien to the ruling classes. They suck moral relativism and disdain for human nature with their mother’s milk.

  20. A comment I made in the last posting may be more appropriate here. To stop this AGW black hole of funding, we need strong public consensus. The lastest poll is a start:

    http://www.herkinderkin.com/2010/03/public-opinion-about-global-warming/

  21. Roger Carr says:

    But we are still seeing comments like this:
    Imagine if countries got together and enacted laws to reduce and regulate the carbon emissions into the atmosphere. What a success that could be.

    Andrew Bolt’s blog today.

  22. Sou says:

    Most US Americans appear to be quite gullible at best. Sixty six per cent of people in the USA surveyed by Gallup in 2007 thought that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. And in a gallup poll only last year 44% thought that God created human beings in their present form.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

    Yet in the same poll, 53% thought it was definitely or probably true that human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life.

    It’s a strange world indeed and some education systems must be even stranger.

  23. Sou says:

    Correction – the ‘yet in the same poll’ refers to the 2007 poll, not the 2009 poll.

  24. Jon says:

    BillD … temperatures in Canada were above normal this winter: http://www.cbc.ca/nl/features/nlweather/2010/03/warmest_driest_canadian_winter.html

    Seals are pupping on beaches in northern Newfoundland because of the lack of ice.

  25. Bill Tuttle says:

    Roger Carr (03:31:01) :
    But we are still seeing comments like this:
    “Imagine if countries got together and enacted laws to reduce and regulate the carbon emissions into the atmosphere. What a success that could be.”

    Imagine if countries got together and enacted laws to eliminate warfare and promote universal brotherhood. What a success that could be.

    Oh. Wait…

  26. Carax says:

    Opinion on global warming for 2010 waning after a long harsh winter, gee what a coincidence.

  27. Johnny Canuck says:

    HELP!
    I cannot open Climategate.com anymore.
    I went to Google and found the listing, but it was blocked when I tried to open it.
    I tried it on “BING” — same thing.
    This only started happening since yesterday or the day before.
    Has anyone an explanation?
    I suspect chicanery’

  28. PiperPaul says:

    Roger@03:31:01, perhaps the writer was listening to music and got caught up in all those “Imagine” lyrics.

  29. Gail Combs says:

    Michael (03:00:45) :

    “All hell is going to break loose soon. Get ready. All the scams are being exposed. Repo 105 seems to be the last straw.”,/i>

    The whole thing has been a financial/accounting scam ever since the goldsmiths figured out they could write ten “1 oz of gold” promissory notes for every oz of gold left in their vaults for safe keeping. It was made law as “fractional reserve” banking and the bankers have been lending us pixie dust ever since. They collecting our wealth (labor) in return for their pixie dust. To add insult to injury they then charge up to 30% interest on that pixie dust! They also lend the same type of pixie dust to the federal governments.

    Here in the USA “Grace Commission report notes that 100% of personal income tax goes to pay interest on the national debt, the lion’s share of which goes to the banking cartel that we know as the Federal Reserve.” http://www.bloggernews.net/17032

    To add insult to injury the banks are not even doing “fractional lending” any more now the entire amount loaned to the public is pixie dust. “US banks are already operating free of any reserve constraints. The graph below shows reserve requirements falling to zero over the last fifty years.” the graph can be seen at http://www.marketskeptics.com/2009/03/us-banks-operate-without-reserve.html

    Now just sit back for a second and think about the amount of WEALTH the bankers are skimming off through taxes and principle and interest!

    The whole “banking crisis” is nothing but an accounting scam. If 100% of the “money” you lend out is counterfeit* but 100% of the money you collect as principal and interest is backed by wealth (labor) then how the heck can you bank be “failing” without a lot of fancy accounting tricks.

    The fancy accounting trick is to consider the counterfeit* money REAL as soon as the bank creates it and entires it on their accounting records. Wouldn’t you love to be able to print money and lend it to people at interest?

    Money Is Created by Banks Evidence Given by Graham Towers

    http://www.michaeljournal.org/appenE.htm

    Evidence given by Graham F. Towers, Governor of the Central Bank of Canada (from 1934 to 1955), before the Canadian Government’s Committee on Banking and Commerce, in 1939. Here are a few excerpts:

    Q. But there is no question about it that banks create the medium of exchange?

    Mr. Towers: That is right. That is what they are for… That is the Banking business, just in the same way that a steel plant makes steel. (p. 287)

    The manufacturing process consists of making a pen-and-ink or typewriter entry on a card in a book. That is all. (pp. 76 and 238)

    Each and every time a bank makes a loan (or purchases securities), new bank credit is created — new deposits — brand new money. (pp. 113 and 238)

    Broadly speaking, all new money comes out of a Bank in the form of loans.

    As loans are debts, then under the present system all money is debt.

    Once the public in all of the countries with Central Banks figure out they have been had by the few banking families that control the entire world banking system, we maybe able to straighten out the mess they have made. Until then they control the politicians and through them us.

    Unfortunately now that they have more wealth than the know what to do with they have decided to “play chess” with our lives to keep themselves entertained.

  30. gcb says:

    According to this article, NASA knew there were problems with the GIS dataset three years ago, but somehow this information never became public, even though a USA Today reporter was informed of it.

    So much for the impartiality of the press!

  31. rbateman says:

    Roger Carr (03:31:01) :

    Imagine if countries got together and enacted laws to reduce and regulate the economy into the dark ages.
    What a success that could be…. unless you are a peasant.

  32. son of mulder says:

    ” Roger Carr (03:31:01) :

    Andrew Bolt’s blog today.”

    Interestingly Bolt’s chart shows 71% drop in SO2 (a cooling aerosol) since 1980 in the US.

    Globally SO2 has decreased 25% in the 10 years 1990 to 2000

    see

    http://ideas.repec.org/p/rpi/rpiwpe/0504.html

    where it says (to inject a bit more fear about global warming)

    “Global anthropogenic sulfur emissions increased until the late 1980s…….This paper combines previously published data and new econometric estimates to show a 25% decline over the decade to a level not seen since the early 1960s. ………….If this new trend is maintained local air pollution problems will be ameliorated but global warming may be somewhat exacerbated.”

    So we are supposed to have anthropic CO2 forcing warming, decreasing SO2 forcing warming yet no statistically significant warming since 1995.

    Together with IPCC gaffes, and Climategate no wonder concerns are dropping.

  33. RichieP says:

    @ Johnny Canuck (05:04:41) :
    “HELP! I cannot open Climategate.com anymore.”

    Nor can I (UK) – just get one of those pages that suggests the domain has ceased to be. Hmmm.

  34. Green Sand says:

    Richard North’s Eureferendum has pointed out a study that may influence the next poll: –

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/03/honey-ive-shrunk-birdies.html

    Climate change makes birds shrink in North America

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8560000/8560694.stm

    As Richard says “it just gets better and better”

  35. Douglas DC says:

    Here’s the latest SST’s from Unisys:

    http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html

    Note the warm water off the coast of Newfoundland.
    Note the Baltic.Note the Bearing.Note the Gulf of Mexico.-all cold
    Note the Flaccid “Multi year, worst ever!” Nino.
    Neutral to Nina by the summer…

  36. gcb says:

    @Johnny Canuck (05:04:41) :

    Looks like the domain registration expired or they’re in a dispute. When I go to climategate.com now I get the sort of “generic page” that you get when the domain registrar is looking for someone to buy it.

    Whois reports that the domain information changed yesterday:
    Domain Name: CLIMATEGATE.COM
    Registrar: GODADDY.COM, INC.
    Whois Server: whois.godaddy.com
    Referral URL: http://registrar.godaddy.com
    Name Server: NS1.SEDOPARKING.COM
    Name Server: NS2.SEDOPARKING.COM
    Status: clientDeleteProhibited
    Status: clientRenewProhibited
    Status: clientTransferProhibited
    Status: clientUpdateProhibited
    Updated Date: 11-mar-2010
    Creation Date: 05-jan-2008
    Expiration Date: 05-jan-2013

  37. Pamela Gray says:

    Just my opinion bout mother seals, but I would rather pup on a warm beach than ice any day.

    To gauge the change in attitudes in political circles which would be the more accurate proxy? Shaving or coring?

  38. wws says:

    re: Roger Carr: I think you turned up Micheal Mann’s sockpuppet.

  39. Juraj V. says:

    Graph 1 – hockey stock brewing
    Graph 2 – tipping point soon to be reached

    How will all that AGW BS end? Slowly die off, being replaced by another looming catastrophe? Abrupt end, when some influential politicians start to talk in open? Who will bear the responsibility?

