Scientists agree human-induced global warming is real
While the harsh winter pounding many areas of North America and Europe seemingly contradicts the fact that global warming continues unabated, a new survey finds consensus among scientists about the reality of climate change and its likely cause.
A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.
Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman, conducted the survey late last year.
The findings appear today in the publication Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union.
In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.
Experts in academia and government research centers were e-mailed invitations to participate in the on-line poll conducted by the website questionpro.com. Only those invited could participate and computer IP addresses of participants were recorded and used to prevent repeat voting. Questions used were reviewed by a polling expert who checked for bias in phrasing, such as suggesting an answer by the way a question was worded. The nine-question survey was short, taking just a few minutes to complete.
Two questions were key: have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.
About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Doran compared their responses to a recent poll showing only 58 percent of the public thinks human activity contributes to global warming.
"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," he said. "Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."
He was not surprised, however, by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.
"They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."
Doran and Kendall Zimmerman conclude that "the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes." The challenge now, they write, is how to effectively communicate this to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists.
http://www.uic.edu
- American Geological Institute,
- American Geophysical Union,
- Chicago,
- Energy and Environment,
- Europe,
- Illinois,
- Kendall Zimmerman,
- Maggie Kendall Zimmerman,
- North America,
- on-line poll,
- Peter Doran,
- University of Illinois at Chicago
- 3361 reads
Printer-friendly version | 
Send to friend
How about a test?
What is tonight’s low or tomorrow’s high temperature?
The theory that man can affect global climate change is based on computer models predicting 8 degree (F) increase in the earth’s average temperature in the next 100 years. Show me.
Let’s do a simple test of the models. They obviously take the sun’s radiance, and the earth’s radiance, reflectance, absorptivity, cloud cover, heat coefficient, enthalpy, dew point and atmospheric composition into account, and many of those variables are constant over a short time period, so how about using all that high powered science and math to tell me what the high temperature is going to be tomorrow? Easier yet, what about tonight’s low?
Since the models can predict 8 degrees over 100 years, the accuracy for the low or high should be easy to predict within 8F/100yx365d/y or 0.0002 degrees F, but considering the limits of science, I think 0.1 degree F would be fair. The prediction could be made for the Nashville International Airport, where the human activity can be easily modeled and temperature recording instruments are in place.
The guys who wrote the models should appreciate this challenge too, because if they can accurately predict the highs and lows, all the weather forecasting services in the world would buy their product.
Junk Science
Sadly this a another very poorly thought out study by authors with a clear political agenda trying to manufacture consensus on global warming.
The second question of import ("has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures")is purposefully vague. Answering yes to this question does not indicate agreement that greenhouse gases are the cause of global warming or that the problem of anthropogenic global warming is even a significant issue. A positive response could as well be acknowledgment of the urban heat island effect. The alarmists (and apparently the authors) undoubtedly will use this study to suggest that there is a consensus among scientists supporting their catastrophic views of greenhouse gas emissions and a call to political action. The survey data, however, does not necessarily support that view among scientists.
The opinions of petroleum geologists are discounted because they apparently have an economic interest in the issue. I would agree with the authors to some extent on this point (but these are also the people who are most involved in carbon sequestration technology !). On the other hand, climate scientists motives are never questioned by the studies authors despite the fact that their funding depends almost entirely on government agencies and the existence of a "global warming industry". It is no wonder that there is a consensus among the climate scientists - anyone who has a dissenting opinion that would endanger the funding stream is run off from that community. There is also a predisposition for people with certain political or social agendas to migrate towards certain fields of study. To turn the phrase of the authors, "The take home message here should be the more personal self interest, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it".
Given the political climate in places where many of these scientists are employed (universities and government agencies), I suspect that there may be a significant sampling bias in favor of those advocating anthropogenic global warming. The response rate to the survey was only about 30%. Many that have skeptical opinions have learned to keep quiet and few of them have any real incentives to speak out. The alarmists attack machine has been brutal in its attempts to discredit the opinions and reputations of any and all descent.
Finally, the fact that 18% of the earth science community openly acknowledge that they do not believe that anthropogenic contributions to global warming are significant reveals a fairly large and healthy community of skeptics. This is nowhere near "complete agreement among scientists" and clearly establishes there is still need for significant, research, discussion, and debate.
"Every Scientist Knows This"
Apparently they don't.
Broad statements such as your quote are only to incite, not to inform.
And yes, there is a conspiracy - we meet on Wednesdays...
RE: Denial
There is an overwhelming number of studies showing the antropogenic effect on climate. That is why there is an almost complete agreement on this subject in the scientific community.
It is true, that some scientists believe in a different way, and have proposed different explanations. But no one have been able to show convincing evidence of other factors explaining the observed change in average temperature and the melting of the north pole.
The existent of someone in disagreement (even if he's in an important position) does not make a thesis wrong. The denial is from people like you (anonymous) that negate a chorus of people giving a (difficult) explanation to pick one of the few voices supporting your belief.
It's difficult to accept the human influence in global warming because it will mean that we have to change our lifestyle, we have to change our means of producing energy and trasporting people. But it's no use denying it because you are afraid of the change.
Denial
"CO2 emissions make absolutely no difference one way or another. ... Every scientist knows this, but it doesn't pay to say so."
- Dr. Takeda Kunihiko, vice-chancellor of the Institute of Science and Technology Research, Chubu University, Japan
How many more do you want? There are many more honest scientists out there although you may deny that they exist.
Post new comment