Quantcast FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: When Hope is the Enemy of Change

4.22.2009

When Hope is the Enemy of Change

The environment is having a rough go of things in the polls.

A Pew survey in January showed a precipitous 15-point decline in the number of American adults who describe global warming as a 'top priority'. Meanwhile, a Gallup poll released last month showed a record number of Americans -- 41 percent -- who claimed that the seriousness of global warming is 'generally exaggerated'. And just last week, a Rasmussen poll had likely voters increasingly skeptical of the idea that global warming is manmade. (Although Rasmussen's results were quite out of step with other agencies' polling on the issue, they nevertheless represented a substantial decline from Rasmussen's previous polling of this question).



The conventional wisdom -- which I do not necessarily dispute -- is that when the economy declines, so does concern over global warming. People have other things on their minds, like losing their jobs or 401K's. They also may suffer from a sort of bad-news fatigue (there is still plenty of bad news on the environment).

The environment, however, may have another problem as well. Because of Barack Obama's election, many Americans assume that the environment is getting better, whether or not it actually is.

That is the result suggested by a Gallup poll released yesterday. Fully 41 percent of Americans now think the environment is getting better; this is up from 26 percent just last year.

When I first saw this result, I assumed the change was mostly triggered by conservatives, who are either tired of talking about environmental protection or are spending too much time reading George F. Will and his misleading interpretations of climate science. Alternatively, people may simply have short memories. Last year, 2008, was cooler than most recent ones, particularly in North America (see map above), although still very warm historically.

This environmental optimism is not being driven by conservatives, however: Republicans are essentially no more likely to take an optimistic position on the environment than they were a year earlier. Rather, it is being driven by independents and, especially, Democrats:





Note the 25-point jump in the number of Democrats who think the environment is getting better, which is paralleled by an 18-point bounce among unaffiliated voters. This is accompanied, not coincidentally, by extremely high expectations for what Barack Obama will be able to accomplish on behalf of the environment.

The environment, we should pause to mention, has caught a couple of breaks recently. The global economic slowdown has lowered the rate of industrial production, and therefore slowed the rate of increase in carbon output. Americans were driving less throughout most of 2008 (the trend has yet to really reverse itself in spite of a significant abatement in gas prices).

The Obama administration, moreover, has done some good for the environment through the powers of the Executive Branch -- giving the EPA greater authority to regulate carbon, while permitting states greater latitude to regulate vehicle emissions. The stimulus package passed in February included significant funding for green energy development, although much less than some advocates were hoping for.

These actions, however, even if successful, merely mean that the environment is getting worse less quickly, not that it's actually improving. Yes, perhaps, that is a semantic distinction to the average American responding to one of these polls; it is certainly not one to the planet.

I think there is something else here, however, and it is potentially very dangerous to the Administration. Namely, there is the risk that Americans assume -- by Obama's mere presence in the White House -- that more is being done to help the environment than actually is. "This was the moment", Obama told the country in a speech last June after winning the Democratic nomination, "when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal". Some Americans may be taking that too literally.

Passing cap-and-trade -- or carbon tax -- legislation is not going to be easy in this economic environment, with Republicans like John McCain having begun campaigning against it, Blue Dog democrats expressing skepticism, and innumerate editorials in small-town newspapers bemoaning its effect on local businesses. There may be risks to advocates of environmental reform in attempting to scare the public into submission -- but for the time being, there are probably greater risks in complacency.

140 comments

Statler N Waldorf said...

Carbon tax is not the same as cap-in-trade. Cap-in-trade al;lows a user to pollute penalty free so long as he has purchased sufficient credits from a non-polluter to do so.

Carbon tax penalizes any polluter, no matter what their financial resources.

Bradford said...

Wow! Can we jump to a few more conclusions about what "everyone" is thinking?

How about the fact that we do have a short term cooling ongoing right now (and have since 2000) that has everything to do with a lowered output from the sun. The real story is that global warming from carbon dioxide is real, but unless the sun heats the planet at the same rate (and it is not) global warming is irrelevant.

How about giving us some credit and thinking that the environmnet is improving bcause it is.

Bradford said...

Still no suspots today:

http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/512/

Juris said...

In the immortal words of Pogo (on the occasion of the first Earth Day): "We have met the enemy, and he is us!"

Rudy said...

It is good for all people that the emergence of credible skeptics scientific debate has helped raise the bar on so much of the pseudo-science circling around this issue and has blown away the silly Gore-esque settled science posturing.

Most people are stunned to learn how little carbon dioxide is actually in the atmosphere and naturally have a backlash to haveing been misled by indoctinationists.

The backlash will be even greater as people realize that the underlying agenda is to extract taxes from the population rather than create any meaningful environmental improvement.

Bradford said...

Low suspots equals lower energy output from the sun...and we have lowered energy output:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8008473.stm

I guess the correlation between lower energy inputs resulting in lowered low grade energy on the planet (e.g., HEAT) doesn't compute?

Remember, before the current global warming political correctness it was EXTREMELY well accepted that lowered sunspots caused the Little Ics Age. Frozen Thames anyone?

mob said...

people will always find an excuse/reason to forget that they live on a living planet rather than a rock.

personally i think it is too late to change and repair the damage done.
i am thankful that i was born some time ago. i bet i am not the only baby boomer who feels that way.

of course thinking it is too late doesnt help much either

Mike said...

This is bad news indeed. The more certain scientists get, the more the entrenched interests try to sow confusion and doubt. I was really depressed when I saw a site (http://www.climatechangefraud.com/) linked from a comment in a local newspaper in response to an AP story. Total disinformation! I managed to sleep last night convincing myself that a good number of people would see that site for what it is--but your post this morning is going to bother me all day, because it confirms my deeper suspicions--our culture just isn't connected to reality enough to have the will to do anything about the problem that threatens us the most.

Pragmatus said...

As people worry about jobs and the economy, the environment always takes a back seat.

DaveNY said...

Also, the problem is that the enviroment doesn't change -- or react to our changes -- on a very human time scale, let alone an electoral time scale.

We could totally eliminate the emission of greenhouse gasses TOMORROW, and the global average temperature would still keep creeping up for nearly a century, because it takes a long time for those chemicals to flush out of the air... and who knows what strange feedbacks and unexpected consequences might occur in the course of that time? Who knows what exogenous events might totally alter things for us on what is, from our persepective, a long time period? A few years of frozen ponds in July after a massive volcanic eruption, and not many people are going to be talking about global warming.

I think too much of the focus has been on global warming... we need to tackle ALL pollution as a moral obligation. You can't dump anything out thinking it'll just disappear... it all goes somewhere, and it all effects someone.

But I'm not suprised by the results of this poll. I've seen the same thing happen in the gay community with HIV awareness and safe sex... the drug companies invent a bunch of new treatments, heavily promote them, and suddenly the general attitude is "oh, what's the worst that'll happen? i have to take a pill? pfft, i'm going to have whatever fun i want."

Sigh... the human mind is such a silly thing...

fred said...

Political correctness strikes again! The BBC is talking downthe sunspot minimum now as it does not fit their global warming story, but they talked it up (and even the Little Ice Age) whne is did fit their global warming meme.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3869753.stm

HILARIOUS!

Pragmatus said...

I see we're back on the "blog owner approval" track for comments. Thanks Mule Rider, and all your little progeny.

Pragmatus said...

Off-topic, but 'bout damn time.

moondancer said...

Sad turn of events. Seems that unless global warming dips into the family wallet, it doesn't exist. But I see increasingly large amounts of conservative groups with their hair on fire about habitat loss for their ducks and salmon. Wait until starvation and thirst reappear as major world issues. I expect the Inhofes of the world are using up precious time for corrective action at the expense of loss of the earth as we know it now.

Jack-be-nimble said...

We are now seeing the seeds of the implosion of the liberal movement's control over the US government. Wow.. it lasted less than the first 100 days.

Democrats of many stripes will be scurrying like rats off the Titanic to distance themselves from the crackpot left.

fred said...

Moondancer-

The Earth is always changing:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

Make sure you click on the oce core data on the right.

magster said...

On the poll question, it depends what definition of "better" is used. I probably would have answered better just because of political changes and administrative reversals of Bush era policies.

And, even on DailyKos, I see resistance to some of my comments advocating for cap and trade based on the lame argument that cap and trade is futile if China does nothing.

fred said...

What's the big deal? We are currently well within the average global temp range.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png

liberal_defender_of_freedom said...

"Although Rasmussen's results were quite out of step with other agencies' polling on the issue, they nevertheless represented a substantial decline from Rasmussen's previous polling of this question)."

This isn't the only instance where Rasmussen stands alone. On every issue where it is a referendum on the Obama administration or Dems in Congress, Rasmussen is consistently out of line with the majority of pollsters.

He's quickly becoming the comical relief that Fox news's fair and balanced statement is.

Here are examples of how far Rasmussen goes to shine a negative light on this administration and Dems.

Obama's favorability ratings. He's consistently 10 point more negative and 10 points less positive than the others.

Right track, wrong track. Once again, it appears Rasmussen goes out of his way to skew the right track lower and the wrong track higher.

Congressional approval ratings There we have an example of his approval much lower and disapproval much higher than everyone else's for the Democratic controlled congress.

