'Whatever happened to global warming?'

[Dick Whitman]

Interesting NYT piece today on how climate change has completely dropped off the American policy radar.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/sunday-review/whatever-happened-to-global-warming.html?_r=1&hp

For example, according to the piece, a few years ago, 79 percent of Americans believed that the earth was warming. Today, only 59 percent do.

Obviously, other issues have come to the forefront in the meantime - mostly the sputtering economy. But it's fascinating to me from a mass psychology standpoint how people go a step further and feel the need to rationalize their waning interest. It's not enough to say, "I believe the earth is warming, but I'm not sure if dealing with it is the best allocation of our resources at this moment in time when the economy is in trouble." Instead, it seems that people feel the need to tell themselves that it's not even a problem any more.

At least that's my interpretation. As always, I'm open to others.

 

[HejiraHenry]

And I think a more nuanced argument has emerged, in which folks (like me) acknowledge climate change - the climate is always changing, always has and always will - without buying into the significance of the man-made aspect.

 

[Dick Whitman]

And I think a more nuanced argument has emerged, in which folks (like me) acknowledge climate change - the climate is always changing, always has and always will - without buying into the significance of the man-made aspect.

Well, first of all, that "nuanced argument" is incorrect. Is there uncertainty? Yes. But that's not a good thing. Because the uncertainty is about whether things will be worse than anticipated.

But more germane to this article is why the United States is so out of step with the rest of the world. They are suffering struggling economies, as well. Sometimes even worse than us. But climate change has not vanished from their policy radar. Right or wrong, why have we reacted differently?

 

[CarltonBanks]

Is the climate changing? Yes, it always has changed. It is called the changing of the seasons. Yesterday in Ohio the high temp. was 64. The record, set in 1946, was 83. Things that make you go, "Hmmmmm."

The climate changes. Man has nothing to do with it. All the junk science and manipulated data in the world does not change things.

 

[Dick Whitman]

IYesterday in Ohio the high temp. was 64. The record, set in 1946, was 83.

This is like saying that Justin Verlander should not win the Cy Young Award because when you watched him throw one pitch, it was a ball.

 

[BTExpress]

But more germane to this article is why the United States is so out of step with the rest of the world.

We cannot even fully commit to the metric system. It's almost as if it's our policy to be contrarian.

 

[CarltonBanks]

IYesterday in Ohio the high temp. was 64. The record, set in 1946, was 83.

This is like saying that Justin Verlander should not win the Cy Young Award because when you watched him throw one pitch, it was a ball.

What about the fact that we have not set a record for the high temp. in Ohio all year? Or is that just a series of Verlander balls?

My best advice for those who are arguing with people from the Church of Man-made Global Warming is this: Here is the only response they will not have an excuse for..."YADADADADADADADA."

 

[Dick Whitman]

IYesterday in Ohio the high temp. was 64. The record, set in 1946, was 83.

This is like saying that Justin Verlander should not win the Cy Young Award because when you watched him throw one pitch, it was a ball.

What about the fact that we have not set a record for the high temp. in Ohio all year? Or is that just a series of Verlander balls?

Yes. Absolutely. The fact that Ohio has not set a single-day record for high temperature this year is less than a series of Justin Verlander balls. Far less. Perhaps there is an argument that man's effect on climate change is not as great as the scientific consensus. Cherry-picking an arbitrary, miniscule sample size is not that argument.

 

[TheSportsPredictor]

Whatever is the meme of the moment is what the politicians will go for. Doesn't matter if it's true or not.

 

[Azrael]

All the junk science and manipulated data in the world does not change things.

www.salon.com/2011/10/15/the_republican_war_on_science_is_un_american/singleton/

 

[NoOneLikesUs]

Rolling Stone has been killing it on the issue of climate change in the last few months. The recent feature about Australia was chilling.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/climate-change-and-the-end-of-australia-20111003

 

[Evil Bastard (aka Chris_L)]

When I was growing up every TV show had an episode where the hero was imperiled by quicksand. Gilligan's Island, The Six-Million Dollar Man - it didn't matter what show or genre - every show had an episode where quicksand came into play.

