Global Warming Survey of US Scientists

[Paul Brand]

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americ...vey/index.html

(CNN) -- Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S. survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.


A survey of more than 3,000 scientists found that the vast majority believe humans cause global warming.

Against a backdrop of harsh winter weather across much of North America and Europe, the concept of rising global temperatures might seem incongruous.

However the results of the investigation conducted at the end of 2008 reveal that vast majority of the Earth scientists surveyed 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.

The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments.

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.

The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.

"The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists' is very interesting," said Peter Doran associate professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and one of the survey's authors.

"Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon."

However, Doran was not surprised 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.

"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," said Doran.

Findings of the survey are highlighted above. It's interesting the gap between climatologists and meterologists. 97% of climatologists believe that humans are a significant cause of global warming. Meterologists came in at 64%.

I don't find the petroleum geologist finding all that surprising (47% human involvement).

I've been wondering what the % was among climate scientists. I've speculated in the past it was around 95%. It seems that estimate wasn't too far off.

[Heathen]

What constitutes "a significant factor" though? Is it 100%, 50%, 5%?

[yoyo]

climatologists - people whose jobs depend on advancing an unprovable theory of golbal warming.
petroleum geologists - people whose jobs depend on retarding advance of the unprovable theory of global warming.

[Pseudolus]

meteorologists - people whose jobs depend on wishing happy birthday to nono- and decagenarians.

[Rickson]

These people are like eCONomists...paid to be wrong and no matter how many times their empty formulas and theories are proven wrong they keep winning nobel prizes as long as they further the elite agenda.

[Paul Brand]

Originally Posted by Heathen

What constitutes "a significant factor" though? Is it 100%, 50%, 5%?

I don't think the results would vary that much if they included the words ">=50% contribution to 20th century warming".

But, you are right, more precise language could prove helpful. It seems that they did get a large sample size of published geo-scientists to submit their opinions. I would suspect that if a scientist thinks global warming is being significantly overblown, they would likely say humans don't make a significant contribution.

[oirg]

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/sc...22climate.html

Antarctica is warming.

That is the conclusion of scientists analyzing half a century of temperatures on the continent, and the findings may help resolve a climate enigma at the bottom of the planet.

While some regions of Antarctica, particularly the peninsula the stretches toward South America, have warmed rapidly in recent decades, weather stations including the one at the South Pole have recorded a cooling trend. That ran counter to the forecasts of computer climate models, and global warming skeptics have pointed to Antarctica in questioning the reliability of the models.

In the new study, scientists took into account satellite measurements to interpolate temperatures in the vast areas between the sparse weather stations.

“We now see warming is taking place on all seven of the earth’s continents in accord with what models predict as a response to greenhouse gases,” said Eric J. Steig, a professor of space sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle and the lead author of a paper appearing Thursday in the journal Nature.

Professor of space sciences = climatologist?

[MathGuy]

So let me get this straight:

• Some weather stations in Antarctica show warming
• Some other weather stations in Antarctica show cooling
• But if you make up an interpolation method (that is, if you invent data), you can show that these two phenomena net out to "warming"

[Entropy]

Originally Posted by MathGuy

So let me get this straight:

• Some weather stations in Antarctica show warming
• Some other weather stations in Antarctica show cooling
• But if you make up an interpolation method (that is, if you invent data), you can show that these two phenomena net out to "warming"

You've never interpolated before?
You should try it, it feels great!

[Fish Actuary]

Originally Posted by oirg

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/22/sc...22climate.html



Professor of space sciences = climatologist?

One or two of the authors of the paper discuss the results a bit here

If you have doubts about their methods and techniques, I suspect that they would probably be willing to respond to your questions about their research if you sent them a well thought out comment explaining your doubts about their research.

Let us know if you do send in a question so we can see their response.