Opinion polls of climate change

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 15:04 GMT je la 28an de januaro 2009

Share this Blog
8
+

According to a 2007 Newsweek poll, 42% of Americans believe that "there is a lot of disagreement among climate scientists about whether human activities are a major cause" of global warming". I posed the same question to members of the wunderground community on Monday, and even higher 56% of them thought so. However, the results of a poll that appears in this week's edition of the journal EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union, reveals that the public is misinformed on this issue. Fully 97% of the climate scientists who regularly publish on climate change agreed with the statement, "human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures".



Figure 1. Response to the question, "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" The general public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll (see http://www.gallup.com/poll/1615/Environment.aspx). Image credit: EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Union.

The anonymous poll was performed in late 2008 by Peter Doran, University of Illinois at Chicago associate professor of earth and environmental sciences, along with former graduate student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman. Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts at universities and government labs around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments. The 2-minute, two-question poll had 3146 responses (30.7% of those polled). Approximately 90% of the scientists who responded were from the U.S., and about 90% held a Ph.D. degree. Of these scientists, 5% were climate scientists who published more than 50% of all their peer-reviewed publications in the past five years on the subject of climate change. The authors noted that the survey included participants with well-documented dissenting opinions on global warming theory. Question #1 was, When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?" About 90% of all the scientists and 97% of the climate scientists said temperatures had risen. Question #2 was, "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" About 82% of all the scientists agreed, and 97% (75 of 77) climate scientists agreed. This contrasts with the results of a recent Gallup poll that suggests only 58% of the general public would answer yes. Interestingly, petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters in the new EOS poll, with only 47 and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.

In a press release on the study, author Peter Doran commented, "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 climate scientists. "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, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."

Commentary
The scientists most involved in assessing the current state of the climate are the most likely to have the "pulse of the planet"--a deep understanding of how the climate works and where we are headed. If 97% of these scientists believe in significant human impact on the climate, then it is probably so. Why is there such a disparity, then, between what they believe, and what the public and other scientists, such as petroleum geologists, believe? Dr. Ricky Rood has some excellent commentary on this issue in his latest wunderground Climate Change blog, and I offer these three reasons:

1) There are a few good climate scientists (3%) that believe humans are not significantly impacting the climate. One tends to hear the beliefs of this tiny minority a disproportionate amount. This is primarily because the fossil fuel industry pumps millions of dollars into PR campaigns to make sure you hear these dissenting views. That's not to say that these scientists are paid lackeys of the fossil fuel industry--that is not the case. These scientists' point of view happens to coincide with arguments that would protect the profits of the fossil fuel industry, so naturally the industry spends a lot of money making sure you hear these points of view. The fossil fuel industry PR campaigns also emphasize the contrarian views of a handful of non-publishing scientists working for private think tanks, who provide a distorted, non-objective view of climate change science (e.g., the attempt to hide summertime Arctic sea ice loss by quoting irrelevant statistics about wintertime global sea ice). These efforts have been highly successful in casting doubt on what is an overwhelming (though not unanimous) consensus among climate scientists. The fossil fuel industry PR campaigns are similar to the ones run by the cigarette industry to cast doubt on the harmfulness of smoking. "Doubt is our product," a cigarette executive once observed, "since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' that exists in the minds of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy." I recommend a reading of the 2008 book, "Doubt is Their Product", which discusses the many efforts by industry over the years to cast doubt on established scientific facts in order to protect industry profits.

2) The media contributes to the disproportionate coverage of the dissenting views, since one can make a news story more compelling by dramatizing conflict and giving equal weight to both sides.

3) Many people have a deep-seated belief in the relative insignificance of humans on a planetary scale. Geologists, who take the long view of time over geologic history, are particularly prone to this. Indeed, the planet is vast, and we are but tiny ants crawling upon its surface during a brief moment in geologic time. However, when one works regularly with the data, it becomes apparent that human activities are beginning to substantially impact weather and climate. When presented with facts contrary to ones beliefs, a good scientist will check the facts extra thoroughly to verify their validity, but then abandon those beliefs that don't fit the facts. The facts as accepted by 97% of our top climate scientists are that atmosphere is but a relatively thin, fragile layer of volatile gases beginning to show unmistakable changes due to the geometric explosion in human population over recent centuries. Those effects are only now beginning to be detectable, which is why human-caused global warming is so controversial in the public's eye. I predict that twenty years from now, climate change will be so obvious that the controversy regarding human responsibility will be gone.


