Arguments
Recent Comments
Prev 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 Next
Comments 45401 to 45450:
-
jyyh at 15:04 PM on 19 May 20132013 SkS News Bulletin #12: The Consensus Project
please also delete my response to the fretsliders second post, he admitted getting a good response that I didn't see before posting that and delete also this one...
-
Longhornmaniac8 at 14:48 PM on 19 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Tom Curtis @ 131,
Thanks for the reply. I see what you're doing there, used it as inspiration to come up with the following values:
Assuming (as you mentioned) there was a false positive on 169 of the abstracts, this means that 622 (791-169) of the papers were listed as endorsing the consensus in both the abstract and self reviews.
This provides us with 1342, the total number of self-reviews endorsing the consensus (622+[.538*1339]).
Using the same assumptions you made, 27 of the papers identified as neutral in the abstracts were self-identified as rejecting the consensus (although this assumes as well that there were no abstracts identified as rejecting the consensus that were self-identified as no position). 27/1339=2.02%.
This leaves us with the remainder of 592, which were identified as netural in both the abstracts and self-reviews. 592/1339=44.2%.
So:
53.8% of No Position abstracts self-review as endorsing the consensus;
44.2% of No Position abstracts self-review as No Position;
2.02% of No Position abstracts self-review as rejecting the consensus.We can use these numbers to slightly adjust the abstract totals to provide a more comprehensive analysis.
37.2% (4447 [3896+720-169 we know were misidentified in the abstract]) were identified as endorsing the consensus in either the abstract review or self-review.
61.6% (7352 [7930-747+169]) were identified as No Position in either the abstract review or the self-review.
1.2% (145 [78+40+27]) were identified as either rejecting the consensus or uncertain in either the abstract review or self-review.Of those papers having a position, 96.8% were identified by either the abstract review or self-review as endorsing the consensus, roughly the same as the numbers used by the authors, but a fun side track nonetheless!
Cheers!
-
Joshuas193 at 14:47 PM on 19 May 20132013 SkS News Bulletin #12: The Consensus Project
hi everyone. I'm new here. I have some questions.
Since it appears that pretty much everyone agrees about AGW. We need to start working on some solutions.
1. What/who are the largest contributors of greenhouse gasses? I think i saw that China now puts out nearly twice what the US does.
2 What can be done to lessen or stop this. Are any of the major polluters doing anything to stop ?
3 Are there current technologies that can be implemented now to reduce the greenhouse gas levels. Is it a funding issue or is the tech not there yet?
Anything you can answer/or links you can provide would be appreciated.
-
Tom Curtis at 11:27 AM on 19 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Over at Lucia's Blackboard there is a largely irrational discussion of the paper, but Lucia raises one interesting point. Many of the papers implicitly accepting that >50% of late twentieth century warming is due to anthropogenic causes are papers looking at the consequences of that warming. Contrary to Lucia's assumption, most (65.45%) such papers ended up being classified as neutral, but never-the-less her idea of first classifying papers by the IPCC Working Group to which they belonged, and only classifying WG1 papers by level of support for the concensus. In her opinion, only WG1 papers are relevant to the issue.
Fortunately, the searchable database subclassifies papers as Impacts (equivalent to WG2), Mitigation (equivalent to WG3), and Methods and Paleoclimate (equivalent to WG1). Using that feature it is simple to determine that 92.94% of "WG1" papers that state a position affirm that anthropogenic forcings are responsible for >50% of recent warming; while only 7.06% deny it. So, even using Lucia's classification it is clear a consensus exists.
The problem is, I believe Lucia's classification to biased. She motivates it by talking about acceptance of AGW by biologists, and asking just how relevant that is to assessing the consensus. She ignores the fact that many "impacts" and "mitigation" papers look at the effects of global warming on the hydrological cycle, or frequency of storm events, etc. Assessing these issues requires a large overlap of skills with those required to assess the direct effect of CO2 on temperature (and are often done by the same people). Lucia's classification merely excludes a large number of papers that are relevant, and in a maner which biases the result.