Job approval rating Until ARG was in the mix, Rasmussen stood out once again as displaying the lowest approval ratings and highest disapprove.

But hey, I guess Republicans have a story they want to tell and Rasmussen is only happy enough to provide them with some material to support their story.

I guess when that's all you have it's pretty pathetic.

Mitchell said...

@bradford,
Yes the sun may save us for a while by going into another Maunder minimum. But that would be like a sucker punch - the world might become complacent about the doubling of Carbon Dioxide levels this century, and put off serious reform. Then when the solar activity comes back, we are deeply screwed.

However, we cannot count on this happening. There have been similar reductions in solar activity in the past which did not lead to a Maunder minimum.

As far as public opinion on global warming, I would guess it varies with the season. Let's look at the polls this August!

Pragmatus said...

Rasmussen's results are so typically out of whack it is hard to take him seriously, much less construct an article around his findings.

This is like Nate critically analyzing the "tea parties" based solely on Fox News's reporting of them.

C'mon, Nate. You're feeding us jellyfish here.

beccastareyes said...

Bradford, I'd wait at least one solar magnetic cycle (22 years, or two sunspot cycles) before calling Little Ice Age.

Fred: It's not the range, it's the rate at which the changes are happening. It is a lot harder to adapt to a quick change than a slow one.

fred said...

Is the rate of change truly different than we come out of an ice age? We have done than many times...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png

Michael (mbw) said...

@fred- What do you mean "we"?

The plot you show has one fairly rapid temperature change of the magnitude we're talking about during the last 100,000 years, around the time that human agriculture started.That tiny human populations made it through that change says nothing about what will happen to enormous human populations in an even faster change. If your point is that the species will probably survive, fine. If your point is that the suffering will be small compared to using public transportation, you haven't exactly made it.

The biosphere has been through lots of big changes over time. Sometimes they wipe out 90% of species. Then things get going again over a few tens of millions of years.

Hey, no biggie.

AMike said...

Nate -
I know this may seem pedantic, but I'd like to key in on your phrase:

"there are probably greater risks in complacency"

Perhaps the same things that drive your own uncertainty are finding more of a foothold now?

fred said...

MBW-

Oh, you are a funny guy. The sky is falling mentality of the left is laughable, Gore has lost cred by outright lying on the topic, and the political correctness of the left has soured me on this issue. Not only am I incredulous about the science on this (see Bradford above, where the BBC and real scientists are deathly afraid of objective reporting) I do not think there is much that can be done about it.

As for suffering - is it better from a suffering standpoint to hold Somalia and Bangaldesh down so they can't move to modern carbon based economies, or does it cause less? Who made you the judge? Why is "good" based on your Western view? The BRIC countries are going to create more carbon dioxide than we can remove, period. Get over it, accept it, and learn how to deal with it.'

You also can't read a graph, but...

nova_middle_man said...

Humm heres a wild idea. How about instead of waiting for government to step in people actually took steps to help the environment. Oh wait thats my stupid rugged individualisim again.

The lightbulb issue was a good start. Now its time to pick another small thing that people can do to have an effect on the environment without government intervention. Plenty of good ideas in all of those 50 100 simple things you can do to save the Earth

Happy Earth Day. Its true we have met the enemy and it is us. The only way out is for changing individual behavior.

stark mad jabari said...

Who were the people interviewed?
What was the exact wording of the question, only "Is the environment getting better or worse" or was there more to it?
Was the term "global warming" used, or "global climate change"?

I would never underestimate just how much those polled DON'T know about Global Climate Change.
I'm pretty confident that if I made the argument "since it still gets awfully cold in winter around (any location), global warming must have been a hoax", there would be a long line of people willing to buy into that statement as if it were logical.
I've heard it said in passing, and while I guess I could assume that those specific people were merely joking, the logic of such a joke only exists if there were, in fact, people who, in believing that claim, could be ridiculed.

Neal said...

Bradford, 11:30 am 22 April:

The climate is not cooling, on the multi-decadal timescale that is appropriate for evaluating climate trends. Read carefully a discussion of the “quiet sun” that can be found here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8008473.stm?lsf .

Further, as the article states: “According to Prof Mike Lockwood of Southampton University, this view is too simplistic.

‘I wish the Sun was coming to our aid but, unfortunately, the data shows that is not the case,’ he said.

Prof Lockwood was one of the first researchers to show that the Sun's activity has been gradually decreasing since 1985, yet overall global temperatures have continued to rise.

‘If you look carefully at the observations, it's pretty clear that the underlying level of the Sun peaked at about 1985 and what we are seeing is a continuation of a downward trend (in solar activity) that's been going on for a couple of decades.

‘If the Sun's dimming were to have a cooling effect, we'd have seen it by now.’"

Neal said...

Rudy, 11:40 am 22 April:

There is very little CO2 in the atmosphere, however its effect is very significant: Every time the concentration of CO2 doubles, it increases the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere by 3.7 Watts/m^2, or over 1%. Over the last 150 years, burning of fossil fuels has increased the CO2 concentration by 35%, so we’re well on our way to the first doubling.

Neal said...

fred:

Climate changes normally take place over millennia. This allows the various species of plants and animals to adapt and evolve around the changes. However, at the present, things are happening much too fast for them to adapt. Over the last 30 years, the migration patterns for British songbirds has increased, in some cases, by 300 km, due to the need to find appropriate climate seasonally. This extra effort puts an additional strain on these species. And of course this is just one example; over the last year, I have seen dozens that people have studied in some detail, and it is hard to believe that these are the only ones.

The issue is not whether the change is warmer or cooler, or even how far it is from some prehistorical high: The issue is how fast things are changing, compared to the rate that has been achieved by non-human change agents.

Bradford said...

Neal-

I can read. Also go read the BBC article from 2004 and how they spin the opposite side of the same coin - this is exactly what I mean by making not allowing the discourse to be driven by actual fact. It is anti-scientific.

As for your multi-decade timescale - I say bunk. The right time scale is multi-generational. You pick decades because that is the only story that fits your panic scenario.

Bradford said...

Finally, the hubris of humanity is stunning. We want the changing world to stay exactly where it is now - why? Why is now the best place, the best time? Why does your pathetic existence (and mine) mark some glorious point of stasis that MUST be maintained.

Michael (mbw) said...

@fred- Check your graph carefully.It shows changes at Vostok of about 8°C aver a time of several thousand years. The global mean changes would be a bit less than that. The net global rate of change is in the vicinity of 1°C/1000 years.
Our current rate from the greenhouse effects is about 1°C/100 years, superimposed on the usual fluctuations from sunspots, etc. As CO2 builds up, we're heading for several times that rate.
We'll be heating at something like 30 times the fastest rate in the data you showed.

Rates matter. Forests can creep to new latitudes in a few thousand years. They can't do it in decades. Instead, they die.

Facts matter. Data matter.

mob said...

i havent posted for a while and foolish me thought that maybe they had carted away some of the nuttier posters here...i dont worry though the white coat people are still coming for them

Bradford said...

Kinda unrelated, but wouldn't it be neat to remove the carbon dioxide from the air and re-burn it. Just like that, no more carbon dioxide added to the atmosphere:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090420121342.htm

That said, the practical problem is China is now the number one producer of carbon dioxide and the likelihood they will change is low...

Pragmatus said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Pragmatus said...

The mean climate of Earth is much colder than our climate today. The rule is Ice Ages—interglacial periods are the exception. They separate major ice periods, which last from 100,000 to 250,000 years, by an average of 10,000 years. There being no reason to suppose this cycle has ended, I think it is far more likely that the Earth will be back in another Ice Age rather than in a runaway greenhouse.

A few points that need considering—

¨ Global warming seems to have started prior to the Industrial Revolution. Swiss records of glacial retreat in the Alps show that this began in the 18th Century. That said there is however no doubt that man has added significantly to the warming process, but there’s a better than even chance the planet would be experiencing warming regardless of anything man did or did not do over the past 200 years.

¨ If the Earth is still undergoing its traditional cycle of Ice Ages the next one is due just about now.

¨ Records of climate change before the onsets of previous Ice Ages show that temperatures first tended to shoot up rather dramatically before the ice set in. Why that is so in still unclear.

¨ Scientists, although none knows for sure, believe that Ice Ages are triggered when the Gulf Stream gyre shuts down. The Gulf Stream cycles warm tropical water up to the northern Atlantic, which is the sole reason Europe has a temperate climate. No Gulf Stream, and ice will immediately start creeping back over Europe.

¨ There are studies which show that if enough glaciers in Greenland and the high Arctic Islands melt the resulting freshwater pouring into the sea can disrupt or even kill the Gulf Stream in a matter of a decade or less. Ice Ages are known to establish themselves with astonish abruptness.

¨ The Earth has experienced many eras over its long history where the mean global temperature was far higher than it is now, or than it will be even if nothing is done about rising levels of manmade greenhouse gases over the next century or so. None of these periods led to a runaway greenhouse effect, so there’s really no reason to suppose this current rise would lead to one either.

Now it will be interesting to see what I am accused of simply for posting this data. I know of no more incendiary topic worldwide.

Michael (mbw) said...

