Americans Link Global Warming To Extreme Weather, Poll Says

nytimes.com:

Scientists may hesitate to link some of the weather extremes of recent years to global warming -- but the public, it seems, is already there.

Read the whole story: nytimes.com

Comments

[OOOOOMY]

07:41 AM on 04/20/2012

PS Attention...Glaciers are expanding Global Warming?

[Jim Milks]

10:09 AM on 04/20/2012

Where did you hear that glaciers are expanding? The latest satellite measurements showed that glaciers were shrinking by a combined 148 billion metric tons per year (Jacob et al. 2012: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature10847.html).

[OOOOOMY]

11:20 AM on 04/20/2012

I heard that reported on Fox somewhere...but you know that Fox lol
In any event, here are a few links to check out for I am sure Al and the overwhelming Consensus of Scientists are in a tizzy about this.
Why even Nasa Scientists. Could these recent additions and all the others be far right whack jobs?
Scientists denounce NASA's 'Unproven Remarks' on Global Warming
50 Former Astronauts and Scientists Denounce NASA Stance on ...
12 more glaciers that haven't heard the news about global warming
Warming? Karakoram glaciers are expanding - Times Of India
Growing Glaciers
List of expanding glaciers
If global warming is real, why are the glaciers expanding
Largest Tide Water Glacier In N. America Greatly Expanding
Evidence of glaciers expanding in size - Environment - ...

[maxwells]

03:57 PM on 04/20/2012

Your attempt to cherry pick/highlight a few contrary anomalies, while you steadfastly ignore the mountain chains of evidence supporting the overwhelming basic trend, amply demonstrates just how LAME your position really is.

It truly amazes me that you can type complete sentences while still able to rationalize such a one-sided perspective.

[keme]

07:30 PM on 04/20/2012

They're not even complete sentences. : )

[north of 60]

11:19 PM on 04/18/2012

A significantly more comprehensive poll indicates that Americans Worry Most About Water Contamination, Least About Global Warming, and that environmental concerns have generally been declining since 2000.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/153875/Worry-Water-Air-Pollution-Historical-Lows.aspx

[palindrom]

08:59 AM on 04/21/2012

Which just goes to show that the right-wing denialist campaign has been doing its job all too well.

[OOOOOMY]

10:19 AM on 04/21/2012

Guess we know where you place your bet....

[Jim Milks]

01:04 PM on 04/18/2012

I'd prefer that Americans base their opinion of climate change on science, not the weather. While polls now show Americans are concerned, I bet the same polls will record a drop in concern levels next winter after a major snowstorm. The reality is that climate change is going to continue for the foreseeable future, regardless of whether or not any one year has a particularly warm or particularly cold winter. How can I be so certain? Physics, specifically thermodynamics.

Average global temperatures are controlled by only two factors: 1) The amount of incoming solar energy and 2) The amount of outgoing infrared energy. That's it. More energy incoming than outgoing? Temperatures rise. More energy outgoing than incoming? Temperatures fall. It's simple thermodynamics. Any time an object shows a net gain or loss of energy, its temperature changes in accordance with the amount of energy gained or lost.

What's this got to do with climate change? The Earth shows a net gain in energy, ranging from 311 terawatts per year up to 456 terawatts per year depending on the solar cycle (Hansen et al. 2005: http://bit.ly/GFmMlL; Hansen et al. 2011: http://bit.ly/yUFAq4). We're going to keep warming until the amount of outgoing infrared equals the amount of incoming solar energy, which will be another 0.64ºC of warming IF CO2 levels stay the same (and they're currently rising at ~2 ppmv per year).

[Jim Milks]

01:22 PM on 04/18/2012

How can I be so certain that CO2 is the reason for the energy imbalance? Beyond 116 years worth of measurements, there are satellite measurements that directly show that CO2 is trapping heat in the atmosphere (e.g. Harries et al. 2001: http://bit.ly/5o7hAK; Chen et al. 2007: http://bit.ly/8090os).

What about other factors like the sun? Couldn't this all be natural? Well, the sun hasn't warmed since the 1950s and has been cooling since 1979 (Lean and Rind 2008: http://bit.ly/xWfgal; Foster and Rahmstorf 2011: http://bit.ly/u2CIdp). Pretty hard for a cooling sun to cause a warming trend. The Milankovitch cycle is currently 6,000 years into a 29,000 cooling trend (Imbrie and Imbrie 1980: http://bit.ly/yKDIBc), so it's not the Milankovitch cycle either. And it's physically impossible for water vapor to drive a global warming trend due to the Clausius-Clapeyron relation. As for natural variation, that can cause trends of up to 0.3ºC for two or three decades at most (Swanson et al. 2009: http://bit.ly/IZZUmk). The current warming trend is nearly 3x larger and 4x longer-lived than expected from natural variation. In short, the warming trend we're in isn't natural. If natural causes were still in control, we'd be in a cooling trend.

[AnthropologistAmongApes]

05:30 PM on 04/18/2012

Great summarization Jim.

[shadduprabbit]

05:37 PM on 04/18/2012

Can't debate against hard fact,let them try. Good show,Jim.

