Climate change
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
Jeff Young
GT40s Supporter
Doran and Kendall Zimmerman, 2009
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:
It seems 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.[82]
[edit] Bray and von Storch, 2008
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[83]. A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[84]
The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.
In the section on climate change impacts questions 20, 21 were relevant to scientific opinion on climate change. Question 20 "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" got 67.1% very much agree, 26.7% to some large extent (5–6), 6.2% said to some small extent (2–4), none said not at all. Question 21 "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" received 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent (5–6), 15.1% to a small extent (2–4), and 1.35% not agreeing at all.
[edit] STATS, 2007
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; and 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger.[85] [86]
[edit] Oreskes, 2004
A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[87] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."
A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. A summary from the survey states that:
It seems 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.[82]
[edit] Bray and von Storch, 2008
Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[83]. A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[84]
The survey was composed of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from 'not at all' to 'very much'.
In the section on climate change impacts questions 20, 21 were relevant to scientific opinion on climate change. Question 20 "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?" got 67.1% very much agree, 26.7% to some large extent (5–6), 6.2% said to some small extent (2–4), none said not at all. Question 21 "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" received 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent (5–6), 15.1% to a small extent (2–4), and 1.35% not agreeing at all.
[edit] STATS, 2007
In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. The survey found 97% agreed that global temperatures have increased during the past 100 years; 84% say they personally believe human-induced warming is occurring, and 74% agree that “currently available scientific evidence” substantiates its occurrence. Only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming; and 84% believe global climate change poses a moderate to very great danger.[85] [86]
[edit] Oreskes, 2004
A 2004 article by geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[87] The essay concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. The author analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, listed with the keywords "global climate change". Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. 75% of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories, thus either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change; none of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."
It's little wonder that peoples eyes glaze over when trying to make sense of the climate issue. Hands up everyone that read every word, understood all the implications and has gained enough knowledge to make an informed opinion about the subjects raised in Jeff's post?
There is no argument that climate change is happening. It's been going on for 4.5 billion years. There is also no doubt that such change could be catastrophic (for human existence). This has also been going on for millions of years and has, in the past been variously caused by volcanic action, collisions with extra terrestial bodies, and climate change due to slight "wobble" hiccups.
Fuck me but the earth is a dangerous place and we've enjoyed an unprecedented period of relative calm. What I don't subscribe to is the CERTAINTY that man is causing damaging change although obviously our ways and practices haven't helped much, but if people haven't got their heads around the fact that we live on a volatile complex, inexplicable world that might go boom at any moment, then they're not understanding the life they have been given, nor their (very) precarious hold they have on it.
Nero comes to mind here..
Only the nihilists should be really happy with the world we've built for ourselves...
There is no argument that climate change is happening. It's been going on for 4.5 billion years. There is also no doubt that such change could be catastrophic (for human existence). This has also been going on for millions of years and has, in the past been variously caused by volcanic action, collisions with extra terrestial bodies, and climate change due to slight "wobble" hiccups.
Fuck me but the earth is a dangerous place and we've enjoyed an unprecedented period of relative calm. What I don't subscribe to is the CERTAINTY that man is causing damaging change although obviously our ways and practices haven't helped much, but if people haven't got their heads around the fact that we live on a volatile complex, inexplicable world that might go boom at any moment, then they're not understanding the life they have been given, nor their (very) precarious hold they have on it.
Nero comes to mind here..
Only the nihilists should be really happy with the world we've built for ourselves...
Keith I agree with you. Sure Jeff's arguments are good, well supported to his point. No problem with that. It reads well and sounds very convincing.
But as you say Keith, the world has always undergone numerous changes, and one of the things I saw come through in the last few days was this (sorry I can't put my finger on the source):
More energy is released in one day in a hurricane (no mention of the strength of said hurricane) than the USA uses in a year.
To me that means that: Yes man is influencing the planet, but the forces of nature (some of which we know and some which we don't know - speaking of being not part of the research community) are far greater, can do more to destroy the planet in a very short time than what mankind can do in a century (with the exception of the atomic bomb).
But as you say Keith, the world has always undergone numerous changes, and one of the things I saw come through in the last few days was this (sorry I can't put my finger on the source):
More energy is released in one day in a hurricane (no mention of the strength of said hurricane) than the USA uses in a year.
To me that means that: Yes man is influencing the planet, but the forces of nature (some of which we know and some which we don't know - speaking of being not part of the research community) are far greater, can do more to destroy the planet in a very short time than what mankind can do in a century (with the exception of the atomic bomb).
I would like to point out that I was in no way dissing Jeff's post or the contents of it, which I found interesting - merely pointing out that statistics often muddy the waters because you can make them tell whatever story you wish. I believe it comes down to trust and the so called "experts" have lost that for the time being, and I'm glad, because it will mean MORE informed debate, not less (as we would have had if the politicians and lying research funding hungry scumbags had their sorry way)
I also find it interesting that Americans never mention the one natural feature in their territory that is not only overdue for an appearance, but when (not if) it appears could finally finally answer the paradox of climate change and Homo Sapiens part in it
I refer, of course, to Yellowstone.
I also find it interesting that Americans never mention the one natural feature in their territory that is not only overdue for an appearance, but when (not if) it appears could finally finally answer the paradox of climate change and Homo Sapiens part in it
I refer, of course, to Yellowstone.
When viewed from the air, Yellowstone National Park takes on a far more sinsiter appearance than at ground level. That it is an ancient volcano is not in doubt but no-one has ever found the "cone". That is because much of the National Park IS the cone and thus it is the worlds largest ACTIVE volcano, in fact technically, it is a Super Volcano which, on a previous eruption 600,000 years ago plunged the earth into an ice age.