@ Bradford- Ever hear of the law of thermodynamics? The free energy required to "unburn" the CO@ is ALWAYS larger than the free energy obtained by then burning the reduced C compound. Catalysis has nothing to do with it. The question is: where do e get the free energy from? If not coal and other fossil fuel our choices are:
1. use less
2. nuclear
3. solar (including bio)
4. wind
5. tidal
etc.

So the paper you cite is only relevant if we get such a large clean energy source that we can use some extra to remove CO2. But in that case we'd first do the efficient thing of just using that new source, not fossil fuels.

@ fred- If you think Somalia will be hit less hard by climate change than the U.S., you're not paying attention.

Michael (mbw) said...

@ Pragmatus- One of your statements is both true and relevant. The absence of past runaway heating events strongly suggests that we won't trigger a runaway to Venus-like conditions. Good. You don't seem to understand some of the other statements.
The melting ice which could trigger an abrupt shutdown of the Gulf Stream is itself a greenhouse consequence. So Europe could experience weird climate changes not shared by the rest of the globe.
The predictions of a new ice age were for thousands of years in the future. That would not alleviate the effects of severe warming in the next 100 years.

Bradford said...

We can throw out numbers, but how about we use the IPCC numbers:

http://www.ipcc.ch/

They predict about a one degree C rise per hundred years - part of which is based on solar radiation increases. BUT it is also true we have seen these rate sof changes in the rather recent past (geologically speaking):

http://www.whoi.edu/page.do?pid=12455&tid=282&cid=10046

Now, tell me again how we can really stop the rise in methane and carbon dioxide entering the atmosphere from the BRIC countries (which is only expected to rise):

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

I am listening to Obama now, and I do think we need to get off foreign oil, but it strikes me as particualrly naive to think we stop this train, or that we really have a good idea what it's consequences are.

From references cited above:

"The best known example of these events is the Younger Dryas cooling of about 12,000 years ago, named for arctic wildflower remains identified in northern European sediments. This event began and ended within a decade and for its 1000 year duration the North Atlantic region was about 5°C colder. "

"Researchers always tell you that more research funding is needed, and we are not any different. Our main message is not just that, however. It is that global climate is moving in a direction that makes abrupt climate change more probable, that these dynamics lie beyond the capability of many of the models used in IPCC reports, and the consequences of ignoring this may be large. For those of us living around the edge of the N. Atlantic Ocean, we may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur."

Bradford said...

MBW-

I think you miss the point, the point is not the amount of energy used but where it comes from and whether it increases, decreases, or holds the amount of greenhouse gases stable. I guess you can stay on the neo-Luddite Unabomber side and claim that all change is bad change, but I for one have a bit more hope.

Pragmatus said...

Michael...

Gee thanks for telling me what I don't understand. I won't return the compliment, however a little expansion of my earlier comments might make things clearer for you.

The melting ice that could trigger a Gulf Stream shutdown is not a "greenhouse consequence". It is a consequence of increased temperatures. Where were the greenhouse gases the last time at the onset of the last Ice Age? There was definitely warming, but no increase in greenhouse gases. Read the science if you're interested. Ice core studies can give you atmospheric content and temperature means precise to the decade for the past half million years.

Europe will not experience "weird climate changes" if the Gulf Stream shuts down. No Gulf Stream means a sheath of ice, period. Nothing could be more straightforward. Furthermore the expanse of this ice is so great, and it is so reflective, that the entire globe will be cooled drastically, the result of a runaway refrigerator effect. That, in effect, is what an Ice Age is.

Even the most dire predictions of manmade warming won't push the heating of the climate anywhere near where it has been in the past, none of which episodes led to irretrievable disaster.

Don't take my word for it. It's all been written up in the science literature for the past dozen or so years.

Bradford said...

More highlights from the IPCC and Woods Hole:

"Anthropogenic warming and sea level rise would
continue for centuries due to the time scales
associated with climate processes and feedbacks,
even if greenhouse gas concentrations were to be
stabilised."

The change required in carbon output is functionally impossible to achieve using real world political scenarios:

"Climate-carbon cycle coupling is expected to add
carbon dioxide to the atmosphere as the climate system
warms, but the magnitude of this feedback is uncertain.
This increases the uncertainty in the trajectory of
carbon dioxide emissions required to achieve a
particular stabilisation level of atmospheric carbon
dioxide concentration. Based on current understanding
of climate-carbon cycle feedback, model studies
suggest that to stabilise at 450 ppm carbon dioxide
could require that cumulative emissions over the 21st
century be reduced from an average of approximately
670 [630 to 710] GtC (2460 [2310 to 2600] GtCO2) to
approximately 490 [375 to 600] GtC (1800 [1370 to
2200] GtCO2)."

Why don't I see this from the global warming folks? How much will this offset Greenland melting (which Gore absurdly claimed could happen in 50 years):

"Current global model studies project that the Antarctic
Ice Sheet will remain too cold for widespread surface
melting and is expected to gain in mass due to increased
snowfall."

This is not 50 years Al (and yes, I voted for you Al):

"If a negative surface mass balance were
sustained for millennia, that would lead to virtually
complete elimination of the Greenland Ice Sheet and
a resulting contribution to sea level rise of about 7 m."

Without the sun increased heating the rate of change is halved - what if the sunpots stay low? Can it be stopped? :

"Model experiments show that even if all radiative
forcing agents were held constant at year 2000 levels,
a further warming trend would occur in the next two
decades at a rate of about 0.1°C per decade, due mainly
to the slow response of the oceans."


Facts, try them, you might like them.

Bradford said...

Great post, Pragmatus.

Michael (mbw) said...

Bradford- You cited a paper which proposed exactly zero new energy sources, as if it were relevant. It described instead a process for not wasting too much energy in removing CO2 from the atmosphere, if somehow we had extra energy available to drive that process.

I'm a scientist who takes the traditional conservative position that extremely rapid radical changes in the fundamentals is dangerous, at least to life forms that are getting along more or less well now. That's supported by the fossil record. How you characterize that as the "neo-Luddite Unabomber side" is beyond me.
(How did that whole Younger Dryas thing work out for people in Europe, anyway? You sure you want to try it again?)

Michael (mbw) said...

@ pragmatus

Of course the warming that melts the ice, triggering a Gulf Stream shutdown, is not in general necessarily from greenhouse effects. This next time, however, it would be. I was deliberately fuzzy about the next climate effects for Europe because the net of the continuous greenhouse warming and the discontinuous possible oceanic cooling has uncertain sign.

@Bradford- It's good to know that the effects are too small to worry about and also so massive and inevitable that we needn't worry about them. Now I'm not worried.

Bradford said...

MBW-

I will take your Ph.D. and trump it with mine. I guess the whole puncutated equilibrium wasn't in your courses? Ever take population genetics? It is all selelction and leaving genes in future generations...

Did you happen to read the post where I said this was a cool aside to the discussion?

Now, please read this, what I am saying is that global warming is real, but it is not the gigantic effect being touted right now as we have been warmer than this and cooler than this. The midwest was a shallow sea, it was a ice sheet (and actually the bedrock is still bouncing back, expanding, from the last ice age), and there will be a punctuated equilibrium that gives you little choice how fast things change (e.g., meteors, high volcanic activity, etc.). Get over the fact that you really matter alot in the system, you don't, we don't.

Bradford said...

I am also saying the effects of the current greenhouse gasses are above what we can fix or manage - it is happening whether you do cap-and-trade or not. It is happening even if you can stop the BRIC countries from developing (but you can't).

Neal said...

Pragmatus:

- Ice ages: From what I’ve read, we really don’t have to worry about the next ice age for a few 10,000s of years.
- Runaway greenhouse effect: I don’t think anyone is expecting this. This is not Venus.

Chris1974 said...

Bradford, Fred and others who seem to be trying to make the global cooling argument. You guys are missing the point. Where I live (Nashville) we had a slightly cooler winter than normal (after about four warmer ones). You can look at average temps for the earth as a whole and they don't seem to change much, leading some (especially on the right) to start questioning what the big deal is. But the problem is you can't look at data for the entire world. You have to look at what is happening at the poles, and article after article I have read is showing a dire problem. The ice caps are melting at unprecedented speeds. This has the potential to lead to serious problems down the road.

And the other point I would like to make is this continues to be a political football. This is an environment science issue, not a political one. Every time Rush or Hannity or any of their million local wannabe's talk about this, my eyes role because they have no clue about what they are talking about. Scientists in mass are saying we have a problem. Sure, there are some "skeptics" who seem to get more press than their small percentage deserves, but the vast majority are talking about a serious problem.

Neal said...

Bradford:

The issue of timescale is important. But since we’re evaluating the question of whether fossil fuel burning is relevant to warming, we need to consider the whole span of time over which we’ve been burning these fuels. So look at this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-stopped-in-1998.htm

And the issue is NOT that “this is the perfect temperature”. The issue is that the changes are taking place so fast that many species will not be able to keep up, and will die out without leaving descendants. This will immeasurably impoverish our world, and our experience on it.

Burning CO2: Yes, you can get carbon out of CO2, but it will cost you. It will never be possible to do this and come out ahead of the game, it would violate the conservation of energy.

China is slowly recognizing that they have skin in the game wrt global warming. But if the US refuses to lead, you can bet that China will not go ahead. Nobody wants to be the guy holding the bag.

