I
In~Plain~Site
The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
The Basics: What is Global Warming and What is the Greenhouse Effect?
- Thread starter Grat3fulh3ad
- Start date
- Status
A new study of climate scientists' opinions shows 97 percent agree that global warming is driven mainly by human activity - emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases.
The study, published by the National Academy of Sciences, involved 1,372 climate scientists, most considered top researchers in their field.
The study's authors took pains to separate true experts - active researchers with a large number of publications to their credit - from amateurs, or scientists from other fields who make statements about climate change.
They did not pose questions directly to the scientists. Instead, they surveyed public statements the scientists had signed indicating whether they accept that the planet is warming and that humans are the primary cause.
"We felt it would be helpful to put numbers to it, and really to bring in the expertise angle," said William R. L. Anderegg, a doctoral candidate at Stanford University who studies climate change and its effects on ecosystems, and who was the study's lead author. "We thought it was important to provide the average person with a roadmap on where the experts stand on climate change."
Culling out top experts in climate science by relying on their published work helped sharpen the findings, said UC Irvine professor Michael Prather, an expert in climate modeling and an author of climate reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
"This is exactly what you would do, if you were smart, trying to pick a doctor to do some surgery on you," Prather said. "You'd want to know what the patient success rate is. You'd want to put all the statistics together. They did the same thing for science research."
The study grew in part from concern among scientists over increasing media focus on the assertions of groups that call themselves climate change skeptics - those that deny the planet is warming, or that humans are influencing the climate, or both.
The scientists, Anderegg said, had a growing sense that media reports "were becoming increasingly disconnected from the scientific discussion about climate change."
The skeptics included three percent of the top 200 scientists surveyed who remained unconvinced about climate change or humanity's role in it. But an analysis of their work showed far lower levels of publication in the climate field, as well as fewer citations of their work by other climate scientists.
Controversy erupted last year after climate scientists' e-mails were hacked from the University of East Anglia in England; critics contended that the e-mails showed exaggeration or attempts by the scientists to manipulate climate data.
The National Academy, however, points to several investigations that found no wrongdoing by the scientists, and that upheld the present scientific consensus on climate change.
Another recent survey, meanwhile, showed a decline in acceptance of human-caused warming among Americans, from 83 percent in 2007 to 75 percent today - still a high number, said the study's author, Jon Krosnick, of Stanford University's Woods Institute for the Environment.
The survey of scientists was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/06/28/2048812/global-warming-97-percent-of-experts.html#ixzz0sOfkkDYF
The study, published by the National Academy of Sciences, involved 1,372 climate scientists, most considered top researchers in their field.
The study's authors took pains to separate true experts - active researchers with a large number of publications to their credit - from amateurs, or scientists from other fields who make statements about climate change.
They did not pose questions directly to the scientists. Instead, they surveyed public statements the scientists had signed indicating whether they accept that the planet is warming and that humans are the primary cause.
"We felt it would be helpful to put numbers to it, and really to bring in the expertise angle," said William R. L. Anderegg, a doctoral candidate at Stanford University who studies climate change and its effects on ecosystems, and who was the study's lead author. "We thought it was important to provide the average person with a roadmap on where the experts stand on climate change."
Culling out top experts in climate science by relying on their published work helped sharpen the findings, said UC Irvine professor Michael Prather, an expert in climate modeling and an author of climate reports from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
"This is exactly what you would do, if you were smart, trying to pick a doctor to do some surgery on you," Prather said. "You'd want to know what the patient success rate is. You'd want to put all the statistics together. They did the same thing for science research."
The study grew in part from concern among scientists over increasing media focus on the assertions of groups that call themselves climate change skeptics - those that deny the planet is warming, or that humans are influencing the climate, or both.
The scientists, Anderegg said, had a growing sense that media reports "were becoming increasingly disconnected from the scientific discussion about climate change."
The skeptics included three percent of the top 200 scientists surveyed who remained unconvinced about climate change or humanity's role in it. But an analysis of their work showed far lower levels of publication in the climate field, as well as fewer citations of their work by other climate scientists.
Controversy erupted last year after climate scientists' e-mails were hacked from the University of East Anglia in England; critics contended that the e-mails showed exaggeration or attempts by the scientists to manipulate climate data.
