Readers may recall this survey announced at WUWT: An AGW opinion survey for your participation.
Some preliminary results were announced Monday. From Mike Haesler:
The Scottish Climate & Energy Forum has been conducting a survey on the background and attitudes of participants to online climate discussions. The survey had a massive response which will take time and resource to process. However initial analysis already shows that the actual views and backgrounds of participants are in sharp contrast with some high-profile statements being made about the participants. Therefore I felt we should make these initial results known as soon as practical to avoid further damage, both to the reputation of those involved in the online debate, as well as those making the unfounded and presumably mistaken accusations of “denial”.
As such, I am releasing the following statement regarding the survey.
A sceptical consensus: the science is right but catastrophic global warming is not going to happen
A recent survey of those participating in on-line forums showed that most of the 5,000 respondents were experienced engineers, scientists and IT professionals most degree qualified and around a third with post graduate qualifications. The survey, carried out by the Scottish Climate and Energy Forum, asked respondents for their views on CO2 and the effect it might have on global temperatures. The results were surprising. 96% of respondents said that atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing with 79% attributing the increase to man-made sources. 81% agreed that global temperatures had increased over the 20th century and 81% also agreed that CO2 is a warming gas. But only 2% believed that increases in CO2 would cause catastrophic global warming.
So what’s going on?
Above all, these highly qualified people – experts in their own spheres – look at the published data and trust their own analysis, so their views match the available data. They agree that the climate warmed over the 20th century (this has been measured), that CO2 levels are increasing (this too has been measured) and that CO2 is a warming gas (it helps trap heat in the atmosphere and the effects can be measured). Beyond this, the survey found that 98% of respondents believe that the climate varies naturally and that increasing CO2 levels won’t cause catastrophic warming.
What next?
Overwhelmingly participants in this large scale survey support the science, however this is not how they have been portrayed in the media and this has led to deep and bitter divides between those who hold different viewpoints. This debate should be based on the evidence and that not only includes the scientific evidence on the climate, but also the evidence of the real participants involved in the debate. Given the huge number of responses and detail of questions a full assessment will take up to one year to complete. This is a huge commitment from an organisation that has no outside funding and is reliant on one full-time volunteer (Mike Haseler). We will therefore be approaching the Scottish and UK government with a view to obtaining funding to complete the analysis.
Overwhelmingly participants in this large scale survey support the science…
Wouldn’t it be more accurate to simply say: “Overwhelmingly participants in this large scale survey support science“?
Good work
98% > 97%
Overwhelmingly participants in this large scale survey support the science…
In fact it would me more accurate to say that overwhelmingly the science supports them.
Surveys can say whatever they wish – or claim they are skeptics as can anyone taking that survey. No the science does not support CO2 driving temperature as per the AGW scam – science supports an 800 year plus/minus 200 years CO2 lag time.
Consistant with my TopFear road test…
http://fenbeagleblog.wordpress.com/2014/02/22/recycled-intention/
Good luck with your appeal to the Scottish Government, Mike, but I’d be shocked if you got any cash out of them. Salmond is a hypocrite, committing Scotland to an expensive, carbon-free lifestyle whilst selling North sea oil to whoever wants it. The result is that foreigners get to use cheap energy and the Scots get hammered once again, condemning thousands of poor, old people to a miserable winter and, in many cases, premature death.
Well done with the survey. Maybe it will change a few minds that haven’t already slammed shut.
@David
And the data too.
Off subject i no but m mann is at it again writing on twitter that andrew bolt is paid to lie about global warming by murdock.Bolt is pissed you can get the full story on andrewbolt blog mann has messed with the wrong guy this time.
Nothing particularly surprising about the main survey results.
What really matters is whose conclusions are supported by data (and whose aren’t).
That is all that needs to be shared with the general public.
Everything else is noise.
Kurt in Switzerland
This is in line with something that S McKintyre said about the “knowledge-producing community”… for which I have no reference.
He said that the contributors to Climate Audit were part of the “knowledge-producing community” just not necessarily directly involved with Climate Science.
That is in line with the findings of this survey.
It implies that “defending the science” is actually just a turf war by certain academics.
But do they acknowledge the processes that impact on the “earth’s energy budget”?
Sorry, but to whom are these results surprising?
Anybody reading the threads on a sceptic site would quickly realise that the vast majority think the evidence shows;
1. It’s warmer now than during the Little Ice Age.
2, CO2 is a warming gas.
3. A goodly percentage of the increase in CO2 is probably the result of human activities.
They have simply not been convinced that there is a problem due to finding Climate models that operate without proper Verification and Validation standards unreliable.
The funny thing is that when somebody calls me a “denier” I ask them what I’m supposed to be denying. They usually cannot answer.
“Wouldn’t it be more accurate to simply say: “Overwhelmingly participants in this large scale survey support science“?”
No, it wouldn’t.
we just had an x event on the sun. in the short video u see the earth scale. but based on unverified models i think a co2 deathstar is the main driver of climate and taxes is the only regulator……
But you’re all industry-funded shills the lot of you. Wait to Naomi Oreskes finds out, then you’ll be in trouble…
http://progcontra.blogspot.co.uk/2014/02/gaia-industry-funded-denialist.html
But the survey failed to uncover the source of our vast, international funding. I get paid for these comments and taking surveys, right? /sarc
I follow a few blogs and would say that WUWT is “home” so to speak. Following the comments (general discussions) closely the make-up or demographics (if you will) of the participants to a survey linked to by WUWT as noted does not surprise me. Therefore the preliminary results of the views of those participants are not surprising.
