From MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY:
Climate-change foes winning public opinion war
EAST LANSING, Mich. — As world leaders meet this week and next at a historic climate change summit in Paris, a new study by Michigan State University environmental scientists suggests opponents of climate change appear to be winning the war of words.
The research, funded by the National Science Foundation, finds that climate-change advocates are largely failing to influence public opinion. Climate-change foes, on the other hand, are successfully changing people’s minds — Republicans and Democrats alike — with messages denying the existence of global warming.
“This is the first experiment of its kind to examine the influence of the denial messages on American adults,” said Aaron M. McCright, a sociologist and lead investigator on the study. “Until now, most people just assumed climate change deniers were having an influence on public opinion. Our experiment confirms this.”
The findings come as leaders from 150 nations attempt to forge a treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. During a speech Monday at the Paris summit, President Barack Obama said the “growing threat of climate change could define the contours of this century more dramatically than any other.”
Nearly 1,600 U.S. adults took part in the MSU study. Participants read fabricated news articles about climate change and then completed a survey gauging their beliefs on the issue. The articles contained either positive or negative real-world messages about climate change, or both.
The positive messages framed the topic of climate change around one of four major issues: economic opportunity, national security, Christian stewardship and public health. According to the article addressing public health, for example:
“Medical experts argue that dealing with climate change will improve our public health by reducing the likelihood of extreme weather events, reducing air quality and allergen problems, and limiting the spread of pests that carry infectious diseases.”
In half of the articles, participants were presented a negative message that read, in part: “However, most conservative leaders and Republican politicians believe that so-called climate change is vastly exaggerated by environmentalists, liberal scientists seeking government funding for their research and Democratic politicians who want to regulate business.”
Surprisingly, none of the four major positive messages changed participants’ core beliefs about climate change. Further, when the negative messages were presented, people were more apt to doubt the existence of climate change – and this was true of both conservatives and liberals.
“That’s the power of the denial message,” said McCright, associate professor in MSU’s Lyman Briggs College and Department of Sociology. “It’s extremely difficult to change people’s minds on climate change, in part because they are entrenched in their views.”
###
The study appears online in the journal Topics in Cognitive Science. McCright’s co-authors are fellow MSU researchers Meghan Charters, Katherine Dentzman and Thomas Dietz.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
No, it is over top advocacy doing it to themselves as usual. The harder they push and the wilder the claim, and the louder their screams, the more positions harden. And that’s not even getting to the ones that go out and do more research on their own and start finding all the holes being covered up in the media and science distortion.
“This is the first experiment of its kind to examine the influence of the denial messages on American adults,” said Aaron M. McCright, a sociologist and lead investigator on the study. “Until now, most people just assumed climate change deniers were having an influence on public opinion. Our experiment confirms this.”
Agenda much?
Anthony, you need to stop posting this stuff…lol! You just increased the number of people who would even KNOW about this article from 10-20 to potentially hundreds of thousands!
Luckily, if the article’s findings WERE true, the “news article” on it provides such a “negative message” that people will be “more apt to doubt the existence of climate change – and this was true of both conservatives and liberals.” 🙂
Delicious irony smothered in stupid sauce….mmmmmm
I like that he does. When you show the idiocy in the light of day, all know it to be idiocy.
I can agree with that Owen.
This is why I say let all comments stand.
With a side of jackass bacon?
But Global Warming does exist.
It’s just not important or particularly dangerous.
And the latter point is being realised by everybody.
. . . and it sure beats the crap out of global COOLING!
The text of the press release says:
The photo caption says
What is he (besides uninformed)?
The release is at http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2015/climate-change-foes-winning-public-opinion-war/
For one, he isn’t even doing a proper sociology experiment. In a proper experiment one would keep the prompts neutral so as not to influence the outcome of the experiment with researcher bias. He went full bias mode and still got contrary results. I am sure he went into the experiment hoping to show that alarmist messaging was winning the day and made the experimental design as biased as possible and still got contrary results.