Even biological impact papers are arguably relevant to the concensus, in that the biologists must at least make themselves familiar with the detailed predictions to write such papers. However, even accepting Lucia's point on this detailed classification, she has not shown that excluding them will have a significant impact on the survey results.
-
Roger D at 11:00 AM on 19 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
It seems in some opinion pieces that deny the consensus (and at the same time propose that consensus in science is not important) there is a curious inability to understand the basis of the 97%. For example in: http://tucsoncitizen.com/wryheat/2013/05/18/cooking-consensus-on-climate-change/
In which the author writes:
"The actual findings of the survey, in Cook’s own words: “We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.” So how do you get a 97% consensus out of that?"
Somehow, even though the opinion piece itself expicitly includes the qualifying statement that the 97% figure is for papers addressing the cause of global warming (i.e. 33.6% of all papers surveyed), these "skeptics" are still confused. Hard to believe that something so basic can stump them.
-
Tom Curtis at 09:50 AM on 19 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Longhornmaniac8 @129, relevant information is in Table 5. Assuming that no paper rated as endorsing AGW based on the abstract was rated by its authors as rejecting AGW (and vice versa), from that table it can be seen that, of papers rated as having no position, or being undecided on AGW and which were self rated, 551 (41.25) where rated as self rated as affirming AGW, 761 (56.8%) were self rated as neutral or having no position, and 27 (2%) were self rated as rejecting AGW.
The discrepancy is no doubt because some papers rated from the abstract as affirming AGW were self rated as neutral. In fact, approximately 169 (21.4% of affirmation rated papers) must have been rated as affirming AGW by the SkS team, but self rated as neutral. Even though the survey generated some false positives, the ratio of false positives to false negatives is 0.4, indicating a strong conservative bias in the rating method.
Looking at a total comparison of abstract rated to all self rated papers, it is evident that the SkS rating team showed two distinct biases (in aggregate). There was a very strong bias towards rating papers as neutral which applied across the board. There was a weaker bias to rate rejection papers as neutral shown by the larger self rated/abstract rated rejection papers (3.25) than for affirmation papers (1.7).
The former is discussed in the paper, and is largely attributed to the reduced information in the paper, but I am inclined to think is in significant part due to too conservative a methodology. The later is not discussed. Some residual personal bias cannot be entirely excluded, but it is more likely (IMO) to be due to a tendency among rejection papers to hide that rejection deep in the paper in a few lines that are not, in fact supported by the rest of the analysis (as for example, in McLean et al, 2009).
-
Alexandre at 09:19 AM on 19 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
My German is not as good as it used to be, but this link herrhund posted looks a lot like statements from a Brazilian 'skeptic' meteorologist (Luiz Carlos Molion): vague claims, supported by vague inductive reasoning. In the German case, some visual correlation between sun spot activity and temperature (not always global). In the Brazilian case, visual correlation between PDO phases and global temps. No quantification of effects, no error bars, no statistical analyses.
To those who want desperately to find some article with graphs and figures saying they are right, that's enough. If you don't have science, an article like that is as good as it gets...
-
John Hartz at 08:07 AM on 19 May 20132013 SkS News Bulletin #12: The Consensus Project
miffedmax:
No surprise there given how Deniersville is merely an echo-cahmber, full of sound and fury, and signifying virtually nothing.
-
Longhornmaniac8 at 07:32 AM on 19 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Great work, SkS team!
One complaint I have (or perhaps just missed) is a relative lack of discussion of the No Position papers and their self-ratings.
You mentioned at the end of page 4:
"Among self-rated papers not expressing a position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as endorsing the consensus."What about the other 46.2%? Needless to say, it would somewhat undermine your conclusion if of the No Position papers that were self-reviewed, the entire remainder rejected the consensus. Now, I'm 99.9% sure that wasn't the case, but unless I missed it, I don't see any further discussion of the self-reviews of the No Position papers.
