71% think global warming is real

[WhiteTara]

70% think we can do something about it. Now we just need to get our do evil congress to change 180degrees and do the right things so we can all survive.
http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-warm02.html
fter years of controversy, 71 percent of Americans now say they think global warming is real, according to a telephone survey of 1,200 people for the advocacy group Environmental Defense.

Conducted between Feb. 27 and March 2, the poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points and was conducted by the firm Ayres, McHenry & Associates, which predominantly polls for Republican candidates.

The results include:

...

[paul_fromatlanta]

1. The controversy isn't over the temperatures going up

Anybody can look at the data and see that.

The controversy is proving the cause.

[WhiteTara]

2. actually

53 percent think warming is caused more by human activity than by normal Earth cycles.

70 percent think the effects of global warming can be reduced.

59 percent think their efforts as individuals can make a difference in global warming.

At least 90 percent are willing to take the following steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions: recycle, turn thermostats down in winter by 2 degrees, caulk around windows, and combine driving trips when running errands.

[paul_fromatlanta]

3. I meant that the cause is scientifically debatable

but the warming is not.

[WhiteTara]

4. cite your science pal

that sort of stuff is way too :tinfoilhat: for me. I mean, evolution is debatable too, right?

[paul_fromatlanta]

5. There is a big diffeence between saying the temperature is going up

versus proving why it has gone up. There is a saying that correlation is not causation.

In particular with regard to global temperature and CO2 there are sopmeproblems saying the CO2 is the main cause. For example, global temperature rose between 1905 and 1945 then they wewre flat between 1945 and 1976 and rose more shjarply after 1976.

But CO2 levels continued to rise between 1945 and 1976 so at a minimum it would appear there is another factor than can over ride CO2.

[Jim__]

14. Of course there are other factors than CO2.

And, of course, correlation does not prove causation. The reason that I usually see cited for the flat temperature between 1945 and 1976 is the increase in non-CO2 pollutants - there is a specific type of pollutant that caused this - I just can't remember right now what it is - this pollutant caused scattering of sunlight and I believe the effect was that less sunlight reached the earth. This pollution has since been significantly reduced - there are significant bad health effects from these other pollutants.

And, while correlation does not prove causation, the science behind why CO2 causes tempeature to rise is well-known, well-understood, and predicted the rise in temperature that we are now seeing. The decrease in heat radiation from the earth has been measured, it has been measured by wave-length, and its heat that is absorbed by CO2 (I don't have the details of this at hand, but, I should be able to get my hands on it). It is pretty much at the point that to argue that increased CO2 in the earth's atmosphere does not have a significant effect on the earth's temperature is like arguing that striking a match doesn't cause it to light.

[Viking12]

18. Sulfate Aerosols.

[Jim__]

21. Right - thanks.

[paul_fromatlanta]

31. I wonder if they are talking about particulates that might have

blocked incoming sun light.

There is also the issue of global cooling through the 1800's as CO2 was rising.

[Jim__]

53. I'm not sure if there was global cooling through the 1800's.

Here's an image from the IPCC 2001 report:




My interpretation of these graphs is that the cooling was more of a Northern Hemisphere phenomenon than a global phenomenon. The top graph is the Northern hemisphere, the middle is the southern and the bottom is global.

The IPCC has a discussion of the Little Ice Age that talks a little bit about global temperature in the late 19th century here

[paul_fromatlanta]

55. Very interesting..this is new data to me - let me take a look at it

[Toots]

15. So while we argue nothing is done by man to try and stop it right???

Instead of being proactive we sit and argue and insist upon being reactive. We know for a fact that temperatures are rising and over ninty percent of the scientific community suggests it is able to be remedied but the GOP sits on their thumbs. I guess it just feels good to do that. They have been proved wrong at every single turn of events so why not listen to the rest of the world for a change? Do you think the GOP is smarter than every person on earth?

