Anthropogenic climate change poll

[Luther Blissett]

[brainpanhandler]

Anthropogenic climate disruption denial trolls and fossil fuel industry shills abound, or their astroturf puppets do. Pietro does yeoman's work on this thread at the Fortean times board.

I was wrong, that's not climate denialism. That's climate occultism.

[wintler2]

New Scientist Special Report: 7 Reasons Climate Change Is ‘Even Worse Than We Thought’


1. The thick sea ice in the Arctic Ocean was not expected to melt until the end of the century. If current trends continue, summer ice could be gone in a decade or two. Read more (or see “Death Spiral Watch: Experts Warn ‘Near Ice-Free Arctic In Summer’ In A Decade If Volume Trends Continue“).

2. We knew global warming was going to make the weather more extreme. But it’s becoming even more extreme than anyone predicted. Read more (or see “NOAA Bombshell: Warming-Driven Arctic Ice Loss Is Boosting Chance of Extreme U.S. Weather“).

3. Global warming was expected to boost food production. Instead, food prices are soaring as the effects of extreme weather kick in. Read more (or see “Oxfam Warns Climate Change And Extreme Weather Will Cause Food Prices To Soar” and links therein).

4. Greenland’s rapid loss of ice mean we’re in for a rise of at least 1 metre by 2100, and possibly much more. Read more (or see “Greenland Ice Sheet Melt Nearing Critical ‘Tipping Point’” and links therein).

5. The planet currently absorbs half our CO2emissions. All the signs are it won’t for much longer. Read more (or see “Carbon Feedback From Thawing Permafrost Will Likely Add 0.4°F – 1.5°F To Total Global Warming By 2100” and “Drying Peatlands and Intensifying Wildfires Boost Carbon Release Ninefold“).

6. If we stopped emitting CO2 tomorrow, we might be able to avoid climate disaster. In fact we are still increasing emissions. Read more (or see “The IEA And Others Warn Of Some 11°F Warming by 2100 on current emissions path”)

7. If the worst climate predictions are realised, vast swathes of the globe could become too hot for humans to survive. Read more (or see “An Illustrated Guide to the Science of Global Warming Impacts“)


..Reporters need to learn that, if they wish to discuss ‘both sides’ of the climate issue, the scientifically legitimate ‘other side’ is that, if anything, global climate disruption is likely to be significantly worse than has been suggested in scientific consensus estimates to date. ..

[beeline]

Link

As Great Lakes shrink, so do town's futures

ONEKAMA, MICH. - For more than a century, easy access to Lake Michigan has made Onekama a popular place for summer visitors and a refuge for boaters fleeing dangerous storms. Now, the community itself needs a rescue, from slumping lake levels that threaten its precious link to open water.

The Great Lakes, the world's biggest freshwater system, are shrinking because of drought and rising temperatures, a trend that accelerated with this year's almost snowless winter and scorching summer. Water levels have fallen to near-record lows on Lakes Michigan and Huron, while Erie, Ontario and Superior are below their historical averages. The decline is causing heavy economic losses, with cargo freighters forced to lighten their loads, marinas too shallow for pleasure boats and weeds sprouting on exposed bottomlands, chasing away swimmers and sunbathers.

Some of the greatest suffering is in small tourist towns that lack the economic diversity of bigger port cities. Yet they are last in line for federal money to deepen channels and repair infrastructure to support the boating traffic that keeps them afloat.

The Army Corps of Engineers has estimated that about 30 small Great Lakes harbors will need attention in the next couple of years.

In bygone days, friendly members of Congress would slip money into the federal budget to dredge a harbor. But so-called earmarks have fallen out of favor, leaving business and civic leaders wondering where to turn. A desperate few are raising money locally for dredging but insist that they can't afford it on a regular basis.

Tourism has sustained Onekama since the early 1900s, when northwestern Michigan coastal towns became popular with wealthy visitors from Chicago, Milwaukee and Detroit. On a typical summer day, the community's marinas are crowded with yachts, speedboats and fishing charters.

But the falling water levels are taking a toll, illustrating how extensively the health of the Great Lakes affects the economy of a region that is home to more than 30 million people extending from Minnesota to New York.