The National Academy, however, points to several investigations that found no wrongdoing by the scientists, and that upheld the present scientific consensus on climate change.
Another recent survey, meanwhile, showed a decline in acceptance of human-caused warming among Americans, from 83 percent in 2007 to 75 percent today - still a high number, said the study's author, Jon Krosnick, of Stanford University's Woods Institute for the Environment.
The survey of scientists was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2010/06/28/2048812/global-warming-97-percent-of-experts.html#ixzz0sOfkkDYF
I'm curious- In your model of Global Warming, is the exhalation of CO2 seen as a "carbon emission"?
You don't get banned for your opinion, you get banned because of the way you present your opinion.
Is it really worth being this dramatic? What fun could it be getting this angry and worked up? I just don't get it....
WeSeekTheTruth
Member
Come on H3ad, you know the Earth has cooled over the years. The Earth never used to have polar ice caps.
The proof exists that the Earth was quite a bit warmer than it is now. Volcanic activity has slowed dramatically over the last several hundred million years. That's where a lot of the CO2 came from.
During the hundreds of millions of years when CO2 was fairly abundant, life was more abundant also. We know this from geological and fossil evidence.
When plant life was more abundant, animal life was also. There never used to be the seasonal variation of temperatures that we have today. Animal and plants grew to enormous sizes when CO2 was exponentially higher.
Unfortunately, the Earth is running out of energy. It has been cooling for some time. The cold periods and ice ages are getting longer. Eventually it will get so cold that life will cease to exist on this planet.
The warming of the Earth, if man could actually do this, would be a good thing. Unfortunately, man does not control the climate. He never could. The amount of energy needed to warm the Earth is much greater than we could possibly imagine.
Even if we could increase the temperature a degree or two, what harm could it cause? The Earth's temperature used to be a lot higher. Polar ice caps never used to exist. If the polar caps were to melt, there would be a lot more fresh water available. Most of the Earth's fresh water is frozen and not usable.
The proof exists that the Earth was quite a bit warmer than it is now. Volcanic activity has slowed dramatically over the last several hundred million years. That's where a lot of the CO2 came from.
During the hundreds of millions of years when CO2 was fairly abundant, life was more abundant also. We know this from geological and fossil evidence.
When plant life was more abundant, animal life was also. There never used to be the seasonal variation of temperatures that we have today. Animal and plants grew to enormous sizes when CO2 was exponentially higher.
Unfortunately, the Earth is running out of energy. It has been cooling for some time. The cold periods and ice ages are getting longer. Eventually it will get so cold that life will cease to exist on this planet.
The warming of the Earth, if man could actually do this, would be a good thing. Unfortunately, man does not control the climate. He never could. The amount of energy needed to warm the Earth is much greater than we could possibly imagine.
Even if we could increase the temperature a degree or two, what harm could it cause? The Earth's temperature used to be a lot higher. Polar ice caps never used to exist. If the polar caps were to melt, there would be a lot more fresh water available. Most of the Earth's fresh water is frozen and not usable.
WeSeekTheTruth
Member
In science, the only thing better than measurements made in the real world are multiple sets of measurements – all pointing to the same answer. That’s what we find with climate change. The case for human caused global warming is based on many independent lines of evidence. Our understanding of climate comes from considering all this evidence. In contrast, global warming skepticism focuses on narrow pieces of the puzzle while neglecting the full picture.
What is the full picture? Humans are emitting around 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the air every year. This is leaving a distinct human fingerprint:
*From space and the Earth’s surface, we see more heat being trapped by carbon dioxide
*Nights are warming faster than days
*The upper atmosphere is cooling while the lower atmosphere is warming
Signs of warming are found all over the globe (here are just a few):
Ice sheets are melting
Sea levels are rising
Biological changes in tens of thousands of species
Glaciers are retreating
Seasons are shifting
Species are becoming extinct
On the question of human caused global warming, there’s not just a consensus of scientists – there’s a consensus of evidence.
Our understanding of climate doesn't come from a single line of evidence. We use multiple sets of measurements, using independent methods, to further our understanding. Satellites find similar temperature trends to thermometer measurements.
Our climate is changing and we are a major cause through our emissions of greenhouse gases. Considering all the facts about climate change is essential for us to understand the world around us, and to make informed decisions about the future.
