Americans Believe climate Change is Real, and a Real Problem

[bush_cheney2004]

Well gee...if it is a "vast vast" majority, how can it grow any more ?

[waldo]

Yes, small as in trying to determine the sign of the derivative of crop yields with respect to CO2 concentrations at current levels (around 400 ppm).

would that with... or without... real-world crop yield growth limiting factors? Would that be in your non-real world, artificial, controlled greenhouse bubble... or will step into the real world? Since you've openly stated to being against mitigation pursuits/policies, that 400 ppm will continue to rise, so, uhhhh..... in your non-real world greenhouse bubble, how do design for adaptation measures for growth limiting influences that you don't factor in the first place?

.

[-1=e^ipi]

Perhaps it would be if you think this evaluation would sway the vast vast and growing majority of scientists, experts and professionals who remain convinced that things will be far from groovy, beneficial or positive at all.

You have yet to define what you mean by groovy, and the rest of this comment is vague as well.

[-1=e^ipi]

would that with... or without... real-world crop yield growth limiting factors? Would that be in your non-real world, artificial, controlled greenhouse bubble... or will step into the real world? Since you've openly stated to being against mitigation pursuits/policies, that 400 ppm will continue to rise, so, uhhhh..... in your non-real world greenhouse bubble, how do design for adaptation measures for growth limiting influences that you don't factor in the first place?

I'm unsure if you've been using the term 'growth limiting factors' correctly but whatever...

With respect to your question, the answer is the full derivative, not the partial. Since ultimately it is the full derivative that is more relevant when trying to evaluate the best course of action.

[waldo]

Urban Dictionary - 'groovy': It means "excellent", "tubular", "awesome", or "cool"

now was that so hard?

your derivative shtick is just so you! Oh, and don't cut yourself on the razor, hey.

[-1=e^ipi]

Urban Dictionary - 'groovy': It means "excellent", "tubular", "awesome", or "cool"

now was that so hard?

The word doesn't make much sense in the context provided.

your derivative shtick is just so you! Oh, and don't cut yourself on the razor, hey.

Do us all a favour and learn some basic calc. Please.

[jbg]

Another day expected to get to about 30, maybe a bit under. About 22 outside now. Birds are chirping, low humidity. Little evidence of an end of the world problem. I'm going out to play tennis and enjoy.

[waldo]

Another day expected to get to about 30, maybe a bit under. About 22 outside now. Birds are chirping, low humidity. Little evidence of an end of the world problem. I'm going out to play tennis and enjoy.

not sure why you keep dropping these kinds of posts... isn't this more appropriate as a status update? Just what is it you're trying to say here, hey?

[eyeball]

You have yet to define what you mean by groovy, and the rest of this comment is vague as well.

You need to learn common conversational English.

[jbg]

not sure why you keep dropping these kinds of posts... isn't this more appropriate as a status update? Just what is it you're trying to say here, hey?

Trying to say that I find optimistic things about my environment. I don't try to be miserable.

[Keepitsimple]

Trying to say that I find optimistic things about my environment. I don't try to be miserable.

That's the weird dichotomy about the eco-nuts......if we are indeed facing a Global Warming Armageddon, you'd think that they would be happy - or at least curious - about a 15-20 year plateau in temperatures and about all the computer models being over-sensitive to Climate system feedback. But instead of embracing the potential for GW "moderation" - they double-down, shrilly scream that it's worse than they thought - and shoot any messenger to the contrary. It's as if they want Armageddon. Poor, mis-guided dupes. Jbg - you and I will continue on thinking positive......by the way, I'm heading out to tennis as well.

[waldo]

Poor, mis-guided dupes. Jbg - you and I

yes - you are!

is your globe in 'global warming' limited to surface temperature only... is that why you keep yammering on about a so-called 'pause'... which even in your purposeful isolated/skewed view of the globe, that "pause" isn't what you think it is, hey? And, didn't we just deal with your latest go-around nonsense concerning models just a short while ago?

you keep, as you say, 'thinking positive'... and let the other guy 'try not to be miserable'... sounds like you've found your personal coping mechanisms!

[cybercoma]

That's the weird dichotomy about the eco-nuts....

Why does everyone feel it's necessary to throw around insults in these discussions?

[-1=e^ipi]

You need to learn common conversational English.

Sigh, I have explained the importance in using clear and precise language when discussing various issues (especially climate science) but you seem to not care. So I'll respond to your original question in 'conversational English':

'Yeah man, climate change will be super groovy, man. It will trap more of the sun's warmth through the magic of the ozone layer or something, man! This will make the environment more energetic, which will make things more groovy through the power of qi. Also, all the extra plant food will be good for weed, which will make things even more groovy as there will be marijuana everywhere.'

Edited June 30, 2014 by -1=e^ipi

[eyeball]

Okay, so when will the purely positive effects be realized, after an interegnum or a business cycle or two?

[-1=e^ipi]

Okay, so when will the purely positive effects be realized, after an interegnum or a business cycle or two?

I already answered this... If you are talking about the CO2 fertilization effect there is basically no time delay.

[eyeball]

I'm talking about the groovy positive economic effects caused by increased C02.

[Bonam]

Why does everyone feel it's necessary to throw around insults in these discussions?

