Recent Comments

Prev  797  798  799  800  801  802  803  804  805  806  807  808  809  810  811  812  Next

Comments 40201 to 40250:

40201. lennartvdl at 19:55 PM on 5 December 2013
       Experts say the IPCC underestimated future sea level rise
       

       John Abraham writes:

       "According to the best case scenario (humans take very aggressive action to reduce greenhouse gases), the experts think sea level rise will likely be about 0.4–0.6 meters (1.3–2.0 feet) by 2100 and 0.6–1.0 meters (2.0–3.3 feet) by 2300. According to the more likely higher emission scenario, the results are 0.7–1.2 meters (2.3–3.9 feet) by 2100 and 2.0–3.0 meters (6.5–9.8 feet) by 2300."

       This is what these experts as a group think likely. But what do they think is possible? What could be the worst case?

       According to one of the authors, Stefan Rahmstorf, about half of these experts think there's a 5% chance that SLR by 2300 could be more than 4 meters in a worst-case scenario (whereas 3.8 meters seems to be about the worst-case according to IPCC AR5, chapter 13, figure 13.13).

       Four of this half think there's a 5% chance it could be more than 9 meters. Three of these four think it could be more than 10 meters. Two of these three think it could be more than 12 meters. And one of these two thinks it could be even more than 15 meters by 2300 (see Rahmstorf's inline response to my comment 9 at the RealClimate post).

       So should citizens and policy makers make decisions based on the likely range, or on the worst-case in the possible range?

40202. Dikran Marsupial at 19:03 PM on 5 December 2013
       CO2 measurements are suspect
       

       A good way to check on claims that have been made in journal papers is to use Google Scholar to identify papers that have cited the paper and see if any of them are critical or provide evidence that answers the claims made.  I this case, I found

       T. GüllükF. SlemrB. Stauffer, "Simultaneous measurements of CO2, CH4, and N2O in air extracted by sublimation from Antarctica ice cores: Confirmation of the data obtained using other extraction techniques", Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres (1984–2012)l Volume 103, Issue D13, pages 15971–15978, 20 July 1998

       A sublimation technique has been developed to extract air samples from polar ice cores for subsequent simultaneous measurement of several trace gases by frequency-modulated tunable diode laser absorption spectroscopy. This extraction and analysis technique is shown to be suitable as an extraction method for the determination of concentrations of the greenhouse gases CO2, CH4, and N2O in air samples of ∼1–5 cm3 recovered from ice samples of 10–50 g. Air samples from the Siple ice core have been analyzed covering the period between 1772 and 1973. In addition, a few samples from two different ice cores from Vostok station have been analyzed. Our results are in a good agreement with results obtained by other researchers using melting and crushing extraction techniques. This agreement indicates that processes connected with the formation of clathrates in ice under high pressure at greater depths and their destruction after drilling are not affecting the CO2, CH4, and N2O measurements significantly.

       [emphasis mine]
       

       Which appears to provide experimental evidence directly refuting one of Jaworowski's arguments (in addition to that provided by Etheridge).  Essentially the scientists that work on ice core data do know what they are doing and do their best to examine possible sources of bias or error and eliminate them, as these two papers demonstrate.

40203. Tom Curtis at 18:45 PM on 5 December 2013
       How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
       

       Dhogaza @48, what you wrote, verbatim was:

       "The AMS requirements were not as stringent in the past, as I indicated in my first comment. Watts is there because he's old enough to have escaped the need for a degree. He was a member long, long before he was an author of a relevent scientific publication."

       OK, where is your evidence that Watts was ever member of the AMS rather than an associate member?

       Where is your evidence, given that you have evidence of his full membership, that he retained full membership when associate membership was introduced?

       And, where is you evidence that Watts was a special case in either of the above - for lacking that, what was true of Watts could be true of any other non-degreeed member or associate member of the AMS from the same era?  You now claim that the assertions I attributed to you @45 where not yours.  No, they were merely direct implications of your assertions and the assumption that Watts was not a special case.  So unless you want to assert he was, stop evading your own claims, and defend them.  Or admit you were wrong.

40204. dhogaza at 16:10 PM on 5 December 2013
       How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
       

       Tom Curtis:

       "you support by claiming that associate memberships did not exist at the time A Watts became a member"

       I never said this.

       What I responded to was a comment by Licorj that stated:

       "Theoretically, the wheat[h]er forecasters should be the easiest kind of scientists, should expected to be convinced about AGW, by climate scientists."

       I responded by saying:

       "Most weather forecasters aren't scientists. While in modern times most have a undergraduate years university degree, very few have a graduate degree, and very few are practicing scientists."

       No reference to the paper.

       You then proceeded to attack me for things I never said, and unfortunately I rose to the bait and tried to defend those unsaid things.

       Stupid.

       Let's get down to the nitty-gritty:

       Do you believe that most of the weather forecasters we see on, say, TV, are practising scientists?

       Now, going forward, where is your evidence that the AMS purged meteorologists who had previously earned the "Seal of Approval" from their full membership rolls?