  40. Gail Combs says:

    Green Sand (05:33:31) :

    Richard North’s Eureferendum has pointed out a study that may influence the next poll: –

    http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2010/03/honey-ive-shrunk-birdies.html

    Climate change makes birds shrink in North America

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8560000/8560694.stm

    As Richard says “it just gets better and better”

    GEE could not have anything to do with inbreeding populations, pesticides, herbicides and GMO crops… NAWWWwww the only possible cause is the politically correct cause dejour. I am sure there is another study linking the same decrease in size to GMO crops.

  41. Kay says:

    @ Grumpy Old Man (03:09:16) :

    Just as I was commenting on the previous post, this new one appears. My comment may be more appropriate here. There is a long way to go:

    http://www.herkinderkin.com/2010/03/public-opinion-about-global-warming/

    That the number of people being more skeptical of AGW is “less than half” at 48% isn’t the important thing. What’s important is the sharp downward spiral and downward trend in such a short time–if they do this poll again in a couple of months, the number of those for AGW will probably be outnumbered by those against.

  42. Innocentious says:

    While science is not ruled by polls ( thank goodness ) Politicians are. The real reason this is good is that it means that politicians will not do anything stupid while we are still figuring everything out. No one really disputes that over the 200 years temperature have managed to warm up. What is in dispute is the following. Is it bad, is it unprecedented, is it only caused by man.

    If it is bad then we should be at least worried a little, bad is well bad.

    if it is unprecedented then that is worrisome because it means we cannot predict with accuracy how the world will react.

    if it is only caused by man then that means we can more easily effect the environment on a global scale then we thought.

    However it is most likely not ‘bad’ change occurs and is only that, change.

    As best as we can, tell despite some climate scientists wish that this next statement is not true, it does not appear to be unprecedented in the last couple of thousand years.

    Since it is not Unprecedented then odds are man is not the ONLY cause of the warming. If that is true then those claiming it is unprecedented and bad and that man is the cause of it all are not to be believed. THIS is the reason people are upset at ‘the facts’ because they are being presented by political scientists at that point with an agenda. Facts speak for themselves you do not need to inflate them. Or diminish other fact to make the ones you want to believe true.

    Does an increase in CO2 increase temperature, of course it does. Is all the warming that has occurred over the last century directly attributable ONLY to that? We do not know!!! So stop trying to say it is when in a court of law all you can say is that well there is a correlation, so in the next 50 years we are going to increase the temperature by 5 degrees Celsius unless you do something NOW!!!! Which I see no direct correlation based on the evidence to agree with that statement to date. Theory yes, but I can theorize anything with data and so long as I can JUSTIFY my GUESS then my theory until the evidence suggests otherwise is PLAUSIBLE.

    Anyway, while climate scientists call a skeptical thought process like this stupid, or funded by big oil I actually think of it more as common sense… Perhaps I am wrong, anyone able to take me to task on this?

  43. sam bailey says:

    I have a neighbor.. and true Agw Algorite… whom in in the spirit of detente’.. after many legendery exhanges over what he considered settled science my penchant for.. self indulgent sarcasm that had touches of objectivism that on climate issues might find.. refreshing
    I offered him a a a gift.. a token of peace if you will.
    It was a hockey stick… with the end.. cut level and straight..
    For a vegan.. hed had a pretty good swing.. thankfully no stitches….

    :’)

  44. Pascvaks says:

    Ref – Sou (04:04:50) :
    “Most US Americans appear to be quite gullible at best…
    “It’s a strange world indeed and some education systems must be even stranger.”
    ________________________

    Americans, like many people around the world, tend to still believe many of the things they grew up “knowing”, even if they now “know” that these things really aren’t, probably, true. (Know what I mean?)

    And, Americans, like many of the people around the world, tend to “believe” people, and what they say, until they find out otherwise. Or until someone else they “know” better, or “respect” or “like” or “etc.” more says it ain’t so. (Know what I mean?)

    Americans are like most people around the world. We can’t appreciate others too well, and others can’t appreciate us too well.

    But.. the American Education System, that’s a different story. Nobody, nowhere, nohow, nowho, nowhat, nowhen (lately), and nowhy likes it. One of these days….(@#$%$#%$)

  45. Gail Combs says:

    rbateman (05:19:26) :

    Roger Carr (03:31:01) :

    Imagine if countries got together and enacted laws to reduce and regulate the economy into the dark ages.
    What a success that could be…. unless you are a peasant.

    Actually the laws are to starve a great number of peasants out of existence. After all you only need so many peasants, if you have too many they become hard to control and besides THEY are using up YOUR resources. Environmentalism is actually about peasants using up the elites resources, that is why WWF was started by royalty.

    Am I being sarcastic? No

    Spermicidal corn: http://noblelie.com/2009/03/10/gmo-population-control-spermicidal-corn/

    Vaccines: Sterilization & Abortion: http://www.whale.to/m/sterile.html

  46. M. Simon says:

    It’s the taxes…..

    It is easy to believe in faeries when it costs nothing.

    A poll a few years back found the support for taxes to combat GW went to near zero when the cost was $1,000 a year per family. And there was a drop off even at $100 a year per family. At $10 a year the numbers held relatively steady.

  47. son of mulder says:

    “Gail Combs (05:54:38) :

    GEE could not have anything to do with inbreeding populations, pesticides, herbicides and GMO crops… NAWWWwww the only possible cause is the politically correct cause dejour. I am sure there is another study linking the same decrease in size to GMO crops.”

    Or maybe cold kills so smaller birds of the species die without breeding. Warmer is better and the smaller birds survive to breed and so on average the bird size gets smaller.

  48. Curiousgeorge says:

    @ Milwaukee Bob (01:26:18) :

    OT
    In- WUWT, “IPCC announces “independent” review” Curiousgeorge asked for a link to the Energy Sec. Chu remarks. Thought others might be interested also.
    WSJ
    MARCH 8, 2010
    Politics and Policy
    Energy Secretary Steven Chu on the administration’s game plan

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704869304575104

    The link you gave returned a “Page not found” error, but I managed to run it down based on the other info above. Funny tho, there is no mention of the CO2 layer comment you referred to either in the text or the accompanying video. Here’s the link I found: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704869304575104621269451154.html?KEYWORDS=energy+secretary

  49. gcb says:

    @Pascvaks (06:06:55) :
    But.. the American Education System, that’s a different story. Nobody, nowhere, nohow, nowho, nowhat, nowhen (lately), and nowhy likes it.

    So does that make the Education System like the weather – everybody talks about it, but nobody does anything about it?

    If that’s the case, can we expect “Anthropogenic Global Stupiding” to be the next big media feeding frenzy?

    :-)

  50. OceanTwo says:

    Wouter (02:01:56) :

    I’ll respond in kind, by referring to a cartoon: http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1271

    While you are making the obvious point regarding polls, here’s a couple of thoughts:

    What’s the difference between ‘the majority believing/knowing X’ and a ‘consensus’?

    Weather there is a consensus that the world is flat or not, there’s a difference in relevance when the public at large have an opinion about something that affects them directly and an opinion about an irrelevance.

    This is why an opinion poll in this case is quite important: it demonstrates that there’s a lot of people believe that the case for AGW contains very little compelling evidence. This is going on the worst case scenario that people will believe pretty much anything placed before them – the ‘gullibility’ as it were.

    Polls are decidedly unscientific, but then, we are polling on an un-science.

    Regardless, event though the intelligence of a whole group of people is below the average intelligence of those members individually, people are not as stupid as they are made out to be.

  51. M. Simon says:

    Here is a poll on taxes and warming from July 2009:

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/environment_energy/56_don_t_want_to_pay_more_to_fight_global_warming

    A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, taken since the climate change bill was passed on Friday, finds that 21% of Americans are willing to pay $100 more per year for cleaner energy and to counter global warming. Only 14% are willing to pay more than that amount.

    Ah. It looks like it was worse than I thought.

  52. lichanos says:

    Why do you pay so much attention to these polls? They tell us little about the state of the science.

  53. RockyRoad says:

    I consider it highly egotistical that man should take responsibility for this latest beneficial trend of warming (although even that may not be there afterall; it may consist merely of increased CO2 alone) when Mother Nature has provided us with many such warm periods in the past without the slightest assistance from man.

    Ah man, what art thou but a mere spec in the cosmos?

    That applies to Earth, too.

  54. DeNihilist says:

    From Enviroment Canada – “The most recent winter data, while particularly extreme, suggests to Phillips that the definition of the typical Canadian winter may be changing. Seasonal temperatures have increased about 2.5 degrees over a 63-year period, Phillips said, adding the rest of the world has warmed more slowly with an average of three-quarters of a degree.

    Phillips said this year’s balminess can be explained by El Nino, a shift in wind and ocean currents in the Pacific, but there’s no doubt Canadians have begun to notice a difference in the season most closely associated with their homeland.

