"These maps show what Americans think about climate change" Topic

"Darker oranges show where most people acknowledge the existence of climate change, and lighter yellows color where more people still aren't convinced…"
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Well good news it seems it takes a long time to get people moving in the right direction but the percentage for renewable energy is I think very promising and can only go up.

I remain a skeptic. The only realistic alternative to fossil fuels is to go wholesale into nuclear power

is it me, or are the areas with the highest sceptism or denialism those that rely heavily on fossil fuels to generate their incomes
See county map at

link

and

Which would imho validate once more Kondylis dictum on political beliefs (that they are primarilly driven by egoistical serach of pleasure-whether in material goods or imaterial validation-and not altruism, rationality,tradition, or mysticism).

Those areas that have the most to lose from reforms to ameliorate climate change are those less likely to even accept it is happening. Those areas that have the least to lose are more willing to accept what the science seems to indicate.

Not buying there numbers, but agree its California and New York/New Jersey and surrounding areas that are the true believers.

@JLunberg -- 5 years ago you would have been correct. But I am not sure if that is still the case. It is really hard to find good numbers at this point, but we seem to be close to the tipping point where solar is becoming cost effective and capable.

If anyone can provide some good, current research on costs of solar I would be most interested. (Emphasis on current research).

well 5 years ago there was 1 home in the town I lived in with solar installed last week there were 20 on a 1/2 mile street. :) and 3 homes in the process of having it installed. something has changed big time.

@14Bore,

I agree, most of the "true believers" are going to be in the Northeast and the West Coast.

Also, because the topic isn't solely one of science, if the questions were asked in public view of others, the person may or may not have answered truthfully whatever questions were asked on this subject. But if they were allowed to answer under anonymity, then the replies would reflect much closer their personal feelings on the subject.

Dan

Dan, your projection is showing.

I personally don't believe in Global Warming, but I am convinced that the theory best explains the body of evidence collected showing that certain gases trap heat and that humans are predominantly the source for the increase in greenhouse gases.

Same with airplanes and unlike Tinkerbell or a bronze aged genocidal deity, I don't have to clap to keep the airplane in the air, the laws of physics see to that.

@Martin: "Dan, your projection is showing"

Hmm.

Well, seeing as how this particular topic was about a Grist.org survey on public perception based on geography, and was not really a discussion on the scientific evidence for or against Global Warming itself, I thought my reply was very relevant.

When you live in an area where the majority of people are very vocal in favor of one thing, how the survey is conducted could have a bearing on whether or not every individual interviewed declares him/herself an actual true believer or whether they may be somewhat influenced by peer/spectator pressure.

Dan

Dan, I'm addressing your improper use of "True Believer".

I'm saying that asking people believe in global warming or not is immaterial – either the evidence for it exists, or the evidence is wanting. In this case, the evidence is overwhelmingly in favour of certain gases having insulating properties and that humans are overwhelming responsible for the increase in gasses observed over the past 250 years.

Dude, you are so out there! Lol

You can keep obsessing about your gasses all you want but, like it or not, the study (and this discussion) was about belief.

Dan
PS. By the way, "true believer" is the term 14Bore used. That's why I used it in my reply to him to begin with. But, either way, you don't have a copyright on it.

I'd offer as I have in the past that the belief component, right or wrong feeds into who gets elected and what policies are enacted. While not science, as Bowman continually points out, it is what affects the steps that will or will not be taken, funds that will or will not be provided for research, etc.

So if the current administration takes a different path than the previous one as it likely will, this impacts a lot about the changes in the variables, new baselines, new projections, etc. As such, I think it is appropriate to discuss it here.

"… past 250 years." ? Really, humans were the mainspring for global warming "gasses" even before electricity grids or internal combustion engines?

Seeing as how the topic is about how many people are convinced …

Why have the messengers of Science failed to convince the rest of the population? What are they doing wrong in the delivery of their interpretation of the evidence?

Dan

Yes GWA, burning coal realises alot of co2. In fact coal is the worst of the fosile fuels.

"… past 250 years." ? Really, humans were the mainspring for global warming "gasses" even before electricity grids or internal combustion engines?

While it is possible to find H.Sapiens fingerprints on the climate prior to the industrial revolution via deforestation and agriculture, it pails in significance to the signal of human influence after the start of the industrial revolution. That's why nearly all of the climate change literature refers to "pre-industrial levels" of greenhouse gasses, and thus benchmarks heating targets to this as well.

Why have the messengers of Science failed to convince the rest of the population? What are they doing wrong in the delivery of their interpretation of the evidence?