40205. Tom Curtis at 15:54 PM on 5 December 2013
       How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
       

       Having had a closer look at the data, I have serious doubts as to whether the articles conclusions are warranted by the data.  In particular, expertise is graded in the paper by a compound index.  First three indices are generated based on responses to three questions.  For the first index, respondents who publish primarilly on climate are given a grade of 2, those who publish primarilly on other areas are given a 1, while those who do not publish are given a 0.  For the second index, those whose "area of expertise" is climate are given a 1, with all others given a 0.  Finally, those with a PhD are given a 2, those with a Masters are given a 1, and all others are given a 0.  The final expertise index is the sum of the three individual indices.

       These indices produce some odd result.  To begin with, it shows those who publish on climate to be twice as expert, all else being equal, to those who publish in other areas.  So taken, the coefficient of determination (R^2) for experts in climate, atmosphere and other are, respectively, 0.885, 0.882, and 0.961.  These values strongly suggest that within groups, expertise in the form of publishing area explains far more of the variance than is explained by all factors examined in the paper, which is odd.  More importantly, if it is assumed that publication in another area represents 2/3rds the difference in expertise between those who publish on climate and those who do not, rather than on half, the coefficent of determinations rise to 0.976, 0.959, and 1 respectively.  Assuming that it represents just one third of the difference in expertise drops the coefficient of determination 0.74, 0.695 and 0.856 respectively.

       I am not arguing here for any particular scale of expertise.  Rather I am merely noting the influence an essentially arbitrary scaling of "expertise" has on the result.

       Going one step further, I created a two part composite index based on the proceedure used in the paper, excluding only educational standard as I do not have the relevant result.  The resulting composite index had a coefficient of determination of 0.955.  That by itself would appear to be a very strong result, suggesting that expertise is the dominant explanation of variance in the result.  Given that, and given that expertise was only the third strongest explanation of variance in the papers results, that suggests that adding in an index of educational standard confounded the result.  That is, it appears a large portion of meteorologists with PhDs, not being experts in climate, and not publishing on climate (and therefore having no particular professional knowledge on climate) but still having a rating of 3 on expertise; and rejecting anthropogenic cause may have concealed the fact that expertise was the dominant factor in determining opinions on climate change.

       Without additional information I cannot draw that strong a conclusion.  I would need to test the correlation of determination between acceptance of anthropogenic cause and the full expertise index to see if it does (as I conjecture) significantly reduce the coefficient of determination.  Further I would have to test all four factors against the reduced expertise index (or get somebody to do it for me).  However, this preliminary look is strongly suggestive, and the authors of the paper report no analysis to suggest the compound index of expertise has not confounded factors in a way that conceals the true influence of expertise.   

40206. A Change in the Weather at 15:04 PM on 5 December 2013
       2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #49A
       

       I suppose I must cough up the $57.00 to read the NAS report on abrupt climate change risks before blowing off steam here. But I can't fathom how flipping the solid white heat reflector that is the Arctic to liquid black heat absorber is not an extreme risk for sudden disequilibirum in atmospheric circulation patterns. I didn't see this risk addressed in the NYT article.

       The disappearance of the ice cap won't be merely a different situation. It will be an inverted situation. It will be the opposite of what now exists. The jet stream circulates the Northern Hemisphere in its historic track due largely to the temperature gradient between the pole and the lower latitudes. That gradient is literally degrading, and we're seeing some pronounced loopiness in its track, which destroyed the 2012 apple crop in Michigan and steered Sandy sharply west into NYC (two monsters scratching at the door). What will happen to that gradient when the ice cap is gone?

       The risk of massive agricultural failures over the span of just a few subsequent years is huge. With the jet stream ever more erratic, seasonal highs and lows that agriculture to occur--a very geographically specific enterprise--will fail to form in their historic patterns. It will rain where it shouldn't, when it shouldn't, in amounts it shouldn't, rather than where, when, and in the amounts that agriculture has depended on for hundreds if not thousands of years.

       And how will the disappearance of the ice cap not initiate a postive feedback loop of further warming, permafrost melt, CO2 and methane release, and further warming? Does this really take much imagination? I am very interested to know if the NAS report addresses this risk.

40207. A Change in the Weather at 13:52 PM on 5 December 2013
       2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #49A
       

       I suppose I must cough up the $57.00 to read the NAS report on abrupt climate change risks before blowing off steam here. But I can't fathom how flipping the solid white heat reflector that is the Arctic to liquid black heat absorber is not an extreme risk for sudden disequilibirum in atmospheric circulation patterns. I didn't see this risk addressed in the NYT article.

       The disappearance of the ice cap won't be merely a different situation. It will be an inverted situation. It will be the opposite of what now exists. The jet stream circulates the Northern Hemisphere in its historic track due largely to the temperature gradient between the pole and the lower latitudes. That gradient is literally degrading, and we're seeing some pronounced loopiness in its track, which destroyed the 2012 apple crop in Michigan and steered Sandy sharply west into NYC (two monsters scratching at the door). What will happen to that gradient when the ice cap is gone?

       The risk of massive agricultural failures over the span of just a few subsequent years is huge. With the jet stream ever more erratic, seasonal highs and lows that agriculture to occur--a very geographically specific enterprise--will fail to form in their historic patterns. It will rain where it shouldn't, when it shouldn't, in amounts it shouldn't, rather than where, when, and in the amounts that agriculture has depended on for hundreds if not thousands of years.