Aaron M. McCright’s post upthread seems to inicate he does not like the heat in the kitchen. Poor fellow.
Facebook is an interesting foray into the world of “cussing”. People never post any evidence, or if they do, it is cut n paste with zero understanding of what was cut n pasted. Usually it is mindless boring name calling.
It seems the sceptics are the always the better informed.
The skeptical argument simply supports what people see with their own eyes. The alarmists are trying to convince people that they can’t trust their own observations, but should accept the climate doomsday scenario on faith.
Sounds like a Ayn Rand rant… “…a IS a, b IS b…” from Atlas Shrugged
Can anyone comment on this story about NASA fudging their data?
http://notrickszone.com/2015/11/20/german-professor-examines-nasa-giss-temperature-datasets-finds-they-have-been-massively-altered/#sthash.r46T8cQ8.dpbs
here is the actual study
http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/uploads/media/EIKE_NASA-GISS_Anl__22.11.15.pdf
At a minimum, it is safe to say their homogenization algorithms import station data pollution. See my previous guest post here showing that clearly using the CRN1 surface stations project data. Or see essay When Data Isn’t in my ebook Blowing Smoke for a global, rather than US centric expose of the sqme issues. The German professor is merely the most recent of many to latch on to this issue.
The raw temperature record has been significantly altered. The alterations are statistically and counterintuitively biased. The result is that at least 1/3 of AGW has been ‘anthropogenically manufactured’ by post hoc ‘adjustments’. Maybe half. Not all. But the adjustments have also diminished the roles of UHI and natural variability. So clearly warmunist ‘motivated’ and not scientific.
Dave … 54321 — “Happy New Year” (hope you don’t mind my having fun with your “name”)…,
I have seen at least two other commenters post that article in WUWT requesting that it be featured (one was Eliza — forget the other, it was a man’s name) within the past 3 weeks or so.
I put a Tips and Notes (on Navigation Bar at top of WUWT Home page) comment up about it about 2 weeks ago.
For some reason, Anth0ny, apparently, doesn’t want it here. Sure would like to know why. A m0derator or two must have seen those other requests for it’s being featured on WUWT.
I thought the article looked like a GREAT one to discuss on WUWT.
Try posting a “Tips” comment up with it. Maybe, you’ll get some results!
Janice
The full paper is paywalled at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/tops.12171/abstract
The abstract sounds like he’s a sociologist. What’s a “frame”?
Abstract
Prior research on the influence of various ways of framing anthropogenic climate change (ACC) do not account for the organized ACC denial in the U.S. media and popular culture, and thus may overestimate these frames’ influence in the general public. We conducted an experiment to examine how Americans’ ACC views are influenced by four promising frames for urging action on ACC (economic opportunity, national security, Christian stewardship, and public health)—when these frames appear with an ACC denial counter-frame. This is the first direct test of how exposure to an ACC denial message influences Americans’ ACC views. Overall, these four positive frames have little to no effect on ACC beliefs. But exposure to an ACC denial counter-frame does significantly reduce respondents’ belief in the reality of ACC, belief about the veracity of climate science, awareness of the consequences of ACC, and support for aggressively attempting to reduce our nation’s GHG emissions in the near future. Furthermore, as expected by the Anti-Reflexivity Thesis, exposure to the ACC denial counter-frame has a disproportionate influence on the ACC views of conservatives (than on those of moderates and liberals), effectively activating conservatives’ underlying propensity for anti-reflexivity.
ACC = Atlantic Coast Conference
But he’s got a degree from Washington State, once known as WAssu, or some such, now disapproved naming.
Academic jargon is designed to make simple things sound complex.
http://www.csun.edu/~rk33883/Framing%20Theory%20Lecture%20Ubertopic.htm
“frame” or “framing” is sociology jargon for a way of looking at something, or a way of putting an argument.
And you are right. All 4 authors are from the sociology department, as was pretty evident from the jargon. So describing them as ‘environmental scientists’ is misleading.
