According to a study published in 2009 by Peter Doran (professor of Earth and Environmental Sciences at UIC) that surveyed the 10,257 scientists listed as geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments. Response rate was 30.7%. 90% of respondents had Ph.D.s and 7% had Master's Degrees as their highest level of education.


1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

90% of respondents answered "risen"


2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

82% of respondents answered "yes"


Of particular interest is that 97.4% of respondents who consider climate study their area of expertise and have published more than 50% of their papers on the subject of climate answered "yes" to question 2.

The field containing the largest percentage of "No" answers to question 2 was petroleum geology with only 47% of respondents answering "Yes".


Citation information: Doran, P. (2009) EOS, 90, 3, 22-23.

Yeah, whateva.

Sorry I'm new to this part of the site. Is that "yeah, whateva" I don't care what the scientific community thinks?

(02-19-2010 03:27 PM)ctt8410 Wrote:  Sorry I'm new to this part of the site. Is that "yeah, whateva" I don't care what the scientific community thinks?

No, that's "whateva", I don't believe a bunch of agenda-driven leftists.

Let's try this again. Do you disagree with all the primary research or do you disagree with their interpretations of the primary research? Could you point me towards any primary research that disproves global warming?

(02-19-2010 03:35 PM)ctt8410 Wrote:  Let's try this again. Do you disagree with all the primary research or do you disagree with their interpretations of the primary research? Could you point me towards any primary research that disproves global warming?

Can you point me to anything that proves global warming?

lets see where this goes?

Do you have access to scientific journals? If so, this is a good start:

Murphy, D. M., S. Solomon, R. W. Portmann, K. H. Rosenlof, P. M. Forster, and T. Wong (2009), An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950, J. Geophys. Res., 114

link

(02-19-2010 03:52 PM)ctt8410 Wrote:  Do you have access to scientific journals? If so, this is a good start:

Murphy, D. M., S. Solomon, R. W. Portmann, K. H. Rosenlof, P. M. Forster, and T. Wong (2009), An observationally based energy balance for the Earth since 1950, J. Geophys. Res., 114

link

I asked for something that proved global warming, and you give me an opinionated entry into a journal? Wow.

Not a fan of the Journal of Geophysical Research or is there a specific sticking point that you found 7 minutes into reading the study?

(02-19-2010 04:06 PM)ctt8410 Wrote:  Not a fan of the Journal of Geophysical Research or is there a specific sticking point that you found 7 minutes into reading the study?

Has manmade global warming been proven? Yes or no. If it has, provide that proof.

...waiting.....

Providing proof would include listing 100s of citations. Judging by your response to my first citation, you don't seem to actually care about looking at the primary research. Now if you'll actually argue the specific points presented in the Murphy study...

(02-19-2010 03:35 PM)ctt8410 Wrote:  Let's try this again. Do you disagree with all the primary research or do you disagree with their interpretations of the primary research? Could you point me towards any primary research that disproves global warming?

"Disproves global warming". For someone who wants a rigorous answer, you've asked an incredibly ambiguous question.

I'm assuming that since you mentioned since the 1800s, that you're interested in that time scale. However, even that is left up to some question. Furthermore, the changes in technology for that time scale are immense. Data from 1850 does not correlate easily w/ data from 2009.

Next, one must ask why choose 1800s? It's well documented that the world recovered from the "little ice age" at that time. By definition, if the world isn't as cold as it was, then it has warmed. But, if the world was much cooler than the norm seen on a longer time scale, and it has just returned to that long-period norm, then why ask this question, " When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?"

Then you ask about the primary research. Yes, I disagree with much of it, or I should say, I disagree with how much of it has been done, and certainly w/ the conclusions that have been drawn. Here's one example of why: http://www.surfacestations.org/

We've also seen that many researchers, probably even some of those interviewed in your article, have fabricated or falsefied data, or purposely left out data that disagree with their preferred conclusions. What hasn't been published that should have been published?

I am also concerned with the interpretations of satellite imagery. Having spent 6.5 years at NASA, working in the optics branch supporting the Earth Sciences Tech Office, I know there are a variety of issues that can affect data. I am not convinced that the published uncertainties are legitimate, so the reported rises are open to question.
I have also observed first hand conclusions that don't follow necessarily from the data presented.

We also know that much of the conclusions that have been presented are based on sophisticated computer modeling. However, none of those models have been successful in recreating the historical climate record, and the top researchers concede that critical terms (like cloud formation) are not understood from first principles. So, while the models are good efforts, they are a work in progress, not really appropriate for drawing conclusions.

In short, don't act as if the "experts" are right because they do science, when we have documenteed evidence that they are NOT doing science.

Next, you didn't mention man-made global warming in this question, but you did refer to it in your first post. So which is it? Are you talking about global warming, or man-made global warming? Those are very different questions, and involve very different issues.

(02-19-2010 03:52 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  lets see where this goes?

Isn't this your cue to say, "Science never proves anything, it only disproves things?"

Yeah........... I was going to see where his argument went. I'll sit back and watch. It will be interesting to see what points he brings up. I came across a video of the melting Ice in Greenland. The Ice Sheet is over 110 meters thick in this one place of measurement. One of the sheets (Klangrodorf???) is going into the Atlantic at 34.5 m a year. It's massive and it's melting.