       And how will the disappearance of the ice cap not initiate a postive feedback loop of further warming, permafrost melt, CO2 and methane release, and further warming? Does this really take much imagination? I am very interested to know if the NAS report addresses this risk.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] You can either download a PDF of the entire NAS report and/or read the entire report for free by clicking here. 

40208. Tom Curtis at 12:09 PM on 5 December 2013
       How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
       

       Supplement to my post @45 - I must be thinking slowly this morning.  Anyway, I finally got around to looking at the actual summary data for the AMS survey, and find that 52% have PhDs, 28% have MS or MAs, 19% have BS or BAs, while less than 1% have lower level qualifications.  I am concerned that the methodology makes no distinction between an MS or an MA for determining expertise in climate science. 

40209. Tom Curtis at 11:38 AM on 5 December 2013
       How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
       

       dhogaza @39, I am trying to establish the basis for your claim @32 that there exist a significant number of full members of the AMS lacking even a relevant bachelors degree, which you support by claiming that associate memberships did not exist at the time A Watts became a member, and that at that time people became members without that degree, and retained their full membership once associate membership were introduced.  You have provided no documentary evidence of this claim, and nor can I find any.  I mention the AMS seal of approval in the of chance that of chance that your claim is based on the situation with regard to the seal of approval.

       Regardless of that, however, I have a better way of determining the likely proportion of people holding different credentials within the survey.  Specifically, in 2008, an extensive survey of AMS membership demographics was published.   It found that among full members and retired members only, in 2005, 46% had doctorates, 26% had masters degrees, 26% had bachelors degrees, while only 2% had less than the equivalent of a bachelors degree.  In the actual survey on gobal warming, 52% had a PhD so that we can presume the sample to by slightly better educated than that in the 2008 study.  It is fair to presume, therefore, that only about one quarter of respondents had a highest educational attainment of a bachelors degree, and only a very small number having not even a bachelors degree. 

40210. Rob Honeycutt at 09:22 AM on 5 December 2013
       CO2 measurements are suspect
       

       ajc...  Watch this small section of the Richard Alley lecture and he tells it like it is on this point.  Start at min 12:10.

40211. Kevin C at 08:43 AM on 5 December 2013
       Cowtan and Way (2013) is now open access
       

       Tony: Drop me an email and I can get you both of those.

       DSL: I'm working on monthly updates to the v1.0 hybrid data as we speak, which will go into the trend calculator straight away.

       However I'd rather finish the v2.0 calculation based on separate reconstruction of the land and ocean data before we start pushing the results out to other sites. We've done a proof of concept for the update, which shows a number of benefits over the method in the paper, but to do it properly requires the whole HadCRUT4 100 member ensemble which is computationally demanding. I hope we will have a version out for the new year, although the uncertainties might not be done by then.

40212. Dean at 08:19 AM on 5 December 2013
       Experts say the IPCC underestimated future sea level rise
       

       You would expect IPCC to give the average expert judgement. On the other hand a bit too conservative estimates are expected according to Brysse et al 2012. Perhaps I'm going out of topic, but just mentioning some other apparently "too conservative" assessments and perspectives in the latest report:

       - The climate sensitivity interval assessed only as 'likely' with the lower end at 1.5 despite very very little supporting the lucky case of <1.5.

       - The many places mentioning the 'hiatus' and 'hiatus period 1998–2012'. There is even an entire chapter called "Climate Models and the Hiatus in Global-Mean Surface Warming of the Past 15 Years". But there is no good scientific reason to pick a single period starting in an extreme El Nino like that.

       Quite disappointing that the authors couldn't fully keep the scientific integrity vs the media debate including a lot of "sceptic" propaganda. But on the other hand that was predicted by Lewandowsky. At the recent AGU Chapman conference he mentioned that psychological theory suggests that the scientists would be affected:

       "There are several known psychological and cognitive variables which suggest that denialist discourse should seep into the scientific community".

40213. CBDunkerson at 08:09 AM on 5 December 2013
       How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
       

       Poster wrote: "This influence of political ideology on the objective views of climate scientists should give some cause for pause."

       The flaw in your logic... the vast majority of AMS members are not climate scientists.

40214. scaddenp at 08:02 AM on 5 December 2013
       How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
       

       Poster, I would firstly agree that no individual scientists view on controversial topic will be completely objective. The practise of science itself is about recognizing that everyone has cognitive biases.

       However, I also think they are drawing too strong a conclusion from their data. Their measurement of expertise doesnt distinquish what a PhD was in, but more importantly, if you were worried about political bias influencing the practise of climate science, ie those doing active research (as evidenced by publishing) in climate science, then the papers results speak for themselves (Table 1).

       My comment on why political bias enters climate science still stands.

40215. Poster9662 at 07:11 AM on 5 December 2013
       How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
       

       Sorry for this.  Lines 435-437 in Post 41 should read ""While we found that higher expertise was associated with a greater likelihood of viewing global warming as real and harmful, this relationship was less strong than for political ideology and perceived consensus."