    “Old-timers used to say to me years ago ‘ya know, winters aren’t what they used to be.’ And I’d say ‘nonsense, you’ve just got a bad memory.’ And now, they’re proven right, Canadian winters are not what they used to be,:

  55. DirkH says:

    Great cartoon, the best by Josh so far!

  56. R. de Haan says:

    Lubos Motl hits the nail right on the head!

    And the public knows it.

    http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/03/richard-lindzen-v-hadi-dowlatabadi.html

  57. Walt The Physicist says:

    Perhaps, it is time to demand firing those most notorious climate scientists who are known to deceive the public that funds them. First step could be demanding from the government to put a ban on funding climate modeling and GW related activities of those involved in C-gate in NASA, NOAA and the Universities. There is a legal provision for ban on government contracts, at least, for the private companies who are found to mismanage government funding or commit fraud. I believe that they should continue their climate activities in the privately funded organizations.

    Concerning “gullible Americans” (Sou 04:04:50), I would say two things: 1) Americans are educated for smartness more than for facts because smartness always makes money and knowing where and what Budapest is rarely brings a penny; and 2) regardless of how uneducated or stupid, or gullible the layman is in the eyes of academic scientists, the layman pays the bills and, thus, has the right to choose what is worth of funding and who is fired.

    Although not relevant; however, I would like to add to the American education issue. The democracy is strong only when education of people is high. This is known fact. My hypothesis is that the education for smartness (and this is American type of education) has higher weight in democracy foundation than education for facts. People in the USSR and China were highly educated for facts; however were unable to produce robust democracies.

  58. Johnny Canuck says:

    Innocentious (06:00:26) :

    “While science is not ruled by polls ( thank goodness ) Politicians are. —-”

    Your comments are sensible and well said.
    I believe that the CO2 levels follow the theory given the other day that levels and temp have an exponential relationship, which is realistic.
    The “warmists” just extrapolate the the initial CO2 rate of increase in a linear trend and immediately jump to the conclusion that the end of the world is nigh.
    AND– they will not entertain any other theories or ideas.
    To them, the “science is settled”.
    That is what makes all of us upset.
    WE are NOT the deniers. We are the skeptics. The Warmists are the deniers. They DENY any other possible scenarios.

  59. vigilantfish says:

    ohnny Canuck (05:04:41) :

    HELP!
    I cannot open Climategate.com anymore.
    I went to Google and found the listing, but it was blocked when I tried to open it.
    I tried it on “BING” — same thing.
    This only started happening since yesterday or the day before.
    Has anyone an explanation?
    I suspect chicanery’

    —————–

    Wow! The domain name appears to have been stolen. When I Googled Climategate.com (which I have looked at fairly frequently in the past) the top listing on Google is now a website devoted to links to alternate energy resources and technologies!

  60. John Galt says:

    Sou (04:04:50) :
    Most US Americans appear to be quite gullible at best. Sixty six per cent of people in the USA surveyed by Gallup in 2007 thought that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. And in a gallup poll only last year 44% thought that God created human beings in their present form.

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

    Yet in the same poll, 53% thought it was definitely or probably true that human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life.

    It’s a strange world indeed and some education systems must be even stranger.

    While poll results may vary dramatically according to how questions are asked, you can’t go broke in this country by underestimating the scientific illiteracy or general ignorance of the American people.

    Our public education system is broken.

    BillD (02:59:54) :
    IMO, a cold winter is enough to change some of the general public. If we have a new record warm year with the El Nino, concerns about warming will swing back.

    The American public happens to be right about the AGW issue, but probably for the wrong reasons. The average guy on the street can see that the worst predictions aren’t coming true. The average guy also doesn’t buy into global warming causing droughts and floods and more snow and less snow all at the same time.

    But if the rest of the world really was burning up, would most Americans notice?

  61. vigilantfish says:

    gcb (05:38:35) :

    re Climategate.com: This looks like a case of insidious censorship. What a way to try to skew public opinion! How can domain names expire within a period of less than a year – I would assume that domain names rights are created and registered for year-long blocks? Very disturbing.

  62. Oldseadog says:

    OT and with apologies, but I don’t know how else to bring this to your attention; at

    http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20100312/tsc-climate-change-pushing-bird-species-e123fef.html

    there is a story from US Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

    Wonderful stuff.

  63. JonesII says:

    Sou (04:04:50) :The problem is that “americans” (more precisely US citizens) believe in STATISTICS, so you can cheat them on any issue if you tell them ANY statistical “truth”.
    This kind of thinking has destroyed any possibility of perceiving reality as it is, only the more instructed among them are suspecting something of the kind is really happening. Fortunately the climate-gate scandal is making them doubt about those “truths” their so called “learned men and women” , the so called “scientists” and cleptocratic politicians tell them everyday, through what they call “media”.
    This doubt is becoming greater everyday and it will surely end endangering the otherwise “comfortable” and happy life of those in power.

  64. Pascvaks says:

    Ref – gcb (06:33:06) :
    @Pascvaks (06:06:55) :
    “But.. the American Education System, that’s a different story. Nobody, nowhere, nohow, nowho, nowhat, nowhen (lately), and nowhy likes it.”

    So does that make the Education System like the weather – everybody talks about it, but nobody does anything about it?
    If that’s the case, can we expect “Anthropogenic Global Stupiding” to be the next big media feeding frenzy?
    :-)
    _______________________

    One can only hope:-)

  65. Bernice says:

    Climategate editor hadn’t made any posts since 9 March.

    Supposedly John O’Sullivan called it quits with the following description on Sedo “This domain name had a web site with 570 posts, 6000 comments, a PR4 rating and Alexa rank of about 70,000, when I parked it on 3/11/10. I started the site in December 09. Just got burned out with such a popular site and had to move on to other things. The entire WordPress site is still on my server and will be saved for a buyer if they are interested.

    First $100,000 takes it.”

    http://www.sedo.co.uk/search/details.php4?domain=climategate.com&language=e&et_sub=49&partnerid=14460&et_cid=13&et_lid=17473

  66. JonesII says:

    vigilantfish (07:08:53) : Yry this one:

    http://www.climate-gate.com/

  67. Johnny Canuck says:

    gcb (05:38:35) :

    “Looks like the domain registration expired or they’re in a dispute. When I go to climategate.com now I get the sort of “generic page” that you get when the domain registrar is looking for someone to buy it”

    Thanks for that.

    It appears that the “Warmists” have bought out the opposition.[Climategate.com] and turned it into a site for “Renewable Energy”

    http://www.climategate.com/

    That looks like an act of war to me.
    How did this happen?

  68. globaltemps says:

    In retrospect the Copenhagen ‘summit’ will mark the point where the bubble was at its maximum inflation before it had no other option than to burst.

    The similarity to other scares and hypes (Anthrax, .com, WMD’s, SARS, XYZZY-flu) is striking. At the exact moment that politics, the media and every Joe Sixpack are full of it while skeptics stand up, you can be sure that the tide will turn.

  69. Luboš Motl says:

    I suppose that the Judith on the cartoon is not Judith Curry, is she? ;-)

  70. Frank says:

    These Gallup polls show how poor the public debate on AGW really is!

    1) Thinking about what you have heard or read, is the seriousness of global warming: a) generally exaggerated, b) generally correct, or c) generally underestimated?

    Environmentalists have created an UN-backed “scientific” organization (the IPCC) whose principal job is to dominate the news and promote international agreements to restrict emission of greenhouse gases. Many of its principal scientists, like Steven Schneider, openly advocate telling “scary stories”, while politicians like Al Gore indoctrinate our citizens with scary movies. And only 48% of the public gave the right answer to this question???? [The previous question in the survey must have been something like: "Will your house or the house of any of your friends be under water after the Greenland and Antarctic ice-caps melt?]

    2) …. do you believe that increases in the earth’s temperature are more due to: a) the effects of pollution from human activities or b) natural changes in the environment that are not due to human activities?

    a) In a courtroom, one could object that the question assumes facts not in evidence. What warming? Does the responder even know what SIZE increase in temperature they are speculating about? Interestingly, the best answer – Who knows? – not among the choices.

    b) What is this “pollution from human activities” Gallup talking about? When nature emits far more carbon dioxide and methane than man, Gallup has no right to call these GHG’s “human pollution”. Gallup must have been very disappointed when almost half of the responders failed to take their hint and associate bad effects with the word “pollution”, especially when the responders were prompted to give: “just your impression”.

    3) Which is more accurate: a) Most scientists believe global warming is occurring, b) most scientists believe global warming is not occurring, c) or most scientists are uncertain about whether global warming is occurring or not?

