Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

How Weather Influences Global Warming Opinions

Posted by samzenpus on from the cold-is-the-new-hot dept.

An anonymous reader writes in with this story about how people's belief in climate change shifts with the temperature. "Last week's polar vortex weather event wasn't only hard on fingers, toes and heating bills. It also overpowered the ability of most people to make sound judgments about climate change, in the same way that heat waves do, according to a new study published in the Jan. 11 issue of the journal Nature Climate Change. Researchers have known for some time that the acceptance of climate change depends on the day most people are asked. During unusually hot weather, people tend to accept global warming, and they swing against it during cold events."

37 of 517 comments (clear)

  1. Egocentrism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's all the same

    "There's no global warming because I'm cold."
    "There's no poverty because I'm rich."
    "There's no racism because I'm white."

    1. Re:Egocentrism by Kythe · · Score: 5, Insightful

      1) There is Islamic terrorism, and U.S. militia terrorism, and atheist terrorism, and Christian terrorism, and others. I know of no one worth listening to who seriously disputes any of these.
      2) If you're really sitting around worried about Islamic terrorists hitting your town, you need to get a hobby.

      --

      Kythe
    2. Re:Egocentrism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      "I don't live in a totalitarian police state because I've never been detained without charge or sentenced without trial or deprived of property without warrant."

    3. Re:Egocentrism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "I'm not sexist because I'm female."

    4. Re:Egocentrism by TWiTfan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It would probably help if every time there's a hurricane like Sandy, Katrina, et. al. there wasn't some global warming advocate on TV arguing that this was evidence of global warming. You can't taut every weather event that supports warming as evidence and then turn around and dismiss every weather event that doesn't jibe with the narrative.

      Nor do I find the argument that EVERY weather event (extreme, mild, or otherwise) somehow supports warming. You can't just set up a hypothesis and then say that there is no evidence that can ever possibly contradict it. That's religion, not science.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    5. Re:Egocentrism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "There's no God because I haven't seen him"
      "There are no unicorns because I haven't ridden one."
      "The Loch Ness Monster doesn't exist because no one has ever videotaped it."

      It's NOT "all the same." Sometimes the skeptics are right.

    6. Re:Egocentrism by TWiTfan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you're referring to the polar vortex, it actually does "jibe with the narrative"

      See the second paragraph. If you're going to claim that *every* extreme weather events supports your warming narrative, you're already on shaky ground. If you combine that with the fact that you refuse to accept mild weather as contradictory evidence, now you're moving into a faith-based, rather than scientific, realm. You've set up a scenario where there is no possible evidence that can ever contradict your hypothesis.

      If you're going to cite weather as evidence of global warming, then you have to be willing to accept contradictory weather evidence as well (or at least accept that such evidence COULD exist). Personally, I agree with the GP that citing individual weather events for evidence of global warming is VERY ill-advised and scientifically suspect. But if you *must*, then you can't have it both ways.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    7. Re:Egocentrism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      I might be mistaken, but I think what Noxal was getting at was that those with a non-religious agenda orchestrating Terror (whether it's Stalin, Mao, Robbespierre, whatever) are doing so *not* because non-belief is the one and only true path to enlightenment as the dogmatic religious believe, but because they believe (and virally spread this belief) in higher authorities than the State or the Party or the Glorious Leader. Their religious indoctrination was at odds with the dictator and their doctrine.

      In other words, atheism and a policy of non-belief was a means to consolidate power. Weed out those that gather and foment discord and make them illegal.

      Saying 'atheist terrorism' and Stalin or Mao or Earth First in the same sentence is stupid and does make you sound like a fucking moron. Atheism is not their agenda. Power, control and a totalitarianism agenda *is*.

    8. Re:Egocentrism by Charcharodon · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Just as you can say

      "There's global warming because it's hot."
      "I'm poor because someone else is richer than me."
      "I can't be racist because I'm black."