Figure 2. The atmosphere viewed edge on from space. Tall thunderstorm clouds can be seen on the right side of the image, silhouetted against an orange layer of lower atmospheric gases (the troposphere) back-lit by the sun, just below the horizon. Above this layer is the clear blue of the stratosphere and the blackness of space. Seen from space, one can appreciate the thinness and potential vulnerability of the layer of gases that make up our atmosphere. Image credit: NASA Space Shuttle Flight 6 on 4 April 1983.

How representative is this poll?
The findings of another, more in-depth poll of scientists done in 2007 pretty much agreed with this week's Doran/Zimmerman poll, but were much more interesting. The 2007 poll, conducted by Fergus Brown, Roger Pielke, Sr., and James Annan, attempted to assess whether "a significant set of climate scientists agree or disagree with the perspective of the role of humans within the climate system as reported by the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report". Out of the 1807 scientists in 53 countries who were contacted, 140 responded. Almost all respondents (at least 97%) concluded that the "human addition of CO2 into the atmosphere is an important component of the climate system and has contributed to some extent in recent observed global average warming". Among the other findings:

1) No scientists were willing to admit to the statement that global warming is a fabrication and that human activity is not having any significant effect on climate [0%].

2) The largest group of respondents (45-50%) agreed with the 2007 IPCC report.

3) A significant minority (15-20%) concluded that the IPCC overstated the role of the human role in affecting the climate.

4) A significant minority (15-20%) concluded that the IPCC understated the seriousness of the threat from human additions of CO2. Ten of the 140 respondents (7%) took the most pessimistic view that we are "seriously damaging the climate" and face "devastating consequences".

Here's the full text of the poll, which I've also put up on my latest wunderpoll to vote on, if you're a Weather Underground member:

Which one statement most nearly matches your personal opinion about the physical science basis of global warming, as exemplified by the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fourth Assessment Report, Working Group 1 (WG1)? [If your personal opinion falls between two adjacent statements, please mark both]

1. There is no warming; it is a fabrication based on inaccurate/inappropriate measurement. Human activity is not having any significant effect on Climate. The data on which such assumptions are made is so compromised as to be worthless. The physical science basis of Anthropogenic Global Warming theory is founded on a false hypothesis.

2. Any recent warming is most likely natural. Human input of CO2 has very little to do with it. Solar, naturally varying water vapor, and similar variables can explain most or all of the climate changes. Projections based on Global Climate Models are unreliable because these are based on too many assumptions and unreliable data sets.

3. There are changes in the atmosphere, including added CO2 from human activities, but significant climate effects are likely to be all within natural limits. The 'scares' are exaggerations with a political motive. The undue emphasis on CO2 diverts attention away from other, important research on climate variability and change.

4. There is warming and the human addition of CO2 causes some of it, but the science is too uncertain to be confident about current attributions of the precise role of CO2 with respect to other climate forcings. The IPCC WG1 overestimates the role of CO2 relative to other forcings, including a diverse variety of human climate forcings.

5. The scientific basis for human impacts on climate is well represented by the IPCC WG1 report. The lead scientists know what they are doing. We are warming the planet, with CO2 as the main culprit. At least some of the forecast consequences of this change are based on robust evidence.

6. The IPCC WG1 is compromised by political intervention; I agree with those scientists who say that the IPCC WG1 is underestimating the problem. Action to reduce human emissions of CO2 in order to mitigate against serious consequences is more urgent than the report suggests. This should be done irrespective of other climate and environmental considerations.

7. The IPCC WG1 seriously understates the human influence on climate. I agree with those scientists who say that major mitigation responses are needed immediately to prevent catastrophic serious warming and other impacts projected to result from human emissions of CO2. We are seriously damaging the Earth's climate, and will continue to face devastating consequences for many years.



Figure 3. Results of the 2007 opinion poll by Fergus Brown, Roger Pielke, Sr., and James Annan of climate scientists, organized by question number (one to seven). In the USA, the mean response was 4.8, compared to 5.2 in all other countries, and 5.6 in EU countries.

Commentary
The majority of climate scientists polled believe the 2007 IPCC reports essentially "gets it right", which is in part why I like to refer to the IPCC report as representing "the official word" on climate. This report concluded that there was a greater than 90% chance that most of the observed global warming in the past 50 years was due to emission of greenhouse gases by human activity. However, there are substantial minorities that believe the IPCC underestimates or overestimates the potential impacts, and these voices need to be respected, as well.

Dr. Ricky Rood talks in greater depth on this issue in his latest wunderground Climate Change blog: "There are many thousands of scientists, and while large groups of individuals often share many like-minded values and beliefs, they are never in lockstep on the details of all aspects of their beliefs. It is not expected that in a community of thousands of scientists that there is a uniform chant of doctrine. This is especially true given the very nature of scientific investigation of an enormously complex system."