Lake Michigan's level at the end of October was more than 2 feet below its long-term average. The Corps of Engineers says that without heavy snowfall this winter, the lake may decline to its lowest point since record-keeping began in 1918.

The channel that connects Portage Lake and Lake Michigan is now about 7 feet deep at best. When the water is choppy, some vessels can hit bottom. If things get much worse, Onekama may be effectively cut off from the big lake.

Many places around the Great Lakes are having similar problems. At least a dozen boats have run aground this year in Lake Ontario around the harbor in Orleans County, N.Y. The state of Wisconsin warned boaters to watch for stumps, boulders and other hazards lurking just beneath the water. Boat-towing services have done brisk business rescuing stranded craft in newly shallow stretches of Lake Erie.

What makes the situation particularly frustrating for small Great Lakes communities is that a fund for dredging and other harbor maintenance already exists. It's generated by a tax on freight shipped at U.S. ports and raises about $1.5 billion a year. But about half the money is diverted to the treasury for other uses. Members of Congress from coastal states are pushing to change that policy.

[Iamwhomiam]

Thanks, beeline. Heard this reported yesterday on NPR. Their coverage, from the same AP source, had a bit more than your Philly source:
As Great Lakes Plummet, Towns Try To Save Harbors

by The Associated Press

ONEKAMA, Mich. November 27, 2012, 03:51 pm ET

ONEKAMA, Mich. (AP) — For more than a century, easy access to Lake Michigan has made Onekama a popular place for summer visitors and a refuge for boaters fleeing dangerous storms. Now the community itself needs a rescue, from slumping lake levels that threaten its precious link to open water.

The Great Lakes, the world's biggest freshwater system, are shrinking because of drought and rising temperatures, a trend that accelerated with this year's almost snowless winter and scorching summer. Water levels have fallen to near-record lows on Lakes Michigan and Huron, while Erie, Ontario and Superior are below their historical averages. The decline is causing heavy economic losses, with cargo freighters forced to lighten their loads, marinas too shallow for pleasure boats and weeds sprouting on exposed bottomlands, chasing away swimmers and sunbathers.

Some of the greatest suffering is in small tourist towns that lack the economic diversity of bigger port cities. Yet they are last in line for federal money to deepen channels and repair infrastructure to support the boating traffic that keeps them afloat.

"How do you like our mud bog?" Township Supervisor Dave Meister asked on a recent afternoon, gesturing toward the shoreline of Portage Lake, part of a 2,500-acre inland waterway that connects Onekama to Lake Michigan. A wide expanse that normally would be submerged is now an ugly patchwork of puddles, muck and thick stands of head-high cattails. A grounded pontoon boat rested forlornly alongside a deserted dock.

The Army Corps of Engineers has estimated that about 30 small Great Lakes harbors will need attention in the next couple of years.

In bygone days, friendly members of Congress would slip money into the federal budget to dredge a harbor. But so-called earmarks have fallen out of favor, leaving business and civic leaders wondering where to turn. A desperate few are raising money locally for dredging but insist they can't afford it on a regular basis.

Tourism has sustained Onekama since the early 1900s, when northwestern Michigan coastal towns became popular with wealthy visitors from Chicago, Milwaukee and Detroit. On a typical summer day, the community's marinas are crowded with yachts, speedboats and fishing charters.

But the falling water levels are taking a toll, illustrating how extensively the health of the Great Lakes affects the economy of a region that is home to more than 30 million people extending from Minnesota to New York.

Lake Michigan's level at the end of October was more than 2 feet below its long-term average. The Corps of Engineers says without heavy snowfall this winter, the lake may decline to its lowest point since record-keeping began in 1918.

The channel that connects Portage Lake and Lake Michigan is now about 7 feet deep at best. When the water is choppy, some vessels can hit bottom. If things get much worse, Onekama may be effectively cut off from the big lake.

"Businesses would close. People would be laid off. It would be devastating," said Jim Mrozinski, owner of Onekama Marine Inc., which services and stores pleasure craft and draws customers from across the Upper Midwest. He owns three marinas, one now unusable because of shallow water. If he's lucky, the others will have enough depth to rent perhaps 10 of the 55 slips next spring.

