Survey: Scientists agree human-induced global warming is real
January 19, 2009While 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.
Source: University of Illinois at Chicago
-
IBM reveals five innovations that will change our lives in the next five years (Update)
Dec 19, 2011 |
2.9 / 5 (25) |
27
-
Are humans to blame for shark attacks?
Aug 18, 2011 |
2 / 5 (2) |
2
-
Human influence on the 21st century climate: 1 possible future for the atmosphere
Aug 05, 2011 |
4.3 / 5 (8) |
58
-
Biodiversity must be restored
May 19, 2011 |
not rated yet |
0
-
Moving climate change regulation forward
Apr 25, 2011 |
4 / 5 (4) |
4
-
Engineers build first sub-10-nm carbon nanotube transistor
Feb 01, 2012 |
4.9 / 5 (31) |
30
-
Something old, something new: Evolution and the structural divergence of duplicate genes
Jan 31, 2012 |
4.6 / 5 (7) |
1
-
The hidden nanoworld of ice crystals: Revealing the dynamic behavior of quasi-liquid layers
Jan 30, 2012 |
5 / 5 (3) |
1
-
Stock market network reveals investor clustering
Jan 27, 2012 |
3.9 / 5 (23) |
8
-
Of microchemistry and molecules: Electronic microfluidic device synthesizes biocompatible probes
Jan 26, 2012 |
5 / 5 (1) |
0
-
Do some geologists actually act a lot like Randy Marsh?
22 hours ago
-
Discrepancy between oxygen and carbon-dioxide levels
Feb 09, 2012
-
where gems are found in the world
Feb 09, 2012
-
Wind Waves in Reservoir ~ Wind run-up and Wind set-up
Feb 08, 2012
-
Balance of oxygen in the atmosphere
Feb 01, 2012
-
The case for a methanol-based economy
Jan 30, 2012
- More from Physics Forums - Earth
More news stories
Latin America mining boom clashes with conservation
Latin America is experiencing a mining boom as prices rise fuelled by a hike in global demand, but the region is also being hit by a wave of violent protests, strikes and rallies by environmentalists.
1 hour ago |
not rated yet |
0
Europe stakes billion-dollar bet on new rocket
A pencil-slim rocket is scheduled to lift into space from South America on Monday, carrying a billion-dollar bet that Europe can grab a juicy slice of the market to place satellites in low orbit.
Space & Earth / Space Exploration
20 hours ago |
4 / 5 (3) |
0
Political leaders play key role in how worried Americans are by climate change: study
More than extreme weather events and the work of scientists, it is national political leaders who influence how much Americans worry about the threat of climate change, new research finds.
Feb 06, 2012 |
5 / 5 (6) |
72
NASA budget will axe Mars deal with Europe: scientists
US President Barack Obama's budget proposal to be submitted next week for 2013 will cut NASA's budget by 20 percent and eliminate a major partnership with Europe on Mars exploration, scientists said Thursday.
Space & Earth / Space Exploration
Feb 10, 2012 |
5 / 5 (3) |
54
Humans may have helped the decline of African rainforests 3000 years ago
(PhysOrg.com) -- Large areas of rainforests in Central Africa mysteriously disappeared over three thousand years ago, to be replaced by savannas. The prevailing theory has been that the cause was a change ...
Google might launch Drive for cloud storage soon
(PhysOrg.com) -- Google's next big move, according to the Wall Street Journal, is a cloud storage service called Drive. Hardly first to the plate, Google is simply catching up to introducing its cloud reposi ...
Love a click away in Indonesia's Twitter Republic
He was a geeky kid from Yogyakarta, she a glamorous city girl in Jakarta. In a country with one of the world's most vibrant social networking scenes they fell in love on Twitter.
Walney offshore wind farm is world's biggest (for now)
(PhysOrg.com) -- The Walney wind farm on the Irish Sea--characterized by high tides, waves and windy weather--officially opened this week. The farm is treated in the press as a very big deal as the Walney ...
GPS court ruling leaves US phone tracking unclear
A US Supreme Court decision requiring a warrant to place a GPS device on the car of a criminal suspect leaves unresolved the bigger issue of police tracking using mobile phones, legal experts say.
Europeans protest controversial Internet pact
Tens of thousands of people marched in protests in more than a dozen European cities Saturday against a controversial anti-online piracy pact that critics say could curtail Internet freedom.
Study finds that anti-diabetic medication can prevent the long-term effects of maternal obesity
In a study to be presented today at the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine's annual meeting, The Pregnancy Meeting, in Dallas, Texas, researchers will report findings that show that short therapy with the anti-diabetic medication ...