[paul_fromatlanta]

6. Here's a graph

but you'll probably have to look into it your self before you'll believe - that's normal

[rman]

8. fact is, the climate can very well change without 'help' from humans

Research (most notably polar ice core analysis) shows there have been many climate changes in the past.
Still it is likely that human activity is a factor this time around, but it is not certain to be the only cause. Still the effects of climate change are real and we'll have to deal with it.

[Phx_Dem]

37. the main unknown is the Rate of Change n/t

[paul_fromatlanta]

43. Which rate of change do you mean? n/t

[Phx_Dem]

45. scientists are in agreement that GW is real

but they disagree about how quickly the change is occurring. The models they use involve lots of variables, so a LOT of error can creep into the results.

[paul_fromatlanta]

47. I understand now - yes the projections vary wildly

If you just extend the straight line it gets very scary but the modeling is complex.

[theHandpuppet]

9. Oh yeah, that'll do the trick

Caulking around the windows.

Methinks humankind is in for a very rude awakening.

[Tesha]

10. If they caulk a whole lot, will it keep out the rising oceans? (NT)

[DrGonzoLives]

13. That's the spirit

Let's mock any action that doesn't involve some dipshit radical ecotopia move. That's the way to change things, demand loony radical changes or none at all.

[theHandpuppet]

17. If you have any examples of "dipshit radical ecotopia moves"...

... I'd be interested in hearing them, as I'm not quite sure what that might involve. But I don't think caulking the windows is the answer.

[DrGonzoLives]

22. Anything that increases efficiency is an answer

A lot of small steps can add up to big savings, and those little things are easy to convince people to do.

No, caulking windows is not going to magically solve climate change caused by humans, but no single solution will.

[Viking12]

20. Proof is a term used in conversations about math and alcohol.

The concept is foreign to scientific thinking. The only controversy within the scientific community is one of details -- are anthropogenic influences responsible for 90% of the recent warming or 70%?

[paul_fromatlanta]

29. I try to use non-technical terms on message boards

Evidence sufficient to constitute scientific certainty might have been a better way to put that.

[Viking12]

32. Likewise, "Certainty" is not a term use in science

A hallmark of scientific knowledge is that it is subject to revision when new information is presented. Tentativeness is one of the points that differentiates science from other forms of knowledge.

[paul_fromatlanta]

33. What's is your field of study? Scientific certainty and even "proof" were

frequently used in physic (my field of study).

[Viking12]

35. Imprecise language doesn't constitute scientific processes and products

[paul_fromatlanta]

36. thats a true statement but I don't get the relevance

I was asking what field of scientific study you have experienced that doesn't use the concept of scientific certainty.

it even comes up in trials when they make the point that reasonable certainty is different than scientific certainty.

[Viking12]

48. I have a background in physics

and advanced degrees in Rhetoric & Philosophy of Science.


Perhaps you could cite some scientific literature that uses the term "certainty". It would make for an interesting research project.

[paul_fromatlanta]

50. Then I'm surprised that you didn't run into the concept of

scientific certainty - it is used seperately from proof to emphasize that theories that are considered to have been proved are subject to reevaluation with new evidence.

If you do a google search for "scientific certainty" in quotes you'll get almost 300,000 hits.

[Viking12]

56. I hate to break the bad news, but "Google" is not the scientific press

Of the first 30 or so returns, the term is used in fields of law and politics, not science. If something is subject to reevaluation, it is not certain. Again, I request, where is the term used within the scientific lit?

[paul_fromatlanta]

57. Here is a link where its used by the NIH but...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_

I have to say I am kind of amazed we are having this discussion. I am a physicist (degree and everything from a decent school) and while I am not a great or important physicist I have spent enough time with physicists weho are smarter and better educated than I to know that this term is used.
--------
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_

Scientific certainty: research versus forensic perspectives.

Bird SJ.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge 02139, USA.