    9. Re:Egocentrism by jcr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      . I'd say an atheist group out of Wisconsin that regularly tries to use the power of liberal courts by filing what could be financially crippling lawsuits against small communities in the South that they don't agree with could be considered as being a form of terrorism.

      Nope. Harassment and malicious litigation aren't terrorism. Nobody's afraid that these people in Wisconsin are going to kill them.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    10. Re:Egocentrism by TWiTfan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Since you seem to think that these weather extremes are evidence for global warming, is mild weather contradictory evidence (if we have a mild winter or summer, for example)? And if not, then can *any* weather evidence *possibly* ever exist to contradict your argument? If the answer is "No," then that's not science. It's religion.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    11. Re:Egocentrism by Zedrick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you think Stalin or Mao were motivated by atheism, then perhaps you also think that Hitler invaded Poland because he was a vegetarian? Or because he wasn't a buddhist?

    12. Re:Egocentrism by kilfarsnar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's all the same

      "There's no global warming because I'm cold." "There's no poverty because I'm rich." "There's no racism because I'm white."

      Add to that "there's no Islamic terrorism because they haven't hit my town ... yet!

      Actually, they have hit my town. And I still don't think Islamic terrorism is that big a deal in the grand scheme. Scary, yes, but way down on the list of dangers.

      --
      "What the American public doesn't know is what makes them the American public." -Ray Zalinsky (Tommy Boy)
    13. Re:Egocentrism by Vanderhoth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hate to point it out, because the initial commentor was being a heavy handed idiot, but I think the initial comment meant people don't go around killing others because they're Atheists or in the name of Atheism. If someone just happens to be Atheist while doing something terrible we might as well say they're doing it because the like the color blue. It's not being used as a reason to kill people like Romans feeding Christians to the lions or Christians killing Muslims (crusades) or Muslims blowing up buildings, which I'm not really religion was the reason for that. I think it was more political or ideological.

    14. Re:Egocentrism by OrugTor · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Stalin was no more guilty of "atheism terrorism" than he was of mustache terrorism.

    15. Re:Egocentrism by Gripp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So they started atheist crusades? They sent out inquisitors specifically to root out non-atheists? Is a government limiting religions deemed a threat any different than us rooting out the Taliban or religions we deem "cultist" ? Just because those who are limiting religions happen to be atheist doesn't mean that it's an atheist action. Especially when the same actions are taken regardless of faith across the world and history.
      Have there been anti-religious movements? sure; definitely. But pinning anti-religion actions on all of atheism is no different than pinning the acts of Islam on all of theism. You don't see many atheists blaming, say, Catholicism for the actions of the Taliban (outside of the "fedora" make-fun-of-atheists-by-exaggerating-it crowd, that is)... Also, please stop throwing the word "terrorist" around. The people you mention definitely do not qualify as "terrorists." You disagreeing with their actions doesn't meet the definition.

    16. Re:Egocentrism by taiwanjohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I would say Stalin and Mao were dictators who sometimes used terrorism as a tool. Call it state terrorism.

      Obviously the GP is a bit foolish to suggest there are no atheist terrorists. Politics is just as capable of producing terrorists as religion is. But by the same token, there's no more truth to the old chestnut that says atheists are "morally rudderless" and thus more liable to commit atrocities.

      Both Stalin and Mao may have been atheists, but they both drew on a vast tradition of superstition among their respective populations. Hitler's armies famously used the slogan "Gott mit uns" ("God with us") on their uniforms, and had a cozy relationship with the Vatican.

      OTOH, perhaps the GP was referring to "atheist terrorists" who use terrorist tactics to advance the "cause" of atheism. In that case, I would have to agree with him, at least provisionally. If you can show me evidence of "militant atheists" blowing up buses and planes in the name of atheism, I'll take a look.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    17. Re:Egocentrism by Chalnoth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or it's that you're not understanding the science. Certainly there is no claim whatsoever that global warming causes all weather to become extreme. The claim is rather that the number of extreme events is increased by global warming, and furthermore that some events are so extreme that it is highly unlikely that they would have happened without global warming. Sandy was one of those events. Sandy could have happened without global warming, it's just unlikely (most likely the warmer ocean allowed the hurricane to both travel further north and remain stronger as it traveled).

