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
> Link
1 : characterized by or given to the expression of opinions very strongly or positively as if they were facts
Have you examined any changes in the dew point in Greenland? the dew point is very significant in snow prone areas. If the dew point is above freezing, then water vapor will condense on ice and snow releasing 540 calories of heat in the process. A gram of water vapor contains sufficient heat energy to raise the temperature of 540 grams of ice 1 C or to melt about 7 grams of ice/snow that is already at 0 C. Above freezing dew points will normally keep the air temperature above freezing so that ice/snow which melts during the day does not refreeze at night. Refreezing at night occurs
when below freezing air absorbs heat from the thawed ice.
Looks like it's backed off a touch on the snow for here in the Florida panhandle....18Z GFS at 108 hours...but, it is going to get cold. The coldest I've seen this season....this is at 850 mb's>>>>>
AND THEN THERE IS THE STORM SYSTEM FORECAST TO ARRIVE SUNDAY NIGHT
INTO MONDAY. CONFIDENCE IS PRETTY HIGH THAT THIS WILL BE A
RELATIVELY HIGH IMPACT EVENT...AS MODELS HAVE LOCKED ONTO SOME
VERSION OF A GULF LOW SCENARIO FOR AT LEAST A COUPLE OF DAYS NOW.
THE OBVIOUS BIG QUESTION REMAINS THE POTENTIAL FOR CHANGEOVER TO
SNOW BEFORE THE DEEP MOISTURE MOVES OUT. GIVEN THE 12Z RUNS OF
BOTH THE GFS AND ECMWF...I AM NOW FAIRLY CONFIDENT OF A RAINY
MONDAY MORNING...AND TEMPS BECOMING COLD ENOUGH FOR SNOW AFTER
DARK ON MONDAY EVENING. BUT CENTRAL ALABAMA REMAINS RIGHT ON THE
CUSP OF WHETHER OR NOT THE COLD AIR ARRIVES BEFORE THE STEADY
PRECIP MOVES OUT. SO...HAVING SAID THAT...I HAVEN`T CHANGED A LOT
FROM THE PREVIOUS FORECAST. I DID RAISE POPS INTO THE LIKELY
CATEGORY AREAWIDE ON MONDAY. RAIN LIKELY MONDAY MORNING...AND THEN
ADDING A CHANCE OF SNOW WITH THE RAIN LIKELY IN THE NORTH HALF
MONDAY AFTERNOON. I WILL ALSO KEEP SMALLER POPS INTO MONDAY NIGHT
(CHANCE OF SNOW). BOTH MODELS ALSO HINT AT SOME POST-SYSTEM
WRAPAROUND COLD AIR STRATUS SNOW FLURRIES OR SHOWERS ON TUESDAY...
SO KEPT THAT IN AS WELL. EVEN WITHOUT ANY SNOW ON TUESDAY...IT
STILL LOOKS LIKE A COLD AND BLUSTERY DAY.
Chance of snow for Montgomery,AL....Monday Night...Mostly cloudy. Breezy at times. A chance of rain in the evening. A chance of snow through the night. Lows in the upper 20s. Chance of precipitation 50 percent.
First, read what he mentions about greenhouses. It is not radiation. It is the trapped air. There is no trapped air for the earth, really. "Greenhouse" is really a misnomer. Can't have a greenhouse where the air is free to move.
Second, the next 5-15 years of temperatures may very well disprove it. Have to see, but if we continue on a downtrend in temps, every single climate model regarding AGW will be disproved. They say it can only go up.
If you start at 2002, it's been a downward trend, mainly because of 2008. But, you have to allow for some fluctuation, so that does not disprove it. If it continues for another 5-15 years as CO2 levels continue to rise, without question, disproved.
Although I am sure there will be so who hold onto their deeply held beliefs, regardless.
If the 18Z GFS verifies, they need to lower those lows by at least 5 degrees...maybe 10 degrees lower. I would look for teens inland Florida panhandle...hard freeze for peninsula Florida.
First off, the 18Z GFS does not make any sense. Normally, storms move east eventually, this run takes it and moves it NNW into Canada.. Not gonna happen. I still see a chance for snow for North Florida Tuesday night.
Things can change in a heartbeat but this is my thinking for right now. Low pressure develops in Texas and starts moving eastward connecting to a strong Cold Front Sunday/Monday with rain and some strong storms in the Houston area. Monday, heavy snow invades the deep south from Arkansas, Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia. At least 6 inches of snow will be expected in the northern parts of those states as all of Tennessee gets whipped with 12 inches. On the warm side, Severe Storms with damaging winds being the biggest threat as of Isolated tornadoes and hail threatens ALL of Florida as the cold front moves on in. Conditions will be RIPE for tornadoes but because we are in a La Nina pattern, I expect damaging winds to be the biggest threat. As the storm strengthens and moves northeastward Tuesday, The storms exits Florida and the cold front sweeps through with temperatures dropping rapidly! The storm reaches the Mid-Atlantic with rain/ind with gusts up to 60 mph. as pressure falls to about 980 mlb. Blizzard conditions start as well from northern Georgia all the way to Upstate NY.