The latest research in the field of psychology indicates that there are two ways of tackling the problem. 1 is the information deficit model, where the science communicator attempts to give knowledge to the recipient and / or replace faulty knowledge with more accurate knowledge. 2) is that one's perception on the problem of tackling climate change is filtered by one's political leanings, and that people with identity first/authoritarian follower/ libertarian see threats to "freedom" (as they define it) to trump societal harm (whereas communitarians see the reverse). And as such, even if fluent in the science, they tend to discount harm.

Since this is a "politics free area" my methods are limited to the first approach.

link

So was the survey itself politics or … ?

Dan

"… past 250 years." ? Really, humans were the mainspring for global warming "gasses" even before electricity grids or internal combustion engines?-

You have no idea how much deforestation went on during the agricultural revolution do you?

"Why have the messengers of Science failed to convince the rest of the population?" as per the two maps, I would say economic self interest. If you are relying on fossil burners for your livelihood you are unlikely to accept scientific facts that can be used to buttress economic policies that will hurt your economic livelihood. No amount of science can defeat that. (this also holds for many supporters of climate change. Their economic self interest is not hurt by potential policies, or even gains from it).

Kondylis has explained all of this nicely years ago, but because he uses Marxian theory -even through he is a hard core nationalist conservative-american political theory has ignored him.

When the consequences of climate change are heavier than the potential economic loss from policies those very people who now refuse to accept the science, will accept it, support climate change derived legislation, and because humans beings never step up to their egoism, they will support heavy prosecution of the leaders of denial-ism and skepticism as scapegoats for their own decisions. As I said should the science prove correct, you guys are in big trouble and it is not the Gunfreaks, Martins, or KTravloses of the world that will be the source of it. It is the people who claim to agree with you.

Deforestation. Heh. Human population was numbered well under half a billion for ALL of human history until the 17th century. I don't see partial deforestation of a puny place like Europe as a worldwide climatological problem.

Coal burning, ditto: not enough people to cause a big enough problem.

Now, reduce the bloated population of humans, and all of these "man made" problems go away, just like before the population explosion, when the worst we could do is hunt a few species to extinction. And I do mean a few. Deplorable as that sounds, the earth doesn't care if a species here or there dies off for any reason at all…………

Deforestation. Heh. Human population was numbered well under half a billion for ALL of human history until the 17th century. I don't see partial deforestation of a puny place like Europe as a worldwide climatological problem.

If it were limited to Europe, the fingerprint would be minuscule, but what about China, Indus valley, Mesoamerica, Horn of Africa… There's a marked difference between observable changes, and driving the pattern. Prior to the 20th century, Milankovitch cycles were the primary driver of climate change, after that human activity became the biggest driver.

Much of the technical debate in this stems from where to date the Holocene/Anthropocene split, since it needs a physical characteristic that is more ore less visible world wide. The leading contenders (in order of support) are the Trinity test, start of the industrial revolution and the first agricultural revolution.

Okay. But 20th century is not the past "250 years". It is inarguable that from the 20th century our population explosion problem has passed beyond any tipping point, ergo any effects on the climate related to humans have become the central focus/argument. Prior to that, nothing we did would change what the planet does anyway.

The "jury" is still out on AGW: not that it is happening, but how much difference we make. I ascribe to the idea that our affect is very small. If you took humans out of the picture suddenly (either by reduction of our numbers back to a sustainable level, or a sudden change to clean, renewable energy), I doubt that anything on a global scale would change much if at all.

But that's why we have these unending disagreements: one side is convinced and the other side isn't convinced. Unless or until "you" take the politics out of it, the other side will remain unconvinced; because of the distrust issues connected to the ones saying that we need to make changes, and telling us what those changes are going to be………..

The "jury" is still out on AGW: not that it is happening, but how much difference we make. I ascribe to the idea that our affect is very small. If you took humans out of the picture suddenly (either by reduction of our numbers back to a sustainable level, or a sudden change to clean, renewable energy), I doubt that anything on a global scale would change much if at all.

But that's why we have these unending disagreements: one side is convinced and the other side isn't convinced. Unless or until "you" take the politics out of it, the other side will remain unconvinced; because of the distrust issues connected to the ones saying that we need to make changes, and telling us what those changes are going to be………..

Do you have any robust methodological process to support that assertion? Chapter 8 of the of 5AR-WG1 looks at different anthropogenic and natural forcings, and the net value is positive and anthropogenic.

PDF link

Okay. But 20th century is not the past "250 years". It is inarguable that from the 20th century our population explosion problem has passed beyond any tipping point, ergo any effects on the climate related to humans have become the central focus/argument. Prior to that, nothing we did would change what the planet does anyway.