Onekama's year-round population is less than 2,000. Much of its tax base comes from expensive waterfront homes owned by summer residents who come for the boating and fishing. Without the link to Lake Michigan, property values would plummet, hammering local government budgets, Meister said.

"You're talking about schools, 911 emergency, library, fire protection — everything," he said.

Many places around the Great Lakes are having similar problems. At least a dozen boats have run aground this year in Lake Ontario around the harbor in Orleans County, N.Y. The state of Wisconsin warned boaters to watch for stumps, boulders and other hazards lurking just beneath the water. Boat-towing services have done brisk business rescuing stranded craft in newly shallow stretches of Lake Erie.

What makes the situation particularly frustrating for small Great Lakes communities is that a fund for dredging and other harbor maintenance already exists. It's generated by a tax on freight shipped at U.S. ports and raises about $1.5 billion a year. But about half of the money is diverted to the treasury for other uses. Members of Congress from coastal states are pushing to change that policy.

Even if the effort succeeds, there's no guarantee that communities like Onekama will get a share of the cash. The Corps of Engineers gives top priority to large ports such as Duluth, Minn., Detroit and Cleveland. Whatever is left goes to medium-sized harbors that also accommodate cargo ships. The region's 112 small harbors, including 71 with only recreational traffic, have relied on budget earmarks since the 1990s.

"Many of these towns wouldn't exist if it wasn't for their ports," said Mike O'Bryan, chief of engineering and technical services for the Detroit district office.

The Great Lakes Small Harbors Coalition, led by Onekama retiree Chuck May, says $20 million a year would cover all those areas' dredging and maintenance costs, and rescue tourist communities that pump billions into the economy.

Farther up the coast near Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore, the village of Leland scraped together more than $100,000 from a local Indian tribe, businesses and government agencies this year to dredge a 13-foot-deep channel enabling charter fishing boats and pleasure craft to reach Lake Michigan. Harbormaster Russell Dzuba is already fundraising to dredge in 2013 but says that's no long-term solution.