It seems that Global Warming has dried up all the quicksand because it has somehow been completely eliminated as a plot device.

For that I'm thankful.

 

[User 11148]

Perhaps there is an argument that man's effect on climate change is not as great as the scientific consensus.

What reading on this that I've done suggests that there's very little consensus on this facet of the issue (which is a pretty damn big facet with respect to policy discussions).

 

[Dick Whitman]

Perhaps there is an argument that man's effect on climate change is not as great as the scientific consensus.

What reading on this that I've done suggests that there's very little consensus on this facet of the issue (which is a pretty damn big facet with respect to policy discussions).

You and I must be doing different reading then. The models are designed to replicate greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at various concentrations.

I think there is an absolute consensus that climate change is a man-driven phenomenon. Where the consensus breaks down is what the result will ultimately be. They can pretty much only estimate a range. As complex as the models are and as good as we are at modeling, there are things that climate scientists have a difficult time modeling. A big one is clouds, for example. Another one is the effects of melting permafrost that releases pent-up CO2.

 

[Batman]

IYesterday in Ohio the high temp. was 64. The record, set in 1946, was 83.

This is like saying that Justin Verlander should not win the Cy Young Award because when you watched him throw one pitch, it was a ball.

Or saying that he definitely should because you watched him strike out one batter.

 

[Dick Whitman]

The "It was cold in Ohio yesterday" argument is so absurd that it makes me begin to suspect that Carlton is actually just pushing our buttons with all his conservative stuff. Trolling even.

 

[CarltonBanks]

The "It was cold in Ohio yesterday" argument is so absurd that it makes me begin to suspect that Carlton is actually just pushing our buttons with all his conservative stuff. Trolling even.

I didn't make that argument. Sometimes I think you act ignorant on purpose to push buttons. Or trolling even.

 

[Dick Whitman]

The "It was cold in Ohio yesterday" argument is so absurd that it makes me begin to suspect that Carlton is actually just pushing our buttons with all his conservative stuff. Trolling even.

I didn't make that argument.

"Yesterday in Ohio the high temp. was 64. The record, set in 1946, was 83."

 

[Herbert Anchovy]

Arctic sea ice is at record thin levels. That isn't alarmism. It's documented fact.

And the problem isn't going to just go away as so many pinheads wish all of our problems would.

 

[User 11148]

Perhaps there is an argument that man's effect on climate change is not as great as the scientific consensus.

What reading on this that I've done suggests that there's very little consensus on this facet of the issue (which is a pretty damn big facet with respect to policy discussions).

You and I must be doing different reading then. The models are designed to replicate greenhouse gases in the atmosphere at various concentrations.

I think there is an absolute consensus that climate change is a man-driven phenomenon. Where the consensus breaks down is what the result will ultimately be. They can pretty much only estimate a range. As complex as the models are and as good as we are at modeling, there are things that climate scientists have a difficult time modeling. A big one is clouds, for example. Another one is the effects of melting permafrost that releases pent-up CO2.

Let me clarify, without (hopefully) getting too bogged down in details. The reading I've done suggests there's a consensus on man's causing most of the warming that's gone on since the mid-1900s, but that's not all the warming that's possible. There's been plenty of warming that's gone on well in the past (absent humans' effects) and there likely will be warming -- and cooling -- in the future even if not another ton of CO2 is released into the air by humans. So the question is, if humans keep it up, where's it going to go? And there's lots of legitimate, scientifically informed, disagreement regarding the answer to that question.

The global warming question plays out at several levels, from "what is going on" to "who/what is at fault" to "what should we do?" As we move up the chain, as I understand it, scientific consensus dissipates.

You're right about the models. Those are real bears to do correctly. I don't know if you ever read James Gleick's "Chaos," but he writes about modelers trying to develop global climate approximations. One thing they found is that, in the models, lots of times the climate flips from a relatively warm climate (like what we have) to an enduring ice age. Such a development is simply the joint occurrence of relatively rare (but not impossible) events. Once the climate flips that way, then you have to wait around for another freaky coincidence of different factors.