The scientific community and the judicial system are different components of society with different structures and functions. Nevertheless, science can contribute relevant and useful information to judicial deliberations if the inherent limitations of that information are understood. These limitations stem from the way the information is presented and perceived both by those who are providing it and those who are providing the context in which it is presented.

[Viking12]

59. You seem to be confusing the use of the term with its actual possibility

As the abstract you provide states, "science can contribute relevant and useful information to judicial deliberations if the inherent limitations of that information are understood." In short, the article appears to debunk the myth of scientific certainty.

Here's a useful article that provides a good context:

http://www.usc.edu/dept/education/science-edu/Myths%20of%20Science.pdf

[paul_fromatlanta]

61. What term would you like to use - we have gotten off track from the

original topic.

And I will read your link and I'm open to using differnt language.

Back to the main point - I am unconvinced that it has been demonstrated to to a sufficient level that global warming is human caused and can be controled by reasonable human actions. And surely that is the problem you have with me, not the definition of a term.

[Viking12]

63. Definitions matter. So, yes, I have a problem with that in itself...

The myth of "scientific certainty" is used as a battering ram by flat-earth contrarians. There's no "proof", no "smoking gun", no certainty, so therefore we need not act. It's a bullshit line of argument.

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and attribute your statement, "unconvinced that it has been demonstrated to to a sufficient level that global warming is human caused" to an unfamiliarity with the science.

See:

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm

for starters.

[rman]

7. We can do something, but we can't stop it

of course co2 emissions etc should be reduced, and we should start switching to alternative energy sources - there are plenty reasons to do that.

What we can do beyond that is deal with the climate changes that result from global warming; adjust our agriculture and habitation strategies - in the long run we'll probably have to abandon coastal areas, including many of the large cities.

[APPLE314]

11. Bring back the 55 miles per hour speed limit.

We can make a big leap forward by slowing down.

Doubling your speed cubes the wind resistance. The faster you go the more it costs you.

[killbotfactory]

12. The current crop of politicians will drag their feet until it's too late

Then they will use the excuse that they waited to long to do continue to do nothing. Maybe when our coasts start disappearing they'll become concerned...

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

16. The problem is that it's already too late to stop.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12052708/

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2005/02/13/INGP4B7GC91.DTL

[DrGonzoLives]

23. Wow! It's based on computers!

Computers are so accurate in predicting weather patterns, they must be right! :sarcasm:

So what's your solution? Mass global suicide? Give up?

We can either make an attempt to mitigate what we can or just sit and cry. If you want to do the latter, that's your business.

[Viking12]

24. Nope.

It is a common misconception that global warming science is "basing everything on models". The case is based primarily on physical understanding and observational data. That is why Svante Arrhenius, long before the advent of computer models, was able to calculate (in his famous paper of 1896) the effect of doubling CO2 concentration on climate. He overestimated it by a factor of 2, but today we have far better data. It is not computer model magic - it is physics.

[DrGonzoLives]

27. It's not "just physics" though

To say that vastly oversimplifies climatology. We do not have data that stretches back millions of years like we have data for the past 200 or so since people started keeping track of the weather more closely. There are about a million different variables involved, and the models currently in use still guess at a good chunk of them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Which is what the articles suggest. You should try reading.

Believe it or not, scientists frequently use computers in science. Of course, they could consult the Rain God, or contributers to DU.

[DrGonzoLives]

26. I did read it

The point being that saying "the computer models say we're doomed, so we are" is not proofed that everything is going to hell.

And I am a scientist, numbnuts, how about you?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. Numbnuts? How very scientific of you.

So are the people in mentioned in the articles. Or, are you the only scientist to be trusted? On your impeccable credentials no doubt.

Of course, you are sending these messages with some new scientific invention that you've developed so that you won't have to lower yourself by using a computer.

Do you consult Elvis for your data?

[DrGonzoLives]

30. Whatever

Apparently, pointing out that computer models of the earth's climate are not 100% correct makes me some kind of anti-science crusader now. Such fantastic debating skills you have.