"We have a moral obligation to keep this place open," he said. "We're the only safe harbor for a 75-mile stretch and Lake Michigan is a tempestuous beast. But the feds have cut us adrift."
~~~~~~~~
It's a bit astounding really, that they leave to the imagination what the impact of a lowering water level will have on the safe operation of the very many nuclear power plants situated along the shores of the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes region is host to nearly 40 nuclear power reactors.

[brainpanhandler]

Why RI is different, with a few loud, not very discerning exceptions. You are thankfully in a minority here if you cannot on the basis of the evidence reject the official narratives of the mlk/jfk/rfk assassinations or 9/11 commission (as examples) while at the same time on the basis of the evidence reject the moon landing hoax theory or the theory that global warming is not critically anthropogenic in origin but rather is actually a vast conspiracy involving the nwo nanny state and the great majority of credible, credentialed climate scientists to further cow and enslave the sheeple and take away their incandescent light bulbs.

There is no substitute for evidence gathering/assessment, critical thinking and measured, provisional judgement on a case by case basis. There just isn't.

[The Consul]

So you are telling me that if there are 299,999,999 people who think man made climate change is real based on thousands and thousand of peer reviewed scientific studies many issued by prestigious institutes and I don't - even if I am the only one, and even if I am being paid to deny it in a real noisy way - are you saying the lamestream media should not, as a fair and balanced act, hear me out, maybe even give me my own show? Is that what you are saying?

Are you a real American or what?

[brainpanhandler]

So you are telling me that if there are 299,999,999 people who think man made climate change is real based on thousands and thousand of peer reviewed scientific studies many issued by prestigious institutes and I don't - even if I am the only one, and even if I am being paid to deny it in a real noisy way - are you saying the lamestream media should not, as a fair and balanced act, hear me out, maybe even give me my own show? Is that what you are saying?

Are you a real American or what?

Heh. Yah, it is a problem isn't it. A much better solution would be public schools that actually teach critical thinking skills, but there's no time for that. The only partial solutions will seem fascist to the portion of the population clinging to the denialists and they'll be right on that score. But parents aren't being fascists when they forbid their children to drink and smoke and play in the street.

I'm not really very far from agreeing with this:

The forum moderators should ban global warming denial like they did with the 9/11 "no planes" theories because they make just as much sense.
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=35996&p=490350#p490350

[brainpanhandler]

double post

[brainpanhandler]

Here's the abstract for the paper at the link (Why RI is different) embedded in my previous post:

Abstract

Although nearly all domain experts agree that human CO2 emissions are altering the
world's climate, segments of the public remain unconvinced by the scientific evidence.
Internet blogs have become a vocal platform for climate denial, and bloggers have taken a
prominent and influential role in questioning climate science. We report a survey (N
> 1100) of climate blog users to identify the variables underlying acceptance and rejection
of climate science. Paralleling previous work, we find that endorsement of a laissez-faire
conception of free-market economics predicts rejection of climate science (r ' :80 between
latent constructs). Endorsement of the free market also predicted the rejection of other
established scientfic findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking
causes lung cancer. We additionally show that endorsement of a cluster of conspiracy
theories (e.g., that the CIA killed Martin-Luther King or that NASA faked the moon
landing) predicts rejection of climate science as well as the rejection of other scientific
findings, above and beyond endorsement of laissez-faire free markets. This provides
empirical confirmation of previous suggestions that conspiracist ideation contributes to
the rejection of science. Acceptance of science, by contrast, was strongly associated with
the perception of a consensus among scientists.

For the embedded link averse:

http://websites.psychology.uwa.edu.au/l ... piracy.pdf

[brainpanhandler]

Wow. Look what a search for "global warming" on google news returns:

http://www.google.com/search?sclient=ps ... tnG=Search

Page after page of denialist propaganda.

The unsuspecting public doing a search with google news might come to the conclusion that global warming really isn't all that bad and in fact might be good in some instances.

[Luther Blissett]

A much better solution would be public schools that actually teach critical thinking skills, but there's no time for that. The only partial solutions will seem fascist to the portion of the population clinging to the denialists and they'll be right on that score.

The first sentence expresses precisely what I feel about this crisis. I'm not 100% sure I agree with the second one, but I might not understand what you're saying. It does seem to me that industrial civilization not only needs to be ended, but reversed yesterday. Not that it will happen, but I'd love to imagine it could be done without hurting another living thing.

It's becoming increasingly clear to me that we need more community and love to ensure that someone survives. The 22nd Century is going to be a weird one.

[brainpanhandler]

I work for one of the leading environmental non-profits in the U.S. We get every single climate change report that comes out. We get briefed by experts in the field at least once a week. While you don't have to believe my anonymous appeal to authority, I will say that those who deny AGW are simply ignorant of the absolutely vast body of scientific research which concludes that the climate is changing and that industrial activity plays a major role. It has also been proven that companies like Shell and Chevron paid to have pseudoscientific attacks on AGW published and that the Bush administration deliberately suppressed the findings of its own EPA team which supported AGW.

