"That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is unquestionably correct..."
"Apparently, temperature is the independent variable and CO2 the dependent."
Human-induced climate change requires urgent action
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
"That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is unquestionably correct..."
"Apparently, temperature is the independent variable and CO2 the dependent."
Yet another study confirms the “overwhelming” scientific consensus on climate change
So why all the debate? Blame the media
Despite the best efforts of climate deniers committed to spreading misinformation, the scientific consensus on climate change — that it’s happening, and that human activity is to blame — has yet to be convincingly challenged. So the newest study to examine scientists’ views on global warming is, in some ways, old news: published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, it draws on a survey of more than 1,800 climate scientists to once again document “overwhelming agreement” on those two main points.
The scientists were asked the question twice, in slightly different ways. But in both cases, the responses were similar. The more researchers said they’d published on the topic, moreover, the more likely they were to agree that greenhouse gas emissions are the main contributor to global warming:
The results more or less confirm the previous findings documenting the scientific consensus on man-made climate change, among them: the 2009 survey that found 86 percent of earth scientists, but 97.5 percent of actively publishing climatologists, believe” human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures”; the 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences that surveyed 200 scientists who’ve published “prolifically” on climate change, 97 to 98 percent of which agree it’s happening; and the 2013 survey led by Skeptical Science’s John Cook (a co-author on this new study), which reviewed 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers and found that 97 percent of those that discussed the cause of climate change attributed it to human activity.
This newest study, according to lead author Bart Verheggen, sets an even higher standard, as it looks specifically at the degree to which scientists thought greenhouse gas emissions were contributing to climate change (the graph on the right). It found that of those who had published 10 or more peer-reviewed papers (about half of those surveyed), 90 percent agreed that such emissions are either the largest or tied for the largest contributor. Verheggen also notes that climate contrarians were “somewhat overrepresented” and may have claimed to have published more than they actually have, which could have influenced the results.
Still, he wrote in a blog post summarizing the findings, “no matter how you slice it, scientists overwhelmingly agree that recent global warming is to a great extent human caused.”
So why does something that seems so evident continue to come off as a debate? And more important, why does the public remain unconvinced? Verheggen points out that the public tends to lag behind the scientific community in accepting new theories, but the scientists’ responses to another question are also noteworthy: the 43 respondents who characterized the contribution of greenhouse gases as insignificant, or even negative (meaning they believe in “global cooling”), reported receiving more media attention than those who thought emissions caused either slight, moderate or strong warming. Those who supported “strong warming,” in fact, were in the majority (there were 1,042 of them), yet only about 15 percent of them said they received frequent media coverage — while for the small minority of contrarians, that number doubled to 30 percent.
It’s about as clear an example of the false balance in media coverage of climate change that you’re likely to see: Because those scientists are in the minority, they’re called upon more often to represent their unrepresentative views. Again, this confirms what others have found: When the IPCC report concluded that warming was “unequivocal,” and man’s contribution “extremely likely,” Media Matters found that deniers, many of them un- or underqualified, represented 18 percent of those quoted in mainstream media coverage of the report. That’s not portraying “both sides of the story” — it’s presenting a greatly distorted view of reality, as John Oliver brilliantly demonstrated. The BBC Trust, too, acknowledged as much last month when it ordered its journalists to stop giving equal airtime to fringe scientists. Because while there is a debate about climate change, it’s about what we should do about it — not whether it’s happening. The more we perpetuate that false controversy, the longer it’ll take us to start tackling the battle that really matters.
So why all the debate? Blame the media
Despite the best efforts of climate deniers committed to spreading misinformation, the scientific consensus on climate change — that it’s happening, and that human activity is to blame — has yet to be convincingly challenged. So the newest study to examine scientists’ views on global warming is, in some ways, old news: published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology, it draws on a survey of more than 1,800 climate scientists to once again document “overwhelming agreement” on those two main points.