There's a difference between no influence, some influence and primary driver of change. The period of time between 1750 and 1900 is firmly in the "some influence, but world climate is still primarily driven by natural forces such as volcanism and Milankovitch cycles".

Coal burning, ditto: not enough people to cause a big enough problem.

Any hard facts to back such a platitude? No….

Coal is the worst of the fossil fuels when it comes to CO2 emissions (emitting approximately 2.86 tons of CO2 for every ton of coal fully consumed). And was critical for the Industrial Revolution to even begin. And remained the primary source of energy well into the 20th century. That's an awful lot of CO2 that WE (humans, that is; I don't see many bears building coal fired plants…) have dumped into the atmosphere. You may write that off as "no big deal", hard research says otherwise…

This is so entertaining and all, like watching yaks joust:

But the problem you braniacs should all be worried about* – though you won't really face it – is how 75-80% of the people in less than a handful of states seem to think this is all so relevant, and how you haven't been able to bring the rest of us on board.

Despite your attempt at misdirection, that's what this topic was all about in the first place. Try making more headway in that science.

Dan
* If not now then maybe after your public funding pool begins to dry up.

Coal burning, ditto: not enough people to cause a big enough problem.

You are having one of your "migrating frog" moments again.

While not science, as Bowman continually points out,…..

Continually means twice now?

Jan 19, on the "My review of the God Delusion" topic.

March 14 on the "Just like I said they would…" topic.

Both we clearly not related to science as you yourself admitted in a response.

Does that one make three then? If so, I suspect a pattern of some kind. Just a guess, of course.

Dan

Does that one make three then?

No, but repetition and reinforcement sometimes makes for good pedagogy.

I guess I can see why he would say "continually" then.

Dan

Yes, so "continuously" is the new "two". Got it.

This thread is part of "continually". I commented on the "last 250 years" assertion. And it gets backpedaled. Fine. That was the point.

Coal is filthy. No argument. "Well into the 20th century" is a problem. Earlier, not so much. A minor driver of climate alteration.

We humans could live as "dirty" as we like if we only numbered a third of a billion, like most of human history. We could get away with living the life we've grown accustomed to if we numbered less than 2 billion, probably, without posing any threat to life on the planet as a whole. Some very limited areas would look like pest holes of poisoned depravity. But the planet's coral reefs and huge fish populations and ecosystems would move along happily. Nature would dominate with 90% of the animal life staying wild.

Overpopulation. Even if we develop renewable replacement energy, eliminate every ounce of pollution in the air, that doesn't begin to address the accumulated filth in the ground and water. Or the demand for more resources just to eat. The deforestation and the extinction of entire species in the oceans. The total end of wild habitat on land. The egregious bloated numbers of homo sapiens taking over EVERYTHING……………

Yes, but what people forget is that WE are part of Nature. So what we do is what we do.

Eugenics/population control and engineering, even in its broadest definition, hasn't work before and isn't working now.

Dan

No Warmer now than it was 50 years ago.

And seasonal norms are just as unpredictable as they've always been.

Dan

It was 74F yesterday afternoon. Twenty-four hours later, it's 36F. Both of those are seasonal norms, in Utah, fairest State in the Rockies.

No Warmer now than it was 50 years ago.

That's laughably false. If it's a "fraud" why would they painstakingly publish their methods and data?

Nasa Goddard: link

Non-Governmental Bekeley Earth:

Here's the data and matlab code: link

Hadcrut4

And here's the data and methodology

And seasonal norms are just as unpredictable as they've always been.

No, that's quite wrong. A climate's norm is defined by the averaging of multiple years (Nearly always more than 20 years, usually in the 30-50 year range). Now, climate weirding can increase the amplitude (flatten the bell curve), but in reallity, it's much more likely that we're seeing a shifting of the bell curve by a few standard deviation towards hotter temperature. Jim Hansen has a good write-up here from a few years ago: link

Lol. I never said averages. And it looks like until 1980 the peaks and the dips were just as extreme.

And if we're going to speak of averages, and correct me if I'm wrong, this all about just a 2 degree difference in a span of almost 2 centuries (going back to guesstimates for locations and periods with very sporadic monitoring)?

Dan

4.5C is the difference between today and a mile+ of ice over Boston, Toronto, Montreal, Chicago, Minneapolis-St.Paul…

The 100-year plus long droughts that decimated the Anasazi in the 1200s or so, and the Ones that occurred in Peru before that were already happening long before our industrial revolution.

But I'm sure that if they were to happen now, the instant culprit everyone will point to is man and not the normal extremes in Earth's natural cycles?

Dan

The 100-year plus long droughts that decimated the Anasazi in the 1200s or so, and the Ones that occurred in Peru before that were already happening long before our industrial revolution.