40216. Poster9662 at 07:06 AM on 5 December 2013
       How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
       

       Michael Sweet and Scaddenp.  With the greatest respect I am not certain that either of you have read the report of the AMS Survey.  If I am mistaken, my sincere apologies.  The point I have been trying to make (unsuccessfully it seems) is that the political idelogy of the scientists who are members of the AMS influences their attitude to climate change.  I'm not referring to anyone other than these scientists.  To clarify this it probably  is best to quote the report itself.  

       "While we found that higher expertise was associated with a greater likelihood of viewingas real and harmful, this relationship was less strong than for political ideology and perceived consensus_. (Lines 435-437).   "More than any other result of the study, this would be strong evidence against the idea that expert scientists' views on politically controversial topics can be completely objective". (Lines 439-441)

       This influence of political ideology on the objective views of climate scientists should give some cause for pause.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Two points: 

       1. Very few of the meteorologists who responded to the AMS are climate scientists.

       2. The body of climate change science has been and continues to be assembled by thousands of scientists from around the world.  For the overwhelming majority, the partisan politics of the US are totally irrelevant to their scientific endeavors.

       WARNING: Excessive repetition is prohibited by the SkS Comments Policy. Please read the policy and adhere to it.

       [JH] Upon further review, I withdraw the above. 

40217. scaddenp at 06:35 AM on 5 December 2013
       CO2 measurements are suspect
       

       It's hard to take ZJ seriously, but for detailed look at the ice core CO2 process and validation, see Etheridge 1996.

       and follow cites for more recent work. For a direct rebuttal, see here. The consilience of CO2 levels between ice cores from different location (eg Greenland, Antarctica) would be big hint that the method is fundamentally sound. Furthermore, the idea that AGW is based on icecore data is hopelessly wrong. ZJ would appear to be a classic case of a scientist "gone emeritus"

40218. scaddenp at 06:22 AM on 5 December 2013
       How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
       

       Poster, I think there are a number of processes at work the led to politicising of climate science. I dont think the subject was controversial at all until it became obvious that some action was needed. Proposed solutions included:

       • International treaties (“it’s a move to World Government”, “UN is restricting our freedoms”).
       • Carbon costing. (“we don’t want no stinking taxes”)
       • Moratoriums on some activities (eg building thermal power). (“Government restrictions on business freedom”).

       Ie. things that raised big red flags for some political ideologies. Rather than propose solutions that fitted their ideology, most found it is easier to deny a problem existed. Who wants to pay more for their energy, especially if you figure the cost from climate change wont be paid by you? Furthermore, restrictions on FF usage pose a substantial risk to shareholder value in FF companies so there is no shortage of funding for political opposition.

       Coupled with that, in many parts of the world, you have highly politicized media, and populations that choose to hear news from sources where is it framed to suit their ideological biases (left and right). If your only source of information on climate science was Fox news, then you would have a very incorrect understanding.

       Finally, once a stance becomes associated with an ideology, then tribal affiliations take over. There is plenty of misinformation sites to assure those troubled about truth that climate science is wrong.

40219. DSL at 06:15 AM on 5 December 2013
       CO2 measurements are suspect
       

       ajc, which of ZJ's claims would you like a response to?  Tamino responded to the "too smooth" concern here.

40220. wili at 06:15 AM on 5 December 2013
       Experts say the IPCC underestimated future sea level rise
       

       Great work. Abraham is the best. Has a similar study been done about top climatologists estimations of levels of CO2 and global temperatures? I have seen a few articles recently that suggest most climatologists think we are headed for at least 4 degrees C by the end of the century, but these weren't accompanied by specific polls, iirc. For example:

       http://www.climatecodered.org/2013/11/parts-of-australia-reaching-threshold.html

       "Mark Maslin, professor of climatology at University College in London,...said: 'We are already planning for a 4°C world because that is where we are heading. I do not know of any scientists who do not believe that...'"

        

40221. ajc at 05:38 AM on 5 December 2013
       CO2 measurements are suspect
       

       How can we be confident that the CO2 concentration measurements from the ice core samples, which may have been contaminated in some way, either historically through leakage or in the recent withdrawal process, gives a reading comprable to those from Mauna Loa? Has there been a good rebuttal to the work of Zbigniew Jaworowski in this area. I have not done exhaustive research in the area (really just debating amongst non-science friends), but one brought up this line of argument to discredit the top graph here on historical CO2 concentrations. In researching the issue of comparability and the reliability of the CO2 measurements, I found Jaworowski and few folks countering his arguments. I'm genuinely not trolling here, just interested in the topic.

40222. dhogaza at 04:31 AM on 5 December 2013
       How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
       

       "[JH] Please explain what you mean by "relevant scientific publication""

       Well, Tom Curtis used the term first.  In my response, I'm assuming he meant the paper (or papers?) which listed Watts as a co-author along with Pielke, Sr and a long laundry list of others.

       This, for instance:

       http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010JD015146/abstract

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Thanks for the clarification. 

40223. dhogaza at 04:27 AM on 5 December 2013
       How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
       

       "Further, can you show that members at that time that did not qualify for full membership under the new rules were allowed to retain full membership?"