Concerning your selections from IPCC:
- “Continued warming for centuries after stabilization of greenhouse gases”: All the more reason to get moving sooner.
- “Functionally impossible to reduce carbon output sufficiently”: I’m not such a pessimist. There could be a technological fix.
- “IPCC vs. Gore”: In fact, Gore may be more up-to-date than the 2007 IPCC report: Shortly after the publication, a lot of new observations showed that ice-cover melting in the north seemed to be happening much faster than had been expected, which they had to interpret as unexpected mechanisms for ice removal.
- “if all radiative forcing agents..”: That means no additional CO2 at all. So they are saying that if you stop all CO2 emissions, you would get at least another 2 decades of warming, at 0.1-C per decade. We could live with that. Unfortunately, under the “business as usual” scenario, I think we are looking at an additional 3-C by 2100.

Bradford said...

MBW can't read, he says:

"Bradford- It's good to know that the effects are too small to worry about and also so massive and inevitable that we needn't worry about them. Now I'm not worried."

Nope, what I am saying is the effect is real, and it will happen no matter what you do. I am also saying you are essentially clueless as to what will happen when it does. It is not so "big and massive", it is change that is well within the geologic norms we know about. The models also assume so many constants (e.g., volcanic activity, solar output) as to be essentially worthless in the real world.

Do we want a frozen Northern Europe, of course not, but nothing you can do will change whether it happens or not. The same goes for me.

Bradford said...

Neal-

We can agree on assumption one, human induced greenhouse warming is real.

We will continue to disagree on much of the rest. A good punctuated equilibrium is what you are designed for my friend. Without the last one dinosaurs are still running the place. You also need to keep in mind that oxygen, yes oxygen itself, is a by-product of life on the planet and that life essentially killed itself via photosynthesis. The earth is changing, and that is OK! It will happen no matter what you do.

Bradford said...

Sorry, you are correct on this one - I was in the wrong part of the report and quickly read it.

"- “if all radiative forcing agents..”: That means no additional CO2 at all. So they are saying that if you stop all CO2 emissions, you would get at least another 2 decades of warming, at 0.1-C per decade. We could live with that. Unfortunately, under the “business as usual” scenario, I think we are looking at an additional 3-C by 2100."

Mike in Maryland said...

Bradford said...
This event began and ended within a decade and for its 1000 year duration . . . .

Something is wrong with the above 'quote' (hint - a decade is NOT 1000 years), so if your source is so lacking in fact, or ability to realize that a decade is 1% of 1000 years, I would have to doubt the veracity of your 'source'.

And if all of your 'sources' are similar, maybe you should seek out a different set of 'sources' for your information.

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965

Neal said...

Bradford,

If human activity is doing this, human non-activity can also undo it. All we have to do is to stop.

In practice, it's more difficult, because we will want to do something about producing power. However, there is no inherent reason why we should be unable to find a solution. Indeed, in the end, we have to do so: The amount of oil is finite, and even the amount of coal is finite. Unless we expect humans to go belly-up in 400 years, we had better find a solution. So why not find it NOW, instead of waiting until we've damaged our planet?

If there were a giant meteorite headed towards the earth, I think we'd be working very hard for a solution. The situation is not much different: The damage would be done in a few minutes and days, rather than years; but from a geological perspective, both these time scales are minute.

Bradford said...

Neal-

I agree and said up the post we need to get off foreign oil, and off fossil fuels is even better. The problem is that will not happen in the short term (blame Reagan for killing Carter's energy policy) so what do we do? We have three choices -

1) do nothing (this is fine with me as energy prices will rise eventually and alternatives develop)
2) Stop all fossil fule use (then we get huge riots and death across the planet as people can't eat or feed their families)
3) Try to do something between 10 and 2) (the problem here is that anything I think we can do in the West, is more than offset in the BRIC countries as they develop)

Thus, the only real answer is one above.

Bradford said...

And one above is where we are heading anyway - so lets just have fun on the way. It might all work out, and it might not, but we might get hit by a meteor or have a super-valcanoe explode next month and then any climate change we worked on is shot anyway.

Michael said...

Bradford: Uuuuh, how about "put more funding towards alternative energy research"? It's certainly not "do nothing", and it's a scenario where the "free market" is very likely not sufficiently motivated - since alt-energy research has something of a free rider problem going on, as well as potentially excessive discounting of long-term costs.

Governmentally-funded alt-energy research isn't "shut down all fossil fuel usage", but it's not "do nothing", either.

Neal said...

Bradford,

I think a much better approach than "doing nothing" is to push for technological development. There is no obvious reason why progress cannot be made on sequestering CO2. If, for example, it were possible to run carbon sequestration on a coal plant at a cost of 3% (and keep the CO2 safe), I think that would be well worthwhile.

Remember, we get a lot of use out of our planet. If 25% of animal and plant species die out in the next 100 years (actually a rather plausible number, from my reading), there will be unpredictable effects on the environment. Example: When sea otters vanished from kelp forests, the kelp forests disappeared completely - because there was no one to eat the sea urchins that ate the kelp. Plus, we get a lot of medicines from work on rainforest species of plants and animals. We will lose a lot of birds, leading to an excess of insects.

Michael (mbw) said...

@Neal- Thanks for being a fellow voice of reason, and without all my embarrassing typos.

@Bradford- I'm glad you're current on popular science, e.g. punctuated equilibria, and that you've heard of the photosynthetic change in the atmosphere. You're saying that on a geologic timespan species come and go. So let's just go with the flow.
I guess I could take that from a genuine non-materialist mystic. The problem is that the people who are pushing such cosmic equanimity the hardest shriek the loudest at the thought of losing up to several percent of their disposable income to put off the next catastrophe for another few thousand or tens of thousands of years, until the next actual out-of-our-control event.

Mike in Maryland said...

So it looks to me that Bradford has a 'Trust in the Lord, he'll do what's right for us, no matter what we do' attitude.

Pure stupidity.

IF there is a God, why did he give us brains and independent thought if he/she/it didn't want us to use them to help ourselves?

If that is your thought process, maybe some reading of what the Archbishop of Canterbury stated in late March, 2009, might give you some pause:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1164946/God-wont-protect-humanity-environmental-doomsday-warns-Archbishop.html

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965

Kevin said...

It is worth noting that in trade magazines polls show that engineers believe in global warming at a massively LOWER rate than the rest of the population.

Why are people more educated than the population, specifically in the sciences, so skeptical?

Because we understand scale. I'm with all of you on stopping pollution and reducing emissions - including the possibility they might cause global warming. But until you can show me an experiment that proves they will lead to global warming, forget it.

Global warming is no more provable than God is with the technology we have today. We can barely understand what is happening to fluids in pipes on an analytical level, much less the flow of all these vastly mixed gases across an entire planet.

Which leads us to take measurements and come up with theories and try to support those theories with measurements - but measurements don't PROVE that a theory is correct until you can explain exactly why. More theories that sounded great and matched with experimental results in physics, chemistry, biology, and mechanics have later been disproven by new observations. Considering how little data we have and how much linear extrapolation there is going on (usually a sign a theory is wrong - what happens in the corner cases?) - I'm not convinced in the least.

Why is climatology any different from the other sciences?

And Bradford is nailing it, the whole real issue here is scale. Green house gasses can influence our climate - but the Sun will influence it orders of magnitude more. There are plenty of things we could be doing first that are more important. Fix the sewers so they don't run off into the ocean. Figure out how to protect the rainforest, stop the stupid production of ethanol at the expensive of real forest land.

Climate change? Call me when we actually have a problem.

Michael (mbw) said...

@MinM-No, in defense of Bradford, he's not a religious nut. He's taking the large-scale hopelessness of our position in the universe and using it as an excuse to do nothing about an relatively straightforward medium time-frame problem. Because doing something might be inconvenient, and you can't expect someone who's reconciled himself to near-future mass famines to put up with current inconvenience too. But at least he makes the argument without sky monsters.

susan said...

Appalling that people think they can "vote" about the developing bio-chemical-geo-physical etc. crisis. There's plenty of real world evidence all around us, despite the cooler year just behind us (which is partially a result of the melting Arctic).

One reason, I think, it that now the election is over the denial contingent has lots more time and energy to spend amplifying the opinions of a tiny (1-3%) fraction of scientists who deny global warming. Many of the other "experts" are people like Inhofe/Morano (former Limbaugh staffer) and Bush favorite, the science fiction writer Crichton, and their handpicked nonspecialist opinionators. Would you have a dentist do heart surgery; or a dental technician? A plumber?

Take a look at the BBC or the NYTimes DotEarth, for centrist points of view. For true expertise, RealClimate, Monbiot at the Guardian, ClimateProgress. For answers to common denialist talking points, there are a host of resources, amongst which my current favorite is www.celsias.com.

Science is a big debate, and it's almost over. The IPCC is an overly moderate document due to its framing; the world's best effort to create a common effort. It is being demonstrated to underestimate the case by facts on the ground.

Kevin said...

Neal,

The situation can not be any more different from the one you propose.

If an asteroid was going to hit us, we would know with certainty its trajectory and if it was a threat.

With global warming you have a bunch of people - many not experts - taking a big fat ruler and drawing a straight line ever upward based on a few dozen years of data.