What is the full picture? Humans are emitting around 30 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide into the air every year. This is leaving a distinct human fingerprint:
*From space and the Earth’s surface, we see more heat being trapped by carbon dioxide
*Nights are warming faster than days
*The upper atmosphere is cooling while the lower atmosphere is warming
Signs of warming are found all over the globe (here are just a few):
Ice sheets are melting
Sea levels are rising
Biological changes in tens of thousands of species
Glaciers are retreating
Seasons are shifting
Species are becoming extinct
On the question of human caused global warming, there’s not just a consensus of scientists – there’s a consensus of evidence.
Our understanding of climate doesn't come from a single line of evidence. We use multiple sets of measurements, using independent methods, to further our understanding. Satellites find similar temperature trends to thermometer measurements.
Our climate is changing and we are a major cause through our emissions of greenhouse gases. Considering all the facts about climate change is essential for us to understand the world around us, and to make informed decisions about the future.
nope. CO2 which is a naturally occurring part of the carbon cycle was already in play in the system... it is only what we set loose that nature had sequestered away in long term storage that is causing issues.
weseekthetruth, do you think another oceanic anoxic event is a desirable future?
also... aside from there being times in the past which were too warm for us mammals, there was also a time when the whole planet was a snowball... it is irrelevant to the irrefutable science demonstrating AGW right now.
also... aside from there being times in the past which were too warm for us mammals, there was also a time when the whole planet was a snowball... it is irrelevant to the irrefutable science demonstrating AGW right now.
WeSeekTheTruth
Member
It's happened before. Doesn't seem to be a problem. I think crude oil disasters are much worse that cyclical oceanic changes.
what's funny, Amos Moses (weseekthetruth), is that the fastest path to fame and fortune as a scientist is to disprove your peers... if AGW could be refuted, it would be...
then you do not understand what an oceanwide anoxic event entails.
you should educate yourself, it would mean extinction for most of the life on earth... thousands of times worse than a measly oil spill...
WeSeekTheTruth
Member
Do you really think an oceanic anoxic event could even occur? With the ocean currents and air currents we have I couldn't imagine how this would ever be possible, let alone be caused by man.
There is absolutely no proof that activity by humans could possible stop ocean and air currents.
Who comes up with these ideas?
There is absolutely no proof that activity by humans could possible stop ocean and air currents.
Who comes up with these ideas?
I'm curious then, why is it the issue of cows is always being brought up? I mean, I understand we're not talking about CO2 in this instance, but it still confuses me to a certain degree. How is a cow farting (/belching) an "emission"? I mean, I understand it isn't as simple as breathing in O2 and exhaling CO2, but could you explain to me the difference?
I understand that the methane was not already "in the atmosphere" but was the CO2 that is exhaled? The methane is formed when the bacteria in the stomach break down food/cud, so I guess I can see how this could be considered an emission. Am I understanding this correctly?
I'll bother with you, Amos, If you bother getting educated.
Until you study up on the subject matter your conjecture is too
foolish to even bother addressing...
I do get a kick out of your arguing about things you don't know about,
but you are just being contentious, not really seeking any truth.
Until you study up on the subject matter your conjecture is too
foolish to even bother addressing...
I do get a kick out of your arguing about things you don't know about,
but you are just being contentious, not really seeking any truth.
WeSeekTheTruth
Member
Sorry H3ad, can't keep my eyes open. I'll discuss how the Earth will evolve tomorrow. I just won some poker bucks, LOL.
Lunesta time.
Lunesta time.
part of it is the sheer unnatural number of cows we farm worldwide
i do not consider cow farts to be emissions, but I do consider beef farming to contribute to AGW... deforestation, runoff, and whatnot.
I agree, if anything, I feel like the vast distances the average steak travels before it is consumed would be a larger contributing factor. Local food ftw!
I really really wish that Amos and Rhino were right...
just not enough to close my eyes to the obvious.
I just wish that instead of simply repeating the words hoax and junk science ad nauseum, that Rhino would post up his real science and suss out the junk for what it is.
just not enough to close my eyes to the obvious.
I just wish that instead of simply repeating the words hoax and junk science ad nauseum, that Rhino would post up his real science and suss out the junk for what it is.
Me too, I'd like them to be right. But I tend to lean on the science.
- Status