Other voices on climate scientist polls
Dr. James Annan's blog
Planet Gore
Realclimate.org.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 277 - 227

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23Blog Index

The climate poll results(among published scientists) is biased and not surprising to me. Clearly, if any published scientist were to disagree with the tide of opinion (that the planet is warming and soon to melt into a pool of molton sardines), they would enter the world of the UNEMPLOYED scientist. They would certainly lose their grant renewal, they would be black-balled in their quest for tenure and be kicked out any university laboratory space. Clearly, the political pressure to agree with this global warming nonsense is so strong that it saddens me to see the state of US science. Phooey!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting streamtracker:


I find that people who aren't able to coherently critique ideas usually resort to attacking the messenger. Care to take a try at addressing what he said?


Surely you mean what he was told to say. I don't attack the messengers. It the message that is wrong and not backed by anything more than opinion and conjecture. Show me the empirical data to support the argument that goes beyond a few years. Accurate data.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Calusakat: It's not 928 individuals, it's 928 published articles.

There's a very big difference. You can claim that climatologists only support AGW for funding. You can claim that the consensus of opinion is a result of group think or worse yet a deliberate disinformation campaign. That the consensus within climatologists is a fraud.

But in order for the argument that the primary literature is part of this group think or disinformation to work requires that the journals themselves are complicit.

What in the world would the journal Science, one of the most prestigious journals in the world, have to gain by being complicit in this groupthink or disinformation campaign? Why in the world would they sacrifice their credibility in order to promote a theory they would never profit from? Science deals with a huge range of topics, why would they risk throwing away their credibility with those fields in order to promote a theory they from a single specific field they would never profit from

You can make the argument all day that climate scientists are like minded or deliberately misleading and that's where their results come from, but once you've crossed the line into implicating the journals themselves you've made a leap that just doesn't have a shred of merit.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Ossqss:


Its Al gore, the guy who is a scientist, no, a professional climatologist, no, a guy who owns 5 large green related corporations that has used propaganda to help him get rich and pay for his private jet trips and $2,000 a month electric bill, yep thats him


I find that people who aren't able to coherently critique ideas usually resort to attacking the messenger. Care to take a try at addressing what he said?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Thank you, Dr. Masters!
For all the facts about whether or not people are taking global warming seriously and for some of the reasons that the general public is misinformed.
I know some scientists that work with remote-sensing and their opinion is that temps in the Caribbean are one indication. I am trying to analyze my carbon footprint and am trying to think of at least one new thing I can do each week. I know many people are concerned and I hope what they learn on your blog will increase awareness and action.

MM
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting streamtracker:
Gore's testimony to Senate Foreign relations Committee today:

My opening statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today:

We are here today to talk about how we as Americans and how the United States of America as part of the global community should address the dangerous and growing threat of the climate crisis.

We have arrived at a moment of decision. Our home - Earth - is in grave danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the planet itself, of course, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings.

Moreover, we must face up to this urgent and unprecedented threat to the existence of our civilization at a time when our country must simultaneously solve two other worsening crises. Our economy is in its deepest recession since the 1930s. And our national security is endangered by a vicious terrorist network and the complex challenge of ending the war in Iraq honorably while winning the military and political struggle in Afghanistan.

As we search for solutions to all three of these challenges, it is becoming clearer that they are linked by a common thread - our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels. As long as we continue to send hundreds of billions of dollars for foreign oil - year after year - to the most dangerous and unstable regions of the world, our national security will continue to be at risk.

As long as we continue to allow our economy to remain shackled to the OPEC rollercoaster of rising and falling oil prices, our jobs and our way of life will remain at risk.

Moreover, as the demand for oil worldwide grows rapidly over the longer term, even as the rate of new discoveries is falling, it is increasingly obvious that the roller coaster is headed for a crash. And we're in the front car.

Most importantly, as long as we continue to depend on dirty fossil fuels like coal and oil to meet our energy needs, and dump 70 million tons of global warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, we move closer and closer to several dangerous tipping points which scientists have repeatedly warned - again just yesterday - will threaten to make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable destruction of the conditions that make human civilization possible on this planet.

We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that's got to change.

For years our efforts to address the growing climate crisis have been undermined by the idea that we must choose between our planet and our way of life; between our moral duty and our economic well being. These are false choices. In fact, the solutions to the climate crisis are the very same solutions that will address our economic and national security crises as well.

In order to repower our economy, restore American economic and moral leadership in the world and regain control of our destiny, we must take bold action now.

The first step is already before us. I urge this Congress to quickly pass the entirety of President Obama's Recovery package. The plan's unprecedented and critical investments in four key areas - energy efficiency, renewables, a unified national energy grid and the move to clean cars - represent an important down payment and are long overdue. These crucial investments will create millions of new jobs and hasten our economic recovery - while strengthening our national security and beginning to solve the climate crisis.

