Opinion polls of climate change

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 3:04 PM GMT en Enero 28, 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: 177 - 127

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

Quoting GulfPoet:
ok sorry Inyo

We need to have these discussions out in the open and make things very clear.


Look. You are frustrated by golf corses and lawns. You are worried about water on a planet of water. Your solutions are based on 2 dimensional thinking.

Running out of water on a water planet?

No... we are not running out of drinking water and we are not running out of water for our lawns.

What we do lack is the will to tackle the technological challenges to make mass desalination a coastal reality for communities that need it. Im thinking we take the 140 (million) dollars that Obama wants to spend on computer games for climate modeling, and the 200 million dollars for condoms and build a few desalination plants and pumping stations.


We need real solutions, real technology, and real investment.


I just get the creepy feeling some on the far left want us all to live in thatch huts, pump water from the local well, and grow our own vegitables and if we don't like it they are going to try and tax us into oblivion to make it happen.



I concur, but dont touch their Xbox or blackberry, they will kill you.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Ossqss:
What about the solar affect? If we absorb huge amounts of energy/heat in a given area, will that not have an impact on how the weather forms and or moves across a region also?


If a large solar array absorbs enough sunlight, it will be warmer (a.k.a. having a lower albedo) than it's surroundings.

The physics dictate that a large enough solar array could generate it's own clouds and rain directly over it. Sea breeze/land breeze works the same way. In this case, during the daytime, the solar array is an island and the sea breeze forms clouds over the array.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Inyo:
some of you either have really distorted views of what is going on, or have encountered some really messed up 'environmentalists'.


Thought for the Day !

If you don't have enough water to drink or food to eat for the land is prohibitive and desolate... MOVE to a new spot !!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
169. Inyo 10:16 AM PST on January 28, 2009
some of you either have really distorted views of what is going on, or have encountered some really messed up 'environmentalists'.


or, they just enjoy messing with your head...duh...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Seastep:
Thanks for addressing that question Doc!

See GulfPoet? So there! ;)

It would have an effect.

Goes back to an old discussion we had during the season about how hurricanes are necessary to transfer heat to the northern hemisphere.

Who knows what the consequences might be if we alter the transfer of energy by weather systems.


Oops. Could be a prolonged drought in certain locations downwind of a wind farm...directly caused by humans. Could happen and could very well be in our future.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting nfloridandr:
dr. jeff, i really make comments on this site but frequently visit. concerning the model showing potential impact of a windfarm, i really don't believe a windfarm would have any more impact on weather than skyscapers in new york, chicago, dallas, and other major cities. i also don't believe it would have any more impact than a new volcano in hawii.


Skyscrapers don't pull energy out of systems.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Now that is just flat out ridiculous. It continues to amaze me just HOW far enviro-wackos go daily to make the world more crazy like them. Here is Jeff's quote:

Fully 97% of the climate scientists who regularly publish on climate change agreed with the statement

This to me is stupid. Is it, or is it not like saying 97% of professional baseball players play for their pay. Or 97% of Democrats are liberals? Or how about 97% of all Zombies walking the earth, are dead already!?

Of course if you "regularly" publish on the subject of climate change, its your bread and butter, and you are going to want to scare as many people as you can by propegating the lies. If I was to write articles about climate change regularly, of course I'm going to say its real.

Because those who know the truth, that it is a LIE generally don't have to keep trying to come up with proof. Common sense rules.... or used to.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
169. Inyo
some of you either have really distorted views of what is going on, or have encountered some really messed up 'environmentalists'.
Member Since: Septiembre 3, 2002 Posts: 42 Comments: 873
Actually, on second thought this could result in another movie like Armageddon where they try to blow up an asteroid which is about to strike the earth. And now imagine how would a movie look like that deals with "catching the moon"? *lol* like sending dozens or even hundreds of rockets with a huge net up into space, the squadron encircling the moon and *thwip* pulling it back into its current orbit *hehe*

sorry, I stop now, just needed a comic relief because work is quite taxing today.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Skyepony:
Seastep & Gulfpoet~ sorry you misunderstood. From the Astronaut's accounts I was gathering from..they want to protect our enviroment for their kids & the animals, plants. Mother earth would be fine without us & CO2 isn't going to kill her...your greaty, great, grand kids..maybe.

