Talk:Climate change/FAQ: Difference between revisions
Undid revision 584391736 by 205.131.188.5 (talk) but it does; if you wish to argue the point you must build consensus for your view at the talk page |
No, it does not. If you wish to argue YOUR point, then go ahead on the talk page. But, the removed two bullets do not fit the scope of the question. |
||
Line 173: | Line 173: | ||
|index=16 |
|index=16 |
||
|q=Do scientists support global warming just to get more money? |
|q=Do scientists support global warming just to get more money? |
||
|a= It is assumed that most of these scientists are not compensated with any additional salary, |
|||
|a= No, |
|||
* Scientists participate in international organizations like the [[IPCC]] as part of their normal academic duties. They do not receive any extra compensation beyond possibly direct expenses. |
* Scientists participate in international organizations like the [[IPCC]] as part of their normal academic duties. They do not receive any extra compensation beyond possibly direct expenses. |
||
* Scientific grants do not usually award any money to a scientist personally, but only towards the cost of his or her scientific work. |
* Scientific grants do not usually award any money to a scientist personally, but only towards the cost of his or her scientific work. |
||
* In the U.S., global warming was seen as a politically sensitive topic under the Bush administration, which discouraged scientists from working on the topic.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1046388,00.html|title=Bush covers up climate research|accessdate=11 January 2009|date=21 September 2003|publisher=The Guardian|author=Paul Harris }}</ref> |
|||
* It could also be argued that more money lies in examining the policy debate on global warming.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/04/AR2007020401213.html?sub=AR|title=AEI Critiques of Warming Questioned|accessdate=11 January 2009|date=05 February 2007|publisher=Washington Post|author=Juliet Eilperin }}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/bribes-offered-to-scientists/2007/02/02/1169919530963.html|title=Bribes offered to scientists|accessdate=11 January 2009|date=03 February 2007|publisher=The Sydney Morning Herald }}</ref> |
|||
}}<!-- |
}}<!-- |
||
Revision as of 17:35, 3 December 2013
Below are answers to frequently asked questions about the corresponding page Climate change. They address concerns, questions, and misconceptions which have repeatedly arisen on the talk page. Please feel free to change this material in light of new discussion. |
To view an explanation to the answer, click the [show] link to the right of the question.
- Many of the people listed aren't really scientists. For example, the definition of a "scientist" used in the Oregon Petition includes anyone who has a bachelor's degree – or anyone who claims to have a bachelor's degree, since there's no independent verification. Using this definition, approximately 25% of the US population is qualified to sign.
- Some of the people listed aren't even people. Included on these lists are hoaxes ("Dr. Geri Halliwell") and companies.
- Of those who have a scientific background most work in fields unrelated to climate, such as the chemistry of coal ashes[3] or the interactions between quarks and gluons.
- Those who are scientists are listed arbitrarily, and includes people who say they aren't skeptical of global warming. The Inhofe list was compiled by Inhofe staffer Marc Morano with no effort to contact the people listed. One of those on the list, George Waldenberger, even informed Inhofe's staff that he is not skeptical of the consensus on global warming. His request to have his name removed from the list was ignored.[4] Similarly, Steve Rayner of Oxford University has asked for his name to be removed and calls his inclusion "quite outrageous".[5] The Heartland Institute has stated that scientists who have told the Institute that it misrepresented their views on global warming "have no right – legally or ethically – to demand that their names be removed" from the Institute's list.
Scientists do not define a "trend" by looking at the difference between two given years. Instead they use methods such as linear regression that take into account all the values in a series of data. 10 years isn't long enough to detect a climate trend. The World Meteorological Organisation specifies 30 years as the standard averaging period for climate statistics so that year-to-year fluctuations are averaged out.[6]
In a BBC interview on 13 February 2010, Phil Jones agreed that from 1995 to 2009, the global warming "trend (0.12C per decade) is positive, but not significant at the 95% significance level", though close.[7] This has been misleadingly reported by some news sources.[8] On 10 June 2011 Jones told the BBC that the trend over the period 1995 to 2010 had reached the 95% significance level traditionally used as a threshold by statisticians.[9]
While HadCRU reported an extreme peak in global temperature in 1998, the GISS and NCDC estimates showed a lower peak in 1998, and more subsequent warming.[10] The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reported that the decade 2000-2009 was the warmest on record for the globe, with 2005 the warmest year.[11]- Current human emissions of CO2 are at least 100 times larger than volcanic emissions. Measurements of CO2 levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions.[18] This is easily seen in a graph of CO2 concentrations over the past 50 years: the strongest eruption during the period, that of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, produced no increase in the trend.