Probably because of the tone set for years now by one particular poster in these climate science threads...

[jbg]

Probably because of the tone set for years now by one particular poster in these climate science threads...

Don't make fun of him. I know a very sweet bassett hound (probably the only sweet one of that breed) with that name.

[Keepitsimple]

Why does everyone feel it's necessary to throw around insults in these discussions?

Sorry Cyber - I only refer to the extremists - those deniers who refuse to at least examine the factors behind the biased computer models - virtually all of which grossly over-estimated the sensitivity of the Climate System, whose predictions of increased hurricanes, rising seas, polar bear extinctions and more - have all proven to be either completely wrong or greatly exaggerated. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. The more catastrophic (outlandish) predictions sell papers and look great on TV. The eco-nuts are few - but there's a lot of money behind them. It's a chilling statement about our democracy when so few people with so much money can influence society as much as we are seeing with the Global Warming movement.

[cybercoma]

You shouldn't be getting your information pre-chewed and regurgitated by the news cycle anyway. If you're actually interested in what's going on, learn the science and read the scientific articles. Read the agencies' reports yourself. Of course the news agencies are going to spin it to suit the agenda that they're pushing. In an effort to appear "unbiased" they'll have representatives from both sides of the debate, making it appear as though there is some sort of equivalency between positions. When 97 out of 100 scientists agree, there is no both sides. The position of those 3 out of 100 is not equivalent to the others. It's fringe and likely incorrect. So if you want to know what's going on, stop getting your information from news channels and blogger sites. Read the reports of those who are actually observing nature and reporting the science.

[TimG]

When 97 out of 100 scientists agree, there is no both sides. The position of those 3 out of 100 is not equivalent to the others.

Gawd. You have been on this forum enough to know that this argument is objectively nonsense because 1) it assumes that there is no institutional bias and/or group think going on and 2) that scientists are the only ones qualified to comment on questions of economics, engineering and values.

Why do you keep using it? You can argue your POV without using this completely dishonest talking point. If nothing else, you should understand that no one except your ideological kin think it has any merit and it only distracts from whatever point is being discussed.

Edited July 2, 2014 by TimG

[Keepitsimple]

You shouldn't be getting your information pre-chewed and regurgitated by the news cycle anyway. If you're actually interested in what's going on, learn the science and read the scientific articles. Read the agencies' reports yourself. Of course the news agencies are going to spin it to suit the agenda that they're pushing. In an effort to appear "unbiased" they'll have representatives from both sides of the debate, making it appear as though there is some sort of equivalency between positions. When 97 out of 100 scientists agree, there is no both sides. The position of those 3 out of 100 is not equivalent to the others. It's fringe and likely incorrect. So if you want to know what's going on, stop getting your information from news channels and blogger sites. Read the reports of those who are actually observing nature and reporting the science.

There is no hope for you. Anyone continuing to trot out that fictitious number automatically relinquishes any credibility they may have previously had. This was all very well covered in a previous topic on "The 97% Consensus".

That "97%" claim is significant, not for what it what it reveals about the science of climate change, but for what it reveals about the Climate Movement:

The study that supports the 97% was done by Margaret Zimerman, who sent the survey to 10,257 Earth Scientists. Of those, 3,146 responded. Of those, Ms. Zimmerman excluded all but 77. That fact alone should have your journalistic instincts on high alert. But it gets worse. The two questions which lead to the 97% finding were:

Ask yourself how and why the 97% number can STILL be used with a straight face? It should be infuriating to anyone who values science and the search for truth.

Link: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/02/26/an-open-letter-to-cnns-carol-costello-on-why-are-we-still-debating-climate-change/

Edited July 2, 2014 by Keepitsimple

[Mighty AC]

There is no hope for you. Anyone continuing to trot out that fictitious number automatically relinquishes any credibility they may have previously had. This was all very well covered in a previous topic on "The 97% Consensus".

That "97%" claim is significant, not for what it what it reveals about the science of climate change, but for what it reveals about the Climate Movement:

Ask yourself how and why the 97% number can STILL be used with a straight face? It should be infuriating to anyone who values science and the search for truth.

I think you've been lead astray on this one. Several studies of scientists, climate experts and of papers taking a position on the subject all confirm an overwhelming consensus. The Doran & Zimmerman (2009) study you mentioned, surveyed 3,146 earth scientists and asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?" Of that group 82% answered YES.

Of the 3,146 respondents only 77 were climate experts. The study defined a climate expert as a scientist publishing at least 50% of their papers on the topic of climate change in peer reviewed journals. 75 of the 77 (97.4%) answered YES to the question listed above. Thus, the Doran & Zimmerman study shows that a large majority of earth scientists and an overwhelming majority of climate experts think human activity is responsible for climate change. http://www.skepticalscience.com/97-percent-consensus-robust.htm

Additionally, Cooke et al. (2013) studied almost 12,000 climate change papers. Of the papers that took a position, either for or against, AGW, 97.1% agreed with the consensus that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

[On Guard for Thee]

As Cyber and others have pointed out here the overwhelming majority of the scientific community concur on climate change. There is of course various opinions on such things a s severity, rapidity, and when we hit the tipping point. If we don't want to listen to them who do we go to for advice, Madame "so and so" and her chrystal ball?