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: 327 - 277

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

327. KoritheMan
2:33 AM GMT on May 08, 2013

Quoting MississippiWx:


My name, Andrew, will never be used again. I totally destroyed South Florida. :-/
You also scared the piss out of my mom. She's told me stories of when Andrew hit Louisiana, and how we were in the hall together, in the dark, in the middle of the night, with tornadoes whirling overhead and tin flying across the street.

I was a baby at the time, but I believe her. Shame on you.
Member Since: March 7, 2007 Posts: 601 Comments: 21199
326. MississippiWx
2:29 AM GMT on May 08, 2013
Quoting KoritheMan:

I want to think of something clever for my namesake. There's no cyclone named Corey/Kori, but my middle name is Matthew, which could appear again in 2016.


My name, Andrew, will never be used again. I totally destroyed South Florida. :-/
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 17 Comments: 10284
325. KoritheMan
2:28 AM GMT on May 08, 2013

Quoting wxchaser97:

Of course I would, I never miss a chance to joke around with my name for TC's.
I want to think of something clever for my namesake. There's no cyclone named Corey/Kori, but my middle name is Matthew, which could appear again in 2016.
Member Since: March 7, 2007 Posts: 601 Comments: 21199
324. wxchaser97
2:25 AM GMT on May 08, 2013
Quoting KoritheMan:

I knew you were gonna say something about your name, lol. I was gonna message you about it.

Of course I would, I never miss a chance to joke around with my name for TC's.
Member Since: March 16, 2012 Posts: 127 Comments: 7972
323. Grothar
2:25 AM GMT on May 08, 2013
Member Since: July 17, 2009 Posts: 71 Comments: 27079
322. no1der
2:25 AM GMT on May 08, 2013
You missed the point. I said "orbital forcing", and perhaps in your heliocentricity you overlooked that.


Quoting Snowlover123:


To get values over 100% would imply that all of the warming was anthropogenic, and that the aerosol forcing is large enough to mask a significant amount of warming. Given that there are large uncertainties in the aerosol forcing makes that assumption questionable. Keep in mind that aerosols have a significantly shorter residence time than Carbon Dioxide does in the atmosphere, thus the effects of aerosols relatively more local than the effects of Carbon Dioxide.

There is evidence though, that there is a significantly larger solar forcing over the 20th Century than just through TSI variations alone. I posted this chart yesterday:
Member Since: June 5, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 536
321. KoritheMan
2:24 AM GMT on May 08, 2013

Quoting wxchaser97:

That crazy, unpredictable Isaac...lol. But yeah, his track(and forecast peak intensity) changed a good amount over his lifespan.

I knew you were gonna say something about your name, lol. I was gonna message you about it.
Member Since: March 7, 2007 Posts: 601 Comments: 21199
320. wxchaser97
2:22 AM GMT on May 08, 2013
Quoting KoritheMan:

Pretty much.

I'm not fond at all of long-range predictions of any kind, but especially track forecasts. Look how much changed with Isaac in just five days, much less several months. It's why I'm not a fan of using past analogs to determine where the conglomeration of likely storm tracks is going to be.

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one, though. lol

That crazy, unpredictable Isaac...lol. But yeah, his track(and forecast peak intensity) changed a good amount over his lifespan.

Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:
I was watching Forecasting The End on The Weather Channel earlier. One professor from the University of Arizona said that without the tilt of the Earth, tornadoes would be plausible in not just Spring, but every season...year round.

I wonder about people sometime.






Maybe he meant very large(April/May 2011) outbreaks would be possible all year round, I don't know since I wasn't watching. Yeah, tornadoes can and do happen every month.
Member Since: March 16, 2012 Posts: 127 Comments: 7972
319. KoritheMan
2:21 AM GMT on May 08, 2013

Quoting KoritheMan:

Gustav and Ike are excellent examples of how track can change significantly. The first couple advisories had Gustav going north of Cuba due to an overestimated upper trough. Same with Ike.
Also, I should note that the Greater Antilles can significantly alter the tracks of a tropical cyclone -- Frederic in 1979 was originally forecast to recurve (read the discussions), but ended up hugging Hispaniola while weakening and moving west, and of course, there was Isaac.