Why does the headline state “skeptic survey”? “Climate survey” would make more sense.
I am an retired engineer and a former Chrtered Environmentalist who has always suffered from the affliction of needing to see and understand for myself. Also I do not suffer fools gladly, especially those who would seek to inflict their ignorant opinions and beliefs upon me.
I welcome the survey, although I would take issue with Anthony when he uses the term ‘the science’.
(Proper) science is done by objective experts who seek the truth, even if itheir findings overturn their hitherto beliefs. Anybody who refers to ‘the science’ is actually referring to the warmist belief system.
I would suggest that science shows that CO2 has increased and can also show that this trace gas is mildly ‘greenhouse’ in nature. Science also points to the man made proportion of the gas is very small, etc,etc.
I accept what science tells us (provided it has not been ‘adjusted’ to favour ‘the cause’), I do not accept what Miliband, Charles, Deben, Yeo and all the others would have us believe is ‘the (settled) science’.
I would ask that there be no suggestion in the final report that any of us thinkers and reasoners accept ‘the science’. Also that it be made clear that computer models are not science but projections, usually biased to deliver desired pre-determined outcomes.
It’s pretty simple a matter of trying to reconciling the Carboniferous age, the glaciation cycles and the current Interglacial of the Holocene. Even an extemely casual review and a bit of thinking over chocolate and coffee results in a convincing warmer and even more CO2 is a very good thing. Even tomatoes without PhD’s in climatology agree.
How was ‘catastrophic’ defined? It is just a value judgement. Unless you put a hard number to it, its just conversation.
bazza says:
February 25, 2014 at 12:31 am
Is too much to expect people to write conventional English these days?
Bazza’s, “i no”, slowed down my comprehension because he made it hard for me to understand that what he really meant to write was, “I know”.
Punctuation helps comprehension too. Bazza’s: “Bolt is pissed you can get the full story on andrewbolt blog mann has messed with the wrong guy this time.” is a really crappy sentence.
Also Bazza, it’s Murdoch, not Murdock.
Please lift your game because most people reading this site are educated.
What is ‘the science’ that skeptics overwhelmingly support? GCM’s? Heat hiding in the deep ocean? Putative atmospheric residence times of greenhouse gases? Regional long term forecasting?
Four percent of respondents don’t agree that CO2 levels are increasing – WUWT?
To Scottish Skeptic: Take your time. Nail it down.
‘This is a huge commitment from an organisation that has no outside funding and is reliant on one full-time volunteer ‘
Say, maybe Dana could contribute towards this…. never mind. Then people would be yelling about ‘Big Oil’ involvement…..
Im in the camp of people here who object to the definitive article before the word, ‘science’. Is it only climate alarmists who talk about “the science”? Do scientists working in chemistry, physics, biology, astronomy, etc, ever talk about, “the science”?
Maybe they do. I don’t know. I suspect not because they are real scientists.
Have atmospheric CO2 levels risen over the 20th century?
We actually do not know. The report favoured by the IPCC to ”prove” their claim that they have is that done by Callender but he only used reported past figures below 280ppmv and ignored those of higher figures. These were as accurately taken by known scientists using known, accepted methods so there is no reason to believe that the high, up to 550ppmv, figures were wrong.
Knowing the correct past CO2 concentrations would change the minds of many who took the survey.
Billy Liar says:
February 25, 2014 at 2:10 am
Four percent of respondents don’t agree that CO2 levels are increasing – WUWT?
It’s the 4 percent of warmists that took the survey just to try to ridicule the skeptics positions, pretending to be one without having ever tried to understand what skeptics actually think.
To decide whether a field is sinking into pseudoscientific practices or not, it is counterproductive to ask experts in that very field. In cases like that one prefers expert judgement from neighboring disciplines, from those who are qualified to evaluate methods, but do not have a dog in the fight.
Therefore a group of genuine climate scientists is the least appropriate choice to seek opinion on merits &. flaws of reductionist computational climate models, on the contrary, they are the first and foremost bunch to be excluded.
I am quite confident the overwhelming majority of homeopaths support theories about memory of water and such to the extent remedies are supposed to have a beneficial effect even if diluted until not a single molecule of the agent remains in them. They also possess all formal attributes of a proper scientific field, like schools, conferences, peer reviewed journals, etc. Still, it is crap.
The way we know it is, is not by establishing an Intergovernmental Panel on Water Memory, tasked with demonstration of said effect in its charta.
PJ Clarke. says:
How was ‘catastrophic’ defined? It is just a value judgement. Unless you put a hard number to it, its just conversation.
‘Catastrophic’ is an alarmist scare word. It is their word. They own it.
There is no catastrophic AGW. That is complete nonsense. Always has been.
Antonia: I figure ‘Bazza’ was ‘typing’ on a tablet device. I parsed his sentence as saying “I note that Mann….”