Could an author perhaps provide some additional insight to go along with that 53.8% figure? Of the remainder, what percentage self-identified as "rejecting" the consensus, and what percentage self-identified as "no position."
-
gws at 06:14 AM on 19 May 20132013 SkS News Bulletin #12: The Consensus Project
The Financial Times link seems already behind a paywall, at least when accessed from here (Norway)
-
miffedmax at 05:36 AM on 19 May 20132013 SkS News Bulletin #12: The Consensus Project
I haven't done a thorough search, but it sure seems a lot of the denier blogs closed their comment sections immediately after challenging the 97% claim on pretty much the same grounds as fretslider.
-
dana1981 at 05:00 AM on 19 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Note that I tweaked the first sentence a bit to add some precision.
-
DSL at 03:42 AM on 19 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
herrhund: "Why are the CERN physicists focusing on cosmic rays when it is correct what Jim Eager said about that there are no theories supported by the full body of evidence?"
Herrhund, the cosmic ray theory is not a comprehensive theory of climate change. It is not an alternative to the theory of anthropogenic global warming. If Svensmark turned out to be right about cloud seeding, CO2 would not suddenly stop absorbing/emitting radiation at various pressure-broadened bands in the thermal infrared range. You also fail to understand what's working against Svensmark. That, in fact, strongly suggests that you're not concerned with scientific progress but rather finding anything (no matter how collectively incoherent) that supports your current understanding of the world.
-
DSL at 03:34 AM on 19 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Otiose: "It's very possible in a decade or two science historians will cite this paper as an example during the period in question measuring the degree to which politization was successful in defending a parituclar view or set of views in the climate field and not a measure of the validity of the science."
Yes, Otiose, it is possible. Now, tell me how probable it is, and give me the evidence upon which you base your answer. -
John Hartz at 02:45 AM on 19 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
The fact that two-thirds of the 12,000 papers reviewed did not explcitly mention endorse "climate change" or "global warming" completely undercuts the denier meme that scientists have adopted pro-AGW positions in order to feed at an imaginary grant trough.
-
MA Rodger at 01:40 AM on 19 May 2013The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years? Part 2.
With my memories of the heavy-going I encountered discussing the more straightforward issues raised in part 1 of this post, this second part would appear a nightmare.
One of the areas I consider worthy of discussion is the reconstruction of the past AMO. Tom Curtis has already addressed some aspects of this up-thread.
The existence of an AMO prior to the industrial age would give much credence to the Tung & Zhou 2013 thesis. But I find the offered analysis, the statistical significance identified between CET & Mann et al 1998 RPC#5 data, to be less than convincing. The wavelet analysis on CET will yield a 50-80 year signal of some sort, just as the Mann et al filtering will yield a 50-90 year signal. And as there are such signals existing in synchronisation in both the AMO & the CET for the last 130 years, it would take very little for them to stay in synchrony for a further 200 years into the past. So why is this 50-80 year cycle in CET more than just a form of cherry-picking?
Mann et al 1998 is not the only extended AMO reconstruction. Gray et al 2004 present an AMO reconstruction 1567-1990 which certainly looks more convincing that Mann et al 1998 when compared to Enfield et al 2001. Gray et al 2004 was noted within Tung & Chou 2013 but not seriously considered for analysis. And Gray et al 2004 shows nothing convincing by way of a periodic AMO that could be resulting from natural variation.