What if they are wrong? Why turn our world on its head for no reason? There is not even consensus, much less certainty. There has been consensus on wrong theories many times before, so if the theory is so shakey we aren't even at consensus I would never vote to destroy our economy today.

Michael (mbw) said...

Kevin- Interesting data about engineers. Now explain why physicists, chemists, and biologists have the opposite view.
You do understand that about 1/2 the predicted warming comes directly from simple thermodynamic calculations, using exactly known thermal spectra and optical absorption cross sections? That all the argument is about the last factor of about two, caused by positive feedback effects? And that those feedback effects are shared with the solar forcing term? And that for some time the solar forcing variability has been much smaller than the greenhouse effect is becoming?

Unfortunately, having helped educate thousands of engineers, I'm aware of how many of them rely on look-up tables etc. and don't care to understand basic conservation laws and their consequences.

susan said...

It's sad that our disrespect for education has made us so ignorant about the process of science, and that a bunch of industry funded think tanks have been able to delude the public into thinking their wishful/magic thinking is better than real research. Wattsupwiththat may be popular, but it is an advocacy site.

Industry spends a million dollars a day lobbying against climate change.

Exxon Mobil spends a tenth of what it receives in subsidies to lobby Congress: good return on earnings, given their recordbreaking profits in an otherwise desperate economy, don't you think?

Neal said...

Kevin,

It is an interesting question as to why engineers are so convinced GW is not real. By the way, that is NOT true of scientists, who are generally better trained technically and more used to exploration.

From discussion with engineers on this topic, I think there are three main reasons:
- Engineers are uncomfortable with problems that don't have a nice selection of pre-defined answers.
- Engineers are generally well-educated in a fairly narrow area, but not in many others. They are used to being able to make firm decisions based on their area of expertise. Climate science draws on many areas of physics as well as on a lot of information about the atmosphere that is by no means general knowledge. And the data are by nature much harder to gather than what engineers are used to dealing with.
- Engineers are generally conservative politically. Thus, they don't like where they see the problem going (uh oh, it looks like more regulation!) and therefore would prefer to invalidate the problem, rather than have to deal with the solutions.

Bradford said...
This post has been removed by the author.
Michael (mbw) said...

@Neal- I've got to check you're blogger ID to make sure we aren't the same person.

Bradford said...

Mike in Mary-land -

I am not a religious nut, nor do I believe in any greater being. I do strongly believe in evolution, and I know the only true difference between you and your dog is that you have language. I am not surprised your dog is completely clueless, nor am I surprised you are completely clueless.


Mike is a bit filled with hubris, but most people are...

Sacto Joe said...

With the caveat that "proof" for certain people consists of having reality smack them in the kisser, I wonder if there is an ability to use the present world slowdown as a means of calibrating the effect of CO2 emissions? In other words, can we predict what would be the result, in future warming trends, with this year's reduction in CO2 emissions? If so, we should be able to track that result in those future readings, and verify once and for all the overall effect of human-based CO2 emissions.

Thoughts, anyone?

Kevin said...

Michael those terms would assume that we know what will happen with the sun in the future, and what will happen to the climate with high levels of C02.

Do chemists have an opposite point of view? Why did my chemistry professors at my alma mater (which is ranked in the top 10 in the country for chemistry) talk about why the book is far from closed on global warming?

Positive feedback or not - I'm a control engineer, if you don't know if there is postive feedback or not you don't know ANYTHING about the system.

What if the result of global warming is the production of more clouds - reflecting energy back. Then it would be negative reinforcing and lead back to some form of equilibrium. Sure it might not be the average temperature of 1985 that we seem happy with, but it might also not lead to the catastrophy people are alluding to.

And if that is the case, why not worry about more pressing environmental issues?

susan said...

What we have is an irresistible force (population/consumerism/exploitation) and an immovable object (earth). We are now increasingly changing our environment. Any measures to slow down the increase are just a start.

It's not a straight line, it's an upward curving line. Now that methane is being released by Arctic melting (it's over 20 times more powerful than CO2, though it doesn't last as long) we are approaching the irreversible. Denialists are fond of taking 1998 as the beginning, as it was an exceptionally warm year, and then forgetting everything else except before 400 million years ago.

GIGO

Bradford said...

Neal-

We agree that engineers are not scientists, in fact in many ways they are the opposite (please don't experiment on my bridge). That said, the number of scientists who truly believe in global warming is very high - I believe in it - the question though is deeper than that and many scientists are like me and strongly disagree with the sky is falling scenarios and the political correctness that has squelched the needed debate.

Neal said...

Kevin,

The problem of climate studies is just a lot harder than any engineering problem than has ever been dealt with. That's the nature of the problem. Sorry, nothing to be done about that: It's just the way things are.

The nature of the consequence is that IF the problem is as real as the experts believe it to be, simply waiting for things to become clearer is a very bad idea. It's analogous to waiting until the meteorite hits the atmosphere before thinking about what to do. And you know what they say about it taking 10 miles to turn a battleship around? It takes at least 20 years to turn the Earth's heating around.

susan said...

Not all engineers deny global warming.

belli - casus belli

susan said...

oops, more:

It's not a question of "belief" in the religious sense. It's a question of evidence. There's a lot of confusion on this point thanks to the suppressive efforts of Reagan and Bush. Check out the economy if you think this was a good idea. The effects linger.

Chris Mooney (Storm World and The Republican War on Science) and Sharon Begley have done a good job exposing this, along with some others.

susan said...

Exampole: The George C. Marshall Institute, founding member Fred Seitz, former head of AAAS (now deceased). Plenty of evidence (see google) that Seitz sold out, first to the tobacco industry, then to other industry sources. May have been power as well as money. Sounds credible until you look.

Sacto Joe said...

Actually, it's possible to turn a battleship around in considerably less distance. Of course, to do so would intail things like running it into a sandbar....

publius said...

Global-warming deniers would be mildly amusing if they didn't imperil the rest of us.

By the time some of these idiots are convinced, it will be way too late.

The arctic is losing ice at a rate in excess of even the most-dire predictions.

When the thermohaline circuit shuts down, Europe will be rendered unlivable (ironically by freezing to death, but it's still caused by global warming).

Crops will fail, famine will spread, diseases will spread--it will be like all those bibilical plagues, only real.

But at least I'll get to say I told you so.

Bradford said...

Neal-

How quaint. What do you base the twenty year "turnaround" on. It certainly is not any fact based scientific body that says heating will likely continue for hundreds of years (assuming of course everything else in their model is correct and does not change - a chance of near zero).

I recommend the IPCC report above.

Kevin said...

Neal,

If we really get to the point where temperatures start rising - are we sure it wouldn't just be easier to reflect some of the sunlight than to change our entire economy?

Nanomaterials are getting better everyday, launching things into space is a solved problem. If we are talking about changing our entire energy infrastructure with no viable technology that can replace it (other than nuclear, which many irrationally oppose), we might get to the point where its cheaper to lower the optical absorption than it is to change the amount of greenhouse gases.

In which case why destroy today for the prospect of something possibly going wrong tomorrow.

Bradford said...

publuis said:

"Global-warming deniers would be mildly amusing if they didn't imperil the rest of us."

None of us on this string are global warming deniers, so thanks for actually the posts.

As for the shutdown of ocean currents - the whole point is they are going to happen, or they are not going to happen, and there ain't one thing you are going to do about it.

Neal said...

Bradford,

There is a legitimate difference between the questions of:
a) Is AGW happening? and
b) What should we do about it?

I'm glad we can agree on a "Yes" for a).

I think the political correctness issue has arisen because the oil companies have hired some of the same people that worked for the tobacco companies to discredit the science in the same way. (This is quite well-documented, by the way.) In this society's "on this side, on that side" media world, lots of people have spent a lot of time denigrating the science behind the issue. Many of the points to which you have agreed are still considered controversial in some places, because Fred Singer wrote books and articles claiming they are wrong. So what do real scientists do when faced with someone who doesn't mind lying to your face? They get p-sd off, and they don't always handle it gracefully: Debate is not part of the usual scientific training, and neither is dealing with lies.

With regards to the extent of the harm: If you look at the IPCC report, they bracket a range of harmful consequences, depending on the specific scenarios concerning what people will do with respect to industry. There is almost too much information to digest in these studies, they should probably simply for the sake of presentation. However, I think it is important that the plausible worst-case must be considered, because it could happen. We cannot expect a "forgiving" planet to bail us out of the situation. For all practical purposes, we humans are the management of the planet.

Neal said...

Bradford,

I stole the 20 years from your quotation from the IPCC report above: "Turn off the CO2 additions, the world continues to heat for another 20 years."

Michael (mbw) said...

@kevin- The approximate value of the feedback coefficient is what all that modeling and fitting to real data has been all about. We know that the net feedback is positive- that's needed to account for both the responses to greenhouse gases and to solar variations. The negative feedback terms which you refer to are well-known but smaller than the positive feedback terms. The uncertainty in estimating the non-feedback albedo increase from other human activities is precisely the biggest source of uncertainty in using the temperature record to calibrate the feedback coefficient.

You write as if you hadn't been following the issue in any technical publications.

Neal said...

Kevin,

If we start reflecting light off the upper atmosphere, what will that do to vegetation that depends on that sunlight?

People have also considered adding reflective ash to the atmosphere: but it causes acid rain.

