Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 Next
Comments 39001 to 39050:
-
chuck101 at 19:05 PM on 4 February 2014A Historical Perspective on Arctic Warming: Part One
Maurice Winn,
I too have trouble with parsing your "land mass surrounding the Arctic area is ill defined comment". After looking very carefully at both maps, sure there are a few areas of difference along coastal inlets, but they are minor innaccuracies. Certainly not enough to dismiss the whole 1938 ice reconstruction as innaccurate.
Also, there are better ways to analyse the data than just eyeballing it. Did you even read the main part of the post?
This is typical of "Fake Skeptics", trying to use minor discrepancies to discredit anything to do with Global Warming. Also, there are better ways to analyse the data than just eyeballing it. Did you even read the main part of the post?
Just looking at the map shows a massive loss of ice by 2012, and I really can't believe that you can't see it. A visit to Spec Savers is required perhaps?
-
Vonnegut at 18:22 PM on 4 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
After the ice age I guess the oceans outgassed co2 as the seas would have been almost saturated due to temperature? wouldnt the sea then be closer than we are today to ph neutral?
-
Vonnegut at 18:16 PM on 4 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
@27 yeah easier said than done when you have a bank account.
-
jja at 16:12 PM on 4 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
Tom,
I wasn't selecting the data for any reason except to duplicate the graphic produced in Nuttecelli 2012. in this effort I was (mostly) successfulclick for larger image
http://oi57.tinypic.com/2iu2gs9.jpg years 1978-2008http://oi62.tinypic.com/2jfg4tk.jpg years 1978-2048
-
Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
Thanks, for the correction, Tom.
I'd read David Randall's "Atmosphere, Clouds and Climate" last year, but clearly need another go-through for it to begin to stick. Maybe this time I'll work through some of the equations instead of just filing them under "more greek symbols".
-
Tom Curtis at 14:12 PM on 4 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
jja @49:
1) I did not consider the 2002-2008 period because it was significantly less than a decade. If even decadal values are eratic, as is apparent, than a seven year interval is also going to be eratic, and not necessarilly projectable for future trends.
2) I did not question your calculation of the correct values for the episodes you chose. I questioned your projection from three decadal averages when decadal averages obviously vary substantially depending on start date. Decades are obviously too short a period to be projectable on this data.
3) If you want to project the data, you need to calculate the change in heat year by year over the whole interval, and find which curve is the best fit to that data. (Make sure you use a test that accounts for the loss of simplicity by introducing greater curvature to the fit.) Reducing the data to three decades when the choise of a different three decades on which to make the fit would radically alter the result is not good science, and not informative.
-
Tom Curtis at 14:03 PM on 4 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
bf @8, clouds are (depending on thickness) almost perfect black or grey bodies in the IR spectrum. That is, they absorb and radiate equally at all IR wavelengths. So also does the ground and and water at the surface. In contrast, CO2 and H2O in gaseous form only absorb and radiate at certain wavelengths. Satellites designed to observe clouds will almost certainly have instruments tuned to wavelengths at which CO2 and gaseous H2O do not absorb. That is so that clouds at even low levels of the atmosphere can be detected. Consequently, while the satellite imagary of clouds you link to is impressive evidence that the upper troposphere is cooler than the surface, it is not evidence of the greenhouse effect. Of course, evidence that altitude cools is abundant, the most obvious example being snow capped mountains.
All else being equal, the greenhouse effect would actually cool the atmosphere with altitutude faster than it does, but convection results in a much warmer upper troposphere. Howeve, convection by itself would also cool with altitude. The reason is simple conservation of energy. As gas particles rise higher in the sky, they gain gravitational potential energy. Because of conservation of energy, that energy gained must come from somewhere else, and typically comes from the kinetic energy - that is the energy of motion plus energy of vibration - of the molecules. If the rising air column contains water vapour, the water vapour will precipitate out as it cools, also providing energy, and therefore allowing a slower loss of temperature with altitude.
Below the tropopause, vertical transfer of energy via convection dominates over vertical transfer by radiation. The result is that the loss of temperature with altitude is governed by convection and the loss of latent heat as water vapour precipitates, such that the loss of temperature with altitude would be the same even with no greenhouse effect.