       Hmmm, I see various endorsements such as the Seal (as you say, held by Watts), Certified Broadcast Meteorologist (the more modern endorsement requiring an undergrad degree), and a Certified Consulting Meteorologist (more stringent).

       But I see nothing in the membership requirements that indicates one must hold one of those endorsements to be a full member.

       And absolutely nothing to indicate that the move from the Seal of Approval to the CBM program would lead to those not chosing to become CBMs to lose full membership.

       What is it in the published criteria for membership that would lead you to believe this?

40224. John Russell at 03:55 AM on 5 December 2013
       Experts say the IPCC underestimated future sea level rise
       

       This study is also discussed at Carbonbrief.

40225. DSL at 02:58 AM on 5 December 2013
       Cowtan and Way (2013) is now open access
       

       Any chance of getting the GMST monthlies from Cowtan & Way 2013 into WoodforTrees?  I know we have the SkS calc, but I like to use WFT to avoid wading through a bunch of anti-SkS crap when the conditions include fake skeptics. 

40226. michael sweet at 02:46 AM on 5 December 2013
       How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
       

       Poster,

       Perhaps I misread your comment.

       The scientists who do the work studying AGW are not politically biased.  The general public has become biased in the last 10 years.  Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) is commonly quoted as saying that he was in favor of doing something about AGW until he heard what the possible cost was.  Scientists are not biased by potential costs, they study nature.  If the AMS found that their members are biased due to politics, that does not mean anything relative to the accuracy of scientific studies of AGW.  It means that the AMS members are not very well informed.  That is consistent with the fact that many of the AMS members are television performers who have little knowledge of AGW (Anthony Watts being a prime example).

40227. Poster9662 at 01:00 AM on 5 December 2013
       How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
       

       Michael Sweet  It is the finding of the AMS reported from their survey of their members that political ideology had a significant association with it's members views on global warming.  This is hardly a "denier's meme" but a statistically derived result from the survey data.  To suggest I have a political bias because I accurately report what the AMS said seems a rather odd comment.  The survey also found scientific consensus was the most significant association with its members views on global warming.  By your logic that must also be a denier's meme as it also is a findng from the survey.  Of course it is not but neither in this instance is the finding of the political ideology association.  Both are results from the data derived from the survey and not as you say "meme without supporting data" 

40228. PluviAL at 22:19 PM on 4 December 2013
       Attacks on scientific consensus on climate change mirror tactics of tobacco industry
       

       If the tabaco industry was sued for the damage they did with their product and mis-information, is there grounds for similar action against the fossil fuel industry?

       Is there any current actions in that direction?

40229. PluviAL at 21:45 PM on 4 December 2013
       How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
       

       What seems to be missing in both the article and the discussion here is the sociological aspect. Meteorologists are performers; they hear every day about how they did their act, the audience reacts and actors are keen to please. The other group they must please is their employer(s). (plural because they have to think about the next gig.) That corporation has very sharp input from its advertisers and corporate heads.

       In another article, I commented that meteorologists need to communicate understanding of climate change better. This article provides excellent information to understand the prescient error of my prior comment. Meteorologists are the problem in public misperception. Several people have commented with a similar error: “If you can’t convince these scientists…”. It seems our job is to watch the TV, got to plug it in, and call the station each time the weatherman makes wrong comments about climate change. They are sensitive to these comments.

       mers,

40230. Tony Noerpel at 21:23 PM on 4 December 2013
       Cowtan and Way (2013) is now open access
       

       Hi Kevin

       great work.  Do you have yearly anomalies to compare with NASA here  ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

       Is you data for figure S2 available? 

       Thank you

       Tony

40231. michael sweet at 20:53 PM on 4 December 2013
       How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
       

       Poster,

       You need to keep in mind that AGW only became politicized in the last 10 years or so.  Most of the established scientists, like Hansen, Schneider and Jones were studying AGW long before that.  There is no reason to suspect that the older AGW scientists were affected by ideology when they went into studing climate.  In addition, surveys of AGW scientists indicate that they are a varied group of individuals, as would be expected.  It is a denier meme that the scienitsts are biased, no data exists to show that.  This just means that the members of the AMS have listened to these denier memes, not that they are true.  You need to consider how biased you are, suggesting that this meme might be true without supporting data.

40232. Tom Curtis at 17:42 PM on 4 December 2013
       How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
       

       dhogaza @30, point taken.  I read your initial post too superficially.

       @32, I am aware that the AMS seal of approval, which A Watts has, and which does not require a bachelors degree has been superceded by a new AMS certification which requires a bachelors degree (at minimum).  I cannot, however, find any information about when the Associate member category was introduced, other than that it was prior to 2003 and (presumably) after 1922. Can you cite a source indicating the time at which associate memberships were introduced?  Further, can you show that members at that time that did not qualify for full membership under the new rules were allowed to retain full membership?  

40233. dhogaza at 15:14 PM on 4 December 2013
       How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
       

       Tom Curtis:

       "dhogaza @18, the survey was limited to full members, ie, it excluded associate and student members. Therefore all respondents to the survey either have a bachelors degree in meteorology, or equivalent academic knowledge; or have demonstrated "professional or scholarly expertise" in meteorology. That later category likely includes Anthony Watts based on his being an author of a relevent scientific publication."