The scientists were asked the question twice, in slightly different ways. But in both cases, the responses were similar. The more researchers said they’d published on the topic, moreover, the more likely they were to agree that greenhouse gas emissions are the main contributor to global warming:
The results more or less confirm the previous findings documenting the scientific consensus on man-made climate change, among them: the 2009 survey that found 86 percent of earth scientists, but 97.5 percent of actively publishing climatologists, believe” human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures”; the 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the Natural Academy of Sciences that surveyed 200 scientists who’ve published “prolifically” on climate change, 97 to 98 percent of which agree it’s happening; and the 2013 survey led by Skeptical Science’s John Cook (a co-author on this new study), which reviewed 12,000 peer-reviewed climate science papers and found that 97 percent of those that discussed the cause of climate change attributed it to human activity.
This newest study, according to lead author Bart Verheggen, sets an even higher standard, as it looks specifically at the degree to which scientists thought greenhouse gas emissions were contributing to climate change (the graph on the right). It found that of those who had published 10 or more peer-reviewed papers (about half of those surveyed), 90 percent agreed that such emissions are either the largest or tied for the largest contributor. Verheggen also notes that climate contrarians were “somewhat overrepresented” and may have claimed to have published more than they actually have, which could have influenced the results.
Still, he wrote in a blog post summarizing the findings, “no matter how you slice it, scientists overwhelmingly agree that recent global warming is to a great extent human caused.”
So why does something that seems so evident continue to come off as a debate? And more important, why does the public remain unconvinced? Verheggen points out that the public tends to lag behind the scientific community in accepting new theories, but the scientists’ responses to another question are also noteworthy: the 43 respondents who characterized the contribution of greenhouse gases as insignificant, or even negative (meaning they believe in “global cooling”), reported receiving more media attention than those who thought emissions caused either slight, moderate or strong warming. Those who supported “strong warming,” in fact, were in the majority (there were 1,042 of them), yet only about 15 percent of them said they received frequent media coverage — while for the small minority of contrarians, that number doubled to 30 percent.
It’s about as clear an example of the false balance in media coverage of climate change that you’re likely to see: Because those scientists are in the minority, they’re called upon more often to represent their unrepresentative views. Again, this confirms what others have found: When the IPCC report concluded that warming was “unequivocal,” and man’s contribution “extremely likely,” Media Matters found that deniers, many of them un- or underqualified, represented 18 percent of those quoted in mainstream media coverage of the report. That’s not portraying “both sides of the story” — it’s presenting a greatly distorted view of reality, as John Oliver brilliantly demonstrated. The BBC Trust, too, acknowledged as much last month when it ordered its journalists to stop giving equal airtime to fringe scientists. Because while there is a debate about climate change, it’s about what we should do about it — not whether it’s happening. The more we perpetuate that false controversy, the longer it’ll take us to start tackling the battle that really matters.
OH no!! I forgot to set my hair on fire and run screaming in circles yelling "wake up and pee, the world is on fire!!!!"
The only "scientists" that believe in GW work for the UN. The UN wants this issue so they can tax us and eventually rule the world... It's Pinky and the Brain stuff...
The only "scientists" that believe in GW work for the UN. The UN wants this issue so they can tax us and eventually rule the world... It's Pinky and the Brain stuff...
[quote="piezoe, post: 4009436, member: 45984"]If it is such simple science, wouldn't it be trivial to explain the observations that are inconsistent with rising CO2 causing the Earth to warm? Yet we don't find any reasonable explanations for these inconsistencies that would leave the original Hansen hypothesis intact.
Contrary to what you believe, I have come to believe that understanding climate change, and correctly predicting it, is incredibly complex, and that the current science no longer supports the Hansen hypothesis. I do not question actual observations of temperature, nor that an average temperature increase of a few degrees might have catastrophic consequences. Nor do I question that CO2 increase appears highly correlated with temperature rise during the brief, recent period. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is unquestionably correct, though it is, in that role, less important than water vapor.
Early investigators, however, did not explore the relationship between time of temperature rise and time of CO2 concentration rise. What we have recently learned is that temperature rise precedes CO2 concentration rise. Apparently, temperature is the independent variable and CO2 the dependent. What I question, therefore, in the face of such strong evidence to the contrary, is that man's CO2 emissions caused the temperature to rise between the start of the industrial revolution and the late 20th Century. Apparently, instead, rising temperature caused atmospheric CO2 to rise during the same period that industrialization was resulting in steadily increasing anthropomorphic CO2 emissions.