Bazza is probably quite literate but suffers the problem of failing to proof-read his comments and, because it’s a tablet, even if he wanted to alter the text can’t be a*sed because it’s a hassle. Shame, really.
Many years have rolled by since I succumbed to late onset scepticism, and age related degenerating eyesight precludes me from differentiating the fraction of a degree of reported warming that until recently was the cause for concern.
Climate change from my elderly perspective and experience remains within the observed parameters of my lifetime.
We seem to be locked into a Ground Hog Day scenario of which the late lamented Harold Ramis might have been proud.
The alarm goes off every morning; same old tune, same old arguments.
Yet nothing changes………………….
This survey seems to have been undertaken with the most colossal lack of understanding regarding this subject.
Anyone who reads ANY of the sceptic boards knows that everyone agrees that the temperature has risen since the 1970s, and that CO2, in lab conditions, can increase ‘radiation capture’ in air. But the AGW hypothesis takes these undoubted facts, and then pretends that they mean that the atmosphere will undergo a runaway heating experience, carefully ignoring and brushing aside all the more detailed phenomena that we know about which render our atmosphere quite stable.
It’s as if someone had pointed out that a pedal cycle works by a chain connecting the pedals to the wheels, and a particular cyclist is increasing his pedaling rate – therefore he’s going to break the sound barrier. The mechanics, in this case are settled, in just the same way as the science is, but the projected speed is NOT going to be achieved…
By now I don’t believe that this misunderstanding is a simple error. I think it is the result of willfully ignoring clear facts because there is a lot of social pressure to do so since there is a lot of money at stake…
That survey is won’t pass muster academically. There is no way to tell that people told the truth about their qualifications/experience and there was no neutral ‘neither agree, nor disagree’ option, so it’s a ‘push poll’. For example: The question “CO2 will cause catastrophic global warming”, the only choices were strongly disagree, disagree, agree, or strongly agree. For myself, I could not answer this with any of the options.
To johnmarshall :
You write “Knowing the correct past CO2 concentrations would change the minds of many who took the survey.”
Just like there are MANY “scepticts ” that are not at all sceptic about CO2 data before around 1960 as they should be. At some point when – hopefully – the whole AGW glasshouse cracks completely, also this corner of the debate will regain focus. I had personal contact with Ernst Georg Beck in his last days and the later stuff he made about REAL CO2 data from before 1960 deserves much more attention, I will write about this on http://www.hidethedecline.eu soon.
But nice to see that there are still a few sceptics not brainwashed also when it comes to real CO2 concentrations! As you know, a lie do not become truth just because it is repeated endlessly.
K.R: Frank
“98% of respondents believe that the climate varies naturally and (NON SEQUITER) that increasing CO2 levels won’t cause catastrophic warming”
Billy Liar says at February 25, 2014 at 2:10 am
I can think of 4 contributions to that 4%.
1 People not reading the question properly.
2 People trying to spoil the survey.
3 People who don’t trust any measurements made by climatologists because of adjustments to the historical temperature record and the lack of integrity demonstrated in thte Climategate emails.
4 People who take a long term view and say that CO2 levels have been higher in the (very distant) past.
4% isn’t many so it seems to be a reasonable finding to me.
…However initial analysis already shows that the actual views and backgrounds of participants are in sharp contrast with some high-profile statements being made about the participants. …
Compare this with the demonisation of the Germans by the British and American authorities during the First World War. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-German_sentiment refers.
No, Climate change sceptics do not bayonet babies and feast on the livers of raped women.
Maybe the results would have been different if the question was –
1. Given that fossil fuel burning is causing global warming through the release of CO2 into the atmosphere, then all North Sea oil wells must be capped immediately?
Yes []
No []
The ‘science’ is wrong. Over a hundred years ago Angstrom said infrared absorption by CO2 is saturated. Meaning adding more will not make any difference.These slight warming and cooling trends since then have other causes. Cooling since 2010, expect more.
…This is a huge commitment from an organisation that has no outside funding and is reliant on one full-time volunteer (Mike Haseler). We will therefore be approaching the Scottish and UK government with a view to obtaining funding to complete the analysis….
As Bruce says earlier, “Good luck with that”.
That would be roughly akin to asking the Ukraine to fund a survey into why the Russians are really quite nice peace-loving chaps who have been driven to war by continuous foreign aggression…
The preliminary results are very encouraging and paint a picture of REASONABLE skepticism of the ALARMIST and WARMIST nonsense that Global Warming is any kind of a catastrophic threat,
— while, at the same time, also rejecting the DISBELIEVER error of totally dismissing the undoubted moderate warming of the past century and the role of rapidly rising CO2 partially due to human activities as part of the cause of the warming. —
In other words, as I recently wrote here at WUWT, http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/12/global-warming-is-real-but-not-a-big-deal-2/ GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL, BUT NOT A BIG DEAL.
We tend to be well-informed, science-savvy SKEPTICS (or perhaps LUKEWARMERS) who take what I would call a fact-based “engineering” approach as opposed to an “emotional” or “political agenda” or “save the world mission” stance. So far, our views and conclusions best match the actual measured observations of the ever-changing climate, mostly due to NATURAL CYCLES and PROCESSES (but partially due to the unprecedented burning of fossil fuels). Good work!