       The AMS requirements were not as stringent in the past, as I indicated in my first comment.  Watts is there because he's old enough to have escaped the need for a degree.  He was a member long, long before he was an author of a relevent scientific publication.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Please explain what you mean by "relevant scientific publication."

40234. dhogaza at 15:11 PM on 4 December 2013
       How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
       

       Poster:

       " I am not aware of any other areas of science so strongly influenced by political ideology."

       Evolutionary biology.

       Note that the influence of political ideology mostly disappears among those who are actually versed in climate science research, according to this (and other) surveys.

       Just like evolutionary biology ...

40235. dhogaza at 15:09 PM on 4 December 2013
       How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
       

       Tom Curtis:

       "However, it is not true that most, or even a significant number of those surveyed lack scientific credentials on meteorology."

       I have an undergraduate degree in mathematics.  That does not make me a mathematician.

       If getting an undergraduate degree in meteorology makes one a "scientist", as "Licorj" might suggest, then obviously I picked the wrong degree.  I could've been a "physicist" by earning a BS in physics, etc etc.

       I don't really buy it, though.

       I do have mathematics credentials, though, due to my BS Mathematics.  That is not inconsistent with my not being a mathematician.  The vast majority of respondents to this survey will have "scientific credentials" in the same sense that I have mathematics credentials.  This does not make them scientists (Licorj's word) any more than my credentials make me a mathematician.

       On the other hand, if you want to declare me a mathematic, can I put that on my resume and quote you? :)

        

40236. Poster9662 at 14:41 PM on 4 December 2013
       How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
       

       What is a very disconcerning conclusion from this survey is the finding that  political ideology was the second strongest predictor of respondent's global warming views.  So why is global warming so influenced by political leanings?   I am not aware of any other  areas of science so strongly influenced by political ideology.  Surely this needs discussing as it seems  possible a climate scientist with a particular political view might conceivably and perhaps subconsciously, allow this view to influence his/her science.  I'm surprised that this aspect of the report has attracted so little attention here

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Climate science is not influenced by "Political (partisan) ideology." Rather, Political ideology is the filter through which many people view and interpret the science.

40237. Tom Curtis at 14:14 PM on 4 December 2013
       4 Hiroshima bombs per second: a widget to raise awareness about global warming
       

       I have been reveiwing my analysis @30, and have found that I made a crucial error.  It turns out that IKE integrates air density times wind speed squared over volume, not as I mistakenly claimed the kinetic energy over time.  The result of the integration is the kinetic energy of the hurricanes winds at a particular time rather than the total energy released by the hurricane.  It still considerably understates the energy of the hurricane as it does not include changes in internal energy, changes in gravitational potential energy, and the kinetic energy of waves (and no doubt other factors), but is a measure of the energy of part of the hurricane.  As such, its inclusion in the widget is not a mistake, contrary to my claims.  I still maintain there are prefferable indices for the widget.

40238. andreas_s at 13:14 PM on 4 December 2013
       Cowtan and Way (2013) is now open access
       

       great

40239. Tom Curtis at 12:33 PM on 4 December 2013
       How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
       

       Scarecrow57 @20:

       "The Study then states “93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming” Line 357. You took it upon yourself to twist the results and stick in the word Significantly. The Study does not say that. (You are losing credibility fast here)."

       The study reports that of those members of the AMS who (a) have a publication focus on climate, and (b) whose are of expertise is climate, 78% indicate that most of warming over the last 150 years is the result of human causes; and 10% indicate that human and natural causes are about equal.  If they are about equal, that certainly indicates the human causes are significant.

       Where you do have a point is with the further 5% who think that there is insufficient evidence to say  whether the causes are mostly human or natural, but who indicate that there is some human causation.  That indicates agnosticism about the level of either human or natural causation; and hence the proportions of both.  That agnosticism may allow the possibility that it is mostly human caused, but may also allow the possibility that human factors contributed as little as, for example, 5% to the warming.  I believe it is an over-interpretation by Dana to include this among those who think that humans are "a significant cause" of the warming.

       On the other hand, Dana was upfront about the figures, noting in brackets where he got them from, and thereby allowing you to form your own opinion.  In contrast, you deleted that explication, trying to portray Dana's claim as a misreporting of the data.  There is a difference between incorrect quotation or misrepresentation (which you are guilty of) and a mistaken interpretation (which is all Dana is guilty of).  The former results in a rapid loss of credibility indeed.  The later does not. 

40240. Tom Curtis at 12:15 PM on 4 December 2013
       How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
       

       dhogaza @18, the survey was limited to full members, ie, it excluded associate and student members.  Therefore all respondents to the survey either have a bachelors degree in meteorology, or equivalent academic knowledge; or have demonstrated "professional or scholarly expertise" in meteorology.  That later category likely includes Anthony Watts based on his being an author of a relevent scientific publication.  However, it is not true that most, or even a significant number of those surveyed lack scientific credentials on meteorology.