    18. Re:Egocentrism by haruchai · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Climate scientists do NOT make those claims and have been explicitly stating that no single weather event can conclusively be linked to AGW.

      Also, the "G" in AGW stands for GLOBAL, which seems to be a difficult concept for some North Americans to grasp.

      While the polar vortex was wreaking havoc in America, much of Scandinavia was having an unusually warm winter, with flowering plants & bears coming out of hibernation.

      http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/10/polar-vortex-us-mild-weather-scandinavia

      So whose narrative does that jibe with?

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    19. Re:Egocentrism by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, you need to haul back your slobbering, drooling politicians and CNN. I have a file of fraudulent rhetoric that is shameful and manipulative.

      The capstone was a CNN article that screamed in the headline, " Global warming will be like the tsunami!", this being right after the Indian ocean one, with all the horriffic videon. About 2/3 the way down, they pointed out they meant up to a 30-foot sea rise ovet 100-300 years, not a sudden catastrophe.

      By the way, we can **less** imagine the science in 100 years than people in 1914 could today's, much less the people of 1714. We are foolish and quality of life will be best served by continuing economic development apace. How stupid our ancestors would habe been in 1900 to put brakes on development and present us a clean air world in 2014 with, maybe, 1970-level tech.
      Thanks for nothing. cNet effect: many more megadeath, not less, and lower quality of life, not better.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    20. Re:Egocentrism by taiwanjohn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Stalin and Mao did try very hard to eliminate religion in their states.

      Yes, but not "for the cause of atheism"... they did so because they couldn't tolerate any "authority" that might oppose their power, whether institutional or individual. In the meantime, they were quite happy to co-opt the superstitious tendencies of their populations to encourage a "cult of personality" -- especially in Mao's case.

      Seems like we mostly agree that tyranny is different from terrorism, though they may often use similar methods. I'm sure there are plenty of atheists (or at least "doubters") among the terrorists, and doubtless many religious believers among the tyrants. But the the guys who actually strap on the explosive vests...? I doubt there are many atheists among that lot.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
    21. Re:Egocentrism by haruchai · · Score: 3, Informative

      There are plenty of mouth-breathers on both sides and Fox is probably worse than CNN.
      If you're interested in the SCIENCE, follow the SCIENTISTS or the people who actually spend time with them or do more than a superficial analysis.

      RealClimate.org may be too difficult for most laymen; SkepticalScience.com is easier to digest. Greenman3610's videos on YouTube are both entertaining & informative but Potholer54's work is probably a better example of science journalism as he's been doing it for 30 years.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    22. Re:Egocentrism by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ah, the old "whites can't suffer racism" canard.

      Where, exactly, did GP said that?

      Of course there's racism targeted against whites. However, if you are a white in a society dominated by whites, your chances of running into it are much lower than they are for one of the minorities. And there are, indeed, people who claim that there's no racism because they have personally not experienced any.

  2. Sure by rmdingler · · Score: 5, Insightful
    But only for people who confuse weather with climate.

    The very same logic is used to fashion correlation from coincidence the World over.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

    1. Re:Sure by The+Rizz · · Score: 3, Funny

      Obligatory Armstrong & Miller link.

    2. Re:Sure by Racemaniac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      isn't it just that people react emotionally to such things? the real discussion is far above the understanding of 99.99(don't know how many more nines until i only keep the real experts)% of the people, so when asked an opinion, they react more emotionally than logically. So on depending on the current weather it's logical those emotions are different.

      I also hate discussions about topics like this, because it's just emotional shouting at eachother with facts only used to confirm what you feel is right. Even when people on this site would love to claim how intellectual they are, both sides are more about emotions and personal viewpoints than real science, we might now some good facts, read some interesting articles, but do we really know anything about climate science, all the subtle things, ... everything that can't be easily found in popular science magazines or the few popular arguments from both sides that people keep repeating to prove their own feelings are the best.