Ira Glickstein
“The results were surprising. 96% of respondents said that atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing with 79% attributing the increase to man-made sources. 81% agreed that global temperatures had increased over the 20th century and 81% also agreed that CO2 is a warming gas”
Surely these results were not surprising. As these are known and accepted scientific facts, so why should they feature in the survey? The statement tends to rather dilute the all powerful message and overwhelming support for the sceptics cause –
” But only 2% believed that increases in CO2 would cause catastrophic global warming.”
This is surely a devastating figure for the AGW fanatics to have to swallow, and is a figure that we should throw at them at every opportunity.
I also believe “the science” is wrong. I think we can all say, at the least, that “the science” is not settled. How can it be settled? Climatology is a very, very young science and we have little access to honest, complete data. For example, I don’t know that we really know the global CO2 levels before 1960 to any degree of accuracy. What if the reports of various scientists before ’60 of higher levels than we normally accept were true?
To say CO2 in the atmosphere has a “warming effect” on the surface temperatures of planet earth does not say to what extent that warming is. What if it is very small? What if we are getting all the “extra” warming we can from that absorption band right now?
What if various reports from climatologists are biased and unreliable? What if there are a lot of Dr. M. Manns out there?
So, I guess I don’t believe “the science” has it right just yet.
But the models are failing so which science are we talking about? Global warming will happen this century but it’s nothing to worry about, in fact it will be net beneficial. Maybe re-phrase the end to
there is no global warming
in fact it has been cooling globally
there is no AGW, except there where land becomes greener due to more trees, lawns and crops i.e. increasing biosphere, due to more water (distributed by humanity) and due to more CO2 in the air. there is no CAGW
the sooner we all get this and realize that global cooling is real, the sooner we will realize what will be up coming up next:
i.e major problems related to the physical aspects of global cooling, i.e. less precipitation at certain areas and latitudes and realtively more precipitation elsewhere, in the path of more weather systems at lower latitudes
http://blogs.24.com/henryp/2013/04/29/the-climate-is-changing/
So to put it simply:
Of the 98% whole believe global won’t/can’t lead to catastrophe, only 19% likely disagree with the consensus.
What is the subset of people who don’t believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas or concentrations are largely man made or there has been no warmng? (Any of these conditions independently could be considered “denial”.)
…What is the subset of people who don’t believe CO2 is a greenhouse gas or concentrations are largely man made or there has been no warmng? (Any of these conditions independently could be considered “denial”.)
Not believing the mechanics of how CO2 ‘absorbs radiation’ (simplified) might be considered ‘denial’. But I don’t think that there’s any overwhelming agreement that CO2 concentration is largely man-made – we only have models for this. And the amount of ‘warming’ is hugely subject to dispute due to various ‘corrections’ – and the idea of a ‘global average temperature’ is a dodgy idea anyway. So both these issues can be reasonably debated.
JohnB says:
February 25, 2014 at 12:49 am
Sorry, but to whom are these results surprising?
Anybody reading the threads on a sceptic site would quickly realise that the vast majority think the evidence shows;
1. It’s warmer now than during the Little Ice Age.
2, CO2 is a warming gas.
3. A goodly percentage of the increase in CO2 is probably the result of human activities.
Sorry John, 1 and 2 are OK 3 NO 3.27% of co² results from human activity. Doesn’t look like a majority.
“20th century has warmed” is not precise enough. First, it warmed, cooled and warmed. Second, based on the models, only the last warming period caused by increase of CO2. However, models do not explain the early century warming, which was even stronger than the late one.
If we start at 40ties and end up in 2040, we can say it cooled, while it cooled, warmed and cooled.
Mike Haesler
Please check your statement:
“The results were surprising. 96% of respondents said that atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing with 79% attributing the increase to man-made sources. ”
That statement implies that 79% believe ALL the CO2 increase is due to “”man-made sources”.
I do not think that is what the questions asked (but don’t have access to the questions.)
Please clarify you statement with “part”, “some”, “most” or “all” depending on how the CO2 increase questions were stated.
You may meant to say:
“with 79% attributing some of the increase to man-made sources.”
Or
“ with 79% attributing most of the increase to man-made sources.
Please add the questions asked on CO2.
Count me in the group that believes:
1. Temperature records have been fiddled and diddled so much lately that it’s impossible to quantify just how much warming has occurred in the last century. However, warming has occurred, since we know the planet warmed out of the Little Ice Age.
2. The “THEORY” of CO2 causing warming is fine, but nobody has in any way, shape or form proven that the effect is significant in any way, since it is overwhelmed by other forces. If anyone is aware of any credible proof that this theory is correct, feel free to enlighten us all.
3. CO2 levels have risen in the last few decades, but the reality is that we do NOT have accurate records of what they were 100 and more years ago. This is because chemical tests made long ago have been simply discarded since they showed levels similar to today.
4. Human output of CO2 is likely not the cause of atmospheric CO2 rise, since human contribution is such a small portion of the estimated CO2 flux that it could easily be absorbed just by a small increase in overall plant growth.
Count me in with Codetech.
While I accept that most scientists think that human fossil fuels are responsible for rises in CO2 levels, I see little or no evidence to support that conclusion. I also see almost 800.000 years of icecore evidence that suggest that CO2 lags temperature – not the other way round.