What kind of jerk is this McCright guy? What gives him the right to blaspheme the millions and millions of Jews, Gypsies, infirm and weak, homosexuals, and people of color or other ethnic origin who were murdered by the Nazi’s during World War II? Does this arrogant low-brow think he has the moral chops to accuse people of being Deniers just because of a failed climate hypothesis?
Deniers, indeed. Puff-heads like McCright have no sense of science or history. They plod along in their little intellectual bubbles with no knowledge of the real world around them. His little study is the equivalent of intellectual self-abuse. I seriously doubt that McCright has any clue how science works, and that it is not a thing, or something to be worshipped.
It is no mystery to most Americans why so-called climate change mavens are not to be believed. Most Americans are smart enough to buy a used car and get a good price. Most Americans are smart enough so know a snake-oil salesman.
What’s even worse, the American taxpayer probably paid for McCright’s miserable imitation of an academic endeavor. Kooks like McCright need to lose their jobs. They contribute nothing.
“…Most Americans are smart enough (t)o know a snake-oil salesman…” Not sure about that. Have you looked at the sales numbers for natural ‘health’ products?
“No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public”.
P. T. Barnum
Jeff: Us folks in Georgia know. I don’t know about the rest of the world.
“…Most Americans are smart enough (t)o know a snake-oil salesman…”
They voted for Obama. Twice.
Bob,
Yes, indeed. Disgusting use of that term.
Who is in “den1al” anyway (essential point made by many on WUWT, but I repeat it here)?
CO2 UP. WARMING STOPPED.
Good for you to make your emotional-but-true point. Such language by AGWers is deeply offensive.
Go, Bob! #(:))
Janice
Thanks, Janice. I feel better, now.
#(:))
Here is the denizen of a two-dimensional world concluding that belief in more than two dimensions denies science. You begin with the belief that (1) CAGWT as the only science on climate and (2) there is no scientific research supporting a different climate position. So if CAGWT is your only science, rejecting it for no APPARENT reason must be a denial of all of science. If you live in two dimensions.
So thats an environmental scientist.
Well the mental part is right.
“Delicious irony smothered in stupid sauce….mmmmmm” Exactly.
This kid is so poorly schooled, he is choking on his preconceived conclusions.
Now given the wealth of existing CAGW articles, why did he feel the need to fabricate further?
As for counter views? WUWT has no difficulty sourcing them.
So even fabricated facts beat fabricated propaganda..
What was that lament from the warmest “communicators” a couple of years back?
Words to the effect they could not “communicate” with sceptical persons because these people were so obsessed with getting the science right.
Facts ? Science? SO not climatology.
It’s extremely difficult to change
people’ssocial scientist’s minds on climate change,in partbecause they areentrenched in their viewsprofessionally infected with leftist ideals.+1
This study seems to produce a bias when the ‘so called’ positive statements include obviously ridiculously claims about potential positive results of climate mitigation, and equate climate change with smog and particulate pollution. Even the IQ75 guy living in a backwater shack knows enough to call BS on that! Of course the study shows people becoming more sceptical.
But that is the big problem the Alarmists have isn’t it. Their claims are getting crazier and crazier; to the point where no one with 1/2 a brain believes what they are being told.
Jeff in Calgary,
Yes, it’s obvious:
If the alarmist contingent had credible facts and evidence, they wouldn’t need to make up their wacky scare stories. The evidence would speak for itself.
But so far they haven’t been able to produce even one measurement quantifying AGW. That means it’s merely a conjecture, and as every year passes with no global warming their position becomes more ridiculous.
I might add: so do their supporters.
Repeated with emphasis — D. B. you have an engineer’s nice precision in writing which I wish I could imitate!!
GAME — OVER.
Like Red narrated in The Shawshank Redemption…
“That’s all it takes, time and pressure.”
As time passes, more and more people that have even a shred of common sense are opening their eyes and noticing that “Gee!. It isn’t getting worse.”