For illustration, I have plotted the Enfield, Mann & Gray AMO series here.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 01:36 AM on 19 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Say we wanted to introduce a new brand of cat food, "Vibrizzae", and for our advertising campaign, we conducted a survey to find out whether cats preferred our catfood over that of our competitors. So we found twenty households with cats, and asked their owners to put out a bowl of Vibrizzae and a bowl of MouseChunkz for each cat at noon and then return an hour later to see which had been eaten. Eight cats were found to have eaten the Vibrizzae, two had eaten the MouseChunkz and 10 had not touched either (perhaps they were having a nap, or had gone outside hunting, or just weren't hungry). So how could we present our results? The cats that didn't eat either catfood don't really tell us anything about the cat's food preferences, so the obvious thing to analyse the food preferences of the cats that actually ate some of the catfood. We could then reasonably claim "eight out of ten owners, that expressed a preference, said their cats preferred Vibrizzae"; sound familiar?
Now the Vibrizzae Corporation could have said that "40% of owners said their cats preferred Vibrizzae", but that is clearly only a lower bound on the proportion of cats that preferred Vibrizzae as it implicitly assumes that the 50% of cats that didn't eat anything would have eaten MouseChunkz had they eaten anything. Now if you were the CEO of MouseChunkz inc. I can see why you would argue that Vibrizzae should choose the latter advertising slogan, but would that have been fair or reasonable? No, of course not, it would clearly be a daft request, and the CEO of the Vibrizzae Corporation would laugh his arse off if the CEO of MouseChunkz inc had made any request of the sort.
In case anybody has missed the analogy, the skeptics that are claiming that there is not a 97% concensus are making the same argument as the CEO of MouseChunkz inc. and their argument is about as sensible. "In our survey 97 out of 100 papers who expressed a preference, said their scientists preferred anthropogenic climate change" is essentially what the survey says.
Of course, like all analogies, you can almost guarantee that someone will extend it beyond reason to avoid the basic point being made, but at the very least it establishes a precedent for the calculation used. ;o)
-
Otiose at 00:58 AM on 19 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
It's very possible in a decade or two science historians will cite this paper as an example during the period in question measuring the degree to which politization was successful in defending a parituclar view or set of views in the climate field and not a measure of the validity of the science.
Moderator Response:[DB] Please note that evidenceless posturing adds only noise to this discussion. Comments containing only noise will be removed.
-
KR at 00:54 AM on 19 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
herrhund - "What I am trying to say here is, that throwing around with headlines like '97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature' is not accurate since they are missing all literature in other languages than English, as well as all research papers which are not using the exact key words."
Indeed, some skeptic papers were missed by those by criteria. But for those same reasons, so were many papers supporting the consensus. This is a sampling procedure, looking at a representative subpopulation and extrapolating to the whole, with small uncertainties due to sample size and how representative a slice of the population was examined.
12,000 papers is a huge sample - political studies with +/-3% accuracy are commonly done with <1000 samples. And I would opine that 'global warming' and 'global climate change' will produce a quite representative slice.
This is a percentage study of a population to measure consensus - and given the data, it's missed some 44 consensus papers for every single skeptic paper not collected by the search criteria. Whether or not it collected your favorite (individual) paper(s) is irrelevant; your argument is invalid.
-
Tom Curtis at 00:26 AM on 19 May 2013Measure the climate consensus yourself with our Interactive Rating System
Kevin C @12, well picked. The "missing" paper from an "e" search turns out to be:
Agricultural Impacts Of Global Warming - Discussion
Authors: Innes, R; Kane, S (1995)
Journal: American Journal Of Agricultural Economics
Category: No Abstract
Endorsement Level: 4. No Position -
Dikran Marsupial at 00:23 AM on 19 May 20132013 SkS News Bulletin #12: The Consensus Project
I have also deleted my responses to fretsliders deleted posts. If fretslider wishes to discuss the issue in a less argumentative manner, I would be happy to start again from a clean slate.
Moderator Response:[JH] Thank you.
-
Kevin C at 00:14 AM on 19 May 2013Measure the climate consensus yourself with our Interactive Rating System
I can't imagine an abstract with no e's, unless someone was having a bet. A paper with no abstract and no e's in the title might be the case.
-
John Hartz at 00:11 AM on 19 May 20132013 SkS News Bulletin #12: The Consensus Project
fretslider:
Many of your recent posts are in violation of the following part of the SkS Comments Policy. As such, they have been deleted.