By this tangent of how green energy would be worse & some's flat denial that the world is warming & all this data is wrong..i'd like to add another reason people look beyond the science, cover thier eyes, ears, minds, grow increasingly upset & begin to rant without a clue or education... Fear of Change.

& this flat earth harp...people thought that til they got in boats & tested the theory. Differece here is AGW has been tested repeatedly & hasn't been disproved that it is adding to natural cycles & causing warming, melting, sea rise, ocean acidification & migrations.



Problem is that the sample size isn't large enough to draw conclusions, imo.

I sound like a broken record, but the next 5-15 years will be very interesting to observe. Adding 50% more data/observations (45yrs vs. 30yrs) provides a much clearer picture.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
166. Inyo
Quoting GulfPoet:



yes. yesss... yessss... now we see. We live on a freeekin' planet of water and you are going to tell ME that I can't have this, I can't have that, I can't do this, I can't do that... Can't drive to the country, can't waste precious air, can't have more than one child... yep yep... know where this is going.!!!!


There are a couple of Documents in Washington DC you need to go and read.

If you would like your Carbon Tax Party held in California instead of Boston.. I'm sure we can arrange that.

Bring your hammer and sickle - you will probably need them.



whoa, whoa, that's a lot of assumptions there! It sounds like you think you've already figured me out. When did I say I want to restrict your actions? Here's the thing when it comes to water in California... it isn't about the right to have a golf course or lawn. it's about the supply of water. We're running out so it's good to be proactive and start converting those land uses... otherwise when we have to choose between food and lawns you'll just have a dead lawn. Nevermind the fact we've long since restricted the 'rights' of people in the Owens Valley, etc, to even live a normal life, by taking their water for golf courses. So yeah, go ahead and grow your lawn, if it's that important to you, but when the tap runs out I think you'd rather drink that water and shower, and let it die!
Member Since: Septiembre 3, 2002 Posts: 42 Comments: 873
dr. jeff, i really make comments on this site but frequently visit. concerning the model showing potential impact of a windfarm, i really don't believe a windfarm would have any more impact on weather than skyscapers in new york, chicago, dallas, and other major cities. i also don't believe it would have any more impact than a new volcano in hawii.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Inyo:


There is enough water for people here to survive if they adopt conservation measures... no more lawns, most people don' get a swimming pool, adopt measures to help rainwater infiltrate, restore damaged watersheds, get rid of all the golf courses, plant native plants. Problem is not many people are doing that stuff
Like I said, there are more people than the facillity will support.
"Get rid of golf courses?"
How about getting rid of the people who refuse to get rid of golf courses? How far do you take your plan?
YOU GOT TOO MANY DANG PEOPLE THERE AMIGO. THE WATER HOLE AIN'T BIG ENOUGH.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GulfPoet:



yes. yesss... yessss... now we see. We live on a freeekin' planet of water and you are going to tell ME that I can't have this, I can't have that, I can't do this, I can't do that... Can't drive to the country, can't waste precious air, can't have more than one child... yep yep... know where this is going.!!!!


There are a couple of Documents in Washington DC you need to go and read.

If you would like your Carbon Tax Party held in California instead of Boston.. I'm sure we can arrange that.

Bring your hammer and sickle - you will probably need them.



You have used far too many syllables today, you must stop and give some to someone else.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
162. Inyo
Quoting Ossqss:


Great, he gets an apology and I get a spear in the head from the ecologist/botanist thingy. I think its a methane problem anyhow.


Ok, I will apologize to you too. I'm sorry I was overly sensational and probably did more harm to my intention of spreading knowledge than good. I still think your comments were a little out of line too, though. No matter, really.
Member Since: Septiembre 3, 2002 Posts: 42 Comments: 873
Quoting MisterPerfect:
can't drink can't smoke .. what can we do....

Argue in cyber space.


LOL. Classic.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
151 GulfPoet

Ah, nuclear. Huge supporter of that. That is the answer imo. Mainly just to get off of dependence on fossil fuels.

And, at the same time, mitigate any "perceived" AGW, valid or not. That answer isn't necessary to promote nuclear energy. Big proponent.

