Survey says: 97% of climate scientists agree that humans cause global warming

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 4:14 PM GMT on May 07, 2013

Share this Blog
40
+

Two studies done in 2009 and 2010 found that 97% of actively publishing climate scientists agree that humans cause global warming. But what would a larger sample of the scientific literature show, extended all the way up to 2011? You're invited to help find out, by participating in an anonymous 10-minute survey where you will be reading the abstracts (summaries) of ten randomly selected technical papers on Earth's climate published between 1991 and 2011. The survey was created by physicist John Cook of The Global Change Institute at Australia's University of Queensland. Mr. Cook is the creator of one of my favorite climate change websites, skepticalscience.com. He authored one of our special Earth Day 2013 essays, Closing the Consensus Gap on Climate Change, from which I have pulled Figure 1 below. Mr. Cook is lead author on a new paper called "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," to be published in the next month or so in Environmental Research Letters. The paper analyzes the same papers included in the survey you're asked to participate in, and the researchers plan to compare the results. Each of these 11,944 papers written by 29,083 authors and published in 1,980 journals included the keywords "global warming" or "global climate change" in their listing in the ISI Web of Science database. After reading each abstract, you will be asked to rate the level of endorsement within the abstract for the proposition that human activity (i.e., anthropogenic greenhouse gases) is causing global warming. There will be these choices available on a drop-down menu for you to choose from:

1. Explicit Endorsement with Quantification: abstract explicitly states that humans are causing more than half of global warming.
2. Explicit Endorsement without Quantification: abstract explicitly states humans are causing global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a given fact.
3. Implicit Endorsement: abstract implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research assumes greenhouse gases cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause.
4. Neutral: abstract doesn't address or mention issue of what's causing global warming.
5. Implicit Rejection: abstract implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming without saying so explicitly. E.g., proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global warming.
6. Explicit Rejection without Quantification: abstract explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans are causing global warming.
7. Explicit Rejection with Quantification: abstract explicitly states that humans are causing less than half of global warming.
8. Don't know.

When you are all done, the survey will let you know how your average score for the ten papers compares to the rating given by the authors. The survey took me about 8 minutes to complete, and it was interesting to see the tremendous diversity of research being done on global warming in my random sample. I'll post about Mr. Cook's results when his paper is published in the next few months.


Figure 1. Two recent studies have sought to measure the level of agreement in the scientific community in different ways and arrived at strikingly consistent results. A 2009 study led by Peter Doran surveyed over 3,000 Earth scientists and found that as the scientists' expertise in climate change grew, so did the level of agreement about human-caused global warming. For the most qualified experts, climate scientists actively publishing peer-reviewed research, there was 97% agreement. Alternatively, a 2010 analysis led by William Anderegg compiled a database of scientists from public declarations on climate change, both supporting and rejecting the consensus. Among scientists who had published peer-reviewed climate research, there was 97% agreement. However, it is worth pointing out that science is not decided by majority vote. This is articulated concisely by John Reisman who says: "Science is not a democracy. It is a dictatorship. It is evidence that does the dictating." Figure and text taken from Mr. John Cook's special Earth Day essay, Closing the Consensus Gap on Climate Change.

Thanks for participating!

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 127 - 77

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13Blog Index

Toronto Pearson Int'l Airport
Date: 2:00 PM EDT Tuesday 7 May 2013
Condition:Mainly Sunny
Pressure:30.1 inches
Tendency:falling
Visibility:15 miles
Temperature:73.9°F
Dewpoint:38.5°F
Humidity:28%
Wind:SSE 10 mph
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
126. N3EG
Quoting cantfoolme:
yall know this guy isnt a real doctor....


And four out of five dentists surveyed said we should fill our atmosphere with nitrous oxide. Ha ha ha!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:


Only meager moisture to work with.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

Not only will they tell you that, they will (gasp!) provide evidence that it wasn't true. Link


You mean this evidence?

Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3152
Quoting SouthernIllinois:
97% say humans are having some sort of an impact on climate change. Fine. But are the 97% all saying humans are responsible for 70% or 80%, or more like 20% or 30%? That's the bigger issue here. I'm sure those 97% in their analysis also believe to some degree that natural causes are responsible for the warming Globe--albeit at a much smaller percentage. But what percentage of those 97% believe man is the man driver behind the warming we have been seeing?