People have also thought about adding iron to the ocean, to accelerate the uptake of CO2 by foraminafera: the most recent test didn't work; but even if it did, what would be the follow-on consequences?

The point is: For every effect, you can think of a cure. But what will be the consequences of the cure itself? Often it's impossible to predict.

Whereas, we know what happens if we cut back on CO2, because not so long ago we weren't putting out so much CO2. From an engineering perspective: If we can cut back on CO2 emissions, we are within the parameters of our already explored space. When we try out exotic cures, we are pushing into unexplored regions of parameter space. It might be interesting, but it isn't a safe way to arrive at a solution.

Opus 132 said...

What if they are wrong? Why turn our world on its head for no reason? There is not even consensus, much less certainty. There has been consensus on wrong theories many times before, so if the theory is so shakey we aren't even at consensus I would never vote to destroy our economy today. .

And what if you're wrong?

Which "wrong" is worse? Theirs has economic consequences.Yours has apocalyptic consequences.I'll happily pay for an insurance policy.

Mike in Maryland said...

Bradford,

Look carefully at what I stated:

So it looks to me that Bradford has a 'Trust in the Lord, he'll do what's right for us, no matter what we do' attitude.

Did I state that you definitely have a belief in a god?

No.

I stated it looks to me that you have an attitude of one.

I could be mistaken.

But since you have a "we can't do anything, so why should we try" attitude, that is exactly what a lot of the religious-wackos believe in, and not many non-religious types have such an attitude. The probability that you are a religious-wacko is greater with the "we can't do anything, so why should we try" attitude than you not being a religious-wacko.

And by the way - who is the one filled with hubris? You are making the "we can't do anything, so why should we try" statements, and others are trying to tell you we SHOULD try for many reasons, not only for the global climate change reasons.

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965

Neal said...

"What if the consensus is wrong?"

People always ask that. But actually, the number of times that the scientific consensus is wrong is rather small. When that happens, you get a scientific revolution.

How many have there been? Let's count: Copernicus (ok), Galileo (ok), Einstein (no, not really: he was considered very bright and very important almost immediately), quantum mechanics (no: there was a revolution but not a consensus),... So I can think of 2. There are undoubtedly more, depending on what you want to call a consensus, but it's very uncommon.

Even Richard Feynman, in his Nobel Prize speech, pointed out that "The conventional view is probably right", even though he himself specialized in finding the unconventional view.

In the case of AGW, the matter has been studied for over 100 years, the consensus has been building for scientific grounds, and the data seem to be ever more supportive of the AGW point of view. If anything, the situation with ice seems to be happening FASTER than had been expected. And the folks who are fighting the consensus are not the bright young folks, but old fogies who often don't quite believe in computers. We're not talking about anyone here who looks to be trying out for an Einstein role.

moondancer said...

The logic in "we botched this one, so lets do nothing.." escapes me.
The stupidity of saying most engineers think global warming is overwrought doesn't. Engineers, generic, as in most being chemical, civil, electrical, WTF do they know about climatology? Look to the patterns in Australia for a preview of the near future for the Western US.
I struggle to understand the pride with which wingnuts embrace stupidity. Must be a manlove thing for the Chimp. What do you gain from being so obtuse?

Richard said...

I would like to return to the point of this article, if I might. I think that there is a problem with equating the question "Right now, do you think the quality of the environment in the country as a whole is getting better or getting worse?" with specific views on policy positions or the need for further action on environmental issues. I myself would probably have answered "getting better" to this question, thinking about the recent changes in government policy, the presence of a Democrat in the White House, the prospect of proposals for cap-and-trade, etc.

I think, in other words, that what we are seeing is not a belief that environmental problems are solved and that more action is not needed, but optimism that we're on the right track and that this action may actually be taken.

Is there a risk of complacency? Of course. Is there reason to believe that we are collectively succumbing to the same sort of magical thinking that GW-deniers revel in? I doubt it.

eqvfiz said...

Bradford, Fred, Kevin: Guys, clearly none of you are regular visitors to this site (perhaps visiting from among the well-paid legion of climate obfuscators?)

Point is, folks who DO regularly visit this site do so exactly because they appreciate the value of careful and thoughtful analysis of real data, without (or at least with minimal) spin, opinion, and advocacy. Nate's post is framed in the context that global warming is in fact happening and these recent polls are therefore problematic precisely because Nate understands (intimately) the value of careful & thoughtful analysis of real data, and such analyses are fairly close to unequivocal about the general direction of human impacts on climate. (Albeit the magnitude is still quite uncertain).

Give it a rest fellas. You're not going to convince any regulars here.

Rudy said...

Surely even the most rabid of you denier-deniers recognize that the catastrophic case is highly speculative and based on models that have yet to show any forward-predicting accuracy. And if the rationalization is that the penalty for inaction is higher than for action, then I'd expect that you'd also be atttending Sunday School more regularly.

Neal said...

Rudy,

Having spent some time studying textbooks on climate science, my conclusion is that the reasoning is pretty good, and the scientists conducting these studies are more than respectable.

If you care to study some yourself, I can point you to a list of books that I have reviewed on this topic:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0497116/board/thread/64426867?d=64426867#64426867

PorridgeGun said...

liberal_defender_of_freedom said...

This isn't the only instance where Rasmussen stands alone. On every issue where it is a referendum on the Obama administration or Dems in Congress, Rasmussen is consistently out of line with the majority of pollsters.

He's quickly becoming the comical relief that Fox news's fair and balanced statement is.
,



Correctamundo.


http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/4/21/231918/969





Today, Gallup has President Obama at 64% approval rating, with 28% disapproval.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/113980/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Job-Approval.aspx

That's the highest Obama's been since his Not-State of the Union. He's also 66% in a couple of other polls, and 69% in another. Rasmussen has lost all credibility at this point, quite frankly.

PorridgeGun said...

Coreection: Obama was 65% during March, 67% after his address to congress. His highest is is 69%-13% during the transition.

Bradford said...

" Bradford, Fred, Kevin: Guys, clearly none of you are regular visitors to this site (perhaps visiting from among the well-paid legion of climate obfuscators?)"

Bradford and Fred were here near the time this site started, like back when it was still a polling site! Amazing! People disagree with you and you belittle them with no facts! And assinine assumptions!!!!

Go lick your wounds, leave!

Bradford said...

Fizzy-

Shall we compare credentials? Mine crush Nate's when it come to science, and I assume they crush yours as well.

People come to this site for truthful and hinest discussion without spin - that is what I have provided. If the facts disagree with your world view, well, maybe it is you who needs to start thinking.

In the meantime - go fuck yourself.

You said:

"Nate's post is framed in the context that global warming is in fact happening and these recent polls are therefore problematic precisely because Nate understands (intimately) the value of careful & thoughtful analysis of real data, and such analyses are fairly close to unequivocal about the general direction of human impacts on climate. (Albeit the magnitude is still quite uncertain)."

Rudy said...

Neal, your condescending penchant for textbooks might be victim of selection bias. The problem that any good scientist recognizes about climate science is how much it is still in its infancy. Most real scientists are more careful building a cathedral on such a sandy foundation.

Neal said...

Rudy,

The area of climate studies goes back over 100 years. It is older than relativity and quantum mechanics.

The fact that this information is encapsulated in textbooks, that are used in real courses in real universities, in the area of climate science, should tell you something. They build this science on a great deal of quite noncontroversial physics: thermodynamics, gas dynamics, radiative transfer theory, basic atomic physics, etc. This is material is incorporated into textbooks because it is no longer a question of discussion.

Go ahead and try to find a real textbook, used in a high-quality university, for a science course, that propounds climate science according to the GW-deniers.

Michael (mbw) said...

@rudy- The first 50% or so of the projected effects are not sandy at all. They're based on very solid simple physics. The second 50% requires more understanding of climate, and a major international effort using lots of different types of data and modeling has managed to knock the error bars on that down fairly well.

As for what you think real scientists do, you're guessing.

Rudy said...

Neal, it is sad to see an educated man be so naive. Age of science has nothing to do with how perfected it is. The science of astronomy goes back thousands of years, yet we have barely scratched the surface. In both astronomy and climate science, remarkable strides have been made, yet answers to the big questions are as elusive as ever. And every answer generates a deeper set of questions. In both, the more we know shows how little we know.

The problem with climate alamists is that they cross the line from science into theology and mistake correlation with causation. Any valid scientific thesis and concept can be demonstrated prospectively. This is where alarmist science falls down, as the modeling produces incorrect predictions. It will improve over time if done with intellectual honesty, which seems in short supply in the alarmist community.

There is plenty of well-grounded contrary theory in climate science that far much more defensible (based on facts) than the alarmist theories. It is not good science to blithely dismiss those positions without factual grounding just because they do not fall into alarmist orthodoxy.

Rudy said...

Michael, I'm not sure I understand your point. Of course, we all aspire to truth through science. But declaring unproven and speculative science true does not make it so.

The physics are highly complex and prone to simplistic analysis. Again, if the science was as well understood as you infer, the predictive models would be accurate. They are not.

PeteKent said...

Great to see Bradford battling all the global warming loons!

They accused Bush of suppressing evidence of the man-made quality of climate change. Well now we can accuse Obama of his own suppression: that of the effectiveness of enhanced interrogation techniques.