Jan 19, 2009
Rank: 3.3 / 5 (15)
I wish I could read the rest of the questions and answers
Jan 19, 2009
Rank: 4.1 / 5 (12)
How can a word like 'significantly' be used in the defining question of the survey without defining what significant is?
I'm sure that a climatologists idea of significant is somewhat different to that of a meteorologist, especially if the meteorologist is indeed thinking short-term and the climatologist long-term.
Jan 19, 2009
Rank: 3.2 / 5 (13)
Jan 19, 2009
Rank: 3.8 / 5 (15)
Jan 19, 2009
Rank: 3.3 / 5 (12)
Jan 19, 2009
Rank: 3.3 / 5 (12)
Jan 19, 2009
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (10)
Jan 19, 2009
Rank: 3.5 / 5 (14)
Jan 19, 2009
Rank: 3 / 5 (8)
Jan 19, 2009
Rank: 3.8 / 5 (17)
Jan 19, 2009
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (12)
You would think that they could get more than 3200 out of over 10000 scientists surveyed to respond with their views if they actually believed we had a problem.
What this survey really tells us (and I wish I had the list of names) are those "so-called scientists" whose paychecks depend on them toeing the "Al Gore LINE"
Jan 20, 2009
Rank: 3.3 / 5 (12)
Jan 20, 2009
Rank: 3.8 / 5 (13)
http://www.physor...069.html
My favorite quote from the article is to the effect that it was warmer at the end of the last Ice Age than it is now, and that they do not know why. There were no manmade emissions at that time, ergo, AGW is a crock...
Jan 20, 2009
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (9)
Then we have the natural effects such as changes in Earth's orbit,El Nino,La Nina,cosmic rays on cloud cover. I could go on (and on and on) but you get the point.
All these have been shown to be true at varying levels, all eating away at the Carbon Dioxide is the Main driver consensus. If you have thirty or forty man made or natural causes each of 1 to, say 20% effect, perhaps not all at the same time, you don't have much left for the greenhouse effect.
Jan 20, 2009
Rank: 4.5 / 5 (8)
Science = not religion or believes
Jan 20, 2009
Rank: 2.6 / 5 (7)
I am for clean technology and recycling. I say punish the litter bugs simply because of their lack of compassion and respect for themselves and others.
Most scientists know how to memorize words and equations while performing arithmetic (quite ignorant). On the other hand, people who have no faith-based assumptions are the people I would rather listen to. Unbiased polling is no indicator to the truth of a disposition.
Jan 20, 2009
Rank: 3 / 5 (8)
Oh we KNOW there is no "debate" amongst people who know their paychecks are tied to a theory. What we reject is....*gasp* their CONCLUSIONS. We, the great unwashed masses know that argument from authority is a logical fallacy.
The challenge now is how to communicate to the climatology (notice I didn't say scientific) community that they're ACTUALLY going to have to prove their case SCIENTIFICALLY far more convincingly than they have thus far, and the "just take our word for it and hand over the grant money" line JUST ISN'T WORKING....
Jan 20, 2009
Rank: 2.6 / 5 (12)
What result might one get by polling all physicists on the existence of gravity? Biased opinions of grant-seeking charlatans, I suppose.
If the poll had indicated ANYONE other than oil company employees being opposed to the POV, then PERHAPS there might be some toic of discussion.....
Jan 20, 2009
Rank: 3.2 / 5 (9)
Jan 20, 2009
Rank: 2.5 / 5 (11)
Jan 20, 2009
Rank: 3.9 / 5 (7)
Yeah because the voters are NEVER lied to or manipulated by people in authority...
What planet exactly are you from? Is it called Earth? Third one from its sun? Mostly blue....?
Jan 20, 2009
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (10)
Jan 20, 2009
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (10)
What a load of hooey! The overwhelming evidence is that the Earth is cooling down.
Jan 20, 2009
Rank: 3.3 / 5 (7)
Jan 20, 2009
Rank: 3.4 / 5 (5)
cole Polytechnique and CNRS. Abstract of a paper you may find at: http://arxiv.org/...39v1.pdf
'The claimed unanimity of the scientific community about the human culpability for global warming is questioned. Up today there exists no scientific proof of human culpability. It is not the number
of authors of a paper, which validates its scientific content. The use of probability to assert the degree of certainty with respect the global
warming problem is shown to be misleading. The debate about global warming has taken on emotional tones driven by passion and irrationality
while it should be a scientific debate. The degree of hostility used to mull any dissonance voice demonstrates that the current debate has acquired a quasi-religious nature. Scientists are behaving as
priests in their will %u201Cto save the planet%u201D. We are facing a dangerous social phenomenon, which must be addressed from the social point of view. The current unanimity of citizens, scientists, journalists, intellectuals and politicians is intrinsically worrying. The calls to sacrifice our way of life to calm down the upset nature is an emotional ancestral
reminiscence of archaic fears, which should be analyzed as such.'