    The correct answer is obviously a). The IPCC has been SHOUTING the answer to this question for decades, but the public seems to have stopped listening. (I’d like to believe that the public recognizes that too many climate scientists lost their credibility by acting like politicians and lawyers, but I suspect this is simply a reflection of political polarization.)

    Most scientists would want to know what the phrase “global warming” implies before venturing an opinion. Are UHI’s and land use changes part of global warming, or should does the surface record need to be corrected first? How big is the uncertainty? All scientists know that GHG’s absorb outgoing infrared radiation, but the real question is HOW MUCH?

  71. G. Karst says:

    Polls affect climate… not at all!

    Poles, however do! Both poles are now nominal in regards to sea ice. Quite remarkable considering the purported warm temperatures, and the alarm AGW convinced, are screaming.GK

  72. Steve Goddard says:

    Anthony has played a big part in making this happen.

  73. OceanTwo says:

    Oldseadog (07:15:40) :

    OT and with apologies, but I don’t know how else to bring this to your attention; at

    http://uk.news.yahoo.com/18/20100312/tsc-climate-change-pushing-bird-species-e123fef.html

    there is a story from US Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

    Wonderful stuff.

    This is indicative of the research being used as evidence for the harful effects of global warming: There is a premise; study a subject based on that premise.

    For example, “What is the effect of global warming [climate change] on the Puffin population?”

    Regardless of the result, the premise is that climate change is affecting the Puffin population. The result is going to be either the population increases, decreases and, mostly unlikely, stays the same. The conclusion will be that “Climate change is causing an increase(migration)/decrease in the puffin population.” This research is performed by specialists in the Puffin field, but there is zero evidence demonstrating a causal effect. Such papers are held up as part of the scientific consensus on Anthropogenic influence on our climate.

    Additionally, there is little identification of Environment Verses Climate. While it may be true that there are environmental concerns, by attributing an environmental effect to a climatic effect, you really do a disservice to subjects under scrutiny.

    Most telling, where I live in the SC Low Country, we have a significant problem with mercury contamination. The reasons for such damage (perceived, potential and real) are being attributed to climatic changes, in the mistaken belief that the GW bandwagon will push funds to pet environmental projects. It’s tragic that funding will be directed to line the pockets of a few in the name of ‘climate change’ where the real environmental hazards will not actually be addressed.

    The scientists, biologists and researchers genuinely studying environmental impacts on our environment don’t realize they are pawns in the great global warming swindle, that their expectations for the future are completely different from those funding them.

  74. Pascvaks says:

    Ref -Steve Goddard (07:59:56) :
    “Anthony has played a big part in making this happen.”
    _______________________

    So true! And more than most can imagine or will ever truly appreciate!

    Thanks again, Anthony, and all your faithful helping friends.

  75. Henry chance says:

    So the warmists used the argument from authority. All scientists agree warming is the calamity du jour. So now are they planning to place the same weight of authority on the prevailing opinion for warming being a genuine non event?

    Neurotics build castles in the sky
    Psychotics live in them
    Psychologists colect rent.

    I see the days of the greenie weenies collecting rents or shakedown monies for carbon credits are about over. There is stuill an apparent surge.

  76. Johnny Canuck says:

    “Bernice (07:23:25) :

    Climategate editor hadn’t made any posts since 9 March.
    Supposedly John O’Sullivan called it quits…………etc”

    Thanks for that. Too bad. It was a good site.

  77. Pascvaks says:

    Ref – Henry chance (08:25:48) :
    “..Neurotics build castles in the sky
    Psychotics live in them
    Psychologists collect rent…”
    ____________________
    Neurotics? Thought they were Psyentists:-)

  78. PeterB in Indainapolis says:

    In reply to Jon,

    It is well known that with a strong El Nino you get very warm winter conditions in the west of Canada, so your report is absolutely unsurprising.

    As far as I know, Greenpeace and WWF absolutely LOVE those seal pups, so the fact that they have even more opportunity to reproduce this year and more favorable conditions for their young to thrive in a bit earlier on the calendar then usual, I would think that Greenpeace and the WWF would be thrilled that this should lead to a nice increase in the seal populations this year.

  79. James F. Evans says:

    Just imagine how low the concern for AGW would be if the mainstream media in America would report as agressively about the scandals and errors as it did for the AGW advocates in the first place.

    AGW would be dead-meat instead of on life-support.

    Science in general was (and still is by many) held in high regard and trust.

    That illusion has been shattered for many.

    This issue (the validity of AGW) is probably the first scientific question that has driven large numbers of people from the general public to question scientists’ assertions and then caused them to do their own independent research.

    And, thanks to the internet people can now do that.

    What has happened is dramatic, and sent shock waves through these self-informed individuals among the general public:

    Significant amounts of what the scientific community has been shoveling down the throat of the general public is garbage.

    I don’t think people who have researched various scientific questions will ever have the same trusting view of Science, again.

    You can’t put the tooth paste back in the tube — the trust is gone.

    The rose-colored glasses have shattered and been replaced by a clear-eyed scepticism tempered by an open-mind to empirical evidence.

    Verify, verify, verify…that is the watch-word.

  80. David Alan Evans says:

    Regarding the climategate site.

    I just typed climategate Ctrl-Enter, No problems. March 9th is last post though.

    DaveE.

  81. Van Grungy says:

    Increase in seals = more cod dead, wasted with just their bellies ripped out by the seals.

    Seals have NEVER been in danger of extiction.

    Seal meat is quite tasty. Hope you all get to try some one day

  82. Oldseadog says:

    OceanTwo:

    Precisely.

  83. Roger says:

    What scientists can’t do is

    1) say “this subject is too complicated – you need to trust us”
    2) refuse to publish their data/methods/code

    then

    3) get caught lying/exaggerating

    If they do they shouldn’t be surprised by surveys like this.

  84. Kay says:

    @ lichanos (06:47:28) : Why do you pay so much attention to these polls? They tell us little about the state of the science.

    No, they don’t. However, IPCC and Jones et al don’t care about the state of the science–their goal is to SELL their conclusions to the public. They are more concerned about the fact that they’re not doing a very good job of communicating their message, and this is reflected in the polls regardless of the state of the science (which is pretty horrendous anyway).

  85. bob paglee says:

    A few old geezers like me can remember the 1970s when the false prophets of that era cried “Catastrophe alert — Earth’s climate is cooling, cropland will freeze and world starvation is coming!” Unfortunately, today most persons under 40 cannot remember this previous climate hysteria. Still, now all we need do is look out the window, put on our overcoats and wonder if there is new crop of prophets singing a new siren song.

  86. Icarus says:

    Johnny Canuck (07:07:49) :

    WE are NOT the deniers. We are the skeptics. The Warmists are the deniers. They DENY any other possible scenarios.

    Climate scientists consider all kinds of possible scenarios, but not to the point of denying the laws of physics. Everyone accepts that human activity is causing the current warming trend, because that’s what the evidence shows us. Of course people are free to dispute how this might proceed in the future, and bring up all sorts of different scenarios, but the fact remains that all other things being equal, the world will continue to warm all the time there is a positive TOA radiative imbalance (i.e. an accumulation of energy in the climate system). Can you give us any confidence that that is going to change any time soon?

  87. Mike A. says:

    This will surely help restore the numbers of the dwindling faithful (hmmnnn…):

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/12/polar-bears-endangered-species-listing

    (…) “This weekend, the US will warn that the threat from climate change to the survival of the polar bear is so great that the world must grant it the highest possible protection.

    At the meeting of the international body that regulates trade in animals, the US will push for a total ban on the sale and movement of polar bear products that are used for furs, rugs and taxidermy. Melting sea ice in the Arctic will kill thousands of bears in coming years, the US says, and continued commercial trade must not be allowed to make the situation worse. Other countries, including US neighbours and keen polar bear traders, Canada, disagree.

    The US has put its proposal to the Convention on International Trade of Endangered Species (Cites), which meets every two-three years and tomorrow begins its 12-day meeting in Doha, Qatar. Governments from 175 countries will discuss dozens of such proposals, which could help determine the fate of, among others, elephants, tigers, rhinos and the world’s dwindling stocks of bluefin tuna.”

  88. Pascvaks says:

    Ref – bob paglee (10:13:02) :
    “A few old geezers like me can remember the 1970s when the false prophets of that era cried “Catastrophe alert — Earth’s climate is cooling, cropland will freeze and world starvation is coming!” Unfortunately, today most persons under 40 cannot remember this previous climate hysteria. …”
    ____________________
    And 40 years from now, some kid (relatively speaking) today, will say the same thing you just said except they’ll say the exact opposite:
    “A few old geezers like me can remember the 2010s when the false prophets of that era cried “Catastrophe alert — Earth’s climate is warming, cropland will burn and world starvation is coming!” Unfortunately, today most persons under 40 cannot remember this previous climate hysteria. …”

    Nothing changes, really;-)

    (Except the value of the dollar, the cost of healthcare, the…;-)

  89. Rob says:

    In reply to PeterB, it’s not just in the west of Canada; it’s everywhere except for a small area over the southern prairies. See Desdemona Despair, “Canada winter warmest and driest on record: ‘It’s like winter was cancelled in this country’ “

  90. Paul Hildebrandt says:

    Jon (04:39:29) :

    Seals are pupping on beaches in northern Newfoundland because of the lack of ice.

