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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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: @ur momisugly 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.)