Seriously, who the frig sides with Bush and oil companies over thousands of top scientists from around the world?[/b]

Good question. We have a few here apparently.

I understand the desire to resist caving to appeals to authority, but surely there are times when an appeal to authority is valid. Like when 97% of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is a reality. 97%! I mean what else can you get that kind of consensus from scientists on? The earth goes round the sun?

Our own poll here shows that 65% of us believe the science and that only 16% consider that anthropogenic climate change is wrong or probably wrong. Another 11% think the jury is still out. Most of that voting was done 3 to 4 years ago I would think when the thread was created.

It's really kind of remarkable that our poll does not more closely match the scientific consensus. The evidence is overwhelming. But we do have more than a few pigheaded mules that apparently believe admitting they were wrong or altering their views one iota is a sign of weakness. They are less concerned with ascertaining the truth and more concerned with maintaining their fragile egos and ironically are unable to think independently. If your knee jerk response is to resist overwhelming scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change and dig your heels in you are possibly no longer thinking independently, but are merely reacting.

[Elihu]

I work for one of the leading environmental non-profits in the U.S. We get every single climate change report that comes out. We get briefed by experts in the field at least once a week. While you don't have to believe my anonymous appeal to authority, I will say that those who deny AGW are simply ignorant of the absolutely vast body of scientific research which concludes that the climate is changing and that industrial activity plays a major role. It has also been proven that companies like Shell and Chevron paid to have pseudoscientific attacks on AGW published and that the Bush administration deliberately suppressed the findings of its own EPA team which supported AGW.

Seriously, who the frig sides with Bush and oil companies over thousands of top scientists from around the world?[/b]

Good question. We have a few here apparently.

I understand the desire to resist caving to appeals to authority, but surely there are times when an appeal to authority is valid. Like when 97% of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is a reality. 97%! I mean what else can you get that kind of consensus from scientists on? The earth goes round the sun?

Our own poll here shows that 65% of us believe the science and that only 16% consider that anthropogenic climate change is wrong or probably wrong. Another 11% think the jury is still out. Most of that voting was done 3 to 4 years ago I would think when the thread was created.

It's really kind of remarkable that our poll does not more closely match the scientific consensus. The evidence is overwhelming. But we do have more than a few pigheaded mules that apparently believe admitting they were wrong or altering their views one iota is a sign of weakness. They are less concerned with ascertaining the truth and more concerned with maintaining their fragile egos and ironically are unable to think independently. If your knee jerk response is to resist overwhelming scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change and dig your heels in you are possibly no longer thinking independently, but are merely reacting.

cross post

Folk must be feeling a bit like Charlie Brown kicking air at about this point.

it's not forward with more and grander social engineering at this point. it's rolling leviathan backwards. you want some earth changing social engineering? demobilize the military. defund the agriculture complex. defund the third and fourth parties involved between patient and doctor and their sycophant universities, end the violence and corruption inducing prohibition war on peaceful people (and the legal racism that goes with it). end the protection rackets around alcohol and tobacco. let the financial behemoths that thrive on these activities collapse. end their currency monopoly. pull the curtain back on the synergy between religions, entertainment monopolies, education and the warfare state.

have we sinned? heck yes we have in letting all this happen. it would mean admitting we've been wrong and dealing with the new old realities the foregoing would create. humans have way more technology and ability than we've ever had in the past to deal with it. gutsy, brave, bold. notice that this is a non-starter with the ruling quadfecta (a matrix of vertical integration and horizontal synergy, thank you sounder). they call it insane and seditious. jeepers, the dimunition of the car culture alone would reduce co2 way more than a carbon scam ever could. unless you like all that crap to the point where you don't want to give it up. i'll admit it has its appeal. which fork in the road are we gonna take? the future is easy easy easy to predict with the consensus choice. more failure. missed it by that much! doh!

maybe you ain't been listenin.

these gangsters can't fix your climate for you. they're responsible for everything they're dumping the guilt on you / us for. how could they do one good thing along with all their bad? it's silly.

[brainpanhandler]

I work for one of the leading environmental non-profits in the U.S. We get every single climate change report that comes out. We get briefed by experts in the field at least once a week. While you don't have to believe my anonymous appeal to authority, I will say that those who deny AGW are simply ignorant of the absolutely vast body of scientific research which concludes that the climate is changing and that industrial activity plays a major role. It has also been proven that companies like Shell and Chevron paid to have pseudoscientific attacks on AGW published and that the Bush administration deliberately suppressed the findings of its own EPA team which supported AGW.

Seriously, who the frig sides with Bush and oil companies over thousands of top scientists from around the world?[/b]

Good question. We have a few here apparently.