IF AGW is valid, we already have a way to mitigate it... just have to use what we already have. No need to "find" an solution.

We already have a solution if allowed to utilize it. It makes the argument whether or not AGW is fact irrelevant.

Certainly don't think lowering CO2 emissions harms anyone... if using practical, affordable energy.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Inyo:


How'd i insult you? It wasn't intentional and I apologize. I was just trying to have a good ol' debate in the tradition of the United States of America.

That's a lot of water you have there. Do you think we can dump it on our crops and make them grow? California is entering into a really serious drought cycle, and freshwater supplies are going to be very low for the next few years. (almost certainly a natural cycle, I'm not going to link it to global warming!). If you don't believe that the southwestern US has problems with supply of fresh, clean water, I don't know what to say!

Again, sorry for any insult, that wasnt the point of my posts. It's hard when so many people disagree so strongly! In any event as a person who works with land management I can tell you I am not a 'rabid environmentalist' and well-meaning environmentalists can do almost as much harm as the oil companies!


Great, he gets an apology and I get a spear in the head from the ecologist/botanist thingy. I think its a methane problem anyhow.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
can't drink can't smoke .. what can we do....

Argue in cyber space.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
156. Skyepony (Mod)
Seastep & Gulfpoet~ sorry you misunderstood. From the Astronaut's accounts I was gathering from..they want to protect our enviroment for their kids & the animals, plants. Mother earth would be fine without us & CO2 isn't going to kill her...your greaty, great, grand kids..maybe.

By this tangent of how green energy would be worse & some's flat denial that the world is warming & all this data is wrong..i'd like to add another reason people look beyond the science, cover thier eyes, ears, minds, grow increasingly upset & begin to rant without a clue or education... Fear of Change.

& this flat earth harp...people thought that til they got in boats & tested the theory. Differece here is AGW has been tested repeatedly & hasn't been disproved that it is adding to natural cycles & causing warming, melting, sea rise, ocean acidification & migrations.

Member Since: Agosto 10, 2005 Posts: 162 Comments: 37469
155. Inyo
Quoting theshepherd:
142 Inyo
You wade a prickly swamp this morning.
As with SE Fla there is plenty of water in California. Problem is there are too many people for the infrastucture to support. Everybody wants to live in "paradise".
And remember less than 8% agreed 97% of the time.


There is enough water for people here to survive if they adopt conservation measures... no more lawns, most people don' get a swimming pool, adopt measures to help rainwater infiltrate, restore damaged watersheds, get rid of all the golf courses, plant native plants. Problem is not many people are doing that stuff
Member Since: Septiembre 3, 2002 Posts: 42 Comments: 873
154. Inyo
Quoting GulfPoet:
142. Inyo 5:52 PM GMT on January 28, 2009

you are obviously a very rude environmental wacko. you have insulated me and others her.

but I do love this one.

We don't have enough water anyway (and that will be a problem regardless of global warming).


and now I shall insult you.

I do not seem to have the same issues with water as you do.





How'd i insult you? It wasn't intentional and I apologize. I was just trying to have a good ol' debate in the tradition of the United States of America.

That's a lot of water you have there. Do you think we can dump it on our crops and make them grow? California is entering into a really serious drought cycle, and freshwater supplies are going to be very low for the next few years. (almost certainly a natural cycle, I'm not going to link it to global warming!). If you don't believe that the southwestern US has problems with supply of fresh, clean water, I don't know what to say!

Again, sorry for any insult, that wasnt the point of my posts. It's hard when so many people disagree so strongly! In any event as a person who works with land management I can tell you I am not a 'rabid environmentalist' and well-meaning environmentalists can do almost as much harm as the oil companies!
Member Since: Septiembre 3, 2002 Posts: 42 Comments: 873
142 Inyo
You wade a prickly swamp this morning.
As with SE Fla there is plenty of water in California. Problem is there are too many people for the infrastucture to support. Everybody wants to live in "paradise".
And remember less than 8% agreed 97% of the time.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
What about the solar affect? If we absorb huge amounts of energy/heat in a given area, will that not have an impact on how the weather forms and or moves across a region also?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Gulf dude, you stuck up for me?