  3. Global vs. local effects by ghack · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Global warming is exactly that- a global trend, not a local one. Locally, the effects have been most pronounced near the north pole, which is not exactly a place where many people live.

    Global climate change seems to have resulted recently in a "warming" trend, but as we know from Al Gore's movie, if the North Atlantic current gets shut off we are in for a polar vortex on a much longer time scale.

    I am not sure who coined the phrase "global warming"; is it a PR failure by the scientists involved or a reporting failure by the news media? To quote a well known meme: "why not both?"

  4. local weather by Thorfinn.au · · Score: 5, Informative

    so just as N.America has its lowest temperatures for decades
    Australia is doing some of its hottest with a rounded 50C for the first time last week
    Monday -> 27C and the rest of the week's forecast is
    Tuesday -> 43C
    Wednesday -> 39C
    Thursday -> 41C
    Friday -> 40C
    its all about extra energy making things more variable, but no single weather event can be attributed to anthropogenic climate change

  5. They don't understand the difference by sjbe · · Score: 5, Insightful

    During unusually hot weather, people tend to accept global warming, and they swing against it during cold events."

    Of course they do because many people (most maybe) do not understand the difference between climate and weather. They have either a poor understanding or perhaps no concept at all that short term temperature fluctuations are merely data points in a longer term trend. It is just like how people overreact to a few worse than usual days in the stock market even though the long term trend for the overall market for the last 100 years has been upwards.

    Weather = what is happening today
    Climate = average weather over time

    1. Re:They don't understand the difference by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Informative

      NASA says CO2 has been below this level for 650,000 years. Good enough for you?

      http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

      This is the one that scares me the most.
      "The oceans have absorbed much of this increased heat, with the top 700 meters (about 2,300 feet) of ocean showing warming of 0.302 degrees Fahrenheit since 1969."

      That's a lot of freaking water heated.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  6. Peter Hadfield (aka: potholer54) by taiwanjohn · · Score: 4, Informative

    This guy has the most informative debunking of BS on both sides of of the issue. His series of YouTube videos should be required viewing for policy makers and "armchair experts" alike.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve your problem, you're not using enough of it. --AC
  7. A bit hypocritical by sideslash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I find this ironic since the political AWG alarmism lobby deserves a lot of the blame for this. Remember the use of Hurricane Katrina splashed on Al Gore's "Inconvenient Truth" movie cover. And pretty much whenever there's a natural disaster you have AGW alarmists (not just trolling internet comments, but also occupying high places in government) stirring the pot some more.

    Researchers have known for some time that the acceptance of climate change depends on the day most people are asked.

    I don't doubt that this is true. I also don't doubt that the enthusiasm of researchers to jump on bandwagons follows the "weather patterns" of public funding availability. That's how Richard Lindzen of MIT describes it, and it seems to fit.

    1. Re:A bit hypocritical by itsdapead · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I find this ironic since the political AWG alarmism lobby deserves a lot of the blame for this

      and the AWG denial lobby deserves a lot of the blame for the AWG alarmism body.

      Unfortunately, when you have a well-funded denial campaign telling people what they want to hear (no problem here, ignore the commie academics, relax and enjoy your SUV) a lobby that doesn't resort to alarmism is a lobby that doesn't get listened to.

      A bone fide climatologist would have made a more accurate documentary than Al Gore - which would then have been seen by an audience of, oh dozens of people who watch PBS at midnight.

      Or, just wait 50-100 years until there's enough data to decide for sure whether Katrina or the polar vortex were just statistical blips or part of the AGW-predicted increase in extreme weather - if the latter then good luck building a time-machine to go back and fix the problem (hint: don't use the traditional DeLorian because if we go on using oil as if there is an infinite supply then, AGW or not, you won't be able to afford enough gas to get it up to 88 mph, and Mr Fusion is about as technically plausible as the flux capacitor) .