Quickly building our capacity to generate clean electricity will lay the groundwork for the next major step needed: placing a price on carbon. If Congress acts right away to pass President Obama's Recovery package and then takes decisive action this year to institute a cap-and-trade system for CO2 emissions - as many of our states and many other countries have already done - the United States will regain its credibility and enter the Copenhagen treaty talks with a renewed authority to lead the world in shaping a fair and effective treaty. And this treaty must be negotiated this year.
Not next year. This year.

A fair, effective and balanced treaty will put in place the global architecture that will place the world - at long last and in the nick of time - on a path toward solving the climate crisis and securing the future of human civilization.

I am hopeful that this can be achieved. Let me outline for you the basis for the hope and optimism that I feel.

The Obama administration has already signaled a strong willingness to regain U.S.leadership on the global stage in the treaty talks, reversing years of inaction. This is critical to success in Copenhagen and is clearly a top priority of the administration.

Developing countries that were once reluctant to join in the first phases of a global response to the climate crisis have themselves now become leaders in demanding action and in taking bold steps on their own initiatives. Brazil has proposed an impressive new plan to halt the destructive deforestation in that nation. Indonesia has emerged as a new constructive force in the talks. And China's leaders have gained a strong understanding of the need for action and have already begun important new initiatives.

Heads of state from around the world have begun to personally engage on this issue and forward-thinking corporate leaders have made this a top priority.

More and more Americans are paying attention to the new evidence and fresh warnings from scientists. There is a much broader consensus on the need for action than there was when President George H.W. Bush negotiated - and the Senate ratified - the Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992 and much stronger support for action than when we completed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.

The elements that I believe are key to a successful agreement in Copenhagen include:

- Strong targets and timetables from industrialized countries and differentiated butbinding commitments from developing countries that put the entire world under a system with one commitment: to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and otherglobal warming pollutants that cause the climate crisis;

- The inclusion of deforestation, which alone accounts for twenty percent of the emissions that cause global warming;

- The addition of sinks including those from soils, principally from farmlands and grazing lands with appropriate methodologies and accounting. Farmers and ranchers in the U.S. and around the world need to know that they can be part of the solution;

- The assurance that developing countries will have access to mechanisms and resources that will help them adapt to the worst impacts of the climate crisis and technologies to solve the problem; and,

- A strong compliance and verification regime.

The road to Copenhagen is not easy, but we have traversed this ground before. We have negotiated the Montreal Protocol, a treaty to protect the ozone layer, and strengthened it to the point where we have banned most of the major substances that create the ozone hole over Antarctica. And we did it with bipartisan support. President Ronald Reagan and Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill joined hands to lead the way.


Its Al gore, the guy who is a scientist, no, a professional climatologist, no, a guy who owns 5 large green related corporations that has used propaganda to help him get rich and pay for his private jet trips and $2,000 a month electric bill, yep thats him
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
A much stronger argument regarding the scientific consensus would be Oreskes survey which surveyed 928 abstracts in peer reviewed abstracts of scientific literature dealing with climate change and found 0 disagreed with the consensus position.

100% agreement???

Doesn't anyone smell a rat here. No red flags??

100% agreement???

That is more like lemmings than scientists.

Time to wake up folks, this is bad...real bad.

928 individuals all in agreement and no one is suspicious?

OMG

This is proof positive the AGW is a fraud being hoisted upon the world for solely monetary reasons. Cap and Trade...just another boondoggle to steal from the poor and give to the rich. Including Al.
Member Since: 10-a de oktobro Posts: 0 Comments: 716
Quoting Patrap:
So..I see it's a Rather Tender Subject..?

...More "Whine" anyone?



I'll call a whaaaambulance. :)

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Gore's testimony to Senate Foreign relations Committee today:

My opening statement before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today:

We are here today to talk about how we as Americans and how the United States of America as part of the global community should address the dangerous and growing threat of the climate crisis.

We have arrived at a moment of decision. Our home - Earth - is in grave danger. What is at risk of being destroyed is not the planet itself, of course, but the conditions that have made it hospitable for human beings.

Moreover, we must face up to this urgent and unprecedented threat to the existence of our civilization at a time when our country must simultaneously solve two other worsening crises. Our economy is in its deepest recession since the 1930s. And our national security is endangered by a vicious terrorist network and the complex challenge of ending the war in Iraq honorably while winning the military and political struggle in Afghanistan.

As we search for solutions to all three of these challenges, it is becoming clearer that they are linked by a common thread - our dangerous over-reliance on carbon-based fuels. As long as we continue to send hundreds of billions of dollars for foreign oil - year after year - to the most dangerous and unstable regions of the world, our national security will continue to be at risk.

