Study: Global warming skeptics know more about climate science
Are global warming skeptics simply ignorant about climate science?
Not so, says a forthcoming paper in the journal Advances in Political Psychology by Yale Professor Dan Kahan. He finds that skeptics score about the same (in fact slightly better) on climate science questions.
The study asked 2,000 respondents nine questions about where they thought scientists stand on climate science.
On average, skeptics got about 4.5 questions correct, whereas manmade warming believers got about 4 questions right.
One question, for instance, asked if scientists believe that warming would increase the risk of skin cancer. Skeptics were more likely than believers to know that is false.
Skeptics were also more likely to correctly say that if the North Pole icecap melted, global sea levels would not rise. One can test this with a glass of water and an ice cube the water level will not change after the ice melts. Antarctic ice melting, however, would increase sea levels because much of it rests on land. http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/02/12/study-global-warming-skeptics-know-more-about-climate-science/
Tags
Who is online
475 visitors
An interesting study about information and attitudes regarding global warming and climate change.
This has nothing to do with GCC/GW per se; it has to do with what people think about what climate scientists think.
As for
That's no test; the ice cube, in order to fit in the glass has to displace its own volume to float there without overflowing the glass. When it melts, it fills the displaced area.
BUT, when polar ice melts, it flows from THE LAND MASS ON WHICH IT SITS BOTH VERTICALLY (INTO THE AIR) ANS HORIZONTALLY ON THE LAND MASS its "FOOTPRINT." When it enters the ocean, it's NEW WATER "IN THE GLASS" SO-TO-SPEAK.
When will people stop using Fox "News" as a source of "News"?
snow. Out of the atmosphere.
There is a kind of snow/ice that geologists call firn. It's a regular ice crystal, formed like a snowflake, but it gets squished under the snow, and the arms of the snowflake crush together. So, the snow become pellets, more-- not sleet, because it isn't solid ice, but more rounded. It's quite common in many really cold areas. (We learned that firn was also a kind of snowflake-- it appears that now, it isn't considered to be a snowflake, but neve is a pre-firn snowflake.)
Anyway, when firn piles up, the bottom layers get squished, and it forms solid ice. The more it snows, the more it gets squished, and it will flow, like water, in slow motion, picking up crud on the bottom and carrying it along. That's how glaciers work. When polar ice flows, it is flowing over the sea, in many places-- it will flow until the weight of the ice is not supported, and then, the end breaks off. That's where we get icebergs. Since the sea is salt water and the ice is freshwater, it can be supported for quite a distance before it breaks off.
You can see how ice flows if you take an ice cube-- wrap it in a tea towel or something, to get a good grip on either side of the cube. Then, with all your might, push inward toward the center, and twist. It will make a squeaky noise, which is the sound of the Van der Waal bonds breaking between the molecules, but if you can do it just right, you'll end up with an ice cube that is twisted. I used to be strong enough to do it, but I'm not, any more...
Hope this helps.
Here is a picture, and a LINK
Doubtless much came from the oceans, BUT THAT OCCURRED LONG, LONG BEFORE HUMAN BEINGS BUILT CITIES AND MAN-MAN STRUCTURES IN PROXIMITY TO THE OCEANS.
So, when polar ice melts in the (near) future and sea levels rise, like eons ago, your land in Iowa will be beachfront property.
Smart land-investment, Dude.
Ever notice how those sea creature fossils turn up on dry land?
Climate fluctuations are normal WHEN THE EARTH IS RUNNING ITS OWN SHOW; but put fossil fuel emissions in the atmosphere in quantities enough and for long enough
SHIT HAPPENS.
There is a poetic justice element in the scenario; some of the same arrogant rich pricks that built their "shining cities on the sea," did so with a bunch of oil money. To sustain their lavish ways, they must keep sellin' that oil and doing so and paying legislators to lie about the consequences
they'll bring down the house literally.
Spare me the one line smart-assery just say you don't agree.
Not exactly it comes from a lot of "glasses" but initially upon melting, goes into other glasses the problem with that read on below.