OK, I don't give up yet. I fight until there is no body left standing.
Quoting GulfPoet:
142. Inyo 5:52 PM GMT on January 28, 2009

you are obviously a very rude environmental wacko. you have insulated me and others her.

but I do love this one.

We don't have enough water anyway (and that will be a problem regardless of global warming).


and now I shall insult you.

I do not seem to have the same issues with water as you do.





Gulf dude poet guy, you stuck up for me?

OK, so I don't give up yet. I fight until there is no body left standing.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Inyo:
OSSQSS, here's the deal. Come find me in 15 years. By then the question about GW should be answered. If it is obvious that it is not happening, or even if we still don't know, I will gladly buy you a cold beer of your choice, drink a beer myself and celebrate that something really bad didn't happen.


If it is really obvious that it IS happening, you owe me a boat and 5 acres of land in Canada.


Yes, the next 5-15 years will be most interesting to observe.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Thanks for addressing that question Doc!

See GulfPoet? So there! ;)

It would have an effect.

Goes back to an old discussion we had during the season about how hurricanes are necessary to transfer heat to the northern hemisphere.

Who knows what the consequences might be if we alter the transfer of energy by weather systems.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Inyo:


wait, is this directed towards me?

If you don't like California, don't live here. We don't have enough water anyway (and that will be a problem regardless of global warming). The fact is that 97% of the experts feel that there is a problem with AGW. If you don't like the experts, who do you propose we go to? Politicians? Let me repeat, global warming is NOT a minority opinion. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it will go away.

Again, do you really trust oil companies more than peer-reviewed journals. If so, do you work for or profit from one? If not, you should question your motives. If you simply hate science, then you shouldn't be debating it. If you have intelligent responses to my posts, by all means, I'd love to hear them. Instead, you made a bunch of rush limburger-type "OMG I HATE ENVIRONMENTALISTSWETEWTTEWEWTTW OH NO WHALES VS HUMANS" posts and implied that I am an ignorant hippie with no evidence to back that up!

What is spouting a cojector over a plaform? I am simply discussing commonly known facts about forestry and atmospheric science


Dear Lord, please forgive me for what I am about to say.

OK, I give up.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
144. Inyo
OSSQSS, here's the deal. Come find me in 15 years. By then the question about GW should be answered. If it is obvious that it is not happening, or even if we still don't know, I will gladly buy you a cold beer of your choice, drink a beer myself and celebrate that something really bad didn't happen.


If it is really obvious that it IS happening, you owe me a boat and 5 acres of land in Canada.
Member Since: Septiembre 3, 2002 Posts: 42 Comments: 873
142. Inyo
Quoting Ossqss:
Rude, I have never been so insulated in my whole life.

Rude is being brainwashed by politically active professors in most of our higher learning establishments. In particular in CA. Rude is pushing your opinion ( theory ) as a minority interest down the general publics throat. Rude is being the one to cry for help as soon as something that you have been brainwashed to believe is finally proven to be wrong. You Inyo face are the rude one, spouting your conjector across a plaform that should only deal with fact. There is no right or wrong answer to your opinion, it is only opinion and not fact. Can't we all just get along, NO, not until we stop letting the weak minority be mislead by those who profit from their blindness Ms. Gore.

Goodbye cruel world.


wait, is this directed towards me?

If you don't like California, don't live here. We don't have enough water anyway (and that will be a problem regardless of global warming). The fact is that 97% of the experts feel that there is a problem with AGW. If you don't like the experts, who do you propose we go to? Politicians? Let me repeat, global warming is NOT a minority opinion. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it will go away.

Again, do you really trust oil companies more than peer-reviewed journals. If so, do you work for or profit from one? If not, you should question your motives. If you simply hate science, then you shouldn't be debating it. If you have intelligent responses to my posts, by all means, I'd love to hear them. Instead, you made a bunch of rush limburger-type "OMG I HATE ENVIRONMENTALISTSWETEWTTEWEWTTW OH NO WHALES VS HUMANS" posts and implied that I am an ignorant hippie with no evidence to back that up!