Further, recent work has shown rather convincingly that the natural sinking and turnover of CO2 is far more rapid than early investigators had guessed. These, now known to be incorrect, guesses were adopted by the IPCC and used to reach incorrect conclusions. It now appears possible that, had a temperature rise not preceded man's increasing emissions of CO2, rapid natural sinking of CO2 would have prevented most or all of the modern rise in CO2 concentration.
The Hansen hypothesis seemed reasonable at the time he proposed it in 1988, but the latest science has shown it to be incorrect. It's time to reject this incorrect hypothesis and explore alternative hypotheses consistent with recent observations.[/quote]
So CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas? How could a 40% increase of earth's most important GHG NOT cause temps to rise?
The Hansen theory is alive and perfectly well thank you very much despite your absurd statement to the contrary. Rising CO2 levels are causing more greenhouse effect so the earth is warming. It's very simple. What is your major malfunction?
And once again you seem fixated on this "pause" in atmospheric. Did you forget about the 90% of the earth's thermal mass.....the oceans?
Good you acknowledge that CO2 and temps are highly correlated. Do you know why? It's because the levels of CO2 determine the temperature. This is climate science 101 which you apparently failed or never took.
Lastly. What the hell is your deal? You don't make sense. Something is rotten in Denmark here.
Contrary to what you believe, I have come to believe that understanding climate change, and correctly predicting it, is incredibly complex, and that the current science no longer supports the Hansen hypothesis. I do not question actual observations of temperature, nor that an average temperature increase of a few degrees might have catastrophic consequences. Nor do I question that CO2 increase appears highly correlated with temperature rise during the brief, recent period. That CO2 is a greenhouse gas is unquestionably correct, though it is, in that role, less important than water vapor.
Early investigators, however, did not explore the relationship between time of temperature rise and time of CO2 concentration rise. What we have recently learned is that temperature rise precedes CO2 concentration rise. Apparently, temperature is the independent variable and CO2 the dependent. What I question, therefore, in the face of such strong evidence to the contrary, is that man's CO2 emissions caused the temperature to rise between the start of the industrial revolution and the late 20th Century. Apparently, instead, rising temperature caused atmospheric CO2 to rise during the same period that industrialization was resulting in steadily increasing anthropomorphic CO2 emissions.
Further, recent work has shown rather convincingly that the natural sinking and turnover of CO2 is far more rapid than early investigators had guessed. These, now known to be incorrect, guesses were adopted by the IPCC and used to reach incorrect conclusions. It now appears possible that, had a temperature rise not preceded man's increasing emissions of CO2, rapid natural sinking of CO2 would have prevented most or all of the modern rise in CO2 concentration.
The Hansen hypothesis seemed reasonable at the time he proposed it in 1988, but the latest science has shown it to be incorrect. It's time to reject this incorrect hypothesis and explore alternative hypotheses consistent with recent observations.[/quote]
So CO2 is NOT a greenhouse gas? How could a 40% increase of earth's most important GHG NOT cause temps to rise?
The Hansen theory is alive and perfectly well thank you very much despite your absurd statement to the contrary. Rising CO2 levels are causing more greenhouse effect so the earth is warming. It's very simple. What is your major malfunction?
And once again you seem fixated on this "pause" in atmospheric. Did you forget about the 90% of the earth's thermal mass.....the oceans?
Good you acknowledge that CO2 and temps are highly correlated. Do you know why? It's because the levels of CO2 determine the temperature. This is climate science 101 which you apparently failed or never took.
Lastly. What the hell is your deal? You don't make sense. Something is rotten in Denmark here.
Damn! You figured it out.
I just have to pull out this particularly stupid statement from pizoe's post above.
"Apparently, instead, rising temperature caused atmospheric CO2 to rise during the same period that industrialization was resulting in steadily increasing anthropomorphic CO2 emissions."
Yes of course.....just a coincidence.
Truly dumbfounding. I'm gabberflasted. Just what is his deal?
"Apparently, instead, rising temperature caused atmospheric CO2 to rise during the same period that industrialization was resulting in steadily increasing anthropomorphic CO2 emissions."
Yes of course.....just a coincidence.
Truly dumbfounding. I'm gabberflasted. Just what is his deal?
Of course he did. It's Pinky and the Brain stuff. Only UN scientist believe this because they want to rule the world.
Wait he's kidding isn't he?
The UN ruling the world is probably a necessary first step toward the United Federation of Planets.
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/