Opinion polls of climate change
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
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 — Blog Index
Thank you.. I got it to work on my webpage and blog.. I was surprised I could get the blog to do it :)
New Orleans, Base Reflectivity 0.50 Degree Elevation Range 124 NMI Link
GOM IR Loop Link
we've been having twice weekly conference calls on a variety of things which are going on with our Portlight efforts....anyone is welcome to call in (toll free) and just listen...so...if you're inclined, WU mail me and I'll get you the times, call-in number and code...
also, expect a HUGE positive announcement early next week....
remember, this is a grassroots thing....everyone is a part of it...
www.portlight.org
In 1909 physicist R.W. Wood disproved the popular 19th Century thesis that greenhouses stayed warm by trapping infrared radiation (IR). Unfortunately, many people who claim to be scientists are unaware of Wood's experiment which was originally published in the Philosophical magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320.
Wood was an expert on IR. His accomplishments included inventing both IR and UV (ultraviolet) photography.
Wood constructed two identical small greenhouses. The description implies the type of structure a gardener would refer to as a "cold frame" rather than a building a person could walk into.
He lined the interior with black cardboard which would absorb radiation and convert it to heat which would heat the air through conduction. The cardboard would also produce radiation. He covered one greenhouse with a sheet of transparent rock salt and the other with a sheet of glass. The glass would block IR and the rock salt would allow it to pass.
During the first run of the experiment the rock salt greenhouse heated faster due to IR from the sun entering it but not the glass greenhouse. He then set up another pane of glass to filter the IR from the sun before the light reached the greenhouses.
The result from this run was that the greenhouses both heated to about 50 C with less than a degree difference between the two. Wood didn't indicate which was warmer or whether there was any difference in the thermal conductivity between the glass sheet and the rock salt. A slight difference in the amount of heat transfered through the sheets by conduction could explain such a minor difference in temperature.
The experiment conclusively demonstrates that greenhouses heat up and stay warm by confining heated air rather than by trapping IR. If trapping IR in an enclosed space doesn't cause higher air temperature than carbon dioxide in the atmosphere cannot cause higher air temperatures.
The glass sheet provided a solid barrier to IR. Atmospheric CO2 is widely dispersed comprising less than 400 parts per million in the atmosphere. At best CO2 provides the molecular equivalent of a chain link fence and is incapable of trapping IR the way a solid glass sheet could. Thus, the claim that CO2 can cause higher temperatures by trapping IR is disproved.
Florida freezes may provide an example of how humans impact on microclimates. The draining of wetlands may be causing harder freezes and freezes farther south. Evaporation of water from wetlands can keep temperatures above freezing by raising the dew point. Dry air is more likely to freeze than wet air because wet air contains latent heat which slows cooling.
Link
I love how you said that it formed 150 miles north of this bouy and then when you click the link a picture of the actual bouy appears.
yea but if a low further north takes over we will get a lot more snow across the area
lol. that is where the brits tested the a-bomb
TROPICAL CYCLONE ADVICE NUMBER 8
Issued by the Bureau of Meteorology, Brisbane
Issued at 1:28am on Monday the 2nd of February 2009
The Cyclone WARNING has been cancelled.
At 12:00 am EST Ex-Tropical Cyclone Ellie was estimated to be 110 kilometres
south of Cairns and 55 kilometres northwest of Cardwell moving west at 18
kilometres per hour.
Ex-Tropical Cyclone Ellie crossed the coast near Mission Beach at around
midnight Sunday, and is expected to be slow moving and remain over land today
while weakening further.
Winds around the centre of the cyclone have now weakened below gale force, so
the Tropical Cyclone Warning for this system has been cancelled.
Heavy rainfall is likely to develop in coastal and adjacent inland parts between
Innisfail and Mackay. A seperate Severe Weather Warning has been issued for
this.
No further Tropical Cyclone Advices will be issued unless the situation changes.
Details of Ex-Tropical Cyclone Ellie at 12:00 am EST
.Centre located near...... 17.9 degrees South 145.7 degrees East
.Location accuracy........ within 37 kilometres
.Recent movement.......... towards the southwest at 18 kilometres per hour
.Wind gusts near centre... 75 kilometres per hour
.Severity category........ below cyclone intensity
.Central pressure......... 994 hectoPascals
No further advices will be issued unless this system redevelops.