His own Dir of National Intelligence came out with a memo that said that "torture" worked. Obama had that scrubbed from the memo upon its public release. Its covered in Politico today.

This debate on so-called torture may be na important one, but only if we are allowed to speak the truth about it and analyze whether these techniques work and have helped to keep us safe.


In this Orwellian age of the Stalinist mind control, truth is secondary to the mission of grabbing more and more government control in our lives.

No where is this more true than with respect to the causes of global warming where (as here) any suggestion that it might not be man-made, that the trend may be over or abating is met with derision and ridicule.

Obama wants to tax our energy so that carbon fuels become very expensive and we are forced to change our habits out of economic necessity. One would think we should be able to examine much more critically the impact of all of us.

The President bows before the Moslem King and gives Bro Hugs to the Dictator of Latin America b/c he craves their oil, while keeping our locked in the ground.

Wake up people: something here is amiss and we are in danger of losing our freedom!

PeteKent01 (follow me on twitter for stock market trends and American Idol predictions).

Mike in Maryland said...

Richard,

Your comments on the framing of the questions are spot on.

An example: If you took a poll in the late 1960s, during the period when the Cuyahoga River was so polluted it could, and did, catch on fire (such as on June 22, 1969), then take the same poll in early 1971, just after the EPA was established (December 2, 1970), I'm sure that most would have answered in a more positive manner about the state of the environment.

Was there a dramatic improvement in the environment from June 22, 1969 to early 1971?

No, but the public's perception had changed, as now the government was able to study problems in the environment better, and take action to improve the environment.

The exact wording of the questions, plus external factors, is very important to understanding the responses to the poll.

Mike in Maryland

My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965

Michael (mbw) said...

Rudy- Hey, you're not Alan Sokal again are you? The funniest line in his classic parody of postmodernism referred to complex number theory as a "new and still quite speculative branch of mathematical physics."

The black-body radiation spectrum, the absorption spectra for various gases, the equations for radiative heat transfer, are old and extremely well known physics. From them one calculates the radiative forcing term due to anthropogenic greenhouse gases. The positive feedback (from loss of reflective ice, and the greenhouse effect from quickly equilibrating water vapor,...), which amplifies that by about a factor of two has to be calculated by much more laborious techniques, with some error bars. The data and modeling are now sufficient for those errors to be too small to justify inaction. The models have actually predicted not only the total effect but the effects on different continents and at different levels of the atmosphere fairly well.

Bradford said...

Oh Pete-

We are most certainly not on the same team.

VOTE DEMOCRATIC OR DIE!

Bradford said...

Pete-

Bush did suppress the facts around global warming, and he campaigned against it only to accept it as true almost immediately after election.

Bush sucks, but not as bad as Cheney.

Global warming is real, but we cannot stop it, and we do not understand the consequences.

Neal said...

Rudy:

I guess I have more confidence in modern science than you do. It’s provided computers, airplanes, lasers, CDs, nuclear reactors, fluorescent lights, etc. And the science involved merges seamlessly into the science of climate science. I’ve actually read the books I reviewed: Have you? One of them you can get by free download. But you’ll have to be comfortable with partial differential equations to get much benefit from it.

You are in error about the order of argumentation. The warming effect was predicted theoretically from basic concepts about absorption of radiation; and the prediction has been quite good, when all relevant effects have been taken into account, like the sulfate aerosols and volcanic emissions.

If “there is plenty of well-grounded contrary theory”, how come it doesn’t show up in the peer-reviewed scientific literature? Of course there are Lindzen’s speculations on the “iris effect”, but they really haven’t caught on. There’s Spencer’s grumblings, but when you boil them down, he doesn’t really disagree with global warming, he just complains about the cost of fixing the problem – which is not a scientific issue, but a societal issue. There are folks who bring in explanations for one aspect, only to have it pointed out that they’ve explained 10% of what’s going on, and “de-explained” the other 90%. So what well-grounded contrary theory are you talking about?

Neal said...

PeteKent:

“Great to see Bradford battling all the global warming loons!”

Did you notice this quote from Bradford (4:10 pm 22 April): “the number of scientists who truly believe in global warming is very high - I believe in it” ?

Neal said...

Bradford:

You say, "Global warming is real, but we cannot stop it, and we do not understand the consequences."

I don't understand your position. If GW is due to increased CO2 (which is agreed by the vast majority of climate scientists), then it is incorrect to say that "we cannot stop it".

An extreme measure (which I am NOT advocating) would be to stop using fossil fuels suddenly and completely. As we discussed earlier, that would end GW in approximately 20 years. This would constitute "stopping GW".

And there may very well be technological solutions that cut down or even eliminate the emission of CO2. So what makes you say it is impossible?

Insect Litany said...

There's some evidence that people walking through a particular neighborhood at night are getting killed, but all we have to go on is word of mouth ("he said he was going to that new bar once he got through cleaning out his freezer") and normal routine ("she always walked down Willow St. to get home after a game"). Thus far, only one body has been found, and it was dumped in another county, so there really is no proof, only indications. Now, your daughter cuts through the neighborhood in question to get home from work at night. She could go around it, but it would add 5-10 minutes to her walk time. What do you counsel her to do?

If you're the average Republican, you rail about how there's no proof that bad things are happening in that neighborhood, point out how inconvenient it would be to go around it, and send your daughter on her merry way.*

If you're the average Democrat, you decide that the stakes are very high and advise your daughter to be prudent and go around the neighborhood. Hell, even if you're poor you probably scrape together enough cash to get her an old clunker to drive so she doesn't have to walk at all.

The point of all of this is that even if the details of global warming are ambiguous, you should damn well err on the side of not destroying the biosphere (or making it unlivable for humans). The same people who shrug off major climate change as something endurable run scared at the idea of slowing economic growth by a few percentage points. Does this seem incongruent to you (particularly given the impact major climate change would have on the economy)? Do Republicans really only care about putting money in their pockets right now (and let the future be damned)?

Some people won't be convinced of the danger unless and until the planet is actually on fire (and half of those people would still be claiming that it's a natural process). I think that there is some honest scientific skepticism out there, but that the debate is mostly a political one. On one side you have people who worry about indications that man is screwing up the planet. On the other side you have people who don't want to see the danger because it would hurt their pocketbooks. The tragedy about all of this is that by making the debate political, the second group is elevated to equal importance to the first, which makes no sense. It should all be about what scientists believe and not how well politicians can spin things.

Let me finish here by saying that if there's only a 1 in 6 chance we are drastically screwing up the biosphere, let's not play Russian Roulette (and I think the chances are much greater than that).


*And buying your daughter a gun or a car is analogous to allocating significant portions of money to stave off the possibility of major climate change.

Mike said...

Michael (mbw) is right on about the theory being far ahead of the observed warming. Svante Arrhenius, in the 19th century, didn't have a very sophisticated theory, but his ideas of increasing CO2 warming the planet weren't generated as a way of explaining observed warming.

Mike said...

Another thing to consider is that, even if we are completely wrong about the climatic effects of carbon dioxide, or we succeed in creating a technology for reducing global warming by increasing reflectivity with high clouds, we're still left with the chemical effects of doubling the CO2 concentration--namely, ocean acidification. That itself will have huge consequences for the biosphere and civilization.

Michael (mbw) said...

On Mike's ocean remarks:

One of the first consequences will be the dissolving of the coral reefs, wiping out the ecosystems which live around them. Unfortunately, we may have passed the point of no return on that. The idea is to not pass many other such points.

No, Rudy, the pH at which coral dissolves and the acidity of dissolved CO2 are not highly speculative issues.

Michael said...

fred posted as follows:

"As for suffering - is it better from a suffering standpoint to hold Somalia and Bangaldesh down so they can't move to modern carbon based economies, or does it cause less?"

How will Bangladesh do if it's under water?

wv: ganne. Which is what will happen to many island and coastal nations in the near future.

knickelbein5 said...

I wrote this letter to my representatives in Congress. I want people to know the younger generation (my generation) cares about environmental issues and is not a bunch of slackers. Please tell me what you think:

Dear Congress,
My name is Daniel Knickelbein and I am 17 year-old high school student from Oak Park, Illinois. I guess you could call me an “environmentalist,” based on the fact that I believe that global warming is a serious threat to mankind and I believe in the conservation of natural lands and resources in their purest form. But I don’t think I can be labeled as a crazy left-winger because, well, who doesn’t like clean water, or land available for fishing or hiking, or restoring natural forests to their original beauty.
The reason I am writing this letter is because I believe that starting TODAY, the United States Congress must act to pass serious climate change legislation, and must also recognize that we must conserve the few natural lands we still have left in this country.
The science on global warming is unmistakable. When 97 percent of climatologists in this country believe that global warming is man-made and will have serious effects on our world, we must act to do something about that. It is unfathomable to me how some of you in Congress can not address this issue, while you sit and bicker about party ideals.
For those who say that addressing climate change and global warming will hurt the economy, you must think again. As many economists and scientists point out, a “green” economy is an investment in the future, sort of like beginning to tackle the large deficit that has been passed down by many presidents. Now some of you skeptics will say that I am an affluent suburban teenager who has no idea what it is like to experience financial hardship that you say will be cause by tackling global warming. Please think again. My father was a chemist employed at his dream job for 20 years, but when the recession hit, his lab was forced to fire him because of lack of funding. While I am currently by no means poor, my father’s misfortune has left our family in a somewhat difficult situation.
Now, we have any opportunity to help millions of other Americans like my father. If our country (you guys and girls in Congress) decide to invest in my future with green technologies, my father might be able to work again. And yes investing in renewable energy and green technology is MY future. Long after all 535 of you are gone, I would like to live in a safe and prosperous planet, not a planet where I have to worry about where I find my next meal, or my next glass of water. If we continue to allow global warming to go unchecked, that scenario is not exactly science fiction, it could and very well may become reality.
So today, on the 39th Earth Day, I ask every single member of Congress to consider their priorities as some of the most powerful people in the United States. Do you wish to leave your children and grandchildren in a safe and prosperous world? Should we leave them in a place that is dangerous and unhealthy? Should we allow the few remaining natural lands to be destroyed for a profit? These are questions that I hope you will consider when voting on a climate change bill. The only thing I ask of all of you is to please read my letter, and to consider what I have said.
I also want to give thanks to every single one of you for the service you do for your country. I am very lucky to be able to live in a country where I can write this letter freely, and a country where I am able to express my opinions without afterthought.
Please consider what I have said in this letter.
Sincerely,
Daniel Knickelbein

Hu Chi said...