Personally, I believe that we may be causing GW but as a trained physicist I would like to see more data and better models. We should avoid turning this into political and religious debate and focus on science.
Jan 20, 2009
Rank: 3.1 / 5 (7)
(http://www.amazon...3310728) and you'll never trust a survey again (if you believe them now.)
Jan 20, 2009
Rank: 2 / 5 (8)
Jan 20, 2009
Rank: 3.3 / 5 (7)
Jan 20, 2009
Rank: 4.3 / 5 (6)
Jan 20, 2009
Rank: 1.6 / 5 (7)
Hey kids how do you think theories end up in science books??????
It usually peered reviewed and when enough scientists can agree on it (consensus) then it would most likely be incorporated into text books.
But the beautiful thing about science is that the truth will always prevail.
I%u2019m still trying to figure out how all this scientific organizations that believe in AGW are on the take. I mean this would be unprecedented:
InterAcademy Council
Joint science academies' statement 2008
Joint science academies%u2019 statement 2001
International Council of Academies of Engineering and Technological Sciences
Network of African Science Academies
National Research Council (US)
European Science Foundation
American Association for the Advancement of Science
Federation of American Scientists
World Meteorological Organization
Royal Meteorological Society (UK)
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
International Union for Quaternary Research
American Quaternary Association
Stratigraphy Commission of the Geological Society of London
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
International Union of Geological Sciences
European Geosciences Union
Canadian Federation of Earth Sciences
Geological Society of America
American Geophysical Union
American Astronomical Society
American Institute of Physics
American Physical Society
American Chemical Society
American Society for Microbiology
Institute of Biology (UK)
World Federation of Public Health Associations
American College of Preventive Medicine
American Public Health Association
American Medical Association
American Statistical Association
Engineers Australia (The Institution of Engineers Australia)
Water Environment Federation
Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management
Federal Climate Change Science Program (US)
Royal Society of New Zealand
Jan 21, 2009
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (5)
There are plenty of publications showing very close correlations between solar activity and temperature of the planet. The correlation between CO2 and temperature is also well documented, however CO2 levels lag temperature by 600-1000 years.
The naturally occurring greenhouse gases in the atmosphere make up 99.72% of all greenhouse gases. The contribution by man is 0.28%.
There is still a lot of uncertainty as to complexity of forcings or feedback effects if CO2 increases in the atmosphere. For example, increased low level clouds are more likely to reflect the more radiation back into space.
It is great to reduce pollution and develop cleaner energy sources. Lets clean up our act. But CO2 is not the pollutant we should be concerned about.
Spending hundreds of billions of dollars on the assumption that it is, is wasteful. Biofuel production is not only taking away food from already starving millions it is indirectly promoting the clearing of forests to grow more biofuels. ..
Commonsense should prevail. Lets learn to adapt to climate change because we are really doomed if we think we can control it!
Jan 21, 2009
Rank: 3.7 / 5 (6)
A guy with a pen writes a rough draft and then submits it to an editor who edits it then once all the verification is doen it's printed.
No, that's wrong. A theory is rather stringently tested before it's published, and after being published if no one can find fault with it it's forwarded to the Bureau of Education where a judgement is made on whether it should be part of ciriculum or not. A text book that already has the theory published, and is cheap enough, is then purchased and given to kids to learn. There is no peer review process in education, otherwise there wouldn't be textbooks from the 60's that tout creationism as the only method by which man could have come to be.
Yes, much like a ponzi scheme, when people stop investing, the scam ends.
You're not familiar with the pharmcology industry, the DDT regulationary testing, the Tuskeegee experiment paperwork, the nuclear ban movement or any of the other thousands of examples of bad science becomming policy now are you? You're an idealist, probably close to the education industry, and that's the saddest part.
Jan 21, 2009
Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
WHAT? The left wing are the ones touting AGW! Plus there are not that many left wing radio talk shows. I think you might be confusing your pejorative "Reich" (assuming you mean the third Reich) with right wing politics.
The Nazis (ie third Reich) were socialists...that's LEFT wing. The right wing has (traditionally at least) not been a political entity with socialist leanings. True they were nationalists which is more right wing, but most of their policies (other than the racial ones) were taken out of the modern play book of socialism...including things like AGW (again a form of thinly disguised socialism).