Monday February 2, 2009
The heatwave in South Australia has forced wine grape growers at McLaren Vale, south of Adelaide, to start their harvest early.
Some growers have indicated that up to 70 per cent of their crop could be ruined by the extreme heat.
Chairman of the McLaren Vale Grape Wine and Tourism Association, Dudley Brown, says such an early harvest is unprecedented.
"It's just uncharted territory - nobody really knows what it means yet," he said.
"We're seeing things that we've never seen before and I really think it's just the impact of three very dry years in a row.
"The vines are stressed so they're trying to produce that fruit earlier and, you know, what that means in terms of wine quality and that we just don't know."
Mr Brown says three years of very dry conditions might see some growers give up.
"The most important part of the industry is the people involved and the people that have the memory and the skills necessary to push the industry forwards, so we're certainly hoping that there's not a big impact there and that we're going to be able to ride through, you know, whatever this year brings," he said.
Elderly suffering most in extreme heat
Monday February 2, 2009
Extreme heatwave taking a toll on elderly people
Adelaide's most severe heatwave in a century is taking a toll on the elderly.
There has been a spike in sudden deaths in the past week and only timely telephone calls saved three people on Sunday.
One of the weekend victims was a man in his 60s, living alone at a house at Marion in Adelaide's southern suburbs.
It is understood there was no fan or air-conditioning, which led to stifling conditions in the house.
Neighbour Maria Pollifrone was upset by the death.
"It's a bit shocking to know that the heat sort of is a big part of it and not having air cooling or anything as well is a bit of a problem," she said.
At least 14 people died suddenly on Sunday as the temperature in Adelaide again exceeded 40 degrees Celsius, but authorities would not say that the heat was to blame.
Neale Sutton, from South Australia's ambulance service, says calls were down on Sunday from the 900 received last Friday.
"The problem was Thursday, the overflow onto Friday, but Saturday and Sunday is starting to ease up and we're starting to see that in our case numbers," he said.
Red Cross volunteers have telephoned more than 2,000 vulnerable people to check their health.
Kerry Symons from the Red Cross says calls to at least three people were life saving.
"Ambulance attended, they were wrapped ... in cold blankets, put straight into hospital on drips. so quite serious."
A wider effort to deliver a heat alert by telephone met a mixed reception.
A Health Department text message was sent out to thousands of mobile phones but was received as far north as Darwin.
The Department says it will investigate to overcome the sometimes-wayward heat stress warning.
SA Opposition MP Stephen Wade says there has been an inadequate response to the heatwave.
"The fact that it went to Darwin, to people who are not health-compromised, the fact that it went to people on only one particular provider suggests to me it was a half-baked and knee-jerk response," he said.
Premier Mike Rann was making little apology.
"I understand that some people have complained about getting the text messages but I'm sure they would have complained if they didn't get the text messages. That's life," he said.
The SA Premier has also been getting complaints about power blackouts and has asked ETSA for a report.
He says the heat has had an extraordinary effect on the system.
The extreme weather has now matched a record set back in 1908.
Matt Collopy, from the weather bureau, explains.
"Not for 100 years has it been six days or more than six days of 40 degrees or more," he said.
- ABC
Almost game time!!!!
Im not sure that the gulf storm would be stronger if it tracked northward...its just that if it did track north its effects would be felt more, opposed to having a southern storm going out to sea...atleast thats how it would work in theory
They spend all of those bucks somewhere. That is the economy.. your argument would be valid if you had used anything but the economy.
I still think that football players are still way over paid and way over rated but thanks for taking a break from football to blog or for not watching football in the first place
Is the snowstorm back on for this week? I think so, in moderate form. What looked like a monster storm initially, then a storm that was pushed farther out to sea, is now coming back around this morning. So, what happened?
Fairly talented Canadian.. I can do both at the same time.
I put the live webcam on my blog and page.. so I have been watching it.. it updates every 15 minutes or so.
whats that mean?
It means I can blog..and watch TV at the same time.
still nervewracking- like watching an invest for ten days.
these are slow events.. until all H*ll breaks loose
Viewing: 1001 - 1051
Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 — Blog Index