In my experience, most storms that pass over Hispaniola and survive tend to make it into the Gulf proper. The only exception that springs to mind right now is Emily in 2011, and it technically dissipated prior to reaching Haiti. I'll definitely incorporate the southward bias the Greater Antilles tend to have into my forecasts this year.
Member Since: March 7, 2007 Posts: 601 Comments: 21199
318. Grothar
2:20 AM GMT on May 08, 2013
Member Since: July 17, 2009 Posts: 71 Comments: 27079
317. KoritheMan
2:17 AM GMT on May 08, 2013

Quoting AtHomeInTX:


Nah. You're not alone I'm sure. It is just too hard to tell ahead of time. As you say, the track can change a lot when a storm has already formed. Ike was another storm that did the unexpected. Just by going into the gulf. Then up until about 60 hours out he was going to Corpus. Just never know.
Gustav and Ike are excellent examples of how track can change significantly. The first couple advisories had Gustav going north of Cuba due to an overestimated upper trough. Same with Ike.
Member Since: March 7, 2007 Posts: 601 Comments: 21199
316. TropicalAnalystwx13
2:16 AM GMT on May 08, 2013
I was watching Forecasting The End on The Weather Channel earlier. One professor from the University of Arizona said that without the tilt of the Earth, tornadoes would be plausible in not just Spring, but every season...year round.

I wonder about people sometimes.



Member Since: July 6, 2010 Posts: 113 Comments: 32690
315. Xyrus2000
2:16 AM GMT on May 08, 2013
Quoting Snowlover123:


The big question is how much? That's a question that is absolutely open for debate.


This has been answered several times over. It's in the 2007 IPCC report. Or you can use one of the many more recent papers published addressing this. Or you can go to a site that summarizes such research. Or you can get the next IPCC report when it comes out.

Or if your handy with calculus and physics you can create a very basic model and compute it yourself. Or you can download one of the GCM's and run some ensembles to see what the scientists are seeing*.

If you're thinking there is a debate covering the range from 0%-100%, you're wrong. In recent research the lowest number I've come across is 70% (and that was several years ago). Most put the contribution much higher.

*Be warned, running a GCM is non-trivial. Most models will only compile and run on Linux. The initial condition data files are quite large (GB's or larger depending on the resolution). They also require supercomputers running for weeks to months to generate any decent resolution output over any useful time segment. You will also need to run hundreds to thousands of simulations with perturbed initial parameters. After that, you will need to post process the terabytes of accumulated diagnostics data through statistical tools to generate any meaningful results, assuming you know what fields you need out of the hundreds to thousands of different recorded parameters (and what kind of analyses you need to do).

**For a low res simplified GCM designed to run on a normal PC you can try EdGCM. Other than that, the only other full-fledged GCM that I'm aware of that can run on Windows without a serious amount of work is Model E. I managed to "port" the model to Windows as part of a project I was working on at NASA a couple years ago.

***If you do use Model E be aware that there are no "safety nets" when it comes to setting the parameters. Models are NOT layman friendly. They are programmed for scientists by scientists, and they already assume that the user of the model knows enough about the science backing the model as to not put in values that will crash the model or create pure nonsense. If you don't have any formal education in atmospheric physics or related fields, then you may be better off sticking with EdGCM. True, it doesn't give you nearly the range of freedom a raw model does but it will also prevent you from accidentally setting ice albedo to 20 or CO2 concentrations to -1000.


Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1625
314. Grothar
2:15 AM GMT on May 08, 2013
92B

Member Since: July 17, 2009 Posts: 71 Comments: 27079
313. Grothar
2:13 AM GMT on May 08, 2013
94S


Member Since: July 17, 2009 Posts: 71 Comments: 27079
312. AtHomeInTX
2:07 AM GMT on May 08, 2013
Quoting KoritheMan:

Pretty much.

I'm not fond at all of long-range predictions of any kind, but especially track forecasts. Look how much changed with Isaac in just five days, much less several months. It's why I'm not a fan of using past analogs to determine where the conglomeration of likely storm tracks is going to be.

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one, though. lol


Nah. You're not alone I'm sure. It is just too hard to tell ahead of time. As you say, the track can change a lot when a storm has already formed. Ike was another storm that did the unexpected. Just by going into the gulf. Then up until about 60 hours out he was going to Corpus. Just never know.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 253
311. Snowlover123
2:07 AM GMT on May 08, 2013
Quoting no1der:
The really interesting aspect is, it's arguably even over 100% of the quantitative warming that could be anthropogenic. �At pre-industrial 280ppm CO2 and with normal Milankovic orbital forcing, we should instead be slowly cooling...



To get values over 100% would imply that all of the warming was anthropogenic, and that the aerosol forcing is large enough to mask a significant amount of warming. Given that there are large uncertainties in the aerosol forcing makes that assumption questionable. Keep in mind that aerosols have a significantly shorter residence time than Carbon Dioxide does in the atmosphere, thus the effects of aerosols relatively more local than the effects of Carbon Dioxide.

There is evidence though, that there is a significantly larger solar forcing over the 20th Century than just through TSI variations alone. I posted this chart yesterday:



The above image shows estimates for the solar forcing over the course of the 11 year solar cycle with data from Shaviv 2008. It shows that when the indirect, amplifying mechanisms for solar activity are to be taken into consideration, a much larger solar forcing is observed. The indirect solar forcing has been measured from Ocean Heat Content datasets, Sea Level Rise measurements, and Sea Surface Temperature changes.

We can get a rough idea of what the solar forcing is over the 20th Century by looking at various TSI proxies.



Using Lean et al. 1995 as the TSI dataset before 1979, and various satellite data estimates after 1979 (PMOD in blue and ACRIM in red), we can roughly estimate the solar forcing over the 20th Century based on the observation above.

TSI generally varies by around 1 w/m^2 over the course of the solar cycle. This is a rough estimate. To get the TSI forcing, we need to divide this value by 4 to account for the Earth's spherical geometry, as well as to multiply the value by 0.7 to account for the albedo (reflectivity) of the Earth.



When we do this, we get a TSI forcing of 0.18 w/m^2 over the course of the solar cycle. A rough estimate for the "true" solar forcing over the course of the solar combining all the lines of evidence is around 1.3 w/m^2, similar to the value found by Kirkby and Laaksonen 2000, which was cited by Marsden and Lingenfelter 2003 as finding a variation in the solar forcing from Clouds over the course of the solar cycle to be 1.2 w/m^2, which is in pretty good agreement with the rough value above.

We get a total amplifying factor to be around 7.3 times the TSI value over the course of the 20th Century. This means that the indirect+direct solar forcing is 7.3 times the TSI forcing over the course of the 20th Century. With that in mind, we can get a rough estimate of the solar forcing over the 20th Century using ACRIM and PMOD.

TSI increased from a minimum value in 1900 to a peak right around 1990 if the PMOD dataset is to be used. This gives a TSI change of roughly 0.6 w/m^2 over the course of the 20th Century. This gives us a 0.11 w/m^2 forcing over the 20th Century from TSI variations. Accounting for the indirect solar forcing however, gives us a larger solar forcing. We get a value of around 0.77 w/m^2 over the 20th Century, if the PMOD TSI dataset is to be used. If the ACRIM TSI dataset is to be used, we get a higher value.