The pressure was felt by the alarmists. They had to continually oversell their doom and gloom to get any attention. Do that enough (which they did) and even some of the people without common sense noticed they were full of it.
Thank you for bringing our attention to yet another government funded, highly biased, university based “study”.
I am curious to know what the actual results were.
https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiR0Iy_q77JAhWi2aYKHWxrDkAQFggeMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmsutoday.msu.edu%2Fnews%2F2015%2Fclimate-change-foes-winning-public-opinion-war%2F&usg=AFQjCNEzcQvOm47tp7WGmutmF7UAENyWrA&sig2=Cd0Vg65hWqbfw4mMWhV8BQ
This does not say, just a summary.
The ethos using ‘denier’ and smoking stacks reeks of halo error in the trial design.
The fact that the ‘denier’ message is getting through could mean that the participants are in touch with the reality that climate always changes and we may not be the proximate cause.
It would be interesting to look at the types of education the participants have and see if there are any correlations.
Perhaps the real trial is to see what ‘deniers’ think of the ‘outcome’ and analyse those results.
We may be part of his experiment.
This guy did similar ‘studies’ last year, reported right here at WUWT! http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/24/michigan-state-professor-labels-skeptics-as-global-warming-cynics-due-to-not-getting-on-board-with-the-extreme-weather-link/
Doesn’t jibe with:
He just said that the “negative” messages made people more apt to doubt, meaning those messages did, in fact cause some to change their minds, and become doubters. The part about people being “entrenched in their views” was a red herring, designed to distract people from the fact that the Skeptic message, being the true one, is the more powerful.
Nice argument, sharp-minded (as usual) Bruce Cobb. Internally inconsistent reasoning styling itself a “study.”
How goes the “battle” for truth with your close relatives (yeah, I remember who, just thought it might be better not to say)? I feel for you — must be kind of depressing at times, not to be able to have likemindedness with those you care about most in the world about such an important issue as science realism. Hang in there — you are not alone!
Your WUWT pal,
Janice
Perhaps humor is gaining among the masses.
Stopped at the local pawn shop to rummage thru traded in knives.
I’m a big fan of everything NOT made in China with some craftsmanship to it.
The owner made a funny as I asked for any high carbon, damascus steel.
“Well sonny, you better get these while you can, I hear they are gonna outlaw carbon.”
My take is that if he’s making a funny then his awareness is increasing.
That’s good.
Of course, I laughed and said, it’s okay, I’m donating my carbon to the Pope.
He didn’t laugh although I think he wanted to.
Delivery, timing, audience.
It’s all so tricky.
I thought that was going to be a joke about Syrian Refugees…. damascus steel…
Knute,
(playing off Jeff’s insight at 4:08pm)
You are a “right Jerusalem blade”** (for truth in science). A skilled wielder of truth!
Janice
** from John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress
I remember a vintage shotgun that had destroyed itself when fired, the barrel having unwound into a long flat metal ‘ helical spring’, probably injuring the guy firing it, too. A knowledgeable arms specialists advised that it had a damascus barrel which was not strong enough for firing modern shells. Gee was this town a special place for knives and guns?
ROFL….maybe his sense of humor isn’t a sharp and refined as yours knute. He could very well have assumed you meant to send the knives….to the Pope. Gotta know your audience hon!
lol
(I’m serious! — and NO! I am not going for the “most posts in one day” award, lololol)
Knute
Damascus Blades are something we cannot reproduce. There are many legends and tales of how the blades were made. The truth is lost in the mists of time.
Hardened steel capable of being bent from feeble to forte then springing back.
I am a toolmaker by trade. From my earliest years as a apprentice we were taught of all the things we no longer knew how to make.
Greek fire is another.
As for Damascus gun barrel that is totally different. Just flat iron lengths welded together then bored to make a gun barrel.
With modern powder they tend to “peel” back like a banana along the welded seams.