-
jja at 13:14 PM on 4 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
Tom,
why did you not include the 2002-2008 value of .73?
The calculation of flux that you use is full of assumptions and neglects significant potential errors, plus it is unnecessary. The total heat accumulation, averaged over the decade yeilds the average TOA flux for that period. correct?
The change in average decadel flu that you list is total AF forcing, right?
Again, I don't see why that is important. The total net heat content increase in Nuttecelli produces the average TOA value for the time period.
I checked the climateskeptic letter to PLA and found their algorithm to TOA asTOA = 0.62[d(OHC)/dt] I used this to check my math and found the following average forcing values to match my calculations.
decade average TOA
1978-1988 9.32E-02
1988-1998 2.17E-01
1998-2008 5.90E-01The correct function that graphs these values is the binomial that I quoted in 46. (y=.1243*x^2 - .2485*x +.2175)
The first order derivative of the function shows the instantaneous decadel rate of change of TOA. (y=.2486*x - .2485) -- The rate of change of TOA at the end of each decade.The binomial function produces the following average TOA values for each year as noted:
TOA 1983 0.0933, delta = .0933
TOA 1993 0.2177, delta = .1244
TOA 2003 0.5907, delta = .373
TOA 2013 1.2123, delta = .6216
TOA 2023 2.0825, delta = .8702
TOA 2033 3.2013, delta = 1.1188
TOA 2043 4.5687, delta = 1.3674The (average decadel) rate of change of TOA for each year is
dTOA/dt 1983 = 0.1244
dTOA/dt 1993 = 0.373
dTOA/dt 2003 = 0.6216
dTOA/dt 2013 = 0.8702
dTOA/dt 2023 = 1.1188
dTOA/dt 2033 = 1.3674
dTOA/dt 2043 = 1.6160which happens to equal the delta values shown above.
Moderator Response:[PW] Unnecessary white space removed.
-
Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
Doug, the link to Met Office's world IR satellite imagery might help to make the greenhouse/IR link clear to people. Looking at it in this season, Australia provides a good example of hot land, and overlying cloud tops being much cooler due to the warmth being trapped at lower levels due to the greenhouse action of water vapor.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/satellite/ shows the world, but you can click to select parts of the planet, and look at differences between daytime and nighttime, too.
-
Matt Fitzpatrick at 10:50 AM on 4 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
It's not just physics that's studied infrared (IR).
In chemistry, the interaction between IR and matter is studied in great detail. Today, IR spectroscopy is routine in any chemistry lab. It helps identify unknown compounds, because we know which IR absorption peak shapes (similar to Figure 4) correspond to many types of bonds between specific atoms. Even a C student in undergrad organic chemistry can tell an alcohol from an aldehyde by glancing at the IR signatures.
How would those who deny the basic physics of IR-matter interaction propose we identify chemical unknowns? Look them up in a scratch and sniff index?
-
Tom Curtis at 09:47 AM on 4 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
jja, from table 1 of Nucutelli et al, we have the following average TOA energy imbalance for various periods:
Interval------ Flux
1970-2008--- 0.31
1980-2008--- 0.37
1990-2008--- 0.46
2000-2008--- 0.53From that you can calculate the total energy input over the intervals 1970-1979, 1980-1989, 1990-1999, and 2000-2008, and from them the average flux in W/m^2 over those intervals, which are in order:
1.36 W/m^2
1.99 W/m^2
3.97 W/m^2
4.77 W/m^2The last three of these approximately correspond to the three intervals you examine @45, but vary significantly from them. In particular, your 1978-1988 average is less than half of the 1980-1989 average, despite the very substantial overlap. Looking at the graph shows the disparity arises primarilly from your choice of start year, which is obviously well above trend. There is not suggestion this was a deliberate cherry pick. Rather it results from simply taking each successive decade back from the final year. Never-the-less, it does mean your result is primarilly the product of a short term fluctuation.