    Jon,

    Read the links below. You’ll find that this is a result of a negative Arctic Oscillation, warm phase Pacific Decadal Oscillation and El Nino.

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/28/the-arctic-oscillation-index-goes-strongly-negative/

    http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~mantua/REPORTS/PDO/PDO_cs.htm

  91. R. Gates says:

    Americans have been notoriously wrong in their opinions about the importance of things…mainly tending toward wishful thinking. You only need to look at the disasters in the stock market. If the majority of Americans had seen the many crashes coming, they would have pulled their money out before. Instead, they believe the “happy days” can go on forever.

    So too, could be the case with AGW. Only time will tell. For those looking at the long term trends in climate, it looks as though we might once more go another winter in the N. Hemisphere without seeing a positive sea ice anomaly. We’ve not had a positive anomaly in arctic sea ice since 2004…and this is constitutes as trend. Also of course, so far in 2010, we’ve seen at or above temps in the troposphere, with every day in March being above the 20 year record. While these 2010 tropospheric temps don’t yet constitute a trend, they are 100% consistent with AGW models, and consistent with the Met Office’s (and mine) prediction that 2010 will most likely end up as the warmest year on instrument record.

  92. Douglas DC says:

    I’m convinced that the Elites have populaton control at the center of this.
    Being part native American, thanks to my Granma, I am a bit sensitve about
    “control” by govn’t edict…
    Nothing scares them more than heathy, happy, warm, dark skinned people.
    Children, especially…

  93. P Gosselin says:

    When the AGW hypothesis meets real science:

  94. Richard deSousa says:

    Yeah, but Al Gore says the science is settled… well, may be not… here’s the latest (OT) about our sun from David Hathaway of NASA

    http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2010/12mar_conveyorbelt.htm?list970792

  95. Bill Tuttle says:

    son of mulder (06:19:55) :
    Or maybe cold kills so smaller birds of the species die without breeding. Warmer is better and the smaller birds survive to breed and so on average the bird size gets smaller.

    The flip side of that coin is that cold weather generally means there’s less bird food available for the graminivorous species, so smaller birds will have a survival advantage — they need less food than the larger ones, and can get into areas their competitors *can’t* to find food. Smaller birds also have an advantage in finding shelter from predators and the elements — I’ve startled a chipping sparrow from beneath a magnolia leaf that had lodged between the trunk and two small branches of a yew.

  96. Bill Tuttle says:

    bob paglee (10:13:02) :
    A few old geezers like me can remember the 1970s when the false prophets of that era cried “Catastrophe alert — Earth’s climate is cooling, cropland will freeze and world starvation is coming!”

    I have geezer-peer reviewed your comment and can confirm it’s veracity.

  97. Bill Tuttle says:

    %$#@!

    “…confirm its veracity”…

  98. kadaka says:

    So the computer-generated footage of three-story high massive waves sweeping through a quickly-deserted New York City didn’t have that much of a lasting effect?

    I don’t see why people have a hard time accepting such a perfectly plausible scenario!

    Look at what happened in that movie 2012, which was obviously the result of those apocalyptic runaway global warming effects finally kicking in, just as they were predicted to happen. Totally believable!

  99. Vincent says:

    Icarus,

    “Climate scientists consider all kinds of possible scenarios, but not to the point of denying the laws of physics.”

    That’s right Icarus, the laws of physics (presume you are referring to radiation physics) tells us to expect a temperature sensitivity of about 1.2C for a doubling of CO2.

    “Of course people are free to dispute how this might proceed in the future, and bring up all sorts of different scenarios.”

    These are the playstation scenarios that conjure up warmings of up to 6C or more, based on their magical multipliers. This of course, is not science.

    “but the fact remains that all other things being equal. . . ”

    All other things are not equal in a chaotic non linear system where parameters interact in myriad different ways. Ie, the earth-as-a-flask model is a naive conjecture unsupported by evidence.

  100. Dr A Burns says:

    A recent Australian survey showed that 60% of Aussies are still blind true believers.

    No doubt that this is the result of a very biassed Australian press, except for a few glimmers of light, such as from Andrew Bolt.

  101. latitude says:

    “a public that over the last two years has become less worried about the threat of global warming”

    No time for leisure pontificating any more, their target demographic is getting older.
    As people get older, they tend to be less gullible.
    Plus, they have had more exposure to “science” being wrong.

    Don’t eat eggs – never mind
    This pill will help you loose weight – dead people weigh less
    etc etc etc

    Learning that the more desperate the predictions, the less likely they are to be true.

    Mostly it’s just been there, heard that before.

  102. SouthAmericanGirls says:

    How difficult is for co2 alarmists to tamper with satellite data used by institutions like UAH (University of Alabama Huntsville) to compute global temperature?

    Mainly Man Made Global Warming (MMMGW) is a politician´s wet dream: History shows the insatiable lust for oppressive power that politicians often have, MMMGW is a politician´s wet dream: It gives them enormous, global, insane opressive power plus trillions in taxes while allowing them to pose as the planet saviors while in fact they are indulging their insatiable extremely destructive lust for power, control and money.

    Lying is small potatoes if the prize is so big. Can people at NASA tamper with temperatures that are used by UAH for building their satellite record? MMMGW gives such a gigantic humongous prize to politicians and others that a little lie here is nothing for such a trillionaire prize.

    To that you must add that United Nations (U.N.) power is the MOST dangerous power that exists, there is a free world because people could flee oppressive regimes -like European monarchies in the 1700s or URSS in the 1900s- to relative free places like USA or Switzerland and so places like USA or Switzerland blossomed because so much people and capital went there. But U.N. seeks WORLD power, the most dangerous power because it could want to establish universal oppression i.e. it could want to establish a system where there is no free place left to flee! U.N. has alleged for several UNIVERSAL oppression schemes like universal taxes, taxing immigrants that leave their “tax hell” countries and U.N. has even make attempts at controlling the internet, internet is a tyrant WORST DREAM, it is well known that tyrants fear enormously free information flow and the internet is the summum of free information flow, the internet is a tyrant´s WORST nightmare come true.

    Would like to read some opinions, thanks in advance

  103. kadaka says:

    Pamela Gray (05:46:40) :

    Just my opinion bout mother seals, but I would rather pup on a warm beach than ice any day.
    (…)

    And thank you for my “most potentially disturbing” mental image of the day. ;-)

    However, I thought the trend in “natural childbirth” was right in the water. Cleanup would be easier, although seals might worry about attracting sharks and killer whales.

    Also, are you sure about that choice? Some little bits of snow and ice, or warm sand; which would you rather have on the newborn when it is time to lick it clean?

  104. Steve Goddard says:

    The Met office says the case for global warming is stronger then ever, following their barbecue winter.

    http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1971702,00.html

  105. Icarus says:

    Vincent (12:41:57) :

    Icarus,

    “Climate scientists consider all kinds of possible scenarios, but not to the point of denying the laws of physics.”

    That’s right Icarus, the laws of physics (presume you are referring to radiation physics) tells us to expect a temperature sensitivity of about 1.2C for a doubling of CO2.

    “Of course people are free to dispute how this might proceed in the future, and bring up all sorts of different scenarios.”

    These are the playstation scenarios that conjure up warmings of up to 6C or more, based on their magical multipliers. This of course, is not science.

    Would you like to explain why investigating natural feedbacks would be ‘not science’?

    “but the fact remains that all other things being equal. . . ”

    All other things are not equal in a chaotic non linear system where parameters interact in myriad different ways. Ie, the earth-as-a-flask model is a naive conjecture unsupported by evidence.

    The only energy the Earth receives is radiation from the sun. The only energy it loses is radiation to space. If the one exceeds the other, the Earth will warm up. Agreed?

  106. old construction worker says:

    Vincent (12:41:57)
    ‘Icarus,…………………………..the earth-as-a-flask model is a naive conjecture unsupported by evidence.’

    Very well put. thanks

  107. anticlimactic says:

    Now we just need a few more politicians to have doubts, and at least take a serious look at the ‘evidence’.

    Here in the UK all three main parties are fighting amongst themselves to introduce the worst, most expensive and crippling way to ‘fight’ AGW.