If you're trying to be clever with words, you might do more research on the meaning of your perceived insults.
Jan 21, 2009
Rank: 4 / 5 (4)
Jan 21, 2009
Rank: 2 / 5 (4)
All these climatologists are in on it for political reasons because they hate America. You guys really sound very silly. Do you even know the # of climatologist that accept this theory??? I understand consensus is not science but the people that are experts in this area of study agree overwhelming about AGW conclusions based on the science and testing that is now available.
I guess people like stephen hawking is also in on it or has been duped.
How many of you heree work for big oil or the American enterprise institute.
Jan 22, 2009
Rank: 4.2 / 5 (5)
Or this.
Enlighten us. I know there are more climatologists that reject it than accept it.
Keep in mind Climate Change, and Anthropogenic Climate Change are not the same thing.
No, they don't. That is a myth. There is no overwhelming agreement on either side. The truth is climatology is a relatively new science field and none of the science is "settled." Anyone who says that science is "settled" when the field is not fully explored is being intellectually dishonest. Everyday new aspects of our climate are discovered and explored. To have consensus on AGCC is akin to passing a law without reading it. Unsurprisingly this is a tactic well known in politics.
Show me some statements by Hawking supporting CO2 as a main driver of climate change.
And none of us work for the oil industry, but the IPCC received a bunch of money from Exxon, Shell, and Mobil. I wonder if that means that they're lying too?
Jan 22, 2009
Rank: 1 / 5 (5)
Jan 22, 2009
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
I don't know, I think the word "warming" will be replaced with the word "cooling" but the conversation will remain the same. You know, like it did 2 decades ago.
Jan 22, 2009
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Jan 25, 2009
Rank: 5 / 5 (3)
31,072 real names of real scientists tell the true story... http://www.petiti...ect.org/
Jan 25, 2009
Rank: 4.6 / 5 (5)
The second question being: "has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?" This is not a fact, and any answer to this would be an opinion. I wonder, was 'I don't know' a possible answer? I hope so.
This whole Global Warming debate is completely off track. We KNOW how human's have impacted the environment. We DON'T know if that impact is warming. The FACT is that CO2 in the atmosphere has risen as a result of humans. That cannot be argued. The survey should be asking, is there a correlation between an increase of CO2 and a change in the environment, and, if so, what is that correlation? My answer would be 'I don't know', but then, I'm not a scientist.
Jan 31, 2009
Rank: 5 / 5 (1)
Yet, people seem to forget that we were just coming out of what was known as the Little Ice Age by 1815 or so. Of course temperatures would be on the rise from that time to the present. That is a given. That is a fact. Trouble is, IPCC and others of their ilk miscontrue that "fact" and bend it to their political bent. :)
And, again, let's not forget that the end of the last major glaciation, what is most commonly known to be what is called the Ice Age, was warmer then than now, and that climate scientists do not know why that is. Yet, that is a fact. It was warmer at the end of the last major Ice Age than it now is.
BUT, there were no manmade emissions at that time.
If it was warmer way back when, why are we worrying when the temps begin climbing again and have not reached temps at the end of the major Ice Age???
When will people begin to think for themselves rather than bleat blissfully after the "Gore shepherd"? :)
Feb 04, 2009
Rank: 5 / 5 (2)
I don't much listen to any radio, and when I do it is for music rather than commentary of any kind. I hate talk shows.
As to what I know, I do not have to rely on the information supllied by others. I can monitor CO2 levels and global temperatures for my self. CO2 has gone up and global temperatures have been falling. These are empirical facts.
In fact, the winter of 2008 has been touted as "the coldest winter of the 21st century." I have certainly seen a downtrend in global temperatures. 2008 certainly was colder than 2007 and 2007 was colder in turn than 2006 and so on to 2005. Europe got hit with a blast of Saharan air but that was an anomaly.
Arctic ice mass is on the increase, as is Antarctic ice mass. That is not consistent with global warming on the scale advocated by the people in the list you have given.
On polar bears, not related on the surface to your claims, etc., they first made their appearance millions of years ago, and survived warm periods warmer than any presently occuring. In fact, new fossil evidence (in the form of a fossilized fresh water turtle that was swimming across the Arctic when it died!) shows that millions of years ago the Arctic was nearly a freshwater ocean at the surface as a result of warming and the melting of most of the ice thereby. Polar bears survived the loss of Arctic ice at the end of the last Ice Age, too, when global temperatures were higher on the order of several degrees C than temps are now!
Tell Gore to put that in his pipe and smoke it. :)