As for temperatures – I stick with the CET (http://www.climate4you.com/CentralEnglandTemperatureSince1659.htm).
If a human fingerprint exists, then its also in the individual station – and I see nothing unusual
there. See for example the natural warming between 1690 and 1710.
Antonio the Grammar Nazi, get your own sentences in order before lambasting others…..
” Do scientists working in chemistry, physics, biology, astronomy, etc, ever talk about, “the science”?”…..the comma after “about” and before “the…” is not correct.
Don’t be so damned petty.
Interesting.
The majority of respondents appear to support the following:
“There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
Wonder if they also support:
“Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
Perhaps the Petition Project is the consensus?
My question is this:
Is Mauna Loa Volcano the only CO2 readings that are used?
If so, how can one set of readings be reliable or valid?
Alberta Slim, there are several monitoring stations around the world that are roughly tracking with Mauna Loa. I personally don’t in any way question that it’s a valid approximation of global trend.
…I personally don’t in any way question that it’s a valid approximation of global trend…
I believe that the Mauna Loa station results are probably accurate for that station. But I don’t know that CO2 has been proven to be well-mixed. And I don’t know anything about the other tracking stations, many of which may have been commissioned to support the AGW hypothesis.
I would like to see a satellite reading of CO2 concentrations across the globe before accepting that an ‘average CO2’ reading can mean anything…
5000 people took this survey… 5000 more targets for Michael Mann to sue…
While logical to assume that CO2 levels are increasing since more fossil fuels are being burned shouldn’t we be seeing a higher rate of increase if its affect on the atmosphere is so lasting and dramatic?
If Mosher likes it, it’s gotta be good.
Alberta Slim says:
February 25, 2014 at 6:06 am
My question is this:
Is Mauna Loa Volcano the only CO2 readings that are used?
No:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/
Look down the page for the heading ‘The Carbon Tracker observing system’.
ALL the millenial/current data shows that temperature rises FIRST and C02 follows so above not accurate
@Billy Liar…… the part I don’t like in the link is NOAA.
Are they not already guilty, or suspected of, “data tampering”?
This should be communicated to as many newspapers as possible. Only a few will actually acknowledge and write about, but still, even a few news items would make it worthwhile.
Excellent work.
@- CodeTech says:
“Count me in the group that believes:
1. Temperature records have been fiddled and diddled so much lately that it’s impossible to quantify just how much warming has occurred in the last century. However, warming has occurred, since we know the planet warmed out of the Little Ice Age.”
But then sea level ri8se and ice-cap melt are impossible to fiddle and diddle, the energy required to expand the oceans ande melt that much ice has to come from somewhere…
@-“2. The “THEORY” of CO2 causing warming is fine, but nobody has in any way, shape or form proven that the effect is significant in any way, since it is overwhelmed by other forces. If anyone is aware of any credible proof that this theory is correct, feel free to enlighten us all.”
Satellite measurements combined with ground measurement of the downwelling IRLW is a direct, observational confirmation of all that MODTRAN radiative transfer theory.
https://climatedataguide.ucar.edu/climate-data/ceres-ebaf-clouds-and-earths-radiant-energy-systems-ceres-energy-balanced-and-filled
The CERES-EBAF product provides 1-degree regional, zonal and global monthly mean Top-of-Atmosphere (TOA) and surface (SFC) longwave (LW), shortwave (SW), and net (NET) fluxes under clear and all-sky conditions. EBAF is used for climate model evaluation, estimating the Earth’s global mean energy budget, and to infer meridional heat transport.
@-“3. CO2 levels have risen in the last few decades, but the reality is that we do NOT have accurate records of what they were 100 and more years ago. This is because chemical tests made long ago have been simply discarded since they showed levels similar to today.”
Chemical tests made long ago were very error prone and were often measurements of ground level in the lab, in a town. If the levels measured now from ice cores are not accurate then the evidence that CO2 is rising from plant growth and ocean ph changes would not make sense.
@- “4. Human output of CO2 is likely not the cause of atmospheric CO2 rise, since human contribution is such a small portion of the estimated CO2 flux that it could easily be absorbed just by a small increase in overall plant growth.”
the total seasonal flux of CO2 between the atmosphere and the biological sinks does exceed the annual human contribution. but that does not logically negate the obvious role of the human contribution in increasing the total amount of carbon in the cycle both in the atmosphere and in extra plant growth. No other source for the increwase is credible.
Stephen Richards, sorry but I can’t agree. We have to keep the flux and the increase separate. Comparisons to the flux make as much sense as saying that since a water tank has 1000 gallons per day flowing into it and 1000 gallons per day flowing out, then adding 3 gallons per day makes no difference.
While human emissions are small compared to the flux if we agree that there is an increase as observed by Mauna Loa and the other possible evidence from fractional isotopes then we have to conclude it is possible that a goodly portion of the rise is from our activities.
If we go by the accepted measurements and CO2 has gone from 280 to 400 ppm that is an increase of 120 ppm and some percentage must be from our activities. To suggest the entire increase is from natural causes flies in the face of common sense and I think it just as unlikely that we are responsible for the entire increase. Hence my term a “goodly amount”.