Tuesday night, rain and possibly snow starts wrapping up in back of the low in Southern Georgia and even Northern Florida.
Wednesday, Rain/Wind continues with Beach Erosion on the coastline while interior areas of the Northeast gets a Blizzard. Around later noon hours, rain will change over to Snow/Wind as pressure drops to around 970 mlb (possibly lower). Washington DC, Philadelphia, and NYC will experience the change over with some areas getting Hurricane force wind gusts (75 mph+)
Yep i agree i see the same thing.....its really appears the forecast is going to get much colder and things appear to be getting very bad for a very severe System developing...this will probably be the one for this year for sure and maybe one to remember...
Good job i dido your analysis but, would like to add that the Applachians are going to get 2-3 feet possibly.....with Costal flooding and beach errosion in Florida and the East Coast very likly.
As i told you earlier...this will not hit your area until Late Wedneday or Thursday......there are 2 seperate systems. Your looking at the wrong one.....the second one is the stinker....
Ehh, making more than a 2-3 day forecast? Don't bother looking too hard at the 06 and 18 Z cycles of GFS. Far more data, especially upper air obs, go into 0 and 12 Z cycles.
I would expect them not to change a thing until we see the same result from the 0 and 12 Z cycles.
-Michael
I know the 0Z and 12Z are the ones to watch. I'll be looking first thing in the morning.
I know you do. That was more collectively for everyone...sorry if ya though I was on yer case.
Cheers and later all.
I came on here to tell everyone about a true "Winter Storm", is in the making but everyone knows!
This morning a local met said there is a CHANCE of double digit snows here in N.C. But he said it would change about 100times untill more models come in Sunday.
2009-01-29 13:31:12
We have no indications that an eruption has occurred or is underway, or expected in the next few hours.
during the time period of Monday through Wednesday we will have the
potential for a substantial winter storm to impact our region. One
area of low pressure will be moving east through the Great Lakes
region with its associated cold front approaching the region from
the west. Another low pressure will be developing in the north
central portion of the Gulf of Mexico. This low is prognosticated to lift
north and ridge along the advancing cold front and eventually pair
up with the Great Lakes low and deepen over eastern PA/New Jersey by Tuesday
morning.
- NWS Forcaster for my area in N.C/V.A/W.V counties.
Looks like they started posting Special Statements for N.C/TN for this storm. Only checked them two states may be more statements coming or already out.
Light Rain here in SWFL - 69 degrees and dropping
Cold front knocking on the door, line of storms in the Gulf heading our way. Surf in the knee high range and building with a 10-15 knt SW wind on it. We should have continued surf in the waist- plus range and windy. Gulf Temp 62
Our Friday front looking a notch weaker today. Happens when another system is forecast to move in behind the front. So say waist high on Friday afternoon and knee to waist high for Saturday morning, still surf but small... Monday still looking good for eta of the next system.
Going to be cold, even blubber won't do -- get out the rubber, the booties and maybe a hoodie
Its only just begun for most of the US. I am in SW FL and it is near emergency mode. 12% of the homes in the Ft Myers area are forclosures. Well over 10% unemployment. Hopefully, since we entered this a year prior, we will be out a year sooner. Probably 2
Tween Waters frequent flyer. Captiva is a wonderful place. Charlie, did some damage there, but not like N. Captiva. Wow
I lived there, once, too. For one week. 25 years ago.
Actually it does make sense given the run is showing the trough going negative and cutting off.. not to mention the large block that develops to its north. Typically in rapidly intensifying mid-latitude cyclones, this scenario will actually "pull back" the low towards the left, or west, around the northern periphery of the upper low, taking the storm on a more north-northwesterly heading. Whether or not this happens, of course it's too soon to say.. but take a look at recent runs of the ECMWF.. an outperformer this winter season.. and you may reconsider.
I think it was, too. Y'all, it was only for a week (renting a joint on the beach) and I was all of 8 years old.
I'd have to go the good Doctor one further here...
with out conflict, the IS no news story...and often, media types don't just dramatize conflict...they manufature it...
Another way to view this poll, of 10,200 scientists asked 25% think humans might have some affect on the climate.
Aren't all sailors sea-faring?? LOL
Mwahahahaha.
Thanks for the High Intelligence Response
Viewing: 501 - 551
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