Dan, the collapse of civilizations is never from a single or simple cause. While some civilizations were collapsing, like the Anasazi, the classical Maya and the Toltecs, others were thriving and becoming civilizations such as the Nahuatl speaking people who were to become the Aztecs and Tlaxcaltecs, and the Incas in Peru.

So I would be hesitant on blaming a "super drought" for the sole cause of any collapse. As for the Anasazi, here is an interesting take from an author of Anasazi based fiction:

link

This is not a scientific write up….the guy is an author. But he does have a good grasp of current thinking. Another place you might be interested in is Jared Diamond's Collapse. His thesis is that societies "choose" to fail. He uses the Greenland Vikings, the Easter Islanders, the Maya, and the Anasazi as case studies.

I have a great interest in the Maya. Their collapse is from a combination of poor planning, poor water resource management, bad weather, over farming small plots of arable land, incessant wars, increased social stratification, over urbanization, and even pollution to some extent. The Anasazi seem to have followed a similar course.

Simply blaming a drought is an over simplification.

I wasn't blaming the drought as the sole reason, but a 100-year super drought had to have made quite an impact on cultures that had already come to depend so much on their crops.

At least the ones in Peru had access to marine food sources.

Anyway, the point is that there have been super droughts before, some regional and some more widespread. And we don't blame those droughts on man-made global warming.

"The collapse of civilizations is never from a single or simple cause"

But if one of those super droughts were to happen today, I have a feeling that the natural causes for the ancient ones would be completely overlooked and everyone will automatically assume that the event had mankind as the "single or simple cause". Just a feeling.

Dan
"The moment a person forms a theory, the person sees in every object only the traits which favor that theory" – Jefferson

Droughts occur for a complex of reasons. It doesn't make sense to discount the anthropogenic contribution this time around. We are numerous enough, destructive enough and stupid enough to go right on making babies at record setting paces, all the while depleting our forests and seas, and multiplying pollutions. No gov't action is going to halt or even slow this down. Although gov't action could result in deprivation and economic destruction easily enough: bringing on a kind of domino effect global apocalypse, which would result in massive reduction in the population (no doubt, while the "elite" wait it out in their "high castles"). I don't see any evidence for an over arching altruism about sparing the world's unwashed masses, all yearning to breathe free and eat and make babies……….

I wasn't blaming the drought as the sole reason, but a 100-year super drought had to have made quite an impact on cultures that had already come to depend so much on their crops.

Yes, I agree. In the case, the classical Maya, the Toltecs, the Zapotecs, and the Chanca roughly collapsed at this time period. They had social and farming constraints that could not survive crop failures. In the case of the Chanca, they were utterly crushed by the upstart Inca empire.

And that's my point. The same droughts affected some nations and sped up their collapse. Others grew up in the same condition to become empires themselves. Exploiting marine food sources may have been a very important component, as you say. The Aztecs surely exploited the resources of Lake Texcoco, which is what the inhabitants of Tula and Teotihuacan didn't have access to.

"The moment a person forms a theory, the person sees in every object only the traits which favor that theory" – Jefferson

Yep I like that. I like the more modern version of it too: "If you are a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail". Think of that when you read some of the writings on these threads.

It doesn't make sense to discount the anthropogenic contribution this time around.

Yep, and that applies to the older examples that Dan and I are talking about too.

The data from this period of droughts is from the Earth Observatory from NASA.

link

It is one of the programs supposedly on the chopping block.

The limitation of tree ring analysis is that "tree A" is ONE tree. Standing nearby, but with roots over a very localized water source, is tree B, alive during the same time period with rings totally different from those of "tree A". You have to cut down a lot of trees and arrive at an average of tree rings density, in order to use tree rings as accurate evidence of dry and wet cycles.

The limitation of tree ring analysis is that "tree A" is ONE tree.

Wrong. First, you don't cut the tree down. You take a core sample using a tree bore. Leaves the tree intact with minimal to no damage. Second, you take samples from multiple trees over a wide area (just basic sampling technique, that). You never rely on just ONE sample.

Finally, the science regarding this has been around for a long time and the techniques and interpretations have been verified multiple times. Nothing wrong with tree ring analysis.

link

This is what the borer looks like

Poor GWA, even more migrating amphibians to deal with.

Maybe you also have a problem with lake bed sediment data that you can tell us about.

Lol.

Reminds me of a oil and gas geologist in Louisiana I knew a while back (in the mid 80s) who always made sure that the samples he went out and collected were only from the bayous he knew were going to be funneling sediments in a way that would work in his favor. He knew very well that a general sampling would ruin his numbers.

Strange how his results always favored his proposals. :)

Dan