Didn’t know where to post this. But an interesting document released on Wikileaks ..
https://wikileaks.org/tpp-enviro/
I dont know Anthony’s email address so if someone could pass this on, ta!
REPLY: We have a Tips and Notes page, plus contact under “About”, both under the menu bar above – Anthony
@izen
But then sea level ri8se and ice-cap melt are impossible to fiddle and diddle, the energy required to expand the oceans ande melt that much ice has to come from somewhere…
1 – sea level rise is not impossible to fiddle – it depends on measurements and corrections
2 – we don’t have a good enough record of sea level rise and fall to determine what is a reasonable natural variation
3 – What ice-cap melt? Average ice has been pretty constant.
4 – if you are talking about the Arctic alone, then you are obviously trying to present a one-sided view of the data. And I would point out that although we do not have precise historical data on the Arctic extent, we do know that it has melted in similar ways several times before over the past few hundred years.
Silly to ask for government help. Set up a PayPal account and ask here for financial help — you’d be pleasantly surprised at how much money you could raise by simply asking for the help of the kind souls you read here. If you need help with this rather simple matter, I’d be glad to help. Who was that Canadian skeptic that financed her trip to testify to the UK Parliament by asking here?
I am concerned about this:
Given the huge number of responses and detail of questions a full assessment will take up to one year to complete.
Obama has a pen and a phone. The Congress just wrote him a blank check for as much ink as he wants. Look at the news: the Smear is on high. We don’t have a year.
Do you want some volunteers? I’m game.
I would be very tempted to use Spotfire Cloud which would allow for workgroup development, public display and interactive filtering for readers own analysis. What can we turn around in two weeks – a month?
We can start with some crowd sourcing for the directions of analysis and hypotheses.
List the questions again.
Without first looking at the raw data results,
The Crowd could propose some cross tabulations and stratifications that should be of interest.
{ Richard Tol (@RichardTol) says:
February 25, 2014 at 12:07 am
98% > 97% }
LOL!
@- Dodgy Geezer says:
” 2 – we don’t have a good enough record of sea level rise and fall to determine what is a reasonable natural variation”
Yes we do, if there had beenh an6ything like the sea level rise measaured over the last century in any of the preceding 3000 years the past lunar elclipse dates/times would bve off.
So it is certain that the recent sea level rise is unprecedented in several millenia.
@-“3 – What ice-cap melt? Average ice has been pretty constant.
4 – if you are talking about the Arctic alone, then you are obviously trying to present a one-sided view of the data. And I would point out that although we do not have precise historical data on the Arctic extent, we do know that it has melted in similar ways several times before over the past few hundred years.”
I was not refering to the Arctic as an ice cap. because it isnt one.
But the Greenland ice cap and the Antarctic ice cap, ie the ice on land has shown measurable mass loss, as have the glaciers globally. Just the other day there was a report here about the PIne island Glacier in Antarctica showing a melt rate comparable to the Holocene optimum 8000 years ago.
@BillyLiar
Is Mauna Loa Volcano the only CO2 readings that are used? – No: (see) http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/carbontracker/
This tracking system shows several things, including a completely unmixed spread of CO2 between about 383 ppm over the whole Southern Hemisphere, 390 over much of the Northern Hemisphere, and hot spots of slightly above 395. I thought that the models always assumed that CO2 was well mixed?
The second point is that the tracker network itself states that it is ‘uncertain’ The following comment appears on the site:
It is important to note that at this time the uncertainty estimates for CarbonTracker sources and sinks are themselves quite uncertain. They have been derived from the mathematics of the ensemble data assimilation system, which requires several educated guesses for initial uncertainty estimates. The paper describing CarbonTracker (Peters et al. (2007), Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. vol. 104, p. 18925-18930) presents different uncertainty estimates based on the sensitivity of the results to 14 alternative yet plausible ways to construct the CarbonTracker system.
@izen at 9:03 am
RE: Dodgy Geezer ” 2 – we don’t have a good enough record of sea level rise and fall to determine what is a reasonable natural variation”
Yes we do, if there had beenh an6ything like the sea level rise measaured over the last century in any of the preceding 3000 years the past lunar elclipse dates/times would bve off.
So it is certain that the recent sea level rise is unprecedented in several millenia.
http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/deltaT2.html
Stephenson and Houlden (1986), and Stephenson (1997) show the contrary.
They show a cumulative delta-T in seconds for difference centuries from 1600 back to 1500 BCE.
In the 1986 work, they have an acceleration term of 45 sec/century^2 from 1100 to 1600, but earlier in the MWP the acceleration term is 93 sec/century^2, a bigger drag and therefore a higher sea level. If you use their 1997 data, the accelerations jump around from -100 to +200 sec/century^2 without much pattern.
Kip Hansen says:
February 25, 2014 at 8:38 am…..
Try this: http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/
5,000 respondents. That comfortably beats the 75 respondents used by Anders Egge, trumpeted by the MSM and used as an excuse by politicians to destroy habitats and economies with windmills and solar arrays.
Perhaps you can apprise David Rose of the Daily Mail of your results.
‘The Engineer’: Thank you for the CET link. I have the numerical data, but it’s nice to see the graphical version as well. Most people to whom I’ve shown the CET record are surprised when they see it, not having realised that such detailed records are available. It certainly helps them to get a more realistic perspective on the CO2 story!