Comments should avoid excessive repetition. Discussions which circle back on themselves and involve endless repetition of points already discussed do not help clarify relevant points. They are merely tiresome to participants and a barrier to readers. If moderators believe you are being excessively repetitive, they will advise you as such, and any further repetition will be treated as being off topic.
-
Tom Curtis at 23:16 PM on 18 May 2013Measure the climate consensus yourself with our Interactive Rating System
JosHaq @10, not knowing how to search for wildcards, I merely searched for "e" with essentially the same results (12279 total abstracts). The difference between that and the 12,465 papers recovered by the ISI search according to the paper would indeed be the 186 non-peer reviewed papers. (Or at least that seems very likely.) I have no explanation for the difference between the wildcard search and my "e" search (unless there is an abstract with no "e"s), nor why the difference in the total papers between search engine and paper.
-
Tom Curtis at 22:58 PM on 18 May 20132013 SkS News Bulletin #12: The Consensus Project
fretslider @8:
To believe means "to accept something as true". So according to you, athiests accept nothing as true. (I wonder if you accept it as true that atheists accept nothing as true? Or was that merely a convenient lie that you did not believe.) Anyway, however much that idiocy may be true of you, it is not true of atheists in general - so don't slander us with your ill concieved misunderstandings.
-
Tom Curtis at 22:51 PM on 18 May 20132013 SkS News Bulletin #12: The Consensus Project
fretslider, you are not being imaginative enough. Consider the paper, "First evidence of Late Carnian radiolarians from the Izmir–Ankara suture complex, central Sakarya, Turkey: implications for the opening age of the Izmir–Ankara branch of Neo-Tethys". It neither directly nor indirectly affirms that humans are causing climate change, and wasn't even included in the survey. Against the backdrop of all scientific publications, papers actually discussing the issue of whether humans have caused global warming are distinctly less than 1%; and hence the 97% of papers discussing the issue who affirm that humans are in fact causing global warming are also less than one percent. There is no limit to how much you can pad the statistics to avoid an uncomfortable truth. You can include newspaper articles as well. Or add in right wing think tank press releases. But no matter how you pad and how you evade, it will still be true that:
97% of scientific papers that discuss the issue affirm that global warming is caused by humans.
The evident desperation of deniers to conceal that fact shows just how strongly they rely on subterfuge to make their case. -
JosHagelaars at 22:50 PM on 18 May 2013Measure the climate consensus yourself with our Interactive Rating System
@Tom Curtis #9, the total number of papers in the search option is 12280 (enter SQL wildcard % at 'Search Term') and before I start a search it says that 12,464 papers are present. So, you are probably right that (almost) all the papers have been retained in the database. The difference between the two numbers is 184, almost the same as the 186 you mention. A coincidence?
-
jyyh at 22:37 PM on 18 May 20132013 SkS News Bulletin #12: The Consensus Project
fretslider - it seems you're the sort who thinks if one forgets gravity one can fly. Thus, you might also believe the rocks have a mind which is constantly thinking of gravity. This is an interesting belief system, but please talk about this somewhere else, do you know a forum for pantheism which would be in my opinion a more proper place to discuss your beliefs about rocks whichi have not stated anything to you unless you hear them speak? (possible ad hom - delete if required)
-
Tom Curtis at 22:34 PM on 18 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
herrhund, two can play that game.
"Sensitivity of a global climate model to an increase of CO2 concentration in the atmosphere" by Manabe and Stouffer (1980) was not included because it was published too early for the survey, even though it clearly affirms anthropogenic global warming (IMO).
"Thermohaline Circulation, the Achilles Heel of Our Climate System: Will Man-Made CO2 Upset the Current Balance?" by Broecker (1997) was also excluded due to lacking the correct search terms although it also affirms AGW.