[Viking12]

34. Why do they need to be 100% accurate to be useful?

First, there are no claims that climate models are "100% correct". Your flailing at windmills. There is a false presumption in your line of arugment -- i.e. anything short of perfection is useless.

[DrGonzoLives]

39. I'm not saying they're not useful

I'm saying that relying on them completely is wrong as well.

Yes, they are good for noticing a trend, but to pretend that they are absolutely right is ludicrous.

[Viking12]

44. Again, you're attacking strawmen

There is no "relying on them completely". Models are use in conjunction with observational and proxy data.

[Phx_Dem]

41. because of "sensitive dependance on initial conditions" n/t

comp models are tricky, error becomes magnified through multiplicity, the main dispute in the scientific community about global warming is figuring out the rate of change.

[Viking12]

46. Climate Sensitivity at 2 X CO2 is not really disputed...

Of course you're correct that initial conditions do influence outcomes. Determining "Rate of Change" (as vague as the concept is) is dependent upon future emissions -- an "intial condition" that can only be hypothesized.

[Phx_Dem]

49. your right that the model

does not have to be 100% accurate to be useful, I was just trying to point out that comp models that use lots of variables tend to get very messy.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

38. Uh-huh.

I posted 2 articles without comment. You seem to think that this indicated a lack of concern on my part. Based on what? Then you used the well known debating skill of calling your presumed opponent "numbnuts".

If you had actually read the articles you will note that the scientists did not advocate "mass suicide", nor did they advocate "doing nothing", as you indicated they did, no doubt due to your superior debating skills. Not to mention your (self proclaimed) superior scientific knowledge.

[DrGonzoLives]

40. Uh-huh

Maybe it was when you came back with your snotty little "learn to read" bullshit, eh? I'll admit that the personal attack in my original reply shouldn't have been there, but a reply that doesn't involve being a dick will generally garner other replies that are civil. Try it sometime.

[doc03]

19. "How can the use of oil cause global warming,

oil comes from nature it is natural how can that harm nature". Well, that's what Rush Limbaugh said a while back and you know Rush is right.:sarcasm:

[sweetheart]

42. and the other 29% "know" that global warming is real

I wonder if they are real, outside of that they have opinions
that are repeated from a million others,
or if they wonder if its really god's options,
and we're just mites on the body of the divine mother.

[nolabels]

51. but would never admit to it because they are Republicans in denial.

The Psyche of people who spend much of their time in denial is a strange thing

On edit and Btw forgot to mention that certain telltale sign of how to pick them out. It is that certain thing or part that when they are wrong or involved with an obvious mistake, they will never admit to it (so for your sanity, don't ever expect them to ;-) ).

[baby_mouse]

52. 29% Think Batman is Real

Hold candlelit vigil for death of Robin, etc.

[AnnInLa]

54. Winning Converts

One hurricane at a time
One tornado at a time
One tsunami at a time
One earthquake at a time
One drought at a time

Well, they can either blame God or global warming.....hmmmm.

[BlooInBloo]

58. Huh, Might be the ONLY thing 71% are right about - lol

[bloom]

60. George Will cited 85% as saying "warming is probably happening"

I don't know where he got his numbers - but he was trying to make the case that all 85% were convinced by journalists making shit up. It was quite a load of nonsense.

"Eighty-five percent of Americans say warming is probably happening, and 62 percent say it threatens them personally. The National Academy of Sciences says the rise in the Earth's surface temperature has been about one degree Fahrenheit in the past century. Did 85 percent of Americans notice? Of course not. They got their anxiety from journalism calculated to produce it. Never mind that one degree might be the margin of error when measuring the planet's temperature."


What RealClimate has to say - with links...

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=91

[Blue_Tires]

62. the problem of it is

0% in the government (backed by the oil companies/automakers, of course) think it is real....that is the number that must change