Oh and if we had the meteor ore to make a “Damascus” blade, I don’t think OSHA would approve, It requires a ahem, slave in the quenching process. Guess the rest.
We still have a few of the blades in museums.
michael
Mike
Noble man, noble trade.
I shouldn’t be surprised that WUWT attracts talented people.
Few would know what is meant if I said “Wootz Up With That”.
Hope you still practice.
Aaron M. McCright, a sociologist and lead investigator on the study. “Until now, most people just assumed climate change deniers were having an influence on public opinion. Our experiment confirms this.”
==========
Thanks for the flash …Gordon.
Now for your next experiment, you might study just exactly what your experimental group was denying.
Science is a process, last I heard.
Fabricated news articles that contain positive or negative ‘real-world’ messages? Fake but real!?
Only a CAGW faithful could believe that. Only us silly professionals would expect a legitimate sociologist to know how to not totally bugger subjective questions.
Positive messages about:
economic opportunity – jobs?
national security – ???
Christian stewardship – positive!?
Public health – Tuberculosis is wiped out?
Aanndd, so much for a positive question!
What was negative about this question?
Could it be a negative economic opportunity?
Perhaps it is about negative national security issue?
Or was it about negative Christian Stewardship actions?
Certainly the question wasn’t about negative public health issues?
Noooo! What made the questions negative were words like:
conservative leaders,
Republican politicians,
climate change is vastly exaggerated,
by those poor suffering liberal scientists and environmentalists needing funding,
or those pitiful Democrat politicians who want to ‘regulate’ business?
Since this study is not about science.
This is one sick deluded over educated, under brained, sad sack of a very confirmation biased terminally repressed individual!
The poor professor just shows that Ma Nature’s reality wins out in the end over Warmunist propaganda. However he as a sociologist chooses to label the data. Ma Nature’s stuff isn’t propaganda, it just is.
The so called skeptics are winning the debate as the entire ‘scientific’ basis of the IPCC report is incorrect. The cult of CAGW would lose a formal written scientific debate where name calling, fabrication of data/assertions/analysis, and ignoring of data/analysis that does not support the cult’s paradigm is not allowed.
There is observational evidence and analysis that supports the assertion that the dang increase in CO2 is not even primarily due to anthropogenic emissions.
Phase analysis to determine cause and effect.
http://www.tech-know-group.com/papers/Carbon_dioxide_Humlum_et_al.pdf
Analysis of C12/C13 ratio changes that indicates C13 changes do not track anthropogenic emission.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/EE20-1_Quirk_SS.pdf
Analysis that indicates CO2 is not the knob that controls the earth’s climate.
There are periods of millions of years when atmospheric CO2 is high and the planet is cold and vice versa. There is paleo observational evidence that very, very large changes in atmospheric CO2 has no significant affect on planetary temperature.
http://mysite.science.uottawa.ca/idclark/courses/Veizer%20Nature%202001.pdf
And lastly, there is paleo evidence that the planet’s climate changes cyclically, driven by solar cycle changes, with the warming occurring in exactly the same regions that have warmed in the last 150 years. All of the past warming periods were followed by cooling periods, sometimes followed by abrupt cooling periods (i.e. all of the past interglacial periods have ended abruptly).
Greenland ice temperature, last 11,000 years determined from ice core analysis, Richard Alley’s paper. William: As this graph indicates the Greenland Ice data shows that have been 9 warming and cooling periods in the last 11,000 years and the warming and cooling cycle occurs in both the glacial and interglacial period which supports the assertion that something external is forcing the earth’s climate.
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2%20TemperatureSince10700%20BP%20with%20CO2%20from%20EPICA%20DomeC.gif
Greenland Ice Sheet Temperatures Last 100,000 years
It is interesting that the Dansgaard/Oescheger warming/cooling cycle which has a characteristic period of 1470 years (plus minus a beat of 500 years) has continued throughout the Holocene interglacial period and the Wisconsin glacial period and is also observed in the Antarctic peninsula ice core data which indicates the entire planet is cyclically warming and cooling driven by solar cycle changes.
http://www.hidropolitikakademi.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/4.gif
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/davis-and-taylor-wuwt-submission.pdf
I agree with the sentiment that sociology doesn’t emphasize skepticism or the scientific method near enough – and pretty much that goes for most degrees. I cannot tell you how many people with degrees never take the time to question what they hear, read, or see on TV – unless of course it is counter to their existing beliefs (bias).