By its nature, not survey of the contents of scientific papers can be expected to be exhaustive; but any large survey is likely to be representative unless it uses biased search terms. This survey did not.
Of course, you can disprove my assumption that the survey was not biased by its search terms by conducting several different surveys of comparable size using distinct (and independent) search terms; or by one very large survey using a random selection of articles from the entire scientific corpus. But just identifying single papers that were not included proves nothing. For all you know, for each "skeptical" paper not included, there are 100 affirming papers that were not included and of which you are unaware.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 22:18 PM on 18 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
herrhund, yes, please do research, but bear in mind that it is generally best to do the research before posting.
Asking whether the database contains all debunkings is yet another attempt at rhetorical evasion on your part. It is irrelevant to the purpose of a study whether the paper is a debunking or not, so there is no need for me to check. The point was that there are plenty of non-skeptic papers that are not included due to the choice of keywords as well, that you were not taking into account. Pointing out the debunking papers was just an easy way of demonstrating that this is the case.
-
Tom Curtis at 22:07 PM on 18 May 2013Measure the climate consensus yourself with our Interactive Rating System
JosHag @8, the total number of endorsement papers on the database exceeds the numbers mentioned in the paper as well. Combined there is an excess of 335 papers. Interestingly in the consensus project paper, it says:
"The ISI search generated 12 465 papers. Eliminating papers that were not peer-reviewed (186), not climate-related (288) or without an abstract (47) reduced the analysis to 11 944 papers written by 29 083 authors and published in 1980 journals."
There were a total of 335 "not climate-related" and "no abstract" papers, suggesting these have been retained in the data base we are searching.
-
herrhund at 22:01 PM on 18 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Well, okay I will leave - doing some research though.
I don't know if you notices, English is not my first language so yes indeed, sometimes I oversee text which is not written in my mother language for some reason.
However, it does not change the facts I pointed out. And you did not answer my question since you expected me to check my sources too, I thought you checked yours in case some of them were debunked. -
fretslider at 21:59 PM on 18 May 20132013 SkS News Bulletin #12: The Consensus Project
97% sounds very impressive.
Yet why did the original press release say: "From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain."
How did you get from 32.6% to 97%
Moderator Response:[Dikran Marsupial] This is explained in detail in a previous post here.
-
Dikran Marsupial at 21:50 PM on 18 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
herrhund, stop playing games, I was merely pointing out your lack of self skepticism. The debunkings I mentioned were clearly listed on the web page that you yourself provided, but you failed to mention them. This means that either you saw them and chose not to mention them (which would be dishonest) or that you stopped looking when you found the evidence that supported your argument and didn't bother to check it out (which would suggest that it is you that is biased). Being charitable, I shall assume it is the latter.
-
jyyh at 21:43 PM on 18 May 20132013 SkS News Bulletin #12: The Consensus Project
Congratulations, it was nice being a part of the initial information gathering phase. Very clever of you to make it a sort of game among the site. :-). I never imagined seeking contact info from thailand in thai language, contact info of female scientists who have published only by their maiden name, or trying to find contact info from indian (or US) nuclear facility, let alone among the russian academics. I will probably remember the game long afterwards. Did you ever find out which T.Hong (or what the name was in the chinese universities) made which paper??
-
herrhund at 21:41 PM on 18 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Did you check all papers which count to the 32% with position on AGW if they got debunked somehow?
-
Dikran Marsupial at 21:38 PM on 18 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Herrhund, your argument is incorrect, unless you have some reason to suggest that English speaking scientists are more biased in favour of AGW than against. You have provided precisely zero evidence to support that contention. Similarly the exact choice of keyword is irrelevant unless you can show that the particular keywords used were biased towards AGW. It is not feasible to surver every single paper ever published, so we have to have some method of generating a representative sample. Pointing out skeptic papers that were missed is not evidence of bias, especially if your examples includes papers that were debunked in the peer reviewed litterature and the debunkings are not in the database either!