I understand the desire to resist caving to appeals to authority, but surely there are times when an appeal to authority is valid. Like when 97% of climate scientists agree that anthropogenic climate change is a reality. 97%! I mean what else can you get that kind of consensus from scientists on? The earth goes round the sun?

Our own poll here shows that 65% of us believe the science and that only 16% consider that anthropogenic climate change is wrong or probably wrong. Another 11% think the jury is still out. Most of that voting was done 3 to 4 years ago I would think when the thread was created.

It's really kind of remarkable that our poll does not more closely match the scientific consensus. The evidence is overwhelming. But we do have more than a few pigheaded mules that apparently believe admitting they were wrong or altering their views one iota is a sign of weakness. They are less concerned with ascertaining the truth and more concerned with maintaining their fragile egos and ironically are unable to think independently. If your knee jerk response is to resist overwhelming scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change and dig your heels in you are possibly no longer thinking independently, but are merely reacting.

cross post

Folk must be feeling a bit like Charlie Brown kicking air at about this point.

it's not forward with more and grander social engineering at this point. it's rolling leviathan backwards. you want some earth changing social engineering? demobilize the military. defund the agriculture complex. defund the third and fourth parties involved between patient and doctor and their sycophant universities, end the violence and corruption inducing prohibition war on peaceful people (and the legal racism that goes with it). end the protection rackets around alcohol and tobacco. let the financial behemoths that thrive on these activities collapse. end their currency monopoly. pull the curtain back on the synergy between religions, entertainment monopolies, education and the warfare state.

have we sinned? heck yes we have in letting all this happen. it would mean admitting we've been wrong and dealing with the new old realities the foregoing would create. humans have way more technology and ability than we've ever had in the past to deal with it. gutsy, brave, bold. notice that this is a non-starter with the ruling quadfecta (a matrix of vertical integration and horizontal synergy, thank you sounder). they call it insane and seditious. jeepers, the dimunition of the car culture alone would reduce co2 way more than a carbon scam ever could. unless you like all that crap to the point where you don't want to give it up. i'll admit it has its appeal. which fork in the road are we gonna take? the future is easy easy easy to predict with the consensus choice. more failure. missed it by that much! doh!

maybe you ain't been listenin.

these gangsters can't fix your climate for you. they're responsible for everything they're dumping the guilt on you / us for. how could they do one good thing along with all their bad? it's silly.

Maybe you ain't been listenin' :

Why RI is different, with a few loud, not very discerning exceptions. You are thankfully in a minority here if you cannot on the basis of the evidence reject the official narratives of the mlk/jfk/rfk assassinations or 9/11 commission (as examples) while at the same time on the basis of the evidence reject the moon landing hoax theory or the theory that global warming is not critically anthropogenic in origin but rather is actually a vast conspiracy involving the nwo nanny state and the great majority of credible, credentialed climate scientists to further cow and enslave the sheeple and take away their incandescent light bulbs.

There is no substitute for evidence gathering/assessment, critical thinking and measured, provisional judgement on a case by case basis. There just isn't.

how can melting ice cause sea levels to rise?

Can you use a search engine yourself?

Melting of Floating Ice Will Raise Sea Level

When ice on land slides into the ocean, it displaces ocean water and causes sea level to rise. People believe that when this floating ice melts, water level doesn’t rise an additional amount because the freshwater ice displaces the same volume of water as it would contribute once it melts. Similarly, people also think that when ocean water freezes to form sea ice and then melts, the water is merely going through a change of state, so it won’t affect sea level. However, in a visit to NSIDC in May, Dr. Peter Noerdlinger, a professor at St. Mary’s University in Nova Scotia, Canada, suggested otherwise.

In a paper titled "The Melting of Floating Ice will Raise the Ocean Level" submitted to Geophysical Journal International, Noerdlinger demonstrates that melt water from sea ice and floating ice shelves could add 2.6% more water to the ocean than the water displaced by the ice, or the equivalent of approximately 4 centimeters (1.57 inches) of sea-level rise.

The common misconception that floating ice won’t increase sea level when it melts occurs because the difference in density between fresh water and salt water is not taken into consideration. Archimedes’ Principle states that an object immersed in a fluid is buoyed up by a force equal to the weight of the fluid it displaces. However, Noerdlinger notes that because freshwater is not as dense as saltwater, freshwater actually has greater volume than an equivalent weight of saltwater. Thus, when freshwater ice melts in the ocean, it contributes a greater volume of melt water than it originally displaced.

http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050801_floatingice.html

But I suppose Noerdlinger is one of the 'gangsters' you refer to and he is somehow spinning basic chemistry and physics.

try to decide if it's the environment you care about. or some repressed guilt or resentment begging for punishment, because the predators attempting to slip a carbon tax trading system around our necks could give a *&^% about the environment. its the money and deputies they want.

Right. Maybe focus on this:

demobilize the military.

instead.

Do you really believe 97% of climate scientists are all somehow in league with the gangsters.

How did you vote? Or if you didn't, how would you? Is anthropogenic climate change a reality?