As long as we continue to allow our economy to remain shackled to the OPEC rollercoaster of rising and falling oil prices, our jobs and our way of life will remain at risk.

Moreover, as the demand for oil worldwide grows rapidly over the longer term, even as the rate of new discoveries is falling, it is increasingly obvious that the roller coaster is headed for a crash. And we're in the front car.

Most importantly, as long as we continue to depend on dirty fossil fuels like coal and oil to meet our energy needs, and dump 70 million tons of global warming pollution into the thin shell of atmosphere surrounding our planet, we move closer and closer to several dangerous tipping points which scientists have repeatedly warned - again just yesterday - will threaten to make it impossible for us to avoid irretrievable destruction of the conditions that make human civilization possible on this planet.

We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet. Every bit of that's got to change.

For years our efforts to address the growing climate crisis have been undermined by the idea that we must choose between our planet and our way of life; between our moral duty and our economic well being. These are false choices. In fact, the solutions to the climate crisis are the very same solutions that will address our economic and national security crises as well.

In order to repower our economy, restore American economic and moral leadership in the world and regain control of our destiny, we must take bold action now.

The first step is already before us. I urge this Congress to quickly pass the entirety of President Obama's Recovery package. The plan's unprecedented and critical investments in four key areas - energy efficiency, renewables, a unified national energy grid and the move to clean cars - represent an important down payment and are long overdue. These crucial investments will create millions of new jobs and hasten our economic recovery - while strengthening our national security and beginning to solve the climate crisis.

Quickly building our capacity to generate clean electricity will lay the groundwork for the next major step needed: placing a price on carbon. If Congress acts right away to pass President Obama's Recovery package and then takes decisive action this year to institute a cap-and-trade system for CO2 emissions - as many of our states and many other countries have already done - the United States will regain its credibility and enter the Copenhagen treaty talks with a renewed authority to lead the world in shaping a fair and effective treaty. And this treaty must be negotiated this year.
Not next year. This year.

A fair, effective and balanced treaty will put in place the global architecture that will place the world - at long last and in the nick of time - on a path toward solving the climate crisis and securing the future of human civilization.

I am hopeful that this can be achieved. Let me outline for you the basis for the hope and optimism that I feel.

The Obama administration has already signaled a strong willingness to regain U.S.leadership on the global stage in the treaty talks, reversing years of inaction. This is critical to success in Copenhagen and is clearly a top priority of the administration.

Developing countries that were once reluctant to join in the first phases of a global response to the climate crisis have themselves now become leaders in demanding action and in taking bold steps on their own initiatives. Brazil has proposed an impressive new plan to halt the destructive deforestation in that nation. Indonesia has emerged as a new constructive force in the talks. And China's leaders have gained a strong understanding of the need for action and have already begun important new initiatives.

Heads of state from around the world have begun to personally engage on this issue and forward-thinking corporate leaders have made this a top priority.

More and more Americans are paying attention to the new evidence and fresh warnings from scientists. There is a much broader consensus on the need for action than there was when President George H.W. Bush negotiated - and the Senate ratified - the Framework Convention on Climate Change in 1992 and much stronger support for action than when we completed the Kyoto Protocol in 1997.

The elements that I believe are key to a successful agreement in Copenhagen include:

- Strong targets and timetables from industrialized countries and differentiated butbinding commitments from developing countries that put the entire world under a system with one commitment: to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and otherglobal warming pollutants that cause the climate crisis;

- The inclusion of deforestation, which alone accounts for twenty percent of the emissions that cause global warming;

- The addition of sinks including those from soils, principally from farmlands and grazing lands with appropriate methodologies and accounting. Farmers and ranchers in the U.S. and around the world need to know that they can be part of the solution;

- The assurance that developing countries will have access to mechanisms and resources that will help them adapt to the worst impacts of the climate crisis and technologies to solve the problem; and,

- A strong compliance and verification regime.

The road to Copenhagen is not easy, but we have traversed this ground before. We have negotiated the Montreal Protocol, a treaty to protect the ozone layer, and strengthened it to the point where we have banned most of the major substances that create the ozone hole over Antarctica. And we did it with bipartisan support. President Ronald Reagan and Speaker of the House Tip O'Neill joined hands to lead the way.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Wow. Doc really summed up my points from the last blog very well. I must ask if might have had an influence on the topic of this blog? Because if so I'd feel giddy as a schoolgirl.

I must ask in reference to Dr. Doran's poll... who were the three climatologists that said the temperature hadn't risen (yes, I realize the poll was anonymous, it's a rhetorical)? I haven't heard this from even the most vocal skeptics. What in the world is this based on?