It has been fairly regular in the past and is now overdue for another appearance.
If it does go, you can kiss your ass goodbye my friend where ever you are in the World and any further discussion about mans involvement in climate change will be purely academic.
Armageddon Online - Yellowstone Park is a Super Volcano - an eruption would destroy America
It has been fairly regular in the past and is now overdue for another appearance.
If it does go, you can kiss your ass goodbye my friend where ever you are in the World and any further discussion about mans involvement in climate change will be purely academic.
Armageddon Online - Yellowstone Park is a Super Volcano - an eruption would destroy America
I need to finish my SLC, I'd be pissed if I never got to drive it!
Not very good if Mt St Helens is anything to go by... :worried:
This year I hope. A lot better than an original, but with a 90" wheelbase and 717hp with 680 ft lbs of torque, a tad insane! A great viagra supplement!
Al, no wonder that TUV guy got in trouble.
Back to climate change.
I was out with my friends from the Friday night beer drinking society, and one of our colleagues is a retired chemist, and ran a 5000 person company. He said the following about CO2 gas:
1. It is the heaviest of gases and is heavier than air. CO2 does not rise but falls to the ground.
2. The biggest producers of CO2 gas is the human species.
3. Rather than global warming being the cause of our demise, the cause will be suffocation.
4. Biggest problem according to him with regard to CO2 increases is the forest devestation of the past 30 years.
Make sense?
Back to climate change.
I was out with my friends from the Friday night beer drinking society, and one of our colleagues is a retired chemist, and ran a 5000 person company. He said the following about CO2 gas:
1. It is the heaviest of gases and is heavier than air. CO2 does not rise but falls to the ground.
2. The biggest producers of CO2 gas is the human species.
3. Rather than global warming being the cause of our demise, the cause will be suffocation.
4. Biggest problem according to him with regard to CO2 increases is the forest devestation of the past 30 years.
Make sense?
I knew CO2 was heavier than air but never thought of it, that alone blows CO2 screwing up the atmosphere out of the water. I wonder what the PPM is now compared to 50 years ago? And what exactly does a raised level of CO2 do to change the temperature?
No:
1) CO2 does not simply fall to the ground. Afterall water is heavier than air but that does not stop millions of tons of it from floating about above us.
2) About 3% of the total atmospheric CO2 has an anthropogenic source.
3) CO2 in the atmosphere is currently 380 ppm. CO2 becomes dangerous to human respiration at levels above 50,000 ppm. In general C02 levels have declined over the very long term as CO2 is sequestered to sedimentary rocks.
4) CO2 is a plant fertiliser; more CO2 equals faster growing plants ( with the proviso that other requisites are not in limiting supply). This is why commercial greenhouses raise CO2 levels to 2-5000ppm to promote growth.
1) CO2 does not simply fall to the ground. Afterall water is heavier than air but that does not stop millions of tons of it from floating about above us.
2) About 3% of the total atmospheric CO2 has an anthropogenic source.
3) CO2 in the atmosphere is currently 380 ppm. CO2 becomes dangerous to human respiration at levels above 50,000 ppm. In general C02 levels have declined over the very long term as CO2 is sequestered to sedimentary rocks.
4) CO2 is a plant fertiliser; more CO2 equals faster growing plants ( with the proviso that other requisites are not in limiting supply). This is why commercial greenhouses raise CO2 levels to 2-5000ppm to promote growth.
Colin, interesting point.
1. So where does CO2 go if it is not beneath us? Are you saying it is in the air? My pal suggested we would sufficate rather than die of heat.
2. OK on the 3% content in the atmosphere, but would planting more trees solve the problem? My friend said that CO2 is absorbed by the trees from the bottom of the plant rather than through the top of the tree down. Someone today also said that plancton is a major converter of CO2 into oxygen, but with a 2 degree (presumably centegrade) rise in sea temps, this conversion has diminshed. Any truth?
3. If the total content of 380ppm and the danger level is 50,000, we are some 0.76% on the way to the danger area. Are you saying that sedimentary rock, those made from deposits of sand etc, absorb CO2?
4. If commercial greenhouses raise CO2 up to 5000, that is over 10x higher than the earth's current level.
If I understand your point, you pretty much confirm what my pal said last night. Correct me if wrong.
1. So where does CO2 go if it is not beneath us? Are you saying it is in the air? My pal suggested we would sufficate rather than die of heat.
2. OK on the 3% content in the atmosphere, but would planting more trees solve the problem? My friend said that CO2 is absorbed by the trees from the bottom of the plant rather than through the top of the tree down. Someone today also said that plancton is a major converter of CO2 into oxygen, but with a 2 degree (presumably centegrade) rise in sea temps, this conversion has diminshed. Any truth?
3. If the total content of 380ppm and the danger level is 50,000, we are some 0.76% on the way to the danger area. Are you saying that sedimentary rock, those made from deposits of sand etc, absorb CO2?
4. If commercial greenhouses raise CO2 up to 5000, that is over 10x higher than the earth's current level.
If I understand your point, you pretty much confirm what my pal said last night. Correct me if wrong.
Howard Jones
Supporter
Isn't it funny that "global warming" got changed to "climate change" when it didn't get hot?
It seems that any excuse will do. "The record snows and cold weather were caused by polar bears falling from the sky and susequent snow going into the air from the impact and being borne south on co2 laden air which cause abnormal snowfall, yeah, yeah, that's the ticket"