-
Dikran Marsupial at 21:34 PM on 18 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
herrhund, there are also many papers not included in the project beacuse of missing keywords that do at least implicitly supprt AGW, I know this because I am one of the authors of one such paper! Pointing out skeptic papers that were not included does not establish there was a bias unless you can show that it disproportionately favours mainstream over skeptic papers. So please stop disrupting the discussion until you can do so.
Note that in the particular case of the Svensmark and Friis-Christensen paper, there is clearly no bias as the database doesn't contain the article by Gierens and Ponater that debunks Svensmark and Friis-Christensen either. Or the one by Jorgenson and Hansen. Funny you didn't mention that (it isn't difficult to check whether comments papers are published pointing out the flaws in existing papers).
-
herrhund at 21:31 PM on 18 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
What I am trying to say here is, that throwing around with headlines like '97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature' is not accurate since they are missing all literature in other languages than English, as well as all research papers which are not using the exact key words. And I can bring up tones of research papers like that - all peer reviewed.
Fine, there is a lot of evidence that the climate change is driven by humans - there is also a lot of evidence that support other hypothesis and theories. There is also something like False consensus effect. existing. -
herrhund at 21:23 PM on 18 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Another study that is not included in the consensus project because of missing key words in the abstract:
'Variation of cosmic ray flux and global cloud coverage—a missing link in solar-climate relationships'(Henrik Svensmark, Eigil Friis-Christensen
Solar-Terrestrial Physics Division, Danish Meteorological Institute, Lyngbyvej 100, DK-2100; published 1997) -
Dikran Marsupial at 21:20 PM on 18 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
herrhund, your evasion is transparent. You have made it abundently clear that you are unwilling to discuss the information the CLOUD project has published, which is a fairly good indication that either you know it doesn't really support your argument or that you don't actually know what it says and are just playing rhetorical games to avoid the fact that those who reject the existence of AGW are only a tiny minority within the scientific community - which is the topic of the discussion.
The CLOUD people were making the same kinds of noises to the general public before the last publication, but the science itself turned out to be a damp squib. I wish they were right, it would be great news, but I am rational enough to know that is highly likely to be wishfull thinking.
-
herrhund at 21:04 PM on 18 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Dikran,
the last publication from the cloud project is from august 2011
http://cloud.web.cern.ch/cloud/People/Publications.html
If you would understand German, the interview link I posted is from may 10th with the leading researcher of the cloud project. He is saying that they are going to release new research results, LATER this year - and it is going to be interesting. -
Dikran Marsupial at 20:29 PM on 18 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
herrhund the CLOUD project has published the results of some of their work already, so there is no problem in discussing it. The fact is that it doesn't support your argument and that you simply don't want to discuss it, that is not the same as not being able to discuss it.
I suspect that there are very few following the discussion that would fall for such transparent evasion as introducing an item to support your argument and then saying we can't discuss it because it hasn't been publsihed yet!
-
herrhund at 20:15 PM on 18 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Well, I think nobody can talk about the cloud project in detail since the results are not released yet - I read an interview with the research team and at the moment the results are being checked and will be presented as soon as they are excepted.
http://science.orf.at/stories/1717291/ -
Dikran Marsupial at 19:33 PM on 18 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
herrhund - the CLOUD project at CERN is a bad example for your argument, there results are interesting, but don't actually support a strong link between cosmic rays and climate. This was something that was pretty well known already, but it does show that governments are happy to fund climate skeptic scientists if the quality of the proposed experiments was high (which AFAICS they were - the results provided so far have been interesting, but not for the reasons the skeptics hoped).
As for the paper in German, I suspect the reason it wasn't included is that it clearly isn't a journal paper. The fact it was published in January of this year is another good reason.