Probably the overwhelming majority, given the evidence that supports the idea that we are the primary cause of the current warming. There really isn't another explanation consistent with the evidence at this point.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: August 19, 2006 Posts: 13 Comments: 14437
Quoting yonzabam:


Halton Arp photographed quasars that showed clear signs of being in close proximity, due to the fact that matter could be seen streaming from one to the other, indicating they were gravitationally attracted to each other. Yet, these quasars had radically different redshifts which, according to theory, ought to indicate that they were very remote from each other.

This has not been refuted, although NASA did put out a paper which suggested the photographs might be suspect.


Too funny... Just got back from reading Lee's post on "close proximity".

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
andreas not lookin like its going to tx like some of the other a storms like some people thought
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting SouthernIllinois:

Is that why the media is hesitant to get the word out now? Because they don't want to make the same mistake they made in the 1970's again?

Couldn't tell you. I don't pay much attention to the media, and on scientific issues that falls to no attention whatsoever.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CybrTeddy:
God forbid we fix the Earth to be a better place to live in without a financial motivation...

Seriously, the amount of money we pump into bailing out the banks every year would be enough to fix many serious problems with Earth while sending humanity to the stars all at once. The fact that global warming is even a debate disgusts me, and you can just tell the people arguing against it are feeding out of the hands of the politicians who represent oil and natural gas producing companies instead of people. Even if it's not man-made, we can do something about it.

Just my 2c.


Here's my 10 cents, my two cents is free....

There are millions of things we could fix in this world with money we spent on other things that are debatedly less important.

It's simply not the way the world or financial system works.

I see no reason to cry more over bailing out banks over fixing climate change than over launching rockets into space instead of feeding the hungry.
Yet people whined and complained about one but not the other. I have little opinion on either matter, but to those who do find a problem, i see no reason to make a big deal of it

It's just not gonna happen that way.
Even if it would be nice, it's wishful thinking.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting luvtogolf:


lol. When I was a kid that's all we were told. But today's scientist will tell you that it wasn't true.

Not only will they tell you that, they will (gasp!) provide evidence that it wasn't true. Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
Being a martyr doesn't make one right; after all, while Arp is sticking to his guns of martyrdom, mountains of observational evidence have come in since he first published 50 years ago, every bit of it suggesting that he is simply wrong. Ditto Hoyle.

But this is a climate change forum, so dealing strictly with that subject, I'd say the contention that because 97% of climate scientists believe humans are causing the warming, it must be wrong, is far more disingenuous. And that seems to be the route that some denialists take; to them, corroboration equals conspiracy. But that just ain't so.

Appeals to authority are, of course, a logic trap to be avoided. But stating that 97% of climate scientists agree with the anthropogenic origins of warming isn't that; it's more akin to 97% of oncologists agreeing that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. Yeah, perhaps the majority is mistaken--but not listening to them would be pretty suicidal...


Halton Arp photographed quasars that showed clear signs of being in close proximity, due to the fact that matter could be seen streaming from one to the other, indicating they were gravitationally attracted to each other. Yet, these quasars had radically different redshifts which, according to theory, ought to indicate that they were very remote from each other.

This has not been refuted, although NASA did put out a paper which suggested the photographs might be suspect.

With regard to the mountains of observational evidence - Big Bang theory said that the 'expansion of the universe' ought to be decelerating. In the 80s, it was shown that the galaxies were actually accelerating. This ought to have been the final, killer blow for the theory.

Guess what they did? They invoked a whole new force of nature and called it 'dark energy', to explain the acceleration. No explanation of what this energy is, or how it exerts its effects. Is that good science?
Member Since: July 20, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 2893
Gearsts,nothing for Aguadilla yet in terms of flood advisories.

FLOOD ADVISORY
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SAN JUAN PR
204 PM AST TUE MAY 7 2013

PRC027-039-065-071-073-081-115-131-141-072000-
/O.NEW.TJSJ.FA.Y.0048.130507T1804Z-130507T2000Z/
/00000.N.ER.000000T0000Z.000000T0000Z.000000T0000 Z.OO/
CIALES PR-HATILLO PR-JAYUYA PR-LARES PR-UTUADO PR-SAN SEBASTIAN PR-
ISABELA PR-CAMUY PR-QUEBRADILLAS PR-
204 PM AST TUE MAY 7 2013

THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN SAN JUAN HAS ISSUED AN

* URBAN AND SMALL STREAM FLOOD ADVISORY
FOR THE FOLLOWING MUNICIPALITIES...