Using the figures from the table, the change in average "decadal" TOA flux (with, of course, only 9 years for the final "decade") are:
0.63 W/m^2
1.98 W/m^2
0.8 W/m^2These values certainly do not support your quadratic curve. Indeed, I doubt they can be sensibly extrapolated. Given all values in the data, a sensible fit might be obtained, but it would clearly not support increases in the TOA energy imbalance of 0.3 W/m^2 per decade.
It should be noted that the 1970-2008 rate is 0.31 W/m^2. It is possible that the authors intended to quote this rate, and mistated a rate as an acceleration.
-
Tom Dayton at 08:23 AM on 4 February 2014Corals are resilient to bleaching
Vonnegut: Temperature of ocean water is not the only factor affecting the pH of the oceans. Among other factors, an important one is the partial pressure of CO2 in the air. You've already been pointed at the thorough explanation in the series of posts OA Is Not OK. Read them, please, and if you have relevant questions after reading, then post questions there.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 07:38 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Vonnegut... Out of 8500 emails sent out we received responses from 1500 scientists.
For an email blast, 15% is a very high response rate! Remember, researchers tend to be under paid and over worked. Lots of them are going to be out doing field research at any given time (when you're working in Antarctica on an ice core, you're not spending a lot of time going through emails). Lots of the emails are going to have just been bad addresses. Lots probably went straight into spam filters.
Most mass email blasts would expect less than 1% response rate. Anything over 1% would be considered highly successful. The fact that we got a 15% participation rate suggests to me, exactly what you're saying, that scientists believe this is a very important issue.
-
Vonnegut at 07:32 AM on 4 February 2014Corals are resilient to bleaching
I know there are other factors which can change the ph levels but bear with me.
The ph level in seawater changes with temperature, warmer water holding less co2 than cold water meaning in tropical areas the ph level should hardly change if the water is warmed and co2 level rises (there is more likelyhood of tropical waters outgassing)
In polar waters, its already co2 rich so the ph level should be very low in comparison to tropical waters.
If it gets colder the polar seas will become more acid ......if it gets warmer they will become less acidWhat am I not understanding?
-
jja at 06:58 AM on 4 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
correction, taking the first order derivative of the polynomial function directly above yeilds the instantaneous accumulation rate at the end of each decade. The derivative function is y=.2486*x - .2485
this yeilds the actual instantaneous value (the values directly above were decadel averages)
1E-04 1978-1988
0.2487 1988-1998
0.4973 1998-2008
(0.7459 2008-2018)
(0.9945 2018-2028)
(1.2431 2028-2038)
(1.4917 2038-2048)incidentally, using this derivative function, the actual TOA at the end of 2013 was
0.57188 Watts/Meter Squared
-
Tom Dayton at 06:57 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Vonnegut, you should use the interactive widget that shows the evolution of the numbers of papers across the many decades. It illustrates the point that CBDunkerson made to you. It is the Interactive History of Climate Science widget that is linked from the graphic in the left margin of every Skeptical Science page.
-
jja at 06:50 AM on 4 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
However, a second order polynomial function fits the data with an R^2 value of 1.0
the equation for this function is y=.1243*x^2 - .2485*x +.2175
the values of this funciton shows the expected increase in TOA watts/meter squared based on the previous 3 decades of data going forward the decadel rate of TOA based on accumulation rates are (will be):0.0933 1978-1988
0.1244 1988-1998
0.373 1998-2008
(0.6216 2008-2018)
(0.8702 2018-2028)
(1.1188 2028-2038)
(1.3674 2038-2048)all values in watts/meter^2 TOA instantaneous value at the end of each decade
-
jja at 06:40 AM on 4 February 2014Warming oceans consistent with rising sea level & global energy imbalance
the Nuccitteli (2012) graph of total heat content through 1800M depth yeilded a heat accumulation of 9.5E22joules between 1998 and 2008.
3.5E22 joules between 1988 and 1998
and 1.5E22 joules between 1978 and 1998By taking the difference in heat accumulated per decade and dividing by the seconds per decade and square meters of the earth, this total heat accumulation rate value can be converted to a W/m^2/decade.
