97% of climatologists believe in man-made global warming

[ReillyT]

From The Sunday Times
April 29, 2007
Climate change hits Mars
Mars is being hit by rapid climate change and it is happening so fast that the red planet could lose its southern ice cap, writes Jonathan Leake.
Scientists from Nasa say that Mars has warmed by about 0.5C since the 1970s. This is similar to the warming experienced on Earth over approximately the same period.
Since there is no known life on Mars it suggests rapid changes in planetary climates could be natural phenomena.
The mechanism at work on Mars appears, however, to be different from that on Earth. One of the researchers, Lori Fenton, believes variations in radiation and temperature across the surface of the Red Planet are generating strong winds.
In a paper published in the journal Nature, she suggests that such winds can stir up giant dust storms, trapping heat and raising the planet’s temperature.
Fenton’s team unearthed heat maps of the Martian surface from Nasa’s Viking mission in the 1970s and compared them with maps gathered more than two decades later by Mars Global Surveyor. They found there had been widespread changes, with some areas becoming darker.
When a surface darkens it absorbs more heat, eventually radiating that heat back to warm the thin Martian atmosphere: lighter surfaces have the opposite effect. The temperature differences between the two are thought to be stirring up more winds, and dust, creating a cycle that is warming the planet.

There is the rumor that CNN is circulating a questionaire to to the Martian climatologists.

I find it amusing that you actually wasted a portion of your day writing this.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I find it amusing that you actually wasted a portion of your day writing this.

Is your point that you didn't understand this? Try to be more articulate.

 

[auditor0007]

Sorry, Dave. Global warming is not a theory. CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. That is not a theory, that is a provable fact. We have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% in the last 200 years, so we have warmed the earth.

The only question is, by how much?

Based on my understanding, they are still arguing whether increased CO2 levels in the past were the reason for temperature increases, or if temperature increases caused the rise in CO2 readings. So, I would argue that your conclusion is still based on theory rather than fact.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Sorry, Dave. Global warming is not a theory. CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. That is not a theory, that is a provable fact. We have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% in the last 200 years, so we have warmed the earth.

The only question is, by how much?

In October 2007, a British judge ruled the movie “An Inconvenient Truth” had nine inaccuracies. And shortly thereafter, in reference to this movie, another British person, Chris Monckton, wrote “35 Inconvenient Truths,” including the following:

Gore says that in each of the last four interglacial warm periods it was changes in carbon dioxide concentration that caused changes in temperature. It was the other way about. Changes in temperature preceded changes in CO2 concentration by between 800 and 2800 years, as scientific papers including the paper on which Gore’s film had relied had made clear.

Ms. Kreider (Gore spokesperson) says it is true that “greenhouse gas levels and temperature changes in the ice signals have a complicated relationship but they do fit.” This does not address Gore’s error at all. The judge found that Gore had very clearly implied that it was changes in carbon dioxide concentration that had led to changes in temperature in the palaeoclimate, when the scientific literature is unanimous (save only for a single paper by James Hansen, whom Gore trusts) to the effect that the relationship was in fact the other way about, with a carbon dioxide feedback contributing only a comparatively insignificant further increase to temperature after the temperature change had itself initiated a change in carbon dioxide concentration.

The significance of this error was explained during the court proceedings, and was accepted by the judge. Gore says that the 100 ppmv difference between carbon dioxide concentrations during ice-age temperature minima and interglacial temperature maxima represents “the difference between a nice day and a mile of ice above your head.” This would imply a CO2 effect on temperature about 10 times greater than that regarded as plausible by the consensus of mainstream scientific opinion (see Error 10).

Ms. Kreider refers readers to a “more complete description” available at a website maintained by, among others, two of the three authors of the now-discredited “hockey stick” graph that falsely attempted to abolish the Mediaeval Warm Period. The National Academy of Sciences in the US had found that graph to have “a validation skill not significantly different from zero” – i.e., the graph was useless.

 

[Tech_Esq]

(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.

Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real - CNN.com

If it is science, it shouldn't be a matter of faith.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Sorry, Dave. Global warming is not a theory. CO2 causes the earth to retain heat. That is not a theory, that is a provable fact. We have increased CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% in the last 200 years, so we have warmed the earth.

The only question is, by how much?

If it were a provable fact, then you wouldn't have to worry about how many climatologists BELIEVE in it. The fact that even you couch it in terms of faith states more forcefully than anything else, that it is anything but a scientific fact.

 

[Chris]

Based on my understanding, they are still arguing whether increased CO2 levels in the past were the reason for temperature increases, or if temperature increases caused the rise in CO2 readings. So, I would argue that your conclusion is still based on theory rather than fact.

No, it is not based on theory. CO2 causes the earth to warm, it is not the only cause, however. So by increasing the CO2 level by 40% in 200 years, we have caused the earth to warm. The only question is, how much has increasing the CO2 level by 40% caused the earth to warm?

 

[Andrew2382]

it's a theory that man has any thing to do with it

if it was a solid fact then there would be no oppisition

Let me help you with that thought

the earth is not flat- fact!