IN PUERTO RICO
CIALES...HATILLO...JAYUYA...LARES...UTUADO...SAN SEBASTIAN...
ISABELA...CAMUY AND QUEBRADILLAS

* UNTIL 400 PM AST

* AT 203 PM AST...DOPPLER RADAR AND SATELLITE IMAGERY INDICATED
HEAVY SHOWERS AND AN ISOLATED THUNDERSTORM ACROSS THESE
MUNICIPALITIES. RAINFALL RATES OF UP TO TWO INCHES CAN BE EXPECTED
WITH THESE SHOWERS. THIS WILL BE ENOUGH TO CAUSE FLOODING IN URBAN
AND POOR DRAINAGE AREAS AND SHARP RISES ON AREA STREAMS AND RIVERS.

MOST FLOOD DEATHS OCCUR IN AUTOMOBILES. NEVER DRIVE YOUR VEHICLE INTO
AREAS WHERE THE WATER COVERS THE ROADWAY. FLOOD WATERS ARE USUALLY
DEEPER THAN THEY APPEAR. JUST ONE FOOT OF FLOWING WATER IS POWERFUL
ENOUGH TO SWEEP VEHICLES OFF THE ROAD. WHEN ENCOUNTERING FLOODED
ROADS MAKE THE SMART CHOICE...TURN AROUND...DONT DROWN.

&&

LAT...LON 1848 6677 1832 6677 1831 6649 1826 6649
1825 6677 1829 6700 1851 6705

$$

DS
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting KeysieLife:
In homage to an old friend...



Oh the chart!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
In homage to an old friend...thank you for your service DJ, and by that I mean BE SAFE!

Member Since: September 10, 2010 Posts: 3 Comments: 409
Nice new "cut-off low" post by Lee Grenci.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting allahgore:




And 85% in the 70's said we were heading into an ice-age.

Nonsense.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Gearsts:
Omg finally raining like crazy outside sadly we only have half a radar.


Finally some rain on the western & northwestern side of the island.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting stormchaser19:


These are ghost storms at 384 hours is very uncertain some kind of forecast,like levi said yesterday MJO coming in late may to early june is very possible the formation of the first storm of the season ,no more than that..The real deal is when GFS shows a possible storm in 150-200 hours...


No really. Like we all don't know that. I was just posting the models to the possibility come 10 to 14 days from now and will continue to do so.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Omg finally raining like crazy outside sadly we only have half a radar.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
TC on GFS 348



Low shear



Granted the probability is low at 348, it could signal something to form within a five-ten day timeframe around this time.
Member Since: October 20, 2012 Posts: 7 Comments: 2873
Quoting yonzabam:
While I'm a believer in AGW, the contention that because 97% of climate scientists believe humans are causing the warming, it must be so, is a tad disingenuous.

There is a very strong pressure to conform in science. I happen to believe that 'Big Bang' theory is completely wrong, and have posted an alternative theory, which accords much better with known laws of nature, on the cosmology section of several science forums. So, I'm a Big Bang denier.

Cosmologists who have made observations which they believe contradict Big Bang theory have been frozen out of their chosen profession, Halton Arp being the prime example. Fred Hoyle turned down an offer to join NASA because he wasn't prepared to fall in line with Big Bang theory, and eked out a living writing books.

Although we may like to think that scientists are primarily concerned with the truth, in reality, they're much like the rest of us, and more concerned with earning a living, having the respect of their peers, and the social status that their profession gives them. Not many are prepared to be martyrs, like Arp and Hoyle.

Good post - those are definitely factors. Others are threatening actions such as Heidi Cullen calling for the decertification of weathermen who were skeptical of manmade global warming. Another example is the Climategate emails where the collaborators tried to force out journal editors that allowed skeptical articles. There is definitely push and pull in play here behind this consensus level.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Tropicsweatherpr:


I prefer 144 hours and less.


i like 150.
Member Since: April 30, 2013 Posts: 5 Comments: 4316
Quoting cantfoolme:
yall know this guy isnt a real doctor....