(02-19-2010 04:21 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  I'm assuming that since you mentioned since the 1800s, that you're interested in that time scale. However, even that is left up to some question. Furthermore, the changes in technology for that time scale are immense. Data from 1850 does not correlate easily w/ data from 2009.

That time scale is of interest because it gives us a period with which to compare warming and anthropogenic CO2 levels. I don't have any objection to using temperature data for longer periods, but if we're arguing about man-made global warming then it's prudent to reference that particular time frame. I assume your argument at the end is that proxy data is not particularly reliable? Over this timescale I tend to disagree, but that's beside the point. Borehole reconstruction, speleothem reconstruction, glacier length, tree ring data, radiocarbon dating, etc. all point in the same direction and that's that current temperatures are above even the 95% confidence limit of what can be reconstructed from the 1800s.

(02-19-2010 04:21 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Next, one must ask why choose 1800s? It's well documented that the world recovered from the "little ice age" at that time. By definition, if the world isn't as cold as it was, then it has warmed. But, if the world was much cooler than the norm seen on a longer time scale, and it has just returned to that long-period norm, then why ask this question, " When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?"

That makes sense until you consider the second question. (2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?). There's a reason that I posted the results for both questions.

(02-19-2010 04:21 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Then you ask about the primary research. Yes, I disagree with much of it, or I should say, I disagree with how much of it has been done, and certainly w/ the conclusions that have been drawn. Here's one example of why: http://www.surfacestations.org/

How much have you read? I'm genuinely curious when discussing these points how often people actually consult scientific journals when researching their points for/against warming. Per your specific example, the study accepted for publication this year in the JOGR by Menne, et al. seems to show that "the bias in unadjusted maximum temperature data from poor exposure sites relative to good exposure sites is, on average, negative while the bias in minimum temperatures is positive (though smaller in magnitude than the negative bias in maximum temperatures)."

(02-19-2010 04:21 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  We've also seen that many researchers, probably even some of those interviewed in your article, have fabricated or falsefied data, or purposely left out data that disagree with their preferred conclusions. What hasn't been published that should have been published?

If the basis for man-made global warming was built on a single paper or a single group of researchers I might agree with your position, but we're at the point now where there's just no possible way that 1000s of papers have all been fabricated. Some of these people receive government funding, some don't. Some of them set out to prove global warming, some didn't. Most of them are in competition with each other and have no interest in proving that the other guy is right and he beat them to the punch. It's such a large cross-section of the research community that it's not feasible to suggest that everyone is lying. There are certainly examples of those who have published data against global warming. The first that comes to mind is Friis-Christensen, et al., but there are many others. Of course most of these studies have been debunked by more recent findings or errors in calculation or (gasp) fabricated data.

(02-19-2010 04:21 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  I am also concerned with the interpretations of satellite imagery. Having spent 6.5 years at NASA, working in the optics branch supporting the Earth Sciences Tech Office, I know there are a variety of issues that can affect data. I am not convinced that the published uncertainties are legitimate, so the reported rises are open to question.
I have also observed first hand conclusions that don't follow necessarily from the data presented.

I've never worked for NASA, so I'll defer to your judgment on this one. The only thing I'll add is that there's a difference between adamantly disagreeing with the conclusions and not being "convinced".

(02-19-2010 04:21 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  We also know that much of the conclusions that have been presented are based on sophisticated computer modeling. However, none of those models have been successful in recreating the historical climate record.

Hanson, et al. did a pretty decent job of predicting climate changes after the Pinatubo eruption. (PNAS 103: 14288–14293.). The real question should be "what is the uncertainty related to each of these models?" We can only estimate the uncertainty until we actually have long-term data to compare, but a significant number of them predictably forecast temperature increases with what we know now. I tend to disagree with those models that predict impending doom, but I think it's pretty clear looking at the trends that more warming should be expected.

(02-19-2010 04:21 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  In short, don't act as if the "experts" are right because they do science, when we have documenteed evidence that they are NOT doing science.

I didn't say experts are all definitively right, only that it's not a bad idea to take into consideration what the experts think on a subject matter of which they are an "expert". As for the documented evidence, we have documented evidence that a select few are "NOT doing science". That doesn't condemn the work of thousands of others who are doing legitimate science.

(02-19-2010 04:21 PM)DrTorch Wrote:  Next, you didn't mention man-made global warming in this question, but you did refer to it in your first post. So which is it? Are you talking about global warming, or man-made global warming? Those are very different questions, and involve very different issues.

I feel like I addressed those issues above. The main reason for the ambiguity was that I wanted to see where Rebel was headed. If he was going to argue that warming hasn't even occurred (man-made or not) then it was going to be a different argument from my point of view.

They only asked geoscience academics/faculty and those with federal research grants?

Manmade global warming has NEVER been proven, and until it is, you progressives need to leave my earnings the fk alone. Cool?

Lemme add my 2 cents. The Earth just might be warming. I say this because 10,000 New York City was covered by a glacier. When that glacier receded some Indians settled there, we jacked the land from them and Al Sharpton moved in. Why do you global warming freaks want Al Sharpton to go homeless?

(02-19-2010 05:23 PM)ctt8410 Wrote:  I think it's pretty clear looking at the trends that more warming should be expected.

When?