       What is true is that a large minority of those sampled (43.9%) conduct no research in any area, and that only a small minority (12.7%) conduct research on climate; or which an even smaller minority (6.8%) have climate as a career focus.  Acceptance of an anthropogenic cause for global warming is strongest in that smallest, most expert group, and declines with the fall of expertise.  That shows that it is something other than expert knowledge that is driving the low levels of acceptance of an anthropogenic cause to global warming among meteorologists. 

40241. Tom Curtis at 12:04 PM on 4 December 2013
       How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
       

       Scarecrow57 @21, all attempts to sample a population, including those which are fully randomized are "surveys".  The term you are looking for is a "convenience sample".  Convenience surveys do indeed have several disadvantages, including no gaurantee that they are representative of the population as a whole.  Specifically with regard to surveys on controversial issues, it is likely that those with a strong opinion will preferentially respond, thereby distorting the result.  It may also be the case that percieved views of the conductor of the survey may also bias results.  That does not mean that convenience samples are useless, only that generalizing from such samples to the whole population is risky.

       In this particular case, the questionaire was emailed to all members of the AMS (excluding associate and student members).  There was an effective 26.3% response rate.  It is possible, but unlikely that so large a response would be significantly biased with respect to the original population.  This is quite unlike the most prominent form of convenience survey in which watchers of a particular news program are asked to phone in (thereby accruing an expense) with response rates well below 10% of the viewership, and unlikely to be more than a fraction of a percent of the population they represent.  You may well have seen pronouncements that the later are scientifically useless (they are), but that is because of the multiple biases introduced by the sampling method plus the very small size of the sample.

       Finally, Naomi Oreskes sampled all of a specific portion of the literature.  Hers was not a convenience sample, and was not biased by the methodology.  

       The Cook et al survey was in two parts.  The first part was an exhaustive survey of the literature as reported by one of two major indexing organizations.  As such, it was not a convenience sample and is almost as close to exhaustive as you could obtain.  Richard Tol has compared that sample to that from another indexing organization, showing that there are differences in the composition of the samples.  What he does not mention, however, although it is very easy to work out, is that difference in composition would make less than 1% of a difference to the result.  Even then, he has no grounds to assume the second sample is more representative than that actually used.

       The second part of Cook et al was a convenience sample of all authors from the exhaustive survey with discoverable email adresses.  Because it was a convenience sample of the entire population, and because there was a significant response, the results are not likely to be far of those of a representative survey.  Never-the-less, caution should be applied in interpreting the results of that part of the survey.  

40242. tmac57 at 11:59 AM on 4 December 2013
       Cowtan and Way (2013) is now open access
       

       Congratulations Kevin and Robert,and thanks for letting us be a small part of your efforts to help further climate research.

40243. tmac57 at 11:41 AM on 4 December 2013
       How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
       

       If I were to take a guess at this question,I would posit that the experience of meteorologists facing the daunting challenges of greater than very short term weather predictions might incorrectly lead them to believe that it is impossible for other scientists to make any  decadal or longer projections of climate with anything approaching accuracy.

       This is of course the classis apples to oranges comparison that the title implies,but I suspect that there is an element of that bias going on.

40244. paulhtremblay at 11:13 AM on 4 December 2013
       How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
       

       Scarecrow: The Study then states “93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming” Line 357. You took it upon yourself to twist the results and stick in the word Significantly.

       Skeptical Science didn't put the word "Significantly" in quotes. Dana  thought "Significantly" summed up the study. I would agree. Here is the full quote from the study:

       93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change

       If the majorities or experts find human activity as the "primary cause of recent climate change," isn't that the same as saying humans have contributed to AGW "Significantly?"

40245. paulhtremblay at 11:07 AM on 4 December 2013
       How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
       

       Then using sampling theory the sample size would be determined and the respondents would be selected totally at random.

       I don't see how that is true. The only reason you choose a sample rather than look at the whole population is because of cost. Usually it costs too much too examine all the data (to call everyone in the US to find out the outcome of an election, for example). But if you can, you should always look at the complete population, or as much of the complete popuation as you can. Both Oreskes and Sketpical Science did so, so I cannot see how their studies are somehow invalidated.

       The only way your argument might have some truth to it is if you showed that the the scientists' views included in either study were somehow not representative. For example, it might be that scientists who view AGW as human-caused might be more likely to respond. But you don't show any such bias in either study. The fact that both studies appeared in major scientific publications seems to refute a bias collecting the responses.

40246. Don9000 at 10:58 AM on 4 December 2013
       How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
       

       From what I can see, the main take-away from this survey is that there are many people trained as meteorologists who are woefully ignorant about the state of the art in climate science. That's not exactly surprising here in the US, at least, given the fact that undergraduate meteorology programs rarely require much in the way of climate science coursework. A couple years ago, I informally checked out the requirements of several such programs in different universities spread across the country, and I didn't encounter a single one that required more than one course in climate science.

       Even then, I think it is fairly obvious that taking a single undergraduate course in climate science is far from enough to claim expertise in that field. If that weren't the case, given my five semesters as a metallurgical/materials engineering student, I would be an expert in everything from thermodynamics to modern physics, to calculus (I took a couple of those courses twice, so I would really be an expert if this metric did apply), and cultural anthropology (my one free elective choice my first year at college).