Noone opposes this

Thousands of scientists around the world disagree about global warming giving scientific data to contradict people who believe this myth

Theory

 

[PoliticalChic]

No, it is not based on theory. CO2 causes the earth to warm, it is not the only cause, however. So by increasing the CO2 level by 40% in 200 years, we have caused the earth to warm. The only question is, how much has increasing the CO2 level by 40% caused the earth to warm?

Follow the money. Whenever you see "Global Warmiing," simply read "Global Governance" and you'll get the real scoop.
The media cash in on every one of the "crises" to sell papers or viewership. Remember saving the whales? Dodging the killer African Bees? Escaping the heterosexual AIDS epidemic that was supposed to decimate the counry, and the world? Get it , chicken little?

 

[Bern80]

No, it is not based on theory. CO2 causes the earth to warm, it is not the only cause, however. So by increasing the CO2 level by 40% in 200 years, we have caused the earth to warm. The only question is, how much has increasing the CO2 level by 40% caused the earth to warm?

Of the greenhouse gasses, do you know what percentage CO2 makes up?

 

[Chris]

Of the greenhouse gasses, do you know what percentage CO2 makes up?

It doesn't matter. Nice deflection, however.

What matters is the physical effect of increasing CO2 by 40%. I realize that your goal is to make this a political issue, but it is not a political question, it is a scientific one. And the question is.....

How much does increasing CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% warm the earth?

 

[del]

It doesn't matter. Nice deflection, however.

What matters is the physical effect of increasing CO2 by 40%. I realize that your goal is to make this a political issue, but it is not a political question, it is a scientific one. And the question is.....

How much does increasing CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% warm the earth?

i give up.
How much does increasing CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% warm the earth?

 

[Chris]

i give up.
How much does increasing CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% warm the earth?

Predictions From the GISS Model

The NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies' (GISS) computer model has been used to calculate the temperature increase during the next 50 years in response to gradual increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. The simulation shows a change of 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C), which would make Earth warmer than it is thought to have been at any point in history.

NASA Fact Sheets

 

[Tech_Esq]

Predictions From the GISS Model

The NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies' (GISS) computer model has been used to calculate the temperature increase during the next 50 years in response to gradual increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. The simulation shows a change of 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C), which would make Earth warmer than it is thought to have been at any point in history.

NASA Fact Sheets

NASA's crap means nothing on this issue. The people running that shop are bunch of turbo-wackos who lead this enviro-charade.

Find real evidence.

 

[del]

Predictions From the GISS Model

The NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies' (GISS) computer model has been used to calculate the temperature increase during the next 50 years in response to gradual increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. The simulation shows a change of 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C), which would make Earth warmer than it is thought to have been at any point in history.

NASA Fact Sheets

so in other words, neither you nor anyone else knows.
why am i not surprised?

 

[DiamondDave]

Predictions From the GISS Model

The NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies' (GISS) computer model has been used to calculate the temperature increase during the next 50 years in response to gradual increases in greenhouse gas concentrations. The simulation shows a change of 3.6 degrees F (2 degrees C), which would make Earth warmer than it is thought to have been at any point in history.

NASA Fact Sheets

And if you notice it said greenhouse gas.... not CO2 gas... because there are more than 1.. and the primary one is WATER VAPOR....

Again kirlybot trying to add to the supposed data make make it SEEM to be his way....

And again.. they THEORIZE

 

[Old Rocks]

Yeah, amazing how it's been cooling since 1998 ...global warming obviosuly is real.

No, it has not been cooling since 1998. Eight of the ten warmest years on record have been since 2000. 1998 was the warmest year recorded. It was a strong El Nino year. 2008 was a strong La Nina year, and one of unussual duration. It should have been one of the coldest on record, yet is tied 2001 for the eighth warmest on record. No, it has not been cooling since 1998, and the ice caps, the glaciers, and the temperatures worldwide have shown that the warming is still increasing.

Climate Progress » Blog Archive » No warming since 1998? Get real, deniers!

 

[Old Rocks]

And if you notice it said greenhouse gas.... not CO2 gas... because there are more than 1.. and the primary one is WATER VAPOR....

Again kirlybot trying to add to the supposed data make make it SEEM to be his way....

And again.. they THEORIZE

Get real. Water vapor has a residence time of less than ten days. CO2 has a residence time of about 200 years. Water vapor is a feedback from the forcing of longer lived GHGs.

 

[Old Rocks]

NASA's crap means nothing on this issue. The people running that shop are bunch of turbo-wackos who lead this enviro-charade.

Find real evidence.

You mean like that that the AGU presents?

2008 Fall Meeting: San Francisco, CA - 15-19 December 2008 | Program / Scientific Program

Now I realize that presenting the work of real scientists is totally against the rules for you modern conservatives. Fortunately we now have intelligent people making the judgements on these issues in government. Unlike the past eight years.

 

[DiamondDave]

Get real. Water vapor has a residence time of less than ten days. CO2 has a residence time of about 200 years. Water vapor is a feedback from the forcing of longer lived GHGs.

Not like water vapor disappears, moron.. it is continually replenished in the atmosphere... WATER VAPOR IS THE BIGGEST % GREENHOUSE GAS THERE IS... PERIOD... hell, factor in the presence of clouds and not just water vapor, and it contributes to about 80% or so of the "greenhouse effect".. and it has been the major contributor throughout history