Well, in a water budget-- the only thing we take into consideration about water in the atmosphere is from pan evaporation rates. Basically, scientists set out a special pan filled with water, and measure how much it evaporates over a month. The evaporation represents what is lost to the atmosphere.
The water in the atmosphere goes wherever it goes-- based on wind patterns, and general circular patterns. It isn't considered to be a part of the equation for a water budget-- other than where it's humid, pan evaporation rates are usually lower.
So, no, it is atmospheric water, and it came from somewhere else-- although snow/ice sublimates, (evaporates without becoming water), it isn't considered to be a part of the glass-- just a loss. Have you ever seen an ice cube steam in the summer? The ice is sublimating. There will be less water in the glass from the ice, because it has left the glass.
At any rate, to water scientists, it doesn't become a part of the glass until it is in the glass as ice or water.
The amount of water present in the earth doesn't change that much-- few meteorites bring much water water to the planet. But in localized areas, the amount of water present can change drastically. See what I mean?
Uh, one other thing... The ice water in the glass manages to change the temperature so that water condenses on the outside of the glass. It is on the outside, not in the glass.
Maybe I should ask what size your glass is... Are you speaking of a global system, or a local system?
OK. I think I see where you're coming from. I'm more used to looking at things locally.
Did you know that if you removed all water from the atmosphere to fall on the earth as rain, Mauna Loa would only have about 100' sticking up out of the water? I can try to find the exact numbers, but that's just off the top of my head from something I read a while back...
No, globally, the amount of water on the land, (which includes the oceans, because it has land on the bottom), and in the atmosphere stays about the same amount. However, on more local levels, the amount of water can vary greatly, depending on many factors-- off the top of my head, I'd say human use, weather patterns, temperatures, evapotranspiration, etc.
The earth itself loses no water-- at the edges of space, it's pretty cold, so there is very little water at the edges and gravity keeps it all from spinning off. If the sun changes, (I just read this yesterday), then we can lose our entire atmosphere and we're all screwed.
It's not just that it's melting and going back into "the glass" -- it's the rate at which it's melting, a rate exacerbated by the harming atmosphere.
Even if we look at the earth's oceans as a single glass, the fact that humanity has built much of its population near the edge of that glass means, that as it overflows its lip/rim/edge/shores, the overflow will begin to cover significant parts of current landmasses and put them back under water, but now, there are inhabitant air-breathers and their "civilizations" on those landmasses.
If all life on earth were marine and aquatic, if all structures were natural, the cyclic climate changes due primarily to the precession of the earth, would be of no "consequence." But the accelerated heating and thus melting will impact the so-called "civilizations" that were placed without planning for GCC/GW.
And rising oceans are not the only problem. The exacerbated heating creates droughts which cause evaporation which puts more moisture into the atmosphere than is "normal." That moisture circulates with the atmosphere and at some point condenses and precipitates in greater volumes and thus floods other parts of the earth.
The fraud is perpetrated by the energy companies and the legislators they own. It's about money.
And we also know that cyclical climate change is exacerbated by man's activities.
How it works
NOTE: The brown "land" masses are also below sea level comprising the ocean floor.
There were no permanent, large, man-made cities, urban, industrial populations and other vulnerable major structures during glacial periods of the past; it did not matter from a human perspective because the climactic transformations in terms of relatively gradual or abrupt, was of no human consequence.
The Industrial Revolution up to the present, is what resulted bothin man's population growth and concentration -- including the structures of his "civilization" -- AND -- THE POLLUTION MACHINE THAT COULD DESTROY IT!
The rate of climate change 11,700 years ago did not have the potential to devastate portions of a complex world because there was no complex world. The relative and real changes in climate could be adjusted to by picking up primitive villages (at best) and move them century by century to locations where only slightly more complex villages could be established.
That's nothing like the circumstances today; there are already locations that have suffered from the climate change as it affects "permanent" populations as opposed to "transient" more simple ones.
Let me know when you want to have a serious discussion.
When man does things to screw with the climate
Never mind.
"Climate doesn't care "
Who knew?
I live near the ocean now and I have no intention of moving . Call me a daredevil !
"When will people stop using Fox "News" as a source of "News"?" The answer to that question is.....Never.