To the people claiming that science isn't done by opinion poll, you're most definitely correct. The poll in and of itself doesn't prove nor strengthen the validity behind the science of AGW. Does this mean the poll is meaningless? Certainly not. It's a very valuable tool for assessing the current state of the field, which is needless to say, very strongly supportive of the theory. It's a very valuable tool for communicating with the public.

A much stronger argument regarding the scientific consensus would be Oreskes survey which surveyed 928 abstracts in peer reviewed abstracts of scientific literature dealing with climate change and found 0 disagreed with the consensus position. If there was serious debate on the science it would most definitely be present in at least some form in the scientific literature. If the science was unsound there would be massive disagreement within the primary literature. There isn't.

I'd also be curious to know what Dr. M answered in the poll on the page. I'd assume 5.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I am curious.

What is the poll in this thread supposed to be accomplishing?

Is it supposed to be validating the AGW point of view?

Is this a new scientific methodology to give credence to a particular hypothesis or theory?

Does that mean that if I come up with a new hypothesis that I can validate it simply by conducting a poll and if enough people agree it becomes the law of the land?

How exciting...and those who challenge my poll approved theory will be known as denialists!

How much more simple can it get?

How much lower will meteorological science stoop before it realizes the error of its lazy ways.

Only time will tell.
Member Since: 10-a de oktobro Posts: 0 Comments: 716
Quoting GulfPoet:



Just my guess ... but I would think keeping 2 Million families in their jobs would "stimulate" the economy.

But I am not an economist, I'm a poet


That's OK gulfy.
Even though some poets are like Slinkeys.
They're no fun till ya push im' down the stairs.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
259. GulfPoet

That "stimulus" bill isn't going to come close to 2 million jobs. Not even 1 million.

Besides the fact that most of it doesn't get spent until September and beyond, most of the items will not create a single job.

It's a spending bill, plain and simple.

"Add the roughly $20 billion for business tax cuts, and by our estimate only $90 billion out of $825 billion, or about 12 cents of every $1, is for something that can plausibly be considered a growth stimulus."

Link

In any case, between TARP and this, you could send every adult in the entire country around $8K each.... that's $16K for married folks... now THAT would stimulate the economy... even if people saved half and spent half.

Just my .02 on that.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
264. HadesGodWyvern (Mod)
Fiji Meteorological Services
Tropical Cyclone Advisory Number TEN
TROPICAL CYCLONE HETTIE, CATEGORY 1 (08F)
6:00 AM FST January 29 2009
=========================================

At 18:00 PM UTC, Tropical Cyclone Hettie, Category One [995 hPa] located at 22.0S 177.9W has 10 minute sustained winds of 35 knots within 120 miles of the center in the southeastern semi-circle. The cyclone is reported as moving south-southwest at 7 knots. Position POOR based on multispectral/enhanced infrared radar imagery with animation.

The low level circulation center is exposed to about 75 NM northwest of deep convection. Outflow is good to south and restricted elsewhere.

Dvorak analysis based on shear pattern yielding DT=1.5, PT=MET=2.0 FT=2.0

Thus T2.0/3.0/W0.5/25 HRS

System lies in an area of 50 knot shear downstream of an approaching upper shortwave trough. The CIMMS indicates decreasing shear to south. TC Hettie is expected to turn more westerly under the low level east to northeast steering field and surface ridge building to the south. Global models agree on a forecast westerly track and weakening.

Forecast and Intensity
=======================
12 HRS: 22.8S 179.1W - 35 knots (CAT 1)
24 HRS: 23.0S 179.1W - 30 knots (Tropical Depression)
48 HRS: 22.9S 174.9W - 25 knots (Tropical Depression)
Member Since: 24-a de majo Posts: 48 Comments: 43701
263. IKE
Quoting Patrap:
So..I see it's a Rather Tender Subject..?

...More "Whine" anyone?



Member Since: Posts: Comments:


More about calculator.Link



Member Since: 03-a de julio Posts: 415 Comments: 125681
Quoting GulfPoet:



Just my guess ... but I would think keeping 2 Million families in their jobs would "stimulate" the economy.

But I am not an economist, I'm a poet


I think keeping AGW backed climatologists properly funded with Federal grants wouldn't "stimulate" the economy. But I am not an economist, I'm a stupid tax payer.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
So..I see it's a Rather Tender Subject..?

...More "Whine" anyone?

Member Since: 03-a de julio Posts: 415 Comments: 125681
Quoting GulfPoet:
I am not very good with math. Someone help.

825 BILLION divided by 2 Million jobs lost.

How much value per job?