Plotting this accumulation of heat produces an exponential curve with an R^2 value of .9978
The equation for this exponential rate of total accumulation is 0.0361*exp(0.9229*x)the values of this funciton shows the expected increase in TOA watts/meter squared based on the previous 3 decades of data going forward the decadel rate of TOA based on accumulation rates are (will be):
0.090848 1978-1988
0.137779 1988-1998
0.346731 1998-2008
(0.872576 2008-2018)
(2.195904 2018-2028)
(5.526165 2028-2038)
(13.90702 2038-2048) -
Vonnegut at 06:22 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
@297 Rob
Do you require a vote by every single scientist stating their position on gravity in order to believe the theory?
No, I was surprised how low the response was considering AGW is such an important issue to mankind.
Thank you for providing informed responses, I appreciate that.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:19 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Another analogy... I can "sample" a spoonful of the soup to get a rational estimation on whether I would like to have a full bowl of it for lunch. It's very unlikely that, once I sample it, the rest of the soup is going to taste substantially different.
The sample of 1200 researchers is something akin to eating a full bowl of the soup to estimate the taste of the full pot back in the kitchen. It's extremely unlikely we're going to have a nice bowl of cream of potato and then go back to the kitchen and find it came from a pot of french onion soup.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:12 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Vonnegut... I have to ask, do you understand the idea of "sampling?"
You don't have to test every last bit of the ocean to see if it is salty. You can make a reasonable estimation of ocean salinity by taking very small samples.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 06:00 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
And Vonnegut said, "You seem to be convinced that all climate scientists would say man was the cause but many havent had an opportunity to have any input either way."
When you have a sampling of 1200 researchers you are virtually guaranteed to have captured the dominant positions on the issue. Any position that might have slipped through such a large sampling is going to be an extreme minority position.
It's just a basic fact that you do not have to ask every single last person their position in order to understand the dominant conclusions.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 05:56 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Vonnegut said, "would you believe the theory of gravity if only 10% of scientists studying gravity agreed with it?"
Do you require a vote by every single scientist stating their position on gravity in order to believe the theory?
If you did a sampling of 10% of scientists (a huge portion, by the way) then I would definitely trust that as being representative of the scientific community overall.
-
DSL at 05:31 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
And you, Vonnegut, don't seem to understand that only a handful of those 30,000 actually perform attribution studies. In other words, the opinion of the rest--whatever it means--is just as meaningful as those who did answer the surveys or engage in assessing their own work.
Note that no one of any of the minorities in any of the studies has actually produced an attribution study that counters the "more than 50% since 1950" claim. In other words, that position has no scientific basis.
-
michael sweet at 05:30 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Vonegut,
As others have said but you will not hear there is a complete census of scientific opinion about AGW. It is called the IPCC report. Every scientist in the world is allowed to contribute. That report is reviewed by every government in the world and the summary is approved word by word. How could you get a more consensus document?? Even the oil producing countries accept the result. There is no other science that has a comparable document summarizing what the scientists feel. If anything, the IPCC document is too conservative since it must be approved by oil governments.
Pleae suggest how you would be satisified by a survey of scientists that is not already done in the IPCC report.
-
Vonnegut at 05:28 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
@292 would you believe the theory of gravity if only 10% of scientists studying gravity agreed with it?
-
Vonnegut at 05:22 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
@291
If you're truly concerned that the 97% figure does not reflect the actual science, by all means do engage the science on attribution.
Im not saying it doesnt reflect the science Im saying it doesnt reflect all climate scientists views.
You seem to be convinced that all climate scientists would say man was the cause but many havent had an opportunity to have any input either way.
-
DSL at 05:18 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
And how many of those 30,000 would it take to convince you, Vonnegut? If 29,000 responded, and 97% of those agreed with the IPCC assessment? 20,000? 15,000?
-
DSL at 05:15 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
What Rob says, Vonnegut.
The consensus studies--those that are simple opinion surveys (not Cook et al.)--are performed in part to counter the idea that no consensus exists. That idea is spread by people who have not read the work on attribution. I've directly confronted at least 150 people who have made that "no consensus" claim publicly. Not one attempted to defend their claims with science. Not one. Yes, they did say things like "It's volcanoes" or "It's the sun," but they couldn't provide a single reference. Many provided links to "sciencey" blogs like WUWT, blogs designed (and paid) to sway public opinion rather than advance the science.