Insect/Neal/Mike

I share your views for the most part. Nobody's climate model can be completely relied on, but to say we can't stop putting CO2 in the air because it's too disruptive to the world economy is absurd.

If there's a relatively small but significant likelihood that our CO2 may have catastrophic effects (I think there is), then lets start by making it a goal to stop CO2 and see what we can do.

Zero carbon is a worthy goal, to be reached as soon as humanly possible, IMHO.

Dark Eden said...

I have to wonder how much of Fox News' budget liberals think they spend on plants and faking news and manufacturing scientific reports and things! Apparently about 95% of Fox News' budget goes to these things, if one is to believe all these liberal commenters!

Or maybe the "consensus" that exists on AGW is a scam? Nono that can't possibly be. Millions of Fox News covert agents HAVE to be behind it all!

Zahlman said...

I'm not even going to try to argue anything in here; I'll just drop a link.

Neal said...

Dark Eden,

Fox News is notorious for putting a lot of spin and misinterpretation on stories they get from newspapers. This doesn't affect ALL their reporting, however: Just science, politics, financial, and current events. I think they do just fine on sports.

The degree of scientific consensus on AGW can be measured by studying the peer-reviewed scientific literature on the subject of global climate change. Naomi Oreske did such a study a few years ago, and found that there were essentially 0% of relevant scientific papers that even tried to cast doubt on the basic concept that there is global warming, and that it is due in large part to the combustion of fossil fuels. (Some folks jumped on her study, and claimed to find some 18 "doubting" papers out of thousands - but after all the dust settled, she was found to be right.)

So, you're almost right: the only correction is that the Fox News folks are NOT covert. They spin & lie to your face.

Bradford said...

Neal-

Go read the IPPC report linked above. The best scientists in the world reached a consensus that the horse has left the barn. Stopping this is damn near impossible. The problem with their model is it assumes a static planet and solar system in all other ways, which we know is not true.

Bradford said...

We can all agree that Fox is not a news channel, it is the TV version of Rush's radio show. Both are unlistenable/unwatchable tripe.

Neal said...

Bradford,

I'm familiar with the IPCC report. There is no doubt that there WILL be warming, but the DEGREE of warming depends very much on what human beings decide to do about producing power. That is why they have twenty or so different scenarios, with different expectations for each of them.

Indeed, if CO2 emissions were to stop entirely, heating would continue for some 20 years, and then stall; over the next several hundred years, average global temperature would decline, as biological mechanisms (foraminafera) took CO2 out of the system and buried it at the bottom of the ocean.

Whereas if current trends in CO2 emissions continue ("business as usual"), we can expect to hit +4 degrees-C warming by 2100, and continued increase going forward.

So the horse is out of the barn, but the horse is still tame, and can be lured back into the barn, for now. Of course if we start firing guns at it, it will head for the hills.

jcd said...

I believe you mean "innumerable" rather than "innumerate."

From the American Heritage Dictionary:

in·nu·mer·ate (ĭ-nōō'mər-ĭt, ĭ-nyōō'-)
1. adj. Unfamiliar with mathematical concepts and methods.
2. n. A person who is unfamiliar with mathematical concepts and methods.
in·nu'mer·a·cy n.

Vern said...

It's ironic that the left tosses aside evolution completely when it comes to their view of the environment. All species both adapt to and change the environment.

Environmental changes are neither good nor bad, simply favorable or unfavorable. The species that adapt will go on, those that do not, won't. It doesn't matter whether the intelligent designer is us - adaptation is NOT design.

ONLY if you take the view that humans are "above" or "outside" of nature can one conclude that we have some special ability (let alone responsibility) to design our own future.

Foregone Conclusion said...

I find it slightly worrying that people are talking about 'Left' and 'Right'. This isn't about ideology, it's about facts.

Mingl: Mitt Romney finds it difficult to mingl

Neal said...

Vern,

The problem with your idea is that evolution takes place on timescales of many thousands, even millions of years. A dramatic change in temperature (few degrees in 200 years) is much faster than anything that evolution is ready to deal with. Evolution is a random process, in order to adapt to changes it takes lots of time. Expecting a species (and a biosphere) to adapt to that rapid a change is like expecting a lizard slammed by a hammer to evolve a shell.

This point has been spelled out by, among others, the eminent biologist E.O. Wilson.

nova_middle_man said...

Blah blah blah argue argue aruge

Anyone want to actually talk about what to do about this issue

Once again its about us. Who cares rival think tanks or cable news is throwing at each other. Its up to the American people to take action.

Neal said...

nova_middle_man:

- Technically: Increased efficiency of end-use (compact fluorescent light bulbs, application of solar energy for heating, co-generation of heating power with electrical usage); development of non-CO2-generating power (solar, wind, improved nuclear); technology for sequestering CO2 while burning fossil fuels.

- Institutionally: Carbon taxes or cap & trade to give incentive to avoid producing CO2. This basically reduces the externalities involved with producing and dumping CO2.

In broad strokes, this is what the Obama program is about.

PeteKent said...

The simple problem with Obama's cap and trade and other schemes to reduce green house gases is that he can only make these things happen in the USA. China, India and Brazil, along with host of other nations in the developing world are not inclined to do anything about the problem. They are too busy growing their economies and trying to expand prosperity for their people to worry about the speculative ills of CO2 gasses.

Obama, on the other hand, has the arrogance and malevolence to vainly try and reduce US output of these green house gases without caring that he will lower our standard of living and further destroy the competitiveness of our industry on a global basis, leading to fewer jobs and less income for our people while we choke on the fumes wafting over the Pacific from Asia.

Madness!

PeteKent01 (follow me on twitter)

Insect Litany said...

PeteKent,

It takes a special kind of hubris to suggest that while we lead the pack of major nations polluting the planet, we aren't obligated to do anything about it because other countries aren't doing it first. We've inflicted many, many years of industrial destruction while the other countries you mentioned aren't nearly as developed as we are. If you wanted to be fair and give everybody the same opportunity, you'd have to give other countries the opportunity to damage the environment for as long as we have. That's not what I am suggesting, but until they do that, you really can't gripe about them having an unfair advantage over us.

According to the data I looked at, if you total the per capita CO2 output of India, China and Brazil it comes out to a little over a 1/4 of ours here in the US. Those countries could increase their emissions ten-fold and still not catch up with us. So I think we have a little leeway here. If we want to address this problem, we need to do something about it ourselves. Nobody is going to follow our lead if we're waiting for them to do things first. Once we start taking serious steps towards reducing our CO2 emissions, then we (and others who are doing similarly) can start to put real pressure on those that aren't.

Also, your line of thinking would have us running sweatshops, silencing troublesome press, and generally doing any unsavory thing other countries do because we don't want to handicap ourselves.

Insect Litany said...

knickelbein5,

Not bad. I doubt I could have written something like that at 17 (I was sadly lacking in focus). I fear that I've become so cynical that I'd never try anything similar. I have to believe that if every person who was worried about global warming wrote a letter like yours that it'd have a major impact, though, so maybe I should get off my lazy ass.

Ema Nymton said...

Gee, Bradford, you're a moron. You know that, right? Just checking.

sam said...

Do they seasonally adjust climate change polling the way they do for unemployment? Because they should. Let's be honest here: Americans are much more likely to feel anxiety over our warming earth in the summer rather than the winter. So, relatively cool early april on the east coast = perceived lack of support for combating climate change. Give it a couple months to pick back up.

uwanna said...

gucci replica handbags
men gucci shoes
Gucci men sneakers
Gucci men moccasins
gucci women sneakers
gucci women boots
Gucci men boots
Gucci
Gucci shop
Gucci bags
Gucci shoes
Replica GUCCI SHOES
wholesale gucci shoes
cheap Gucci handbags
Gucci ON sale
Gucci Belts
Gucci small accessories
Gucci hats & scarves
Gucci wallets
Gucci Handbags
Women Gucci shoes
Men Gucci shoes
discount gucci shoes
cheap Gucci shoes