412,500 dollars
Member Since: 15-a de oktobro Posts: 11 Comments: 2305
257. IKE
Look at the latest 18Z GFS @ 138 hours...heck, it may snow here in the Florida panhandle(model may back off in all likelihood)....

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
256. IKE
From the afternoon Jackson,MS. discussion....

"SUNDAY AND BEYOND...

ALL GLOBAL MODELS HAVE COME INTO BETTER AGREEMENT FOR THE NEXT STORM
SET-UP FROM SUNDAY INTO EARLY NEXT WEEK. THEY SHOW QUICK
AMPLIFICATION OF THE PATTERN AS STRONG ENERGY DIVES SOUTHEAST INTO
ERN CONUS LONGWAVE TROUGH. A DEVELOPING GULF COAST LOW PRESSURE
SYSTEM WILL TREK EWD FROM SUNDAY INTO MONDAY. THE 12Z GFS INDICATES
STRATOSPHERIC INTRUSION WITH 1.5 PVU AIR DESCENDING TO BELOW
700MB EARLY NEXT WEEK RESULTING IN RAPID CYCLOGENESIS TO OUR EAST.
AFTER RAINY CONDITIONS SUNDAY AND SUNDAY NIGHT OVER THE
ARKLAMISS...THE MONDAY/MON NIGHT PERIOD COULD BE VERY CHILLY WITH
BLUSTERY NORTHWEST WINDS AND LINGERING LIGHT PRECIPITATION. STILL
PLENTY OF TIME TO KEEP AN EYE ON THIS SCENARIO. RAISED POPS SOME FOR
MONDAY AND TWEAKED TUESDAY TEMPS DOWN AS CONFIDENCE IS INCREASING
THAT STRONG COLD ADVECTION MAY DEVELOP. BEYOND THE EARLY WEEK
SYSTEM...EXPECT DRY NORTHWEST FLOW WITH COOL TEMPERATURES FOR THE
MIDDLE OF NEXT WEEK."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting vortfix:
It is being discussed as a possible storm of the century type set-up.

A Miller type A-B Cyclone.
It's still a ways out...but this should be interesting to follow.


I'm sure folks on the west coast of Florida remember that storm surge from '93. This one may develop over land too much, but they may wish to keep an eye on it just in case...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
254. IKE
From the afternoon Memphis,TN. discussion....

"SUNDAY THROUGH MONDAY NIGHT...WILL HAVE TO MONITOR ANOTHER LOW
PRESSURE SYSTEM THAT IS FORECAST TO AFFECT THE AREA AND BRING
POSSIBLE ACCUMULATING WINTRY PRECIPITATION. ALL LATEST MODELS...
THE GFS...CANADIAN GEM...AND ECMWF MODELS INDICATED A GOOD AMOUNT
PRECIP WITH A DEVELOPING LOW PRESSURE SYSTEM ALONG THE GULF COAST.
THIS UNUSUALLY SOUTH POSITIONING OF THE LOW MAY BRING A SNOW EVENT
TO THE MIDSOUTH AND FORECAST AREA. AT THIS TIME...INCREASED
PRECIPITATION CHANCES...KEPT PRECIP TYPES AS RAIN OR SNOW...
AND ADDED MENTION TO HWO."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
253. IKE
Quoting NEwxguy:


1 1/2 inches of ice is incredible


The person I talked to said it was a history making event...for that area.

18Z GFS at 120 hours....

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting IKE:
I talked to a family member that lives in Hoxie,AR...which is in NE Arkansas. They have 1 1/2 inches of ice...no power. Power may not be back on for days. Thank God they have gas heat. Thank God I live in Florida.


1 1/2 inches of ice is incredible
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
UNYSIS GFSX VALID 0 ZULU 4 FEB 2008Link

LO:970.2 mb
HI:1039.2mb
Member Since: 03-a de julio Posts: 415 Comments: 125681
Thank God I live in Florida.

Where GW's generator is mentioned in our nickname.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting IKE:
I talked to a family member that lives in Hoxie,AR...which is in NE Arkansas. They have 1 1/2 inches of ice...no power. Power may not be back on for days. Thank God they have gas heat. Thank God I live in Florida.


Thing is, in Michigan, we're used to it, and we know how to handle it, so it's not so bad.
Member Since: 15-a de oktobro Posts: 11 Comments: 2305
Quoting pearlandaggie:
it's the evil conservatives...they're the culprits!