So the consensus studies may be "mularky" as far as their use as actual evidence for anthropogenic global warming goes, but they do serve a role in communicating the science to those members of the general public who have not the time, energy, training, means, and/or motivation to engage the actual science.
If you're truly concerned that the 97% figure does not reflect the actual science, by all means do engage the science on attribution. You'll find that the IPCC conclusions are actually conservative: humans are responsible for close to 100% of the warming since 1950.
Without engaging the science, it's easy to stand back and be incredulous. Guffaw to your heart's content, but if you want to be right, you'll need to actually stick your head in paper or two. I think you'll find people here more than willing to be open minded about the science if you're actually discussing the science.
-
Vonnegut at 05:12 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Rob why do you keep mentioning 97% it only has relevence if you know how many people is involves. 'Your' 97% doesnt mean 97% of climate scientists does it? I believe there are 30,000 scientists involved in the climate field.
-
airscottdenning at 05:10 AM on 4 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
Here's another "proof" that's very simple: weknow the greenhouse effect is there because we can survive at night!
If the ground temperature at sundown in summer is 60 F (about 15 C or 288 Kelvin), then by the Stefan-Boltzmann Law it is emitting sigma * T^4 = 6.67e-8 * (288)^4 = 390 Watts per square meter. If this cooling were felt through a 10 cm thick layer of soil, the ground temperature would cool by 75 Kelvin over 8 hours of darkness, reaching -60 C (-78 F) by morning.
Luckily for us CO2 and water vapor molecules in the air emit infrared radiation downward at over 300 Watts per square meter, so we can survive night on Earth!
To be fair, only the really wacky fringe actually deny that CO2 emits heat. But I have actually met a few, and of course the original post links to some of these claims.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 04:56 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Vonnegut... Hypothetical situation: Your friend goes to the doctor and is diagnosed with cancer. He's referred to an oncologist. The oncologist says, "Here is the treatment I recommend. This treatment is what is recommended by 97% of practising oncologists."
Doctors regularly recommend treatments that are based on the consensus of the current research. No vote is taken. Some researchers even disagree on the treatment they would recommend. But based on a thorough reading of the existing research, there is a "consensus position" on how treatment should be approached.
Does that mean the 97% is "mullarky (sic)?"
If you take the time to read a sampling of the existing research, you will find that nearly all the published research agrees that humans are the primary cause of the warming of the past ~50 years.
It's just a fact.
-
Rob Painting at 04:55 AM on 4 February 2014OA not OK part 20: SUMMARY 2/2
Read the paper linked to in the comment.
-
Vonnegut at 04:42 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Yes. It would have been difficult. It is difficult. Many scientists see this sort of project as catering to the whimsy of a handful of conspiracy nuts.
And you dont think they think the same with this 97% mullarky?
-
Dan Olner at 03:50 AM on 4 February 2014Why rainbows and oil slicks help to show the greenhouse effect
Given that, as already said, it's rather difficult to write anything that will convince a skeptic, I keep on mulling whether it's possible to build some sort of `greenhouse room' that could be used in science museums to illustrate the effect. Can someone actually able to do the science sums tell me if this is nonsense? I have a feeling you'd need lots of other factors like cold enough co2...
Would it be possible to have: (a) the bottom half of a 20 foot high ceiling room open to people via a door (with air controls, see below); (b) the top half a sealed container with two separate compartments, one containing the same air mix as the room itself, the other pure co2? Each part could be moved over the room, hiding the other, with some powerful light source above it. The floor of the room could be something that's reflecting back more of the IR. (You'd also need to carefully define the in-out flow of air to the room itself so you're not suffocating people while also allowing for a predictable change in temps as the IR bouncing back heats things up).
What would it take for that to show a measurable effect? Given I don't much know what I'm talking about, are there are other similar room setups that might allow people to directly experience the effect of a CO2 blanket on the air temp of the room they're in? (If I were being cruel, I'd quite like one where skeptics who claim no such effect exist could be put in one where the temp could be raised to 60C this way...)