[OOOOOMY]

11:47 AM on 04/20/2012

How can I be so certain? Physics, specifically thermodynamics.
What about other unknowns, and Mother Nature...Simply disgard the thought?
What about all the other reputable scientists that disagree about Global Warming Issue 'Consenus' cast them aside as well?
What about the current glacial expansion?
No doubt Man must be more conscoius of any negative impact and give respect towards our planet ...but we should not have to bankrupt ourselves..Geopolitcal issues are playing a Huge Role In All This..For The Science can only go so far back in times. for any so called science cannot be proven beyound a doubt and as such is speculative at past...Consensus is not Sacrosant.
Copy and paste:
#1 Scientists denounce NASA's 'Unproven Remarks' on Global Warming
#2 50 Former Astronauts and Scientists Denounce NASA Stance on ...
#3 12 more glaciers that haven't heard the news about global warming
#4 Warming? Karakoram glaciers are expanding - Times Of India
#5 Growing Glaciers
#6 List of expanding glaciers
#7 If global warming is real, why are the glaciers expanding
#8 Largest Tide Water Glacier In N. America Greatly Expanding
#9 Evidence of glaciers expanding in size - Environment - ...

[Jim Milks]

03:40 PM on 04/20/2012

Read my second post. I covered the natural sources of climate change here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Jim_Milks/global-warming-weather_n_1433381_148857685.html

As for your other "evidence," I dealt with that here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/social/Jim_Milks/global-warming-weather_n_1433381_149359346.html

[gallon]

06:33 PM on 04/20/2012

Each of your canards can be refuted. Several of them are complete nonsense.

[thetruthhurts2010]

06:54 AM on 04/18/2012

Where's the article about the glaciers getting bigger in the Himalayas? They haven't gotten smaller. They've actually increased in size and it leaves scientists baffled because it does not fit their global warming/climate change template scare tactic.

[Dallas Dunlap]

07:51 AM on 04/18/2012

thetruthhurts2010 - Here's an article: -mystery-Some-Himalayan-glaciers-getting-bigger
Note that the report says "SOME Himalayan glaciers" and that the glacier under study has an unusually large rock debris component, so it is different from other glaciers wrt to ambient temperature.
The vast majority of glaciers in the world are still melting, though.

[ILoveFiction]

08:09 AM on 04/18/2012

Thank you for misinforming us.

[thetruthhurts2010]

06:57 AM on 04/20/2012

How is that misinforming you. It's a real article and it has a number of scientists wondering how it doesn't fit their narrative. Or do you mean anything that doesn't fit your wacked lefty vision of the world as being misinformation?

[bornorange]

06:45 AM on 04/18/2012

Why is it that the green left has to always misrepresent the issue to try to gain support for devastating regulation of "green house gases"??

Note the way this poll question was asked... "When invited to agree or disagree with the statement, “global warming is affecting the weather in the United States,” 69 percent of respondents in the new poll said they agreed, while 30 percent disagreed."

Did the verbiage prior to "global warming" say "man-made"? I think not.

Yet this poll will be touted in the media as a public affirmation to close coal plants, stop oil drilling and tax the heck out of us...

Don't fall for it America!

[palindrom]

08:18 AM on 04/18/2012

The question said what it said.

Oh, and there is essentially no doubt among informed experts that the majority of the warming is due to anthropogenic CO2. The only "debate" about this is pushed by disingenuous PR types who use a sympathetic right-wing media to uncritically trumpet their "doubt".

[bornorange]

06:02 AM on 04/19/2012

What exactly is "essentially no doubt?" What is the "majority of the global warming?"

The English language is a wonderful, revealing thing.

[Trepasky]

10:19 AM on 04/18/2012

No instead continue to believe the propaganda of Heartland and Lizner both funded by oil companies. They both fought the tobacco wars. They were paid to convince Americans that smoking was safe and did not cause cancer.

Are you also paid or just a freelance opportunist seeking to spread misinformation?

[bornorange]

06:06 AM on 04/19/2012

If you will re-read my post, I think you will find that the point I was making was about how poll results GENERALLY reflect the pollster's desired results.

The results are steered by the phraseology...

[OC Surfer]

05:17 AM on 04/18/2012

The public has most definitely put concerns about "Global Warming"/"Climate Change"/"Armageddon for Cute Penguins" on the back burner.

[thetruthhurts2010]

06:55 AM on 04/18/2012

Because many of us have to feed our families first. But many on the left don't understand that.

[Dallas Dunlap]

08:20 AM on 04/18/2012

tehtruthhurts2010 - Unfortunately, global warming continues regardless of your family's economic situation.
I personally don't believe that a coordinated, deliberate transition away from fossil fuels will affect your ability to feed your family. However, whether your children will be able to avoid hunger and deprivation when they are in their middle years depends on whether we can slow global warming.

[kwaut lizard]

12:36 PM on 04/18/2012

Hypocrite. You just admitted that your other posts are fallacious.

[wakeupyouall]

01:48 AM on 04/18/2012

Well that good at least they are starting to have a clue. I guess if GOD HAMMERS YOU ENOUGH You begin to wake up.

[thetruthhurts2010]

06:57 AM on 04/18/2012

And I'm sure you're one of those that believes the earth never had weather before humans got here. Before humans it was all puffy clouds and rainbows.

[palindrom]

08:20 AM on 04/18/2012

Logical fallacy:

"The climate changed before, therefore we aren't causing it."

is equivalent to

"There were forest fires before humans existed, therefore humans cannot cause a forest fire."

which is obviously false. Things can have more than one cause. In this case, the cause is well-established by incontrovertible physics -- anthropogenic CO2.

[maxwells]

08:17 PM on 04/18/2012

Why do people like you keep posting this stale meme?

Aren't you able to see that it has a gaping logical fallacy?
Isn't it as obvious to you as it is to everyone else?

Apparently not.

But given that you type complete sentences, I'm sure you'd pass a simple IQ test, if the questions weren't based on some hot button issue.

Is your ideology really that blind, not just to facts, but to all logic?

Honestly, I really don't get why you'd post such transparent nonsense, thinking it proves your point or even that it means anything at all.