I bet he can't even do a simple appendectomy, right?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting auspiv:

If we keep up the current consumption and growth rate, the surface of the earth could reach 100C in ~430 years.

This is a very interesting article to read - http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galac tic-scale-energy/.

"This post provides a striking example of the impossibility of continued growth at current rates—even within familiar timescales. For a matter of convenience, we lower the energy growth rate from 2.9% to 2.3% per year so that we see a factor of ten increase every 100 years. We start the clock today, with a global rate of energy use of 12 terawatts (meaning that the average world citizen has a 2,000 W share of the total pie). We will begin with semi-practical assessments, and then in stages let our imaginations run wild—even then finding that we hit limits sooner than we might think. I will admit from the start that the assumptions underlying this analysis are deeply flawed. But that becomes the whole point, in the end."


too much to read on that post xD
Member Since: April 30, 2013 Posts: 5 Comments: 4316
God forbid we fix the Earth to be a better place to live in without a financial motivation...

Seriously, the amount of money we pump into bailing out the banks every year would be enough to fix many serious problems with Earth while sending humanity to the stars all at once. The fact that global warming is even a debate disgusts me, and you can just tell the people arguing against it are feeding out of the hands of the politicians who represent oil and natural gas producing companies instead of people. Even if it's not man-made, we can do something about it.

Just my 2c.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting stormchaser19:


These are ghost storms at 384 hours is very uncertain any kind of forecast,like levi said yesterday MJO coming in late may to early june is very possible the formation of the first storm of the season ,no more than that..The real deal is when GFS shows a possible storm in 150-200 hours...


I prefer 144 hours and less.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
American Association for the Advancement of Science:

"The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society."

American Chemical Society:

"Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem."

American Geophysical Union:

"The Earth's climate is now clearly out of balance and is warming. Many components of the climate system — including the temperatures of the atmosphere, land and ocean, the extent of sea ice and mountain glaciers, the sea level, the distribution of precipitation, and the length of seasons — are now changing at rates and in patterns that are not natural and are best explained by the increased atmospheric abundances of greenhouse gases and aerosols generated by human activity during the 20th century."

American Meteorological Society:

"It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide."

American Physical Society:

"The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now."

List of nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting SFLWeatherman:
Smoke on Radar from a fires in S FL!


it looks like rain putting out a fire.
Member Since: April 30, 2013 Posts: 5 Comments: 4316
Quoting StormTrackerScott:
12Z GFS Ensemble.



These are ghost storms at 384 hours is very uncertain some kind of forecast,like levi said yesterday MJO coming in late may to early june is very possible the formation of the first storm of the season ,no more than that..The real deal is when GFS shows a possible storm in 150-200 hours...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting luvtogolf:


I wonder when the models say we will be extinct?

Have you looked it up? The answer might surprise you.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting mrsalagranny:

I saw too that the almanac for Alabama said June 17-19 hurricane threat.Lets pray it doesn't come true.I know we can only be lucky for so many years, but I pray this will be another lucky year for us all.
this is what it reads:JUNE 2013: temperature 78° (avg.); precipitation 4" (1" below avg.); Jun 1-3: Sunny, hot; Jun 4-8: T-storms, then sunny, cool; Jun 9-16: Scattered t-storms, seasonable; Jun 17-19: Hurricane threat; Jun 20-23: Sunny, hot; Jun 24-30: T-storms, then sunny, cool.
Member Since: June 6, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 853
88. JeffMasters (Admin)
Quoting barbamz:
Dr. Masters, the link in your post to http://www.skepticalscience.com/ doesn't work. Some typo in the address.


Thanks! fixed now.

Jeff Masters
Smoke on Radar from a fires in S FL!
Member Since: May 23, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 4389
-.- cant like anything because of someone's long post..
Member Since: April 30, 2013 Posts: 5 Comments: 4316
Quoting SFLWeatherman:
Jun 1-5: Hurricane threat Forecast for Florida by the Farmer's Almanac and a big MJO pulse that won't reach the basins until late May and early June and now the 12Z GFS!!:)
I saw too that the almanac for Alabama said June 17-19 hurricane threat.Lets pray it doesn't come true.I know we can only be lucky for so many years, but I pray this will be another lucky year for us all.
Member Since: June 6, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 853
Quoting tvengineer:
In my opinion Global Warming caused by man is false science as exposed by the emails recovered by top scientists. It is just a way to extort billions of dollars from advanced Countrys.
We exist in the Sun's atmoshpere. Compare the surface temperatures of other planets and find they track our own.
Should we reduce pollution? - Why yes..