Link

http://icecap.us/images/uploads/US_AND_GLOBAL_TEMP_ISSUES.pdf


watch it... I've said this to people who call the liberal side the "crazy liberals" too... keep this neutral and purely scientific (btw, that's the ad hominem fallacy... by saying the other person is mean therefore all their statements are false...fallacy, remember that)
Member Since: 15-a de oktobro Posts: 11 Comments: 2305
Sully has been discussing this on his blog.
Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting IKE:
I talked to a family member that lives in Hoxie,AR...which is in NE Arkansas. They have 1 1/2 inches of ice...no power. Power may not be back on for days. Thank God they have gas heat. Thank God I live in Florida.


Amen brother.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
It is being discussed as a possible storm of the century type set-up.

A Miller type A-B Cyclone.
It's still a ways out...but this should be interesting to follow.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
243. IKE
I talked to a family member that lives in Hoxie,AR...which is in NE Arkansas. They have 1 1/2 inches of ice...no power. Power may not be back on for days. Thank God they have gas heat. Thank God I live in Florida.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
242. IKE
Quoting vortfix:
Dr. Masters....could you please give us an updated blog regarding the potential situation next week??

This blog is going nowhere and we have a potential bad situation brewing.



I'll 2nd that request.

Dr. Masters...for what it's worth, I believe GW exists, but these constant debates in your blogs over it are really annoying. I am sooo looking forward to hurricane season starting back up.

Yes...looks like a noreaster early next week is setting up....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
241. Skyepony (Mod)
That storm that just went through broke some power outage records.. Here's the forecast for the low that may come outta the gulf next week.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting theshepherd:
210 sunlakedude
"majority of people"
"little concensus in the scientific community"
""conservatives"
"people who watch Fox News Network"
"Sarah Palin"
***********************************************

Wow, "dude"
I see you were at Six Flags. Have you tried Disney Land? You'd love Fantasy Land and "It's a small world".



In this case the WMD is Worlds mass deception. They did find them in Iraq, real WMD hoever, not propaganda of the left.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Dr. Masters....could you please give us an updated blog regarding the potential situation next week??

This blog is going nowhere and we have a potential bad situation brewing.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Here is a planet with a funky orbit.

1200 degree difference between seasons. (Does not say C or F...does it really matter?)

Link

I would think that this planet would eventually just fall into it's star...
Member Since: 16-a de aŭgusto Posts: 6 Comments: 12461
That's a riot! Thanks for the humor Amy....

Reading this blog makes me think the GW debate is causing GW! Hot tempers flaring!
Quoting NRAamy:
205. TampaTom 11:37 AM PST on January 28, 2009
Quoting NRAamy:
135. Ossqss 9:46 AM PST on January 28, 2009
Rude, I have never been so insulated in my whole life.

try switching out your down comforter for a cotton one....


Oh, God, that's a freakin' scream!



thanks...I think you're the only one who laughed...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
235. growe
x
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting NRAamy:
205. TampaTom 11:37 AM PST on January 28, 2009
Quoting NRAamy:
135. Ossqss 9:46 AM PST on January 28, 2009
Rude, I have never been so insulated in my whole life.

try switching out your down comforter for a cotton one....


Oh, God, that's a freakin' scream!



thanks...I think you're the only one who laughed...


Awww, the increased CO2 emissions have ticked my funny bone...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
233. unf97
Good afternoon everyone. I recently looked at the 12Z GFS model runs and there exists a very good possibility of a developing potent low pressure system in the Northern Gulf Coast region late Sunday into Monday. The upper level dynamics are suggesting that this system has the potential to spin-up into an impressive winter storm early next week along the East Coast. It will be interesting to see how the track and intensity of this system takes shape. Definitely something to keep a very close watch into this weekend and early next week.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
210 sunlakedude
"majority of people"
"little concensus in the scientific community"
""conservatives"
"people who watch Fox News Network"
"Sarah Palin"
***********************************************

Wow, "dude"
I see you were at Six Flags. Have you tried Disney Land? You'd love Fantasy Land and "It's a small world".
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
MP~ 82º & haze here...

Yikes. Better turn the freezer dial down a notch. lol

I have my air conditioner set on 72. Freon is my friend.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GulfPoet:
behold... 4 to 5 nuclear power plants.. to free us from foriegn oil and limit AGW....



Whats up with the red furniture in the pic? Additionally, incandescent bulbs !!! --- huh.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
229. Skyepony (Mod)
Hettie is now naked..


MP~ 82º & haze here...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting conchygirl:
I laughed too as you keep trying to bring some humor here but everyone is SOOO serious.


If I had any feelings you would have hurt them. Not. BTW, I have a silk comforter with shag trim and sometimes full of methane.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting captainhunter:


78 here in Panama City Beach currently but the UV index is only a 4 if that makes you feel any better.


It makes me feel like playing golf. 77 here.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 277 - 227

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

Local Weather

Scattered Clouds
41 °F
Malpliparte nuba