@izen
…we don’t have a good enough record of sea level rise and fall to determine what is a reasonable natural variation”
Yes we do, if there had beenh an6ything like the sea level rise measaured over the last century in any of the preceding 3000 years the past lunar elclipse dates/times would bve off.
So it is certain that the recent sea level rise is unprecedented in several millenia. (sic)
This sounds like a complete mish-mash of cod science. You appear to know nothing about geophysics, and are unable to cite any reference. AFAIK, the lunar eclipse date has nothing to do with sea level at all. Where it may be viewed from is dependent on the spin of the Earth, which sea level variation could conceivably change, but so could many other things that we know nothing about, including changes in size of the Earth’s core. We know that the Earth’s spin varies irregularly anyway, and if that were ALL due to sea level change all that tells us is that sea level can often change quite rapidly – falling as well as rising.
But the Greenland ice cap and the Antarctic ice cap, ie the ice on land has shown measurable mass loss, as have the glaciers globally. Just the other day there was a report here about the PIne island Glacier in Antarctica showing a melt rate comparable to the Holocene optimum 8000 years ago.,,
The Ice Sheet Mass Balance Workshop in 2012 produced the final ICEstat satellite figures for the Antarctic, superseding the GRACE studies. They clearly show that the Antarctic has INCREASED in volume over the last several years. Here is the abstract – http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120013495_2012013235.pdf
Posting here when you don’t know what you’re talking about and are unable to provide concrete data simply makes you look like a moron. Try some other site where people may be more welcoming to those who make incorrect assertions and then try to back them up with half-understood assertions. I suggest Sceptical Science…
So, izen is under the simplistic impression that “sea level rise” and “temperature” follow along in some kind of proven linear relationship? Ridiculous.
@CodeTech
So, izen is under the simplistic impression that “sea level rise” and “temperature” follow along in some kind of proven linear relationship? Ridiculous.
Er, no, he probably knows very little about any of this at all, and is just producing half-understood snippets from warmist pages. In his mind, that counts as ‘science’…
” …They agree that the climate warmed over the 20th century (this has been measured), that CO2 levels are increasing (this too has been measured) and that CO2 is a warming gas (it helps trap heat in the atmosphere and the effects can be measured). …”
Slight Correction – CO2 might be a warming gas though I have yet to see data that shows that the effects can be measured….
@izen. I suggest you take a look at Beaumaris and Harlech Castles in Wales and the old Roman Fleet harbour on the Tiber in Italy before you spout off about “Sea Level Rise”. 😉
If CO2 were a warming gas, the earth would have warmed as it’s levels rose, and rose, and rose.
There is not one iota of data from real-world applications where additional CO2 was the direct cause of temperature rise inside or around any object it is associated with.
In nature it’s so poor at accumulating heat it falls to the floor. In plant houses, they have to fan the stuff up off the floor round and round, or it simply sinks to the floor, unable to be taken up by the plants higher in the greenhouse.
Al Gore tried to add CO2 to jars and make them heat. High definition tv showed he switched thermometers so Anthony Watts repeated the experiment. The jar with CO2 added was – just as in Gore’s experiment – a little bit cooler – not warmer – than the jar with atmospheric air.
For fifty years submarines have run as much as 4,000 ppm carbon dioxide because it’s effectively harmless and expensive to scrub out. There is not one known paper, one known part or module or addendum to thermal management of submarine internal environment that refers to some
known, aspect in heat handling possessed by CO2 that is any different than mainstream science ever viewed it before.
The whole CO2 added means warming meme, was revived by James Hansen and others who could easily conceal and bat away questions about what they were doing.
CO2 has been rising and rising while temperatures ignore it’s presence in it’s entirety.
So as has been issued to those who believe one day they will connect the temperature of the world with CO2, you need more than good luck,
you need all those other, previous experiments, including the earth’s own CO2 rising while the world cools, to somehow, suddenly, be wrong.
I hadn’t noticed some of the posts above, but I just posted the following on “Scottish Skeptics” website:
However, you said: “The results were surprising. 96% of respondents said that atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing with 79% attributing the increase to man-made sources.” Maybe as an American I interpret the words differently than you, but your phrasing strongly implies that the CO2 level increase is due to man-made sources. “attributing the increase” is straightforward.
The line item in the survey:
“Man-made sources have increased global levels of CO2″ does not imply that man-made sources are the only source of the increase. Were I taking the survey, I would have said “strongly agree” to this line item because I feel that we are having some level of contribution.
Many people may quote from your post here and at WUWT. I believe the wrong impression is being given by your interpretation of this line item.
Perhaps best would be:
“The results were surprising. 96% of respondents said that atmospheric CO2 levels are increasing with 79% agreeing that man-made sources have increased global levels of CO2.”
Billy Liar says: @ February 25, 2014 at 2:10 am
Four percent of respondents don’t agree that CO2 levels are increasing – WUWT?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That would be the four percent that have read Ernest Beck’s information and the statements of Dr. Jaworowski and Dr. Segalstad as well as Dr. Ball SEE: WUWT Why and How the IPCC Demonized CO2 with Manufactured Information
OR
Pre-Industrial And Current CO2 Levels Deliberately Corrupted. (A very good short summary of the data tampering)
To put together the CO2 ====> increased global warming, the Climastrogogists had to tamper with the CO2 data as well as the temperature data to get the correlation they wanted. It is a scam based on fraudulant data from start to finish.