The low point in 1900 increased to a peak around 1995 if the ACRIM dataset is to be used. There is a 0.8 w/m^2 solar forcing over the 20th Century if the ACRIM TSI dataset is to be used. This gives a TSI forcing of around 0.14 w/m^2 over the 20th Century. Accounting for all solar forcing gives a value of around 1 w/m^2.

All of this assumes that the Lean 1995 reconstruction is right, which makes this analysis uncertain, as well as the rough estimate for the solar forcing. However, it gives a rough estimate that the solar forcing is comparable to the anthropogenic forcing of 1.6 w/m^2. Marsden and Lingenfelter get a value of 1.5 w/m^2 over the course of a solar cycle when accounting for the 0.3 w/m^2 they used for TSI variations and the 1.2 w/m^2 they cited with Kirkby and Laaksonen for Cloud Cover. This would change the analysis. Interesting as well, if we assume the Sharpiro et al. reconstruction to be correct, a huge solar forcing can be extracted over the 20th Century, given that they found that TSI varied by around 4 w/m^2 over the 20th Century (equating to a TSI forcing of 0.7 w/m^2 during the 20th Century) and the indirect solar forcing would be very, very large.



I think that the Sharpiro reconstruction is likely too large with it's TSI variations, but it's interesting to see very comparable values with the solar forcing to the anthropogenic forcing when accounting for the indirect variations in solar output.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
310. happer
2:06 AM GMT on May 08, 2013
Oh bull butter. What caused the global warming millions of years ago, what caused global cooling millions of years ago. All when people were not around. What about the ocean floor volcanic activity warming the ocean temps.I'd rather have global warming than global cooling. That would be a disaster.
Member Since: February 19, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 5
309. JohnLonergan
2:04 AM GMT on May 08, 2013
Quoting no1der:
The really interesting aspect is, it's arguably even over 100% of the quantitative warming that could be anthropogenic.  At 280ppm CO2 and with normal Milankovic orbital forcing, we should instead be slowly cooling...





Kuntti And Huber found the anthropogenic contribution was .30 greater than the observed warming, which they attribute primarily to the cooling effect of aerosols.

"We find that since the mid-twentieth century, greenhouse gases contributed 0.85 °C of warming (5–95% uncertainty: 0.6–1.1 °C), about half of which was offset by the cooling effects of aerosols, with a total observed change in global temperature of about 0.56 °C."
This is a long way of saying, yes it could be more than 100% anthropogenic and I agree with the scientists, like Gavin Schmidt who feel this way.
Of course, when we clean up all the aerosols, the "hidden warming" will come th the surface.
Member Since: June 27, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 3596
308. trunkmonkey
1:59 AM GMT on May 08, 2013
Take this survey from the same scientist, how many support a one world government?
How many think a socialist form of government would be better for the United States?
Member Since: August 18, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 591
307. KoritheMan
1:56 AM GMT on May 08, 2013

Quoting AtHomeInTX:


Yep. All you can do is prepare and be aware.
Pretty much.

I'm not fond at all of long-range predictions of any kind, but especially track forecasts. Look how much changed with Isaac in just five days, much less several months. It's why I'm not a fan of using past analogs to determine where the conglomeration of likely storm tracks is going to be.

Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one, though. lol
Member Since: March 7, 2007 Posts: 601 Comments: 21199
306. AtHomeInTX
1:52 AM GMT on May 08, 2013
Quoting KoritheMan:

Any location could.


Yep. All you can do is prepare and be aware.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 253
305. Doppler22
1:50 AM GMT on May 08, 2013
-_- nevermind
Member Since: February 13, 2012 Posts: 11 Comments: 3840
304. AtHomeInTX
1:50 AM GMT on May 08, 2013
Quoting 1900hurricane:

Check out the thickness field associated with it. Very cold core. With that system dropping down from the arctic like that, it would have to spend a large amount of time over the Gulf Stream to reverse its thermal profile, which doesn't happen this run.