The reason the “skeptics” are winning the argument is because they are mostly right – it isn’t a negative message. The world is not ending, everyone is not going to die (at least not because of CO2 in the air, they will die of something…), and you cannot blame everything on fossil fuels.
I think many people are beginning to realize just how stupid the argument has become. For most people, it has nothing to do with science – its just common sense. Most people can’t even correctly phrase what the scientific argument is over – most still think its global warming versus not warming. But in any case, they are tired of the message that all evils can be traced to fossil fuels.
When you try to suppress debate it goes from informing to propaganda – which is what most news agencies are anymore. Somewhere in the not so distant past the School of Journalism lost its way – it has become corrupt in its purpose and actively trying to manipulate the masses – the Nazis and Stalin would be proud of them. OK, so news agencies have been doing this more or less forever, but there was a time when a journalist was taught to provide facts separate from opinions. Now a journalist doesn’t seem to know the difference.
To my horror I have watched my favorite science magazines, one by one, slide down the slippery slope of fact based peer reviewed articles into drivel. (By drivel, I refer to articles that begin with the premise that AGW is a proven fact and everything else they have to say is based on that premise) You can usually pick out the drivel based on the academics of who wrote the article. People with degrees in environmentalism, biology, botany, sociology, and climatology are by far the worst, but you can find other degrees in the mix. The degrees that seem the least tainted by activism are in physics, statistics, and other “hard” sciences.
So back to this article, I find it amusing that people are “studying” why the “skeptics” are winning. What they a actually practicing is called rationalization – trying to match dearly held beliefs with reality without ever questioning their beliefs. It something a properly educated scientist is trained to watch out for, not indulge in.
The AGW theory did not get past first base as there has to be trapped warm air in the Tropical Troposphere between 6000-12000ft. Epic fail as the Aqua satellite launched in 2002 found no such evidence…and still hasn’t. Backed up by over 30million weather balloons for over two decades or more. When the 2,000 deleted emails from “Climategate” were revealed Prof Jones from CRU Hadley Centre was caught bemoaning the fact it “was a Tragedy” that they could not find it. In other words they messed up but cannot admit it.
In fact we have been suffering from “Carbon Dioxide Starvation”….the extinction level for all life on Earth is 150ppm of CO2…at the end of the last Ice Age it was 180ppm….scary! We have had at least 13 times the current 400ppm. CO2 is of great benefit to the planet and there are no down side for it is impossible for CO2 to overheat the planet as it’s ability to create heat is logarithmic. It creates heat when none is there but at around 300ppm the rule of diminishing returns comes into play. If we double today’s 400ppm we would get a degree or so of warming…..but if we double it again we would only get around 1/10th of one degree. What is more it is estimated that there are not enough fossil fuel resources left to double CO2 again after one doubling from current levels.
The real danger is from severe Global Cooling that could be with us in two decades or so…..the Solar Physicists are quite concerned by the state of the Sun and the behaviour of the Jet Stream is looked on as a precursor to the cooling. You have been warned.
PS Satellite photos show that the planet has been greening up as the increased CO2 in the atmosphere has aided plant growth and improved crop yields,
‘PS Satellite photos show that the planet has been greening up as the increased CO2 in the atmosphere has aided plant growth and improved crop yields,’
Would you mind giving a link.
I had a discussion with my ‘significant other’ that CO2 was actually greening the planet which means the Sahara desert should be greening due to efficient use of H2O by plant stomata.
There has been discussion about drought in the Middle East causing ISIS.
But I can’t find that information if indeed it is correct.