What is spouting a cojector over a plaform? I am simply discussing commonly known facts about forestry and atmospheric science
Member Since: Septiembre 3, 2002 Posts: 42 Comments: 873
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....
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The earth goes through cycles and we are in a normal cooling cycle since 1998. To say that man is a significant factor in global warming/cooling gives man a lot more credit than he deserves. Your classification of who are scientists needs some rework. The general public is right. It is not a significant factor to be considred and certainly not to spend billions of dollars with no real scientific evidence other than a computer GUESS!!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
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".
**********************************************

Thanks Doc
I support your efforts wholeheartedly.
But, I think supporters of the other side will conclude that less than 8% of the climate scientists agree 97% of the time.
They will attack such terms as "Official Word"
using such a poor turn out as this of professionals that were asked to proffer an opinion.
"Would you form an opinion with only 8% of the data at hand?" That will be their question.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Rude, I have never been so insulated in my whole life.

Rude is being brainwashed by politically active professors in most of our higher learning establishments. In particular in CA. Rude is pushing your opinion ( theory ) as a minority interest down the general publics throat. Rude is being the one to cry for help as soon as something that you have been brainwashed to believe is finally proven to be wrong. You Inyo face are the rude one, spouting your conjector across a plaform that should only deal with fact. There is no right or wrong answer to your opinion, it is only opinion and not fact. Can't we all just get along, NO, not until we stop letting the weak minority be mislead by those who profit from their blindness Ms. Gore.

Goodbye cruel world.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
134. JeffMasters (Admin)
Quoting Ossqss:
Question --- What happens to the environment when we alter the natural paths that our planet takes? IE --- what happens when we have millions of wind turbines or water current turbines absorbing energy across the globe that is required by nature and we cover vast areas with solar power equipment and absorb that energy? We would be using present energy and not stored energy ant I would think it would have a negative impact that could be worse the what we have now.


I saw a simulation done on the impact of a large wind farm in Kansas on low pressure systems tracking over the U.S. The simulations showed that the central pressure of the low changed by several millibars, and the eventual track once over the Atlantic changed by several hundred kilometers, after the low moved over the wind farm. This alteration was due to the regional-scale change in roughness length (turbulence) imparted by the wind farm. Wind turbines will have a noticeable effect on weather--and possibly the climate--if we build enough of them.

Jeff Masters
133. Inyo
Quoting GulfPoet:



What are your top 3 solutions to mitigation of AGW.

Thanks


I'm a botanist, not a civil engineer. I don't know the best way to solve the problem. The obvious one is reducing our use of fossil fuels, there are lots of ways to do this, and I'm sure you've already heard them and hate them all. One that may be less important, but that I know more about, is wetland restoration, wetlands have naturally pulled carbon out of the atmosphere for millions of years (they turn it back into oil over a geologic timescale)
Member Since: Septiembre 3, 2002 Posts: 42 Comments: 873
132. Inyo
Quoting GulfPoet:



What are your top 3 solutions to mitigation of AGW.

Thanks


I'm a botanist, not a civil engineer. I don't know the best way to solve the problem. The obvious one is reducing our use of fossil fuels, there are lots of ways to do this, and I'm sure you've already heard them and hate them all. One that may be less important, but that I know more about, is wetland restoration, wetlands have naturally pulled carbon out of the atmosphere for millions of years (they turn it back into oil over a geologic timescale)
Member Since: Septiembre 3, 2002 Posts: 42 Comments: 873
129. Inyo
Quoting Ossqss:
Dont worry about the climate--

Worry about the large asteroids coming -- they will change your climate, echosystem and lifecycle.


So are you saying you would support research into the state of the solar system? Most of the global warming denialists hate that sort of science too. Besides, meteor impacts are very infrequent, one will happen again in the next few million years but we have no reason to believe it will be in the next few thousand
Member Since: Septiembre 3, 2002 Posts: 42 Comments: 873
128. Inyo
Quoting Ossqss:
Nobody never axd me nothin


Nobody never axd me nothin -- I guess I did not qualify because I had differing opinion.


Wait, you never explained why you made weird, rude comments about the ecological state of forests in the Western US. Do you just hate anything that sounds like science or do you actually believe that the forests throughout the US are larger and contain more biomass than 100s of years ago?
Member Since: Septiembre 3, 2002 Posts: 42 Comments: 873
Dont worry about the climate--

Worry about the large asteroids coming -- they will change your climate, echosystem and lifecycle.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 177 - 127

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

Clear
66 ° F
Despejado