Lucy Skywalkers (Greenworldtrust.org) also had some really good info. But it has been recently taken over by Eco-nuts. DARN!
Norm Woods says:
February 26, 2014 at 3:31 pm
In nature it’s so poor at accumulating heat it falls to the floor. In plant houses, they have to fan the stuff up off the floor round and round, or it simply sinks to the floor, unable to be taken up by the plants higher in the greenhouse.
Do you have a link supporting that assertion?
Thanks in advance.
@Gail Combs at 2/27 3:52 am
Thank you, Gail for the links and highlights of the CO2 Ice Core Measurements.
Dr. Tim Ball:> I’ve told this story before but it requires repeating. Dr. Ball’s recantation of the Jaworoski 2004 review of what looks to me to be suspicious cherry picking of CO2 samples in the Wigley 1983 and Callendar.
This is what real data looks like. Funny that there are no “Chemical Measurements” overlapping IR-Spec on this chart. Why were they left off? Could they not get published?
I’m going to return [Rasey 1/1/11] again. It has bothered me for years that the “Ice Core Truth” has held CO2 levels to starvation levels for plants, even during interglacials.
Stephen Rasey says:
March 1, 2014 at 9:43 am
Stephen, the objections of the late Dr. Jaworowski were completely refuted already in 1996 by the work of Etheridge e.a. on three Law Dome ice cores with a resolution of less than a decade to 2 decades. Etheridge used three difference drilling techniques (wet and dry) and measured CO2 top down in firn and ice. That confirmed that the average gas composition is a lot younger than the ice layers at closing depth. Something Jaworowski didn’t accept until his dead.
What closed the door for me is that according to Jaworowski the ice core CO2 levels are too low because of migration through cracks in the ice. But they find 180-300 ppmv in the gas bubbles, while the outside air is at 380-400 ppmv during the at least one year relaxation of the ice cores before measurements. If anyone can show me how CO2 migrates from lower levels to higher levels, I may start to believe what Jaworowski said. See further:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html
About the compilation by the late Ernst Beck:
Callendar filtered the available data based on pre-selection criteria, like not taken in the middle of towns, not for agricultural purposes, etc. Ernst Beck lumped all available data together: the good, the bad and the ugly. One can criticize Callendar’s criteria, but at least he had criteria and his compilation was confirmed decennia later by the ice core data.
Ernst Beck’s compilation is refuted by ice core data, coralline sponges, sediments and… stomata data: there is no 1942 “peak” in any of these other series. Ernst’s 1942 peak is completely based on two long series: Giessen (Germany) and Poonah (India), both for agricultural purposes, thus not taken into account by Callendar. Poonah were CO2 measurements taken under, in-between and above leaves of growing crops, completely unsuitable to know “background” CO2 levels. Giessen shows 68 ppmv variability (1 sigma!) in the measurements. In comparison: Mauna Loa is at maximum a few ppmv (1 sigma), including volcanic vents and CO2 depleted upwind conditions from the valleys…
See further:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/beck_data.html
Why the chemical measurements weren’t continued is a matter of reliability and time management:
Most chemical measurements were accurate to +/- 10 ppmv, very time consuming and needed a lot of skill and calibration of the reagents. The new NDIR equipment could be calibrated to +/- 0.1 ppmv, was continuous, including calibration, and didn’t need manpower over long periods…
The low CO2 levels during ice ages is near what many plants need as a minimum, but fortunately, land plants by definition grow on land, where the average CO2 levels are higher than background. Thus at least a few hours in the morning, they have sufficient CO2 to grow. Sea plants anyway have more than abundant CO2 available…
Gail Combs says:
February 27, 2014 at 3:52 am
Gail, we have been there many times before, but you still use:
Three different methods of gas extraction were used, and they produced different results.
Which is completely based on the old method of melting all ice for Greenland ice cores. That method is abandoned for CO2 measurements, as that gives reactions between enclosed dust (including sea carbonates) and acids. That is not a huge problem for Antarctic ice cores, but it is for the Greenland ice cores, as the latter receives frequent deposits of highly acidic Icelandic volcanic ash. That reacts with carbonates both in situ as in solution. Therefore the method isn’t used anymore for CO2 measurements and Greenland ice cores are not used for CO2 because they are unreliable due to in-situ CO2 production.
That objection thus is old history…
It would be interesting to prove the CO2 warming theory. Point a 300W CO2 laser in the horizontal orientation and elevate it a few feet from the floor. Point it at a far-away target. Put a thermometer on the floor under it. Turn the laser on. Will atmospheric CO2 molecules resonate and scatter thermal energy to the floor and heat the thermometer? Will convection currents cool the thermometer? Which affect tips the balance? Perhaps not much of anything happens?
We can’t afford to wait; the science is settled, Earth’s in the balance, we must act now! In a few years it will be too late. or said another way, “But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.” or even said yet another way, Stop arguing with me and do what I tell you, (mother to small child approach.)