- Isotopic analysis of atmospheric carbon dioxide shows the observed change in the ratio of carbon isotopes reflects the isotopic ratios in fossil fuels.[19]
- Atmospheric oxygen content is decreasing at a rate that agrees with the amount of oxygen being used to burn fossil fuels.[20]
- If the oceans were giving up some of their carbon dioxide, we would expect their carbon dioxide concentration to decrease. But instead we are measuring an increase in the oceans' carbon dioxide concentration, resulting in the oceans becoming more acidic (or more accurately, less basic).[21]
- There are many images used in the articles related to global warming, and there are many reasons why they may not be updated with the latest data. Some of the figures, like Global Warming Map, are static meaning that they are intended to show a particular phenomenon and are not meant to be updated frequently or at all. Others, like the Instrumental Temperature Record and Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Extent Anomalies, use yearly data and thus are updated once per year—usually in mid- to late-January, depending upon when the data is publicly released, and when a volunteer creates the image. Still others, like Mauna Loa Carbon Dioxide, use monthly data. These are updated semi-regularly.
- However, just because an image is 6 months or a year old does not mean it is useless. Robert A. Heinlein is credited with saying, "Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get," meaning that climate is defined as a long-term average of weather, usually about 30 years. This length was chosen to eliminate the year-to-year variations.[22] Thus, in terms of climate change, any given year's data is of little import.
- A 2007 National Geographic article described the views of Khabibullo Abdusamatov, who claims that the sun is responsible for global warming on both Earth and Mars.[25] Abdussamatov's views have no support in the scientific community, as the second page of the National Geographic article makes clear: "His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion" said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University. [...] Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."[26]
- There is no reliable source claiming that Jupiter is warming. However, observations of the Red Spot Jr. storm suggest Jupiter could be in a period of global climate change.[27][28] This is hypothesized to be part of an approximately 70 year global climate cycle, characterized by the relatively rapid forming and subsequent slow erosion and merging of cyclonic and anticyclonic vortices that help transfer heat between Jupiter's poles and equator. The cycle works like this: As the vortices erode, heat exchange is reduced; this makes the poles cool down and the equatorial region heat up; the resulting temperature difference destabilizes the atmosphere, leading to the creation of new vortices.[29][30]
- Pluto has an extremely elliptical orbit with a period of about 248 years. Data are sparse, but two data points from 1988 and 2002 indirectly suggest that Pluto warmed between those two dates.[31] Pluto's temperature is heavily influenced by its elliptical orbit - it was closest to the sun in 1989 and has slowly receded since. Because of thermal inertia, it is expected to warm for a while after it passes perihelion (similar to how our warmest summer temperatures occur a month or two after the longest day of the year). No other mechanism has so far been seriously suggested. Here is a reasonable summary, and this paper discusses how the thermal inertia is provided by sublimation and evaporation of parts of Pluto's atmosphere. A more popular account is here and in Wikipedia's own article.
- Scientists participate in international organizations like the IPCC as part of their normal academic duties. They do not receive any extra compensation beyond possibly direct expenses.
- Scientific grants do not usually award any money to a scientist personally, but only towards the cost of his or her scientific work.
- Earth climate has varied significantly over geological ages. The question of an "optimal temperature" makes no sense without a clear optimality criterion. Over geological time spans, ecosystems adapt to climate variations. But global climate variations during the development of human civilization (i.e., the past 12,000 years) have been remarkably small. Human civilization is highly adapted to the current stable climate. Agricultural production depends on the proper combination of soil, climate, methods, and seeds. Most large cities are located on the coast, and any significant change in sea level would strongly affect them. Migration of humans and ecosystems is limited by political borders and existing land use. In short, the main problem is not the absolute temperature, but the massive and unprecedentedly fast change in climate, and the second order-effects to human societies. The IPCC AR4 WG2 report has a detailed discussion of the effects of rapid climate change.[32]
- For cosmic rays to be causing global warming, all of the following would have to be true, whereas only the italicized one was tested in the 2011 experiment:[35]
Solar magnetic field must be getting stronger The number of cosmic rays reaching Earth must be dropping Cosmic rays must successfully seed clouds, which requires: Cosmic rays must trigger aerosol (liquid droplet) formation These newly-formed aerosols must grow sufficiently through condensation to form cloud-condensation nuclei (CCN) The CCN must lead to increased cloud formation Cloud cover on Earth must be declining
Perhaps the study's lead author, Jasper Kirkby, put it best: "...it [the experiment] actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step."[36]- ^ Cook, John (11 May 2011). "Infographic: 97 out of 100 climate experts think humans are causing global warming". Skeptical Science. Retrieved 13 August 2011.
- ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/10/us/politics/10morano.html Dissenter on Warming Expands His Campaign. New York Times, April 9, 2009.
