Is recent global warming real, and mostly man-made? Yes, the consensus is about 97%:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/...
Considering 4,000 studies by over 10,000 scientists.
My PhD is climate science and my current research is climate science. I've read hundreds of papers and thousands of abstracts, watched scores of presentations and spoken to many climate scientists. Everything in my experience is completely consistent with a ~97% consensus that most of the recent global warming is man-made.
If you change the question to ask how big will future global warming be, then you will get a spread of answers. Most would fall within the IPCC range, which means that if we carry on under business-as-usual then we will cause more global warming than Earth has seen in millions of years since way before human civilisation began.
You could ask other questions, and Vision Prize is trying to do this, although with a sample size of only 2-300.
http://www.visionprize.com/
It's interesting to see.
For example, there is not consensus on the sea level rises forecast by the IPCC. Most think there is a good chance that it will be higher than that reported in the IPCC, although this isn't a massive surprise as the IPCC text does state that they are missing out some things.
"A majority of our expert respondents (71%) believe that it is at least about as likely as not that sea level rise this century will exceed 0.91 meters, the highest level given in the 2013 IPCC report. (±8%, Q3)"
I think there might be 97% of scientists that agree humans emit greenhouse gases and that it very likely effects our climate but that doesn't mean the affect is significant or harmful. Alarmists like to pretend that one indicates the other. It isn't like they are uneducated. They are among the most educated (indoctrinated) among us. Surely they know that is little more than a lie yet they repeat it over an over and then suggest skeptics are lying. Most of the them should seek help IMHO.
Squidmaster, are you saying you believe in AGW or 97% support the "Global Warming Theory". My brain actually works with words and symbolic thought. It seems to me some people just throw words around and it really can be difficult to figure out what they are claiming.
I certainly don't, but I don't know that anyone has ever claimed that, either.
I do believe that a large percentage (>90%) of climate scientists accept the major tenets of global warming. I also believe that a large percentage (much greater than 50, but less than 95) of working scientists accept that anthropogenic global warming is real and happening. If that were not true, then you wouldn't have every major scientific organization issuing statement to that effect.
I'd imagine the figure is higher. Proper scientists look at the data, then form a conclusion. Yahoo Answer skeptics have formed a conclusion, dismiss the data that doesn't fit that conclusion, then post links to websites of dubious quality where people with questionable qualifications have decided to 'fit' the data themselves and miraculously arrived at the conclusion the skeptic was looking for in the first place.
I am a skeptic, but under the terms of such surveys I would have to join the 97%
Is CO2 a greenhouse gas Yes
Can CO2 cause some warming Yes
Does man emit CO2 and increase atmospheric levels Yes
However if you were to ask me, will this cause dangerous or catastrophic results No
Could it even be beneficial Yes.
97% is the accuracy rating for climate models, too (overstated), but that doesn't deter "alarmists" from being "environmental activists" wanting to funnel money towards their own version of Capitalism (socialism or communism). Climate Science is a Socialistic venue. If you are in the 97% who agree with the environmental aspect, then you don't have to worry about Government funding of any research.
IMO most of those 97% "tow the line" in order to maintain the idea of Government funding of their own researching adventures. Published papers are the means to any climate scientist"s "status" in climate science and the Governments are the ones holding the cards (through the IP CC).
I hope not.
The correct statement is that 97% of CLIMATE scientists agree that man is causing a significant amount. The point of the survey was that the less someone knows about AGW, the less likely they are to agree.
See 10 surveys on Wikipedia.
Anyone who has seen the data understands that the world's climate is rapidly changing even in historical terms. The effect of even a small uptick in temperature, as little as a fraction of a degree is a lot in terms of the effect on the ground.
In the 1960's our navy patrol plane crashed on the Alaska
tundra. At that time the entire area was 99% grass. Today that same latitude is covered with brush and small trees.... Large trees tend to fall over as the permafrost goes boggy in the summer time. The rapid movement of the brush and tree line in the northern latitudes is DATA.... it can be measured, quantified and qualified. Tree lines don't move unless climatic conditions change... From grass to small groves of trees in less than 60 years is light speed for climate change. This same tree line movement is apparent in Russia as well...all around sub artic. Check it out!
i wonder why you even care since you've said your god won't allow us to harm the earth.
Conservative media is now just making things up about climate scientists
http://www.salon.com/2014/08/06/conserva...
The Strange Relationship Between Global Warming Denial and…Speaking English
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2...
Marc Morano-career began working for Rush Limbaugh. Climate Depot.com run by Morano, is funded by Richard Mellon Scaife- is an American billionaire, a principal heir to the Mellon banking, oil, and aluminum fortune. Bill Nye graduated with a Bachelor of Science in 1977, occasionally returns to Cornell as a professor. Morano is paid to lie, Nye is a fricken Scientist!?
Is it really likely that as many as 3% of qualified working climate scientists are out of touch, were having a bad day when asked, ticked the wrong box by mistake or are willing to be paid handsomely to cast doubt on the science?
Sounds like a plausible figure to me.
That sounds about right. Keep in mind that there are many versions of "the theory". But in theory, more CO2 *will* trap more heat. I think more than 97% of scientists will support that one statement.
A series of independent surveys found that 97% of climatologists active in their field (not "all the scientists") agree with anthropogenic climate change. And yes, I do believe that experts would be nearly unanimous in acknowledging that our planet is warming.
all the scientists, no. Many have nothing to do with climate. A neurobiologist would have no opinion for example. As for climate scientists, yes.
Yes, a couple, but not the folks with much in the way of critical thinking....and an independent spirit.
I believe it, because I;ve seen the evidence to support the claim.
Yes.
Do you have any evidence to the contrary? No
what difference does it make
I don't.
i dont believe it
can be