Just my 2c worth.


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting luvtogolf:


I wonder when the models say we will be extinct?

If we keep up the current consumption and growth rate, the surface of the earth could reach 100C in ~430 years.

This is a very interesting article to read - http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/07/galac tic-scale-energy/.

"This post provides a striking example of the impossibility of continued growth at current rates—even within familiar timescales. For a matter of convenience, we lower the energy growth rate from 2.9% to 2.3% per year so that we see a factor of ten increase every 100 years. We start the clock today, with a global rate of energy use of 12 terawatts (meaning that the average world citizen has a 2,000 W share of the total pie). We will begin with semi-practical assessments, and then in stages let our imaginations run wild—even then finding that we hit limits sooner than we might think. I will admit from the start that the assumptions underlying this analysis are deeply flawed. But that becomes the whole point, in the end."
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting yonzabam:
While I'm a believer in AGW, the contention that because 97% of climate scientists believe humans are causing the warming, it must be so, is a tad disingenuous.

There is a very strong pressure to conform in science. I happen to believe that 'Big Bang' theory is completely wrong, and have posted an alternative theory, which accords much better with known laws of nature, on the cosmology section of several science forums. So, I'm a Big Bang denier.

Cosmologists who have made observations which they believe contradict Big Bang theory have been frozen out of their chosen profession, Halton Arp being the prime example. Fred Hoyle turned down an offer to join NASA because he wasn't prepared to fall in line with Big Bang theory, and eked out a living writing books.

Although we may like to think that scientists are primarily concerned with the truth, in reality, they're much like the rest of us, and more concerned with earning a living, having the respect of their peers, and the social status that their profession gives them. Not many are prepared to be martyrs, like Arp and Hoyle.

Being a martyr doesn't make one right; after all, while Arp is sticking to his guns of martyrdom, mountains of observational evidence have come in since he first published 50 years ago, every bit of it suggesting that he is simply wrong. Ditto Hoyle.

But this is a climate change forum, so dealing strictly with that subject, I'd say the contention that because 97% of climate scientists believe humans are causing the warming, it must be wrong, is far more disingenuous. And that seems to be the route that some denialists take; to them, corroboration equals conspiracy. But that just ain't so.

Appeals to authority are, of course, a logic trap to be avoided. But stating that 97% of climate scientists agree with the anthropogenic origins of warming isn't that; it's more akin to 97% of oncologists agreeing that cigarette smoking causes lung cancer. Yeah, perhaps the majority is mistaken--but not listening to them would be pretty suicidal...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13456
Quoting Gearsts:
This year the NAO means different things? Waters like to warm when is positive and dont do anything when is negative lol

The degree of warming and cooling is dependant on other factors, not just the phase of the NAO. Last week featured a lot of cloud cover and precipitation across the MDR as a result of an upward pulse of the MJO, which kept the skin temperatures down as a result. Trade winds are still below average despite the positive NAO.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
thanks for the post doc,
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting barbamz:
Dr. Masters, the link in your post to http://www.skepticalscience.com/ doesn't work. Some typo in the address.


typo(s)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting StormTrackerScott:
12Z GFS Ensemble.



No idea why the model sees something all the way up there....

Edit: Extatropical cyclone maybe?
Member Since: April 30, 2013 Posts: 5 Comments: 4316
Quoting SFLWeatherman:
Jun 1-5: Hurricane threat Forecast for Florida by the Farmer's Almanac and a big MJO pulse that won't reach the basins until late May and early June and now the 12Z GFS!!:)
yea there is ~3% chance for that spot to form in the next week, and will probably go higher...
Member Since: April 30, 2013 Posts: 5 Comments: 4316

Viewing: 127 - 77

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

Local Weather

Mostly Cloudy
73 °F
Mostly Cloudy