    After all the revelations over the past few months you would think that politicians would at least hesitate before implementing policies which could tip the country over the edge.
    __________________

    Obama still seems hell-bent on introducing cap-and-trade, again despite the lack of hard evidence. They used Spain as a shining example of how to develop energy policies, so were a bit upset at a report saying each green job in Spain cost 800,000 dollars and caused the loss of 2.2 other jobs. Instead of learning from the report they are out to discredit it and carry regardless. [Actually, considering Spain has 20% unemployment and a dire economy, perhaps it is not such a bad example.]

    It really is insane.

    From Wikipedia :’He [Don Quixote] has become obsessed with books of chivalry, and believes their every word to be true, despite the fact that many of the events in them are clearly impossible. Quixano eventually appears to other people to have lost his mind…’.

    If you substitute ‘AGW’ for ‘chivalry’ it just about sums up the politicians, except Don Quixote fought windmills and our Don Quixotes build them!

  108. GaBMWRider says:

    As further indication of the impact of ClimateGate and related stories questioning the veracity of the AGW arguments, I was totally shocked to read the editorial in the April issue of Motocycle Consumer News when it arrived today. David Searle, the editor, devoted the entire editorial, entitled “White Lies”, to the subject of AGW, the misrepresentations, the fact that the science isn’t settled and the need for everyone to educate themselves beyond what they’ll hear in the MSM.

    His closing paragraphs reads thusly, “The implications are serious, and not just for our pet subject, motorcycling, but for industrialized society in general. The debate is being heard now. We still live in a democracy, not under a world government. Your voice can make a difference.”

    The April issue and its editorial are not yet online at http://www.mcnews.com, but I expect they will be soon.

    Perceptions are indeed changing!

  109. kadaka says:

    Icarus (14:13:38) :
    (…)
    The only energy the Earth receives is radiation from the sun. The only energy it loses is radiation to space. If the one exceeds the other, the Earth will warm up. Agreed?

    Nah. We get heating from the decay of radioactive elements. Stick the Earth inside a giant Dewar flask, no incoming solar radiation, it’ll warm up.

    Besides, we are fixated on the temperature where we live, on top the solidified scum floating on a ball of magma. In that Dewar flask, where we previously could have lived would be rather toasty from the temperatures equalizing. Thus from our perspective, the Earth’s molten interior alone would cause significant warming.

    Now, I will assume you only meant that if the first one exceeds the other then we will have warming, as assuming if the second one exceeded the first then we would have warming, seems ridiculous. Well, within a narrow band we can take in more energy from the Sun than is released into space and still not warm up. Because the excess energy gets stored, by plants. We are currently using previously stored solar energy in our society, namely fossil fuels. There are also some naturally-occurring endothermic chemical reactions soaking up energy. So your statement is not absolute.

    Do you wish to clarify that?

  110. pft says:

    So even with Climate gate 52% of Americans do not believe Global warming is generally exaggerated. I suppose this is because the MSM did not cover it very well in the US. and/or it may be that an average IQ of 100 is not much higher than my dog, and/or perhaps it’s the brainwashing going on in schools. Good grief.

    Gail Combs (05:16:34) :

    Michael (03:00:45) :

    “Here in the USA “Grace Commission report notes that 100% of personal income tax goes to pay interest on the national debt, the lion’s share of which goes to the banking cartel that we know as the Federal Reserve.” http://www.bloggernews.net/17032

    This is not correct. The Federal Reserve returns the interest less expenses (including the 6% dividend to shareholders which are the commercial banks). But they don’t actually make many loans directly to the government anymore (loans in which they create money out of thin air). Instead, the principal dealers (who are also partly owned by those owning the major commercial banks) find investors who do not have to return the interest on the loans (government debt). This includes China and other central banks.

    Our money is instead created by commercial banks in the form of loans. Also, the Fed monetizes bad debt from 3rd world countries (that started in the early 80’s to bail out our banks who made these loans) and more recently toxic waste (mortgage based securities) from financial investment firms. It would never sustain an audit, but Congress has no power to audit them (only partial audit allowed). Of course, the Fed pays 3rd party accounting firms to perform said audits, but you know how those go (wink, wink).

    China is an interesting case though. It’s manufacturers collect USD from sales to the US of their goods. They then exchange these USD for RMB to pay local expenses. Chinas central bank happily gives them the RMB by using their own printing press (creating it out of thin air). They then use the USD which they obtained by printing up their own money (at no interest), and loan it to the US and get interest they do not have to return to the US government (instead they can reinvest the interest and earn more interest). Heck, the Federal Reserve could do that, and did do that before they had to return the interest. Good deal for China (of course, how we lost China in the first place is an interesting story as well).

    The key thing is all of the Central Banks are controlled by the BIS in Switzerland in Basel (the central banks own the BIS. Congress did not approve the Fed to invest in 1930, so the largest banks owning the Fed invested directly, shortly after it was formed the global recession turned into a Great Depression).

    It was the Basel Accords, I (1988) and II (2008) which set the table for the current financial storm. Our current USTS worked for BIS and the IMF. BIS BTW was Hitlers banker, and following WWII the UN ordered it to be disbanded. This was ignored.

    You never hear anything about BIS in the US MSM, just like you probably don’t hear much about Climategate. BIS and AGW are indirectly related, as AGW is simply a tool for global control, as are Central Banks under BIS .

    If people only knew.

  111. Icarus says:

    kadaka (15:15:00) :

    Icarus (14:13:38) :
    (…)
    The only energy the Earth receives is radiation from the sun. The only energy it loses is radiation to space. If the one exceeds the other, the Earth will warm up. Agreed?

    Nah. We get heating from the decay of radioactive elements. Stick the Earth inside a giant Dewar flask, no incoming solar radiation, it’ll warm up.

    I assumed everyone would know that geothermal heating is tiny (~0.07W/m²) and therefore negligible compared to solar forcing (~1368W/m²).


    Well, within a narrow band we can take in more energy from the Sun than is released into space and still not warm up. Because the excess energy gets stored, by plants. We are currently using previously stored solar energy in our society, namely fossil fuels. There are also some naturally-occurring endothermic chemical reactions soaking up energy. So your statement is not absolute.

    That’s an interesting point, but irrelevant to the issue of the additional ~1.6W/m² of anthropogenic forcing creating a TOA radiative imbalance. I’m sure you’re not arguing that plants are going to decide to photosynthesise faster in order to save us from global warming.

  112. DirkH says:

    “R. Gates (11:17:00) :
    [...]
    We’ve not had a positive anomaly in arctic sea ice since 2004…and this is constitutes as trend.”

    Really?

  113. DirkH says:

    “Icarus (10:25:32) :
    [...]
    Climate scientists consider all kinds of possible scenarios, but not to the point of denying the laws of physics.”

    Gerlich and Tscheuschner surely have a very different opinion about that.

    http://www.schmanck.de/0707.1161v4.pdf

  114. The truth they don’t want you to know, (because they don’t know it either..)

    http://research.aerology.com/

    If it sounds different than what you were expecting, check it out, I did.

  115. son of mulder says:

    “Bill Tuttle (11:35:15) :

    The flip side of that coin is that cold weather generally means there’s less bird food available for the graminivorous species, so smaller birds will have a survival advantage”.

    Bill that’s true for birds that survive the nest but it’s the smaller ones that lose that initial battle when it gets colder as they can’t compete effectively with their larger siblings for the rationed food in the nest, so they never get to the stage of the lifecycle that you describe.

  116. James F. Evans says:

    kadaka (15:15:00) wrote: “We are currently using previously stored solar energy in our society, namely fossil fuels.”

    Don’t be so sure of that:

    There are several specific identified possible chemical reaction processes for the formation of hydrocarbons from constituent precursor minerals within the Earth’s deep crust and shallow mantel.

    On the other hand, not one specific chemical reaction process has been identified for the so-called “fossil” theory beyond the two-step “diagenesis” and “catagenesis” hypothesis, which when closely examined turns out to be a generalized qualitative description, not an identified specific chemical reaction process.

    So, on the one hand, there are possible quantified chemical processes identified, and, on the other hand, there is a generalized qualitative description.

    Which should be given more scientific probability of validity?

  117. Icarus says:

    DirkH (17:10:30) :

    “Icarus (10:25:32) :
    [...]
    Climate scientists consider all kinds of possible scenarios, but not to the point of denying the laws of physics.”

    Gerlich and Tscheuschner surely have a very different opinion about that.

    http://www.schmanck.de/0707.1161v4.pdf

    So they may do, but they’re at a loss to explain how a planet covered by an atmosphere that is transparent to visible light but partially opaque to longwave radiation can have the same surface temperature as a planet covered by an atmosphere that is transparent to both visible and longwave radiation.

  118. mkurbo says:

    “Most banks did not go crazy hiring carbon traders,” just because Obama was elected, said George Stein, managing director at New York’s Commodity Talent.