      --
      In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
  8. Weather is Not Climate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And yet we are to believe things like Katrina and Sandy are evidence FOR Global Warming? Aren't those things just as much "weather" as the national cold streak (which, btw, I've heard Global Warming advocates cite as evidence FOR Global Warming)?

    It seems that every "weather" event is trotted out as evidence FOR Global Warming by someone. According to the advocates, there appears to be no piece of evidence that can possibly be used against Global Warming, but it can all be used as evidence it is happening. Actions like this make the whole AGW movement seem more like a religion than science.

  9. Re:Yes, facts are manipulated. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    I noticed you quoted Wikipedia for all of your references. You provide some quotes from an organisation that has been found to manipulate and edit information in an attempt to make it accepted. Below are some examples of how easy it is to manipulate Wikipedia for your own gain

    http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/06/hoax-article-detailing-fake-war-stayed-up-on-wikipedia-for-five-years/
    http://www.pcworld.com/article/2023647/fake-wikipedia-entry-on-bicholim-conflict-finally-deleted-after-five-years.html
    http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/05/how-the-professor-who-fooled-wikipedia-got-caught-by-reddit/257134/

    So-called green organisations are guilty of the same behaviour
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/ryanholiday/2012/06/15/how-greenpeace-manipulated-the-media-like-a-pro-analyzing-the-shell-oil-hoax/
    http://beforeitsnews.com/new-world-order/2013/12/truly-shocking-manipulationgreenpeace-depressed-santa-global-warming-agenda-kids-christmas-will-have-to-be-cancelled-empty-stockings-video-video-752.html
    http://www.conservapedia.com/Greenpeace

  10. Re:Smog's wish by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All those articles really say is that the atmosphere may not be as sensitive to CO2 as previously thought

    Yes. And that "only" puts the existing theories — than man's CO2 emissions are responsible for the warming — on their heads.

    So, maybe, there is no need to tax/ban certain fuels and activities, after all? And thus no need for further expansion of governments (to enforce the bans) and merging of sovereign governments into an unelected "world-government" body?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  11. Science doesn't work on consensus by sjbe · · Score: 4, Informative

    If it was accurate then there would have been a consensus predicting these events.

    I find in continually frustrating that proponents (and opponents) of addressing the risks of climate change bring up scientific consensus as an argument. I think Einstein said it best when reportedly responding to the book "Hundert Autoren gegen Einstein (A Hundred Authors Against Einstein)", by saying (roughly) "if I were wrong, one would be enough". If a model is correct and has predictive value then it is useful regardless of what the consensus might say. If it has no predictive value then it is wrong regardless of any consensus.

    It is also possible that the phenomena is real and we simply have not developed a descriptive model yet. Relativity was real even before Einstein developed his model. So you have to ask yourself, how should we behave if there is a reasonable chance that this phenomena is real? Our ability or lack thereof to model the climate change is a separate issue from our ability to measure it. We KNOW that temperatures are rising globally because we are able to measure that even if we don't know for absolute certain why they are rising. So if they are rising what are the potential consequences and what should we do based on those potential consequences?

    However, the fact that there is no consensus means that there isn't accuracy in the field of Climate Change

    As meaningless as consensus might be, there does appear to be one regarding the existence of climate change. The only real debate at this point is regarding severity.

    I am willing to accept carbon based climate change and accept the changes required for preventing future damage, but only if it is scientifically proven.

    Well the data we have certainly seems to indicate that climate change is real so I'm not entirely sure what level of proof you are looking for. It's not the sort of phenomena you want to wait until after it occurs to say "yep, we proved it - look at all this damage". However, let's presume for the sake of argument that the data is inconclusive at present. Then the question becomes one of risk. Let's say there is 50% chance that climate change is real and that if it is real the consequences of it are that the planet no longer becomes compatible with human life. Is that a risk you are willing to take or do you think we should act on the risk knowing we might be wrong but playing it safe? Basically you are doing an expected value analysis.