The American Denial of Global Warming

Back


Polls show that between one-third and one-half of Americans still believe that there is "no solid" evidence of global warming, or that if warming is happening it can be attributed to natural variability. Others believe that scientists are still debating the point. Join scientist and renowned historian Naomi Oreskes as she describes her investigation into the reasons for such widespread mistrust and misunderstanding of scientific consensus and probes the history of organized campaigns designed to create public doubt and confusion about science. Series: "Perspectives on Ocean Science" [12/2007] [Science] [Show ID: 13459]

Channel: Education
Uploaded: December 20, 2007 at 10:19 pm
Author: uctelevision

Length: 00:58:36
Rating: 4.20
Views: 31808

Tags: Naomi Oreskes global warming

Video Comments:
wilbert1755 (September 8, 2008 at 9:02 am)
"where ice melting exceeded all previous records in 2007, and is close to that record in 2008 " The last data shows the ice is 5.2KM2 more then 2007.
Since you have access to so many "Journals" you should be aware that as off yesterday the satellites photos from the Arctic were showing photos of Blue ice not water. OOOPS!!
They find out because some Ice Breakers rush to the NWP since it was suppose to be open and found the NWP frozen! " CO2- driven effects." Pffft!
wilbert1755 (September 8, 2008 at 8:55 am)
"I have a hunch the person covering all these comments is AngryAussie" Of course it is the AngrySissie ! It was obvious on the first STFU!
grastog1313 (September 8, 2008 at 5:48 am)
You're heating Lake Michigan with a match. For perspective, consider that massive volcanic eruptions (e.g. Pinatubo, 1991) didn't heat the atmosphere discernibly even though the heat capacity of the atmosphere is tiny compared with the oceans. Even if there were localized Arctic surface warming several years ago, which is doubtful, there would be no trace of it in the past 2 years, where ice melting exceeded all previous records in 2007, and is close to that record in 2008 - CO2- driven effects.
TheStarsHaveFaces (September 8, 2008 at 6:15 am)
you are a broken record of propaganda. You are lying. Have you no conscience?
grastog1313 (September 8, 2008 at 3:08 am)
Gundigi - If you look at ocean heat capacity, it will be clear that volcanic eruptions might temporarily exert small local effects, but 7-8 years later, it would be impossible to detect them. We do know, however, that current melting, which will come close to a new record, proceeded at a record pace in the past month after global warming resumed, and irrespective of the phase of the solar cycle. Cycle effects do exist, but are small compared with the temperature response to rising CO2.
TheStarsHaveFaces (September 8, 2008 at 5:07 am)
"Cycle effects do exist, but are small compared with the temperature response to rising CO2."

This is a lie
gundlgj (September 8, 2008 at 5:14 am)
It all depends upon the amount of energy put into the system and the total heat capacity of the system. Are we heating a swimming pool with a match or teapot on a stove. One has a negligible effect, one has a large effect. Do we have any calculations on the extent of the arctic volcanic activity? It just might be possible that the amount of warming from such activity could contribute to melting, not responsible for all of it, just a contributing factor.
TheStarsHaveFaces (September 8, 2008 at 2:13 am)
of course ocean currents have an effect on Climate. The activity on the sun has a big effect on climate on earth as it is having right now with cooling. Co2 has such a small effect on climate that it can be called irrelevant.
grastog1313 (September 8, 2008 at 1:43 am)
I believe it's a matter of quantitation, Gundigi. Although volcanic eruptions release enormous heat, even that quantity is trivialized by the overwhelmingly larger heat capacity of the oceans. In any case, the increasingly severe Arctic sea ice loss of recent years has come after those eruptions, and can't be attributed to them to any great extent. Was there at least some contribution? You might email the authors of the Nature paper to solicit their opinion.
gundlgj (September 8, 2008 at 2:49 am)
Saying ice loss came after eruptions doesn't mean they have a small effect. However, melting before eruptions would.