Lewis, plants require more than CO2 to grow. They also require water and nutritious soil and other climate conditions conducive to plant growth. I highly doubt that areas covered with nothing but blown around sand are going to ever become green. Unless you spray paint it…
Here’s a couple of links for you though-
A commentary with supporting links in it-
http://brennerbrief.com/global-warming-fight-blamed-on-co2/
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/GlobalGarden/
http://sites.bu.edu/cliveg/people/professors/prof-ranga-b-myneni/myneni-publications/
Dear Mr. Buckingham,
I hope you find this article helpful: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/31/agu-says-co2-is-plant-food/
Quote from above article: “Scientists have long suspected that a flourishing of green foliage around the globe, observed since the early 1980s in satellite data, springs at least in part from the increasing concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere. Now, a study of arid regions around the globe finds that a carbon dioxide “fertilization effect” has, indeed, caused a gradual greening from 1982 to 2010.
And here’s a “Phys-Org” article:
http://phys.org/news/2013-07-greening-co2.html
Best wishes for many more years of joy and first-class communication with your “significant other,”
Janice
Lewis
Be careful. With knowledge comes responsibility and consequences.
Will being right about the grass ruin an otherwise pleasant evening ?
:::: is this how justifying a means to an end gets started … moral minefields ::::
Lewis –
“I had a discussion with my ‘significant other’ that CO2 was actually greening the planet which means the Sahara desert should be greening due to efficient use of H2O by plant stomata.”
Not necessarily, nor does it mean that Antarctica is becoming green. What the greening that might be attributed to additional CO2 may mean is that places that were green are increasing in area. Dismissing the idea because the Sahara isn’t the new corn belt sounds, to me, like someone who is trying too hard to not accept reality.
It is thought that stomal response to higher concentration of CO2 results in reduced water requirement for plants possibly contributing to the observed overall greening of the earth.
Lewis/Aphan – never grown tomatoes I take it? Used to grow the best crops in sandy soil. Ever looked at California and Arizona irrigated crops in the “desert”. Southern Alberta and the “Palliser Triangle” where Palliser said farming would never be possible. Reality beats conjecture every time. Yeah, we add water, and we add nutrients. That is to say, we ADAPTED. Not a new thought.
“Lewis/Aphan – never grown tomatoes I take it? Used to grow the best crops in sandy soil. Ever looked at California and Arizona irrigated crops in the “desert”. Southern Alberta and the “Palliser Triangle” where Palliser said farming would never be possible. Reality beats conjecture every time. Yeah, we add water, and we add nutrients. That is to say, we ADAPTED. Not a new thought.”
I grow tomatoes all the time. But there is a huge difference between the “desert sand” in my garden, which exists in a desert region between California and Arizona and the sand in the Sahara Desert. Here’s some reality for you-http://www.sandatlas.org/sand-types/
Not to mention the atmosphere, extreme temperatures and the unrestricted winds that drive that sand around in massive waves makes farming in the Sahara Desert just about insane. That’s a lot of adaptation.
Yes the Sahara is greening and CO2 is the driver
Here is a sample link on the topic, just google “greening the Sahara” for 121000 results.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html
In the article it is claimed the desert is greening due too global warming, I disagree with that misrepresentation as it is the increased CO2 that is responsible for the phenomenon. But that is just me.
Lewis,
From the EuMetSat archives – Atlas Mountains in Algeria turn green. This imagery from Meteosat-8 shows the southern side of the Atlas Mountains in Algeria turning green. Date & Time 25 February 2009 10:00
The Maghreb is not the Sahara?
Maghreb Geography
Thank you all for your considered replies.
Knutesea you are right as rain.
It was your namesake who demonstrated it is impossible to prevail against one of natures greatest forces.
Ah Canute.
I’m sure even he had trouble remembering when it was worth being right.
:::: honey, do I look fat in this dress ::::
ummm, ah … ummm .. errrrr
no, all I see is natural variability