    The strategy to keep lean means young graduates who had wanted to combine an interest in environment with making money may have to adjust.

    “I get young people coming to me saying they are looking into oil and gas trading. Carbon jobs just aren’t out there,” said Global Change’s Fusaro,

    http://www.smh.com.au/business/us-carbon-traders-fear-pink-slips-20100312-q2cr.html

  119. Sou says:

    @Dr A Burns (12:55:13)
    It’s easier to understand more US Americans not being as aware of what is happening because many of them don’t have easy access to news from outside their borders, and a lot of them are happy to adopt as their own, the opinions of Fox shock jocks and the like. Also, the schooling in many parts of the USA is not all that hot compared to the rest of the world. As someone on this thread observed, learning how to find out facts is not encouraged as much as being ‘smart’.

    In Australia, it’s harder to understand because the record heat, droughts, floods, downpours and fires are occurring with increasing frequency and are so ‘in our face’ that it’s impossible to ignore unless you’re too young to remember past climates or stay inside all day in the city. As you’ve pointed out, we have our share of shock jocks as well, but more of us are skeptical of those who try to foist extreme opinions on us. We did get Pauline Hanson and Steve Fielding though, I must admit, but not that many of us tolerate their strange view of the world.

    I notice that women in both the USA and Australia are more attuned to the changing climate than are men, and keener to do something about it, according to polls.

    http://www.newspoll.com.au/image_uploads/100204%20Climate%20Change%20+%20CPRS.pdf

  120. toyotawhizguy says:

    It’s interesting that the percentage of persons that believe that Global Warming is caused by human activities is about the same percentage of persons that believe that UFO’s are extraterrestrial in origin. I suspect a very large overlap in persons belonging to both groups.

  121. Vincent says:

    Icarus,

    “Would you like to explain why investigating natural feedbacks would be ‘not science?”

    I never said that investigating natural feedbacks is not science, I said that treating the output from a climate model projection the same as if it was observed data, is not science. In fact, they don’t investigate natural feedbacks at all. They actually select only the feedbacks that conform to their predetermined ideas and ignore any countervailling feedbacks.

    “The only energy the Earth receives is radiation from the sun. The only energy it loses is radiation to space. If the one exceeds the other, the Earth will warm up. Agreed?”

    Agreed, but so what? I never refuted that greenhouse gases don’t lead to a rise in temperature. It is the feedbacks that are important. If feedbacks are positive, temperatures will reach a higher level; if feedbacks are negative, temperature rises will be less than the 1.2c predicted for a doubling of CO2 without feedbacks.

  122. kadaka says:

    @ James F. Evans (00:21:01) :

    Oh yeah, I know about the possible abiogenic (not life-based) origins of hydrocarbons (and boy is that a fun Wikipedia article to wade through). You can just look at all the liquefied hydrocarbon gases on Titan.

    But currently I cannot see how they could account for all the petroleum reserves, certain complex molecules, and some other things. Coal definitely has layers, fossils, and otherwise shows its organic origin rather clearly. Coal also has bitumen, coal tar, a somewhat-liquid hydrocarbon mix, and I do not find it credible that a fuel with clear life-based origins somehow always ended up mixed with abiogenic petroleum. To account for both and an abiogenic-only origin for petroleum, you’d have to show that coal is also from an abiogenic source, in a way that accounts for the layering and the fossils within.

    Likely there is some abiogenic generation of hydrocarbons going on, as in the lighter ones, as seen on Titan. But the “fossil fuels” we come across show lots of evidence of overwhelmingly being just that, former old organic matter, stored solar energy.

  123. Roger Knights says:

    Vincent:
    “All other things are not equal in a chaotic non linear system where parameters interact in myriad different ways. Ie, the earth-as-a-flask model is a naive conjecture unsupported by evidence.”

    Icarus:
    “The only energy the Earth receives is radiation from the sun. The only energy it loses is radiation to space. If the one exceeds the other, the Earth will warm up. Agreed?”

    Vincent:
    “Agreed, but so what? I never refuted that greenhouse gases don’t lead to a rise in temperature. It is the feedbacks that are important. If feedbacks are positive, temperatures will reach a higher level; if feedbacks are negative, temperature rises will be less than the 1.2c predicted for a doubling of CO2 without feedbacks.”
    ———–

    IOW, the “simple physics” model overlooks or underplays the effect of the earth’s built-in thermostat.

    Here’s a WUWT article decrying simple physics thinking:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/27/the-unbearable-complexity-of-climate-2/

  124. Bruce Cobb says:

    Sou (06:09:39) :
    I notice that women in both the USA and Australia are more attuned to the changing climate than are men, and keener to do something about it, according to polls.

    So, by “being more attuned to climate”, I assume you mean they realize there hasn’t been any warming for the past 15 years, and that we have actually cooled some since about 2001, so have taken to donning sweaters more now, being more highly “attuned”, and “keener to do something about it”?
    The fact that the climate alarmism so rampant in the rest of the world didn’t quite catch on here (though it came close) certainly speaks well of the general populace’s ability to spot BS, and a dogged, even stubborn refusal to be told what to think.

  125. Amino Acids in Meteorites says:

    maybe people are paying attention to the weather and not the ‘scientists’

  126. Icarus says:

    Vincent (08:25:19) :
    I never said that investigating natural feedbacks is not science, I said that treating the output from a climate model projection the same as if it was observed data, is not science.

    Agreed.

    In fact, they don’t investigate natural feedbacks at all. They actually select only the feedbacks that conform to their predetermined ideas and ignore any countervailling feedbacks.

    Can you give me an example? I don’t see how ‘they’ can be ignoring feedbacks – after all, understanding feedbacks helps us to understand palaeoclimate (e.g. how the Earth responds to Milankovitch cycles) as well as 20th/21st Century climate – volcanic eruptions, ENSO, solar cycle etc. Isn’t an understanding of feedbacks essential to understanding the large changes in climate from ice age to interglacial to ‘hothouse’ world from relatively small changes in solar forcing?

    “The only energy the Earth receives is radiation from the sun. The only energy it loses is radiation to space. If the one exceeds the other, the Earth will warm up. Agreed?”

    Agreed, but so what? I never refuted that greenhouse gases don’t lead to a rise in temperature. It is the feedbacks that are important. If feedbacks are positive, temperatures will reach a higher level; if feedbacks are negative, temperature rises will be less than the 1.2c predicted for a doubling of CO2 without feedbacks

    Yes, you’re quite right. How do you explain palaeoclimate without positive feedbacks? For example, would you accept that the last glacial period saw around 5ºC of global temperature change from ~7W/m² of forcing? If so, that means a climate sensitivity of ~0.75°C/W/m², i.e. ~3°C from the ~4W/m² forcing you would get from a doubling of CO2.

  127. Wakefield Tolbert says:

    Confusion has its rewards. But Americans should remain concerned. AGW has now come to the little tweeters in the backyard:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/earth/hi/earth_news/newsid_8560000/8560694.stm

  128. Icarus says:

    Roger Knights (12:22:27) :

    …the “simple physics” model overlooks or underplays the effect of the earth’s built-in thermostat.

    Here’s a WUWT article decrying simple physics thinking:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/27/the-unbearable-complexity-of-climate-2/

    The trouble with your cited article is that it says things like this:

    “The IPCC says that if CO2 doubles, we will get a rise of around 3C in the global temperature. However, there is absolutely no evidence to support that claim, only computer models.”

    Estimates of climate sensitivity are calculated from our knowledge of atmospheric physics and can be tested against what we know about palaeoclimate and also the climate of recent decades, so to say that there is “absolutely no evidence” would be completely wrong. With a very low climate sensitivity it would be impossible to explain the large swings in global temperature from the relatively small changes in forcings represented by Milankovitch cycles.

  129. R. Gates says:

    Dirk H. said:

    “DirkH (16:59:55) :

    “R. Gates (11:17:00) :
    [...]
    We’ve not had a positive anomaly in arctic sea ice since 2004…and this is constitutes as trend.”

    Really?

    ________

    Yes, really Dirk. Please read more carefully…note, I said “arctic sea ice”, yet you gave me a global sea ice chart. We all know, and have acknowledged that the antarctic sea ice has show a slight uptrend (though not as strong a slope in the uptrend as the arctic has had a downtrend). And we might just be beginning to see a slight downtrend in the global sea ice actually developing as the antarctic has had recent negative anomalies, though the arctic has had none since 2004. If AGW models are correct (though that take into account the effects of the thinning ozone layer over the antarctic), then in the next few decades, or perhpas even sooner, we will begin to see a leveling and then downtrend in antarctic sea ice as well.