-
herrhund at 19:20 PM on 18 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Another example of a research paper, that could not find a way in this study because it is German.
http://wkserv.met.fu-berlin.de/Beilagen/2013/SO%2001-13%20Klimawandel%20Europa.pdf
This paper shows for example a significant correlation between the middle temperature in Europe and the number of sunspots since 1672. -
herrhund at 19:13 PM on 18 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
Why are the CERN physicists focusing on cosmic rays when it is correct what Jim Eager said about that there are no theories supported by the full body of evidence?
The cloud experiment is going to release their research results this year, but here is some information for now:
http://home.web.cern.ch/about/experiments/cloud -
herrhund at 19:01 PM on 18 May 2013Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature
"Jim Eager at 07:14 AM on 18 May, 2013
Herrhund wrote: "there are other theories"Except that there are no other theories.
There are several hypotheses, most of which have already been disproven, such as "it's the sun," or shown to be insignificant, such as cosmic rays, but none have risen to the level of being a cohesive theory supported by the full body of evidence."
What about papers done in other languages than English?
Or paper which are about that exact topic but not having the key words in their abstract?
An example: 'Impact of galactic cosmic rays on Earth’s atmosphere and human health' A.Singh, D. Siingh, R. Singh;
The abstract of this paper does not use the key words - so I believe this research paper was not included. Just naming one example of a research paper that is ignored by this study. -
JosHagelaars at 18:41 PM on 18 May 2013Measure the climate consensus yourself with our Interactive Rating System
Thanks a lot for the search possibility.
I tried to check the total number of papers in Endorsement Level '8. Undecided', but got no matches. Endorsement Level 4 'No position' gives 8269 which is much higher than the 7930 mentioned in the Cook et al paper.
Are the level 8 papers per accident incorporated in the level 4 papers? -
Dikran Marsupial at 18:18 PM on 18 May 2013The anthropogenic global warming rate: Is it steady for the last 100 years? Part 2.
Dr Tung writes: "That model spread is rather large. If you are satisfied with that, that is fine with me."
The model spread is indeed large, the key question is whether there is a good reason to suppose that the spread should be smaller, and you so far have provided no evidence or argument to suggest that it should. Of course we want the projection to have as great a certainty as possible, so none of us are "satisfied" with the spread and why climate modelling groups are working hard to improve their models.
"And I am not sure how the models can be made to do it since we do not know the initial condition in the ocean sublayer well in 1850-1870 (the time these model simulations start)."
That is the entire point of using a Monte Carlo simulation. We can't predict chaotic phenomenon, but we can simulate them, so that is what we do and the spread of the model is an indication of what is plausible given what we know about the underlying physics.
"My comments about the CMIP3 model underpredicting the warming should not be taken as a criticism of the models"
In that case, I think you need to be more careful in how you express yourself as there are those in the public debate on climate that are likely to use your words to argue that the models are flawed. The statement however is still wrong - the models DON'T underpredict the warming, the ensemble mean IS NOT a hindcast of the observed climate change, only the forced component. The enembles hindcast of the actual climate is that it lies somewhere in the spread of the model runs, which indeed it does, so the models DO NOT underpredict the warming. I'm sorry to go on about this, but this is a fundamental point in understanding what the model ensemble actually says.
"One could take the point of view that the internal variability is just climate noise, and that the difference from any such unpredictable (by models) internal variability should be considered as "insignificant" (p595 of AR4) (post 33 here)"
It is only insignificant for the purposes of deciding whether the models do what they are intended to do correctly, which is to hindcast/project the forced component of the climate change.
"This is in essence a statement that we will ignore internal variabilities just because we have not found a way to simulate it using the current generation of models."
This is a deeply unfair and uncharitable characterisation of a community of hard working scientists. In making policy for (in)action on fossil fuel use, the key question is what is the effect of fossil fuel emissions on future climate. The answer to this question depends only on the forced component of climate change. This means the modellers are giving the direct answer to the question posed. They are not ignoring internal variabilities, far from it, the spread of the model runs is a good way of characterising the plausible effects of internal variability (according to our current understanding of the physics).
Prev 901 902 903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 Next