Of course, I suppose if you build such a thing, skeptics would simply say "the atmosphere's completely different, don't be silly". As a general rule, though, it'd be targetting sensible waverers to innoculate them against FUD, not skeptics themselves, who are beyond our aid I suspect.
-
DSL at 03:12 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Vonnegut: "Would it have been so hard to get the whole scientific community involved in climate research to vote on what they thought? and then publish the results?"
Yes. It would have been difficult. It is difficult. Many scientists see this sort of project as catering to the whimsy of a handful of conspiracy nuts. It's a waste of time. How much research work has been done just to provide a response to the fake skepticism generated by the highly successful rhetorical project of the Heartland Institute, SPPI, GWPF, CA, WUWT, FoS, and other opinion-shaping organizations? Too much.
If you want a summary of the science, go to the summary of the science: IPCC AR5 WG1 -- composed by 300+ unpaid scientists, experts in their fields.
-
DSL at 03:06 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Vonnegut, you want a consensus and you don't accept the existing attempts to establish one. The best place to go to find a consensus is one which summarizes the existing science--not the existing opinion. The 5th IPCC Assessment Report does that. It references several thousand publications directly, and thousands more indirectly.
Have you read the attribution studies that form the basis of the claim that more than half of the warming of the past 50 years is human-sourced? Do you understand that anyone who provided a response for the Cook et al. study--and other "consensus" studies--was not required to have read the existing literature on attribution? Nor was anyone required to give evidence for their answers. The ~3% may not have read a single attribution study. Are you willing to blindly trust that ~3%? Or are you trying to point out that a consensus study has limitations?
If so, then duh. That's why you go to the science itself. If you don't understand the science, then you're at the mercy of opinion-makers. If you have no basis for trusting or mistrusting the 3% or the 97% or whatever %, then how is it that you are able to generate a dismissive attitude?If you do have science-based reasons for doubting the clear consensus of evidence (represented in IPCC AR5), then bring it (to the appropriate thread). If you can't, then at least have the integrity to recognize that you can't.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:55 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Vonnegut @283...
You're making a really common error about the project. The Concensus Project was not about the opinions of scientists, it was a project researching the positions of research papers (or their abstracts).
TCP is saying that 97% of published research agrees with AGW. It's not making a claim about the opinions of the researchers.
It's an important distinction.
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:51 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
I would add here, TCP asking researchers to self-rate their papers was an act in self skepticism. We went though and rated these 12,000 papers but who was to say that we were not biased in our ratings? We asked ourselves that question (unlike Vonnegut here). So, to test that, we asked for self-ratings.
What would have happened if the self-ratings had been significantly different that the TCP ratings? I have to admit, I was a little nervous about that potential outcome. We would have had to report that finding. If we had found 97% in our ratings and then found a figure significantly lower with self-ratings... that would have been an existential crisis for SkS.
While it wasn't an unexpected result that our ratings agreed with researchers' self-fatings, it was certainly a confirmation that we were doing things right.
-
Vonnegut at 02:46 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
@280 its not for me to do anything, I was highlighting what others say about the 97% looking fishy.
Would it have been so hard to get the whole scientific community involved in climate research to vote on what they thought? and then publish the results?
It 'looks' like the elephants have just been asked if they would like a bunshop closer to the zoo.
-
Composer99 at 02:44 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
What you may not understand is, the response rate of 15% is a huge number. Most voter polls are considered robust when they have far below a 1% response rate of registered voters.
Indeed, I seem to recall Nate Silver at the New York Times' FiveThirtyEight blog used aggregates of such polls to very accurately predict the outcomes of a majority of US elections (including the Presidential election and several Congressional elections) in the fall of 2012.
-
Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Vonnegut - "...who am I to argue with it?"
You appear to be someone who strongly dislikes the conclusion of this and similar surveys - that those who spend time studying the subject find the evidence for anthropogenic global warming to be convincing. Unfortunately, wishing otherwise doesn't make it so - and neither does recycling arguments repeatedly demonstrated to be erroneous in this and other discussions. See the previous 280 comments...