    I was actually thinking that because of the recent deep solar minimum that we might actually see a positive anomaly in the arctic sea ice this spring, and certainly we still could, but the odds grow less each passing day in March, and by mid-April, the arctic will be really heading back down toward the summer minimum for arctic sea ice, and the chance of a positive anomaly decreases. The fact that we’ve not seen a positive anomaly in arctic sea ice, even with the deep solar minimum, show the power of GH gases over solar cycles, and this is a central part of the AGW hypothesis.

  130. Smokey says:

    R. Gates (15:58:45),

    The ultimate sea ice cherry-picking is to concentrate exclusively on the Arctic. Global ice extent is all that matters when discussing the anthropogenic global warming conjecture.

  131. R. Gates says:

    Smokey said:

    “Global ice extent is all that matters when discussing the anthropogenic global warming conjecture…”

    In a few years time, remember you said this, though I’m sure you won’t. In the meantime, you’re simply wrong. Arctic sea ice is the ideal candidate (or canary in the coal mine) when trying to get a signal that something is changing with the climate. It is part of the region of the planet that has long been identified as being of the earliest to show the longer term effects of AGW.

    Now the fact that the antarctic sea ice has not declined in the same way as the arctic, and in fact has been slightly increasing, poses problems for AGW models, but the existence of the ozone hole over antarctica offers one reasonable (except to AGW skeptics) explanation. Be that as it may, the only reason that Global Sea ice has not shown a signifcant decline is that to some extent, the growth in the antarctic has balanced the loss in the arctic, though the upward slope of antarctic sea ice is not as steep as the downward slope of sea ice loss in the arctic.

    If AGW models are correct, in the next few decades (at the most) we’ll start seeing a decline in the Antarctic sea ice as well, and then your global sea ice will decline as well…as it is already very very close already since arctic sea ice is declining faster than antarctic is growing, so the balance begins to tip toward a net global decline.

    Yes, I know the AGW skeptics love to claim that arctic sea ice loss is cherry picking, but it was predicted by AGW models years before it actually began to show up, and it was also predicted to be one of the first signals…and low and behold…here it is…

  132. Smokey says:

    Watch John Christy demolish the shifty, tap-dancing Gavin Schmidt regarding the alarmist cherry-picking of the Arctic:

    Phil Jones voluntarily “stepped down” after the “media firestorm”??

    Ri-i-i-i-i-ght.

    What brought about the media firestorm was the shocking exposé of the rampant corruption within the CRU and its sister organizations.

    The truth is that Jones was forced to step down. Anyone who says Jones voluntarily gave up his job is either mendacious or an ignoramus. And I’m not accusing Gavin Schmidt of being ignorant.

  133. M. Simon says:

    I’m sure you’re not arguing that plants are going to decide to photosynthesise faster in order to save us from global warming.

    I was talking to a plant just the other day and asked it to decide if deficit spending could have a long term positive effect on the economy. The plant flat out refused to decide.

    Plants decide nothing. They respond to the environment. More CO2 + warmer temps = faster growth. So yes. If plants have any “say” in the matter they will save us from global warming.

  134. Bill Tuttle says:

    son of mulder (23:48:15) :
    Bill that’s true for birds that survive the nest but it’s the smaller ones that lose that initial battle when it gets colder as they can’t compete effectively with their larger siblings for the rationed food in the nest, so they never get to the stage of the lifecycle that you describe.

    Okay, now I’m tracking. In my neck of the woods (literally), most birds don’t establish families until there *is* a decent food supply — of course, there are always exceptions, such as the dumb-as-a-box-of-rocks mourning doves, but they’ll make up for losing an early brood by breeding and nesting a second time, after the warm weather is firmly established — I’ve seen that happen twice, due to fluke ice storms in late April.

    Larger siblings don’t always get all the food — the *assertive* ones do, every time. And, in the absence of a steady supply of food, only the assertive ones, who are usually the first to hatch (big surprise, right?) survive.

  135. Vincent says:

    Icarus,

    “Can you give me an example? I don’t see how ‘they’ can be ignoring feedbacks.”

    Sure. Feedback due to increasing albedo from cloud genesis is not included in climate models and neither is the decreasing albedo due to black carbon soot. Solar activity is only considered in terms of total TSI whilst ignoring indirect mechansims such as the effect on the ozone and on cosmic rays that could effect cloud seeding mechanisms. Obviously, these areas are poorly understood, but that is irrelevant to my point.

    “Yes, you’re quite right. How do you explain palaeoclimate without positive feedbacks? For example, would you accept that the last glacial period saw around 5ºC of global temperature change from ~7W/m² of forcing? If so, that means a climate sensitivity of ~0.75°C/W/m², i.e. ~3°C from the ~4W/m² forcing you would get from a doubling of CO2.”

    An ice age would require a negative feedback right? I presume your point is that climate changes result from CO2. In that case how do you account for the late Ordovician glaciation that occured during rising CO2 levels ( about 15 times higher than today)?

  136. Vincent says:

    R. Gates,

    “Be that as it may, the only reason that Global Sea ice has not shown a signifcant decline is that to some extent, the growth in the antarctic has balanced the loss in the arctic, though the upward slope of antarctic sea ice is not as steep as the downward slope of sea ice loss in the arctic.”

    Don’t forget that the antarctic sea ice measurement does not include snow accumulation on the antarctic continent. On balance, this nets out to a global increase of water in the solid state.

  137. Bill Tuttle says:

    R. Gates (17:59:38) :
    Arctic sea ice is the ideal candidate (or canary in the coal mine) when trying to get a signal that something is changing with the climate.

    Except during those times when the ice accumulation is affected by factors other than warming — say, the collapse of an obstacle which had previously allowed ice to accumulate in the Arctic Ocean by preventing the wind from moving the ice out into the Atlantic.

  138. Icarus says:

    Vincent (12:20:35) :

    …Feedback due to increasing albedo from cloud genesis is not included in climate models and neither is the decreasing albedo due to black carbon soot. Solar activity is only considered in terms of total TSI whilst ignoring indirect mechansims such as the effect on the ozone and on cosmic rays that could effect cloud seeding mechanisms. Obviously, these areas are poorly understood, but that is irrelevant to my point.

    You’re certainly right that those are valid feedbacks and that the effects of clouds are less well understood than other factors, but I don’t see you supporting your argument that “they don’t investigate natural feedbacks at all. They actually select only the feedbacks that conform to their predetermined ideas and ignore any countervailling feedbacks“. Do you actually have any evidence to back up that assertion? My impression is that in fact climate scientists do try to include all relevant factors – what would be the point of not doing so? They would surely just get results which weren’t consistent with reality. The fact that the planet is warming up as climate scientists have predicted for many years seems to me to give us some confidence in the science.

    An ice age would require a negative feedback right?

    No. Negative feedbacks act to suppress change, such as your example of cloud cover. Suppose the world warmed up from an enhanced greenhouse effect but as a consequence cloud cover changed in such a way as to raise albedo and thus return the planet to radiative equilibrium *before* it would have otherwise have done so – that would be a negative feedback. If the world cooled but cloud cover changed in such a way as to decrease albedo, that would also be a negative feedback – cooling would be less than it would be otherwise. In both cases the feedback would act to limit change rather than amplify it.

    To get an ice age you need *positive* feedback – i.e. the small changes in forcings due to orbital cycles are *amplified* by changes in ice cover, vegetation, greenhouse gases etc. and cause a greater drop in global temperature than the forcing alone would cause.

    I presume your point is that climate changes result from CO2. In that case how do you account for the late Ordovician glaciation that occured during rising CO2 levels ( about 15 times higher than today)?

    We have discussed this before. The Ordovician was mostly a warm world. 450 million years ago the Earth was a different place – the continents were in different places (largely in the southern hemisphere) and the sun was about 2% cooler, so you wouldn’t expect any particular level of CO2 to result in the same climate as it would today. In particular, in the late Ordovician most of the dry land on the planet was centred on the South Pole where massive glaciers formed, causing shallow seas to drain and sea levels to drop.

    If you want to characterise the effect that forcings are likely to have on the Earth *today*, you need to look at conditions that were not so dramatically dissimilar to what we have today. Figures from the Last Glacial Maximum indicate around 5ºC of temperature change from around 7W/m² of forcing – i.e. around 0.75ºC/W/m². This paper discusses several different ways of estimating current climate sensitivity and concludes that the most likely value is around 3ºC, supporting previous calculations:

    http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frcgc/research/d5/jdannan/GRL_sensitivity.pdf

    I would be interested in your answer to my earlier question – How can you have a very low climate sensitivity due to negative feedbacks, as you seem to be arguing may be the case, whilst at the same time having such large swings in climate from ice age to interglacial to hothouse world as a result of small changes in insolation?

Comments are closed.