       A potentially more interesting question to ask is this: what were the beliefs of the professors teaching these undergraduate meteorology students on the subject of global warming/anthropomorphic climate change? If the professors came through the academic pipeline more than twenty or thirty years ago, I doubt they knew nearly as much as I do about the subject. Another is this: how has and/or is the subject of climate change been addressed in the core text books in meteorology programs. Stephen Jay Gould's interesting essay "The Case of the Creeping Fox Terrier Clone," reprinted in Bully for Brontosaurus, illustrates just how perverse textbook authors can be when it comes to rehashing old material.

       When it comes to this kind of thing, I suspect a modified version of the old saying, "You are what you eat," really does tend to apply: "You believe what you are taught." If, as I suspect, meteorologists up through the year 2000 or so were educated in a near total vacuum where climate change is concerned, I don't see any reason to be surprised that holders of degrees in the field tend to be skeptics. After all, the bulk of their intellectual focus was on understanding weather.

40247. Scarecrow57 at 10:07 AM on 4 December 2013
       How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
       

       One other thing here; This is a SURVEY. This is not valid research by any stretch of the imagination. To perform valid research the one would need to gather a list of all climate scientists. Then using sampling theory the sample size would be determined and the respondents would be selected totally at random. Anything that removes this randomness from the sample set invalidates the “study”. This lack of randomness is exactly what invalidates the Oreskes study as well as your own study.

       This AMS study is the closest thing we have gotten so far to an unbiased study.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Your personal opinions have little or no value in this venue. Please read the SKS Comments Policy and adhere to it.

40248. 4TimesAYear at 09:58 AM on 4 December 2013
       Attacks on scientific consensus on climate change mirror tactics of tobacco industry
       

       There is no such thing as a "global" temperature. Think about it. Really. They are working with an "average" that won't melt ice anywhere; only real temps melt ice. Locally. 100 anywhere in the U.S. will not melt ice in Antarctica where they would be experiencing extreme cold temps that accompany it (think up to 128 degrees below zero)

       You have to completely overlook larger forces like the output of the sun, the tilt of the planet, and alternating seasons - how the planet works - in order to blame climate change on our miniscule contribution to the overall amount of CO2. It is most unfortunate that the IPCC did just exactly that with their research - the focus was solely on man-made CO2.

       By the way, you can't tell anything about reality with an average temperature. If I told you the average temp for a given day was 70 degrees, you could not tell me what the high or low was. Take a little time to digest that. There is no standard for computing average temps. No matter, because an average temp is not a temperature. It cannot melt ice anywhere.

       We have world leaders who have suckered us into believing that there's a single "global" temperature and thrown good money after bad on something we don't and can't control. They have the cart before the horse. We don't control climate; it controls us. The climate determines whether or not you turn your furnace or a/c on, or whether you crank up your snow blower to get rid of what's accumulated in your driveway or whether you start your mower.

       Moderator Response:

       [JH] Your personal opinions have little or no value in this venue. Please read the SKS Comments Policy and adhere to it.

40249. Scarecrow57 at 09:52 AM on 4 December 2013
       How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
       

       John, You have to help me out here. I read this study, then your article. You make this statement:

       “…but only 13 percent of survey participants described climate as their field of expertise. Among those respondents with climate expertise who have published their climate research, this survey found that 93 percent agreed that humans have contributed significantly to global warming over the past 150 years”
       Now my first issue is you seem to discount people who identified as Meteorology/Atmospheric Science (66%) as if they know nothing about this topic nor have they studied it. If you want to be taken seriously you must admit that people in Meteorology/Atmospheric Science are far more versed in the topic than geologist
       http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1
       The Study then states “93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming” Line 357. You took it upon yourself to twist the results and stick in the word Significantly. The Study does not say that. (You are losing credibility fast here).

       Then we have the reasons for the Skepticism.
       406 We found that perceived scientific consensus was the factor most strongly associated with AMS members’ views about global warming. This suggests that scientists’ thinking on scientific topics may be subject to the same kinds of social normative influences that affect the general public. Rather than rationally weighing the evidence and deciding for themselves, as would be expected under more traditional ideas of scientific judgment, scientists may also use the views of a relevant peer group as a social cue for forming their own views.
       So what we have is a situation where these scientists are agreeing with the “consensus” just to fit in. Which indicates that if they take the time to look at the data and the science they will likely not come up with the consensus opinion.

       The bottom line here is that the 97% consensus is highly unlikely amongst those who study the climate. But hey, let us not forget; The consensus was the Wright Brothers would never fly and Robert Goddard would never build a liquid propelled rocket to get us to the moon. Fortunately in Science, the consensus means nothing.

40250. Licorj at 09:33 AM on 4 December 2013
       How do meteorologists fit into the 97% global warming consensus?
       

       dhogaza - I was assuming that the AMS is scientific association. Of course, all of their associated are scientists. There are not specific numbers about older weather forecasters(high school) repondents. I can not realize how manny they are.

Prev  797  798  799  800  801  802  803  804  805  806  807  808  809  810  811  812  Next