-
Rob Honeycutt at 02:29 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Vonnegut... What you may not understand is, the response rate of 15% is a huge number. Most voter polls are considered robust when they have far below a 1% response rate of registered voters.
I'd venture to guess you're not really interested in the truth here. If you were, though, you could easily just try to test the results yourself. Pull up your own list of published research. Rate the abstracts. Tally them up. See what your results are. You certainly don't need to do 12,000 of them to get a statistically significant sampling. A few hundred papers should more than adequately prove the results.
-
Vonnegut at 02:00 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Youve got your much misquoted headline figure who am I to argue with it?
-
Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Vonnegut - Papers on aerodynamics don't restate the density of air in every publication. Nor do astrophysicists rederive the inverse square rule of gravity on a daily basis, nor articles on dentistry recapitulate tooth decay in every journal.
As was stated in a recent court case, “This is how science works. The E.P.A. is not required to reprove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question.” No need to reinvent the wheel.
97% of those abstracts and those surveyed scientists who expressed an opinion agree with the basic principles of AGW, and that we are the cause of most of the recent warming. Perhaps 3% argue to the contrary. If you wish to support for your (obvious) disagreement with the generally understood anthropogenic basis of climate change, then you would need a lot more material than those 3% have supplied.
-
Vonnegut at 01:45 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
@274 you asked 8500 authors and 1200 scientists responded? , just 15% responded? and of those 15%, 97% supported AGW.
Ok thas clear now. 1164 supported AGW and what about the rest the 6300 ?
-
CBDunkerson at 01:39 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Michael Sweet wrote: "The data to support the 97% number is overwhelming."
Though it is interesting to note how the result changes over time. For example, the OP gets 97% from a study of papers written 1991 to 2011. The separate study I linked covered November 2012 through December 2013 and found 99.9% agreement. On the other hand, if you go back to Arrhenius in 1896 then AGW was almost universally rejected.
It seems likely that there has been a fairly smooth progression of climate scientist views from near 100% rejection in 1896 to near 100% acceptance in 2013 as the evidence has piled up. Public understanding is another matter entirely, because too many consider the latest weather report valid evidence upon which to base their views.
-
Bob Loblaw at 01:21 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Vonnegut says: "I realise I wont get the answer im looking for here"
...reminds me of Doctor Who takling with the Tardis, in the episode "The Doctor's Wife":
The Doctor: You know, since we're talking with mouths—not really an opportunity that comes along very often—I just want to say, you know you have never been very reliable.
Idris: And you have?
The Doctor: You didn't always take me where I wanted to go.
Idris: No, but I always took you where you needed to go.
The Doctor: You did.
Although Vonnegut is accusing scientist of only wanting to accept information that backs up their theories, it seems pretty clear that Vonnegut is the one that has preconceived notions of what constitutes an acceptable answer.
-
michael sweet at 01:16 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
vonnegut,
The simple numbers you ask for are clearly specified in the OP. If you have no interest in learning why are you so angy about the answers you are given?
The OP states:
"As an independent test of the measured consensus, we also emailed over 8,500 authors and asked them to rate their own papers using our same categories. The most appropriate expert to rate the level of endorsement of a published paper is the author of the paper, after all. We received responses from 1,200 scientists who rated a total of over 2,100 papers. Unlike our team's ratings that only considered the summary of each paper presented in the abstract, the scientists considered the entire paper in the self-ratings."
1200 scientists gave self ratings. About 97% of the self ratings were supportative of AGW theory. Just because you are not interested in reading the data does not mean that everyone else does not read the OP.
The data to support the 97% number is overwhelming. Your complaining about this number indicates that you are not interested in the data and are only trying to score political points..
-
Vonnegut at 00:57 AM on 4 February 2014Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Just simple numbers is all I ask how many scientists were asked and how many said yes how many said no. 97% is a meaningless number if the truth isnt told. How many times is it misquoted as 97% of all scientists agree. It looks like its been dont to generate a headline, yes it did that but it still looks disingenuous.
Perhaps if you wanted the truth you would have been better to poll all scientists, you know all those who believe in gravity?
Prev 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788 Next