- ^ Retention of sulphur by laboratory-prepared ash from low-rank coal
- ^ Today: George WaldenbergerGrist.org. December 3. 2007
- ^ Kaufman, Leslie (April 9, 2009). "Dissenter on Warming Expands His Campaign". The New York Times. Retrieved 2009-07-09.
- ^ World Meteorological Organisation: Climate FAQs
- ^ BBC News - Q&A: Professor Phil Jones
- ^ RealClimate: Daily Mangle
- ^ BBC News - Global warming since 1995 'now significant'
- ^ {http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/01/24/giss-ncdc-hadcru/ Global Temperature from GISS, NCDC, HadCRU « Open Mind]
- ^ State of the Climate | Global Analysis | Annual 2009
- ^ World Meteorological Organisation: Climate FAQs
- ^ Tom Harris. "Scientists who work in the fields liberal arts graduate Al Gore wanders through contradict his theories about man-induced climate change". National Post. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
- ^ Paul Joseph Watson (09 March 2007). "Powerful Documentary Trounces Man-Made Warming Hoax". PrisonPlanet.com. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ Benj Arriola. "5 Good Arguments Why GlobalWarming is NOT due to Man-made Carbon Dioxide". Global Warming Awareness Blog. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
- ^ Dr Jarl Ahlbeck. "Increase of the Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Concentration due to Ocean Warming". Retrieved 11 January 2009.
- ^ Simon Kirby (11 April 2007). "Top scientist debunks global warming". The Herald Sun. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
- ^ Catherine Brahic (16 May 2007). "Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter". New Scientist. Retrieved 11 January 2009.
- ^ "More Notes on Global Warming". Physics Today. May 2005. Retrieved 2007-09-10.
- ^ M. Battle, M. L. Bender, P. P. Tans, J. W. C. White, J. T. Ellis, T. Conway, and R. J. Francey (2000). "Global Carbon Sinks and Their Variability Inferred from Atmospheric O2 and d13C". Science. 287 (5462): 2467–2470. doi:10.1126/science.287.5462.2467.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ The Royal Society (2005). "Ocean acidification due to increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide". Retrieved 9 May 2012.
{{cite web}}
: CS1 maint: date and year (link) - ^ "Met Office:Climate averages". BBC. Retrieved 23 January 2009.
- ^ "Cold Hard Facts". Tamino. 08 January 2009. Retrieved 21 January 2009.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ Attention: This template ({{cite doi}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by doi:10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1, please use {{cite journal}} (if it was published in a bona fide academic journal, otherwise {{cite report}} with
|doi=10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
instead. - ^ Kate Ravilious (February 28, 2007). "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says". National Geographic News. Retrieved 2008-03-06.
- ^ Kate Ravilious (February 28, 2007). "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says (page 2)". National Geographic News. Retrieved 2008-03-06.
- ^ Philip, Marcus S. (2006). "Velocities and Temperatures of Jupiter's Great Red Spot and the New Red Oval and Implications for Global Climate Change". American Physical Society. Retrieved 2007-05-09.
{{cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help); Unknown parameter|month=
ignored (help) - ^ Goudarzi, Sara (2006-05-04). "New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change". Space.com. Retrieved 2007-05-09.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ Philip, Marcus S. (2004-04-22). "Prediction of a global climate change on Jupiter" (PDF). Nature. 428 (6985): 828–831. Retrieved 2007-05-09.
{{cite journal}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ Yang, Sarah (2004-04-21). "Researcher predicts global climate change on Jupiter as giant planet's spots disappear". University of California, Berkeley. Retrieved 2007-05-09.
{{cite web}}
: Check date values in:|date=
(help) - ^ J. L. Elliot, A. Ates, B. A. Babcock, A. S. Bosh, M. W. Buie, K. B. Clancy, E. W. Dunham, S. S. Eikenberry, D. T. Hall, S. D. Kern, S. K. Leggett, S. E. Levine, D.-S. Moon, C. B. Olkin, D. J. Osip, J. M. Pasachoff, B. E. Penprase, M. J. Person, S. Qu, J. T. Rayner, L. C. Roberts, Jr, C. V. Salyk, S. P. Souza, R. C. Stone, B. W. Taylor, D. J. Tholen, J. E. Thomas-Osip, D. R. Ticehurst and L. H. Wasserman (10 July 2003). "The recent expansion of Pluto's atmosphere". Nature (424): 165–168. doi:10.1038/nature01762.
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ^ "The Working Group II contribution to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report". 2007. Retrieved 2007-10-22.
- ^ http://www.agu.org/journals/gl/ Geophysical Research Letters
- ^ http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-moreinfo&issn=1520-0442 Journal of Climate}
- ^ What do the CERN experiments tell us about global warming?
- ^ Cloud Formation May Be Linked to Cosmic Rays