Thanks for the explanation. Wasn't sure what it was. Just was the nicest looking blob I've seen on the models so far. :) Hopefully it won't cause bad weather like that one in '92. I couldn't imagine 57" of snow.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 253
303. CosmicEvents
1:40 AM GMT on May 08, 2013
Quoting Xyrus2000:


casting aspersions on the science
I'm not casting aspersions on the science. My post must have been mis-understood by you. Please don't ever again refer to anything I write as a comparison to him.
Member Since: August 3, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 5673
302. KoritheMan
1:40 AM GMT on May 08, 2013

Quoting Levi32:


Tampa Bay could be hit by a hurricane in any year.
Any location could.
Member Since: March 7, 2007 Posts: 601 Comments: 21199
301. Snowlover123
1:37 AM GMT on May 08, 2013
Quoting Xyrus2000:


What if it's 10%?" If you review some of the basic science you'd figure out pretty quickly that it CAN'T be 10%. Or 20%. Or 30%. It just doesn't make any physical sense.


A HUGE uncertainty are the changes in Cloud Cover over the 20th Century. If Clouds decreased by a significant fraction from solar changes over the 20th Century, than a large radiative forcing from Clouds would have had a significant influence on the Climate. Especially since Low Clouds overall have a net cooling effect on Earth's Climate. The only problem is that Cloud Data is still pretty poor for even the late-20th Century, let alone the early-20th Century. It's entirely possible to have an indirect+direct solar forcing of 1-3 w/m^2 throughout the 20th Century. Such a forcing would imply a lower climate sensitivity.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
The really interesting aspect is, it's arguably even over 100% of the quantitative warming that could be anthropogenic. At pre-industrial 280ppm CO2 and with normal Milankovic orbital forcing, we should instead be slowly cooling...
Quoting Snowlover123:


The big question is how much? That's a question that is absolutely open for debate.

Member Since: June 5, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 536
Quoting Levi32:


Tampa Bay could be hit by a hurricane in any year.


indeed!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Quoting Snowlover123:


What would you say the percentage of warming that humans have caused, is?
I'm not particularly well-versed in statistics, but a reasonable guess would place it at least 60%.
Member Since: March 7, 2007 Posts: 601 Comments: 21199
Quoting KoritheMan:

Probably the vast majority of it.


What would you say the percentage of warming that humans have caused, is?
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting CosmicEvents:
While we wait for you to extricate your foot from your keyboard I'll add my thought that the point raised on "what is significant" is the area that I look to Dr. Masters to clarify. I'm not a climatologist but as many know I am fascinated with probabilities and odds. In looking at the links provided by Dr. Masters, it appears that there isn't 97% agreement amongst scientists. It's not some lone boob as pictured. The real figure is 82%...that 82% number is the percentage of scientists that answered yes to question 2(does man add a significant amount to global warming?). What is significant? The survey we're asked to take sets it at 50%. Will we ever be able to quantify this significance...is it 10% caused by man? 20%? 90%? What if it's 10% as an example? Is that extra 10% significant enough so that if we're able to eliminate it it would change the rate of climate change? I don't know the answer and I look for further clarification if possible. The point raised is valid as far as I'm concerned, and not one to stick your neck in the ground to avoid.


You claim to not be a climate scientists while simultaneous casting aspersions on the science using Glenn Beck like questions (example: "Is Barack Obama a Muslim fascist socialist? I don't know! I'm just asking the question!").

And yes, since our planet happens to obey laws of thermodynamics we can quantify our contribution. Even a "0 dimensional" model will get you within the ballpark. There's one on this wiki page that you can play with. Nothing fancy, just some elementary math and physics.

"What if it's 10%?" If you review some of the basic science you'd figure out pretty quickly that it CAN'T be 10%. Or 20%. Or 30%. It just doesn't make any physical sense. You might as well ask what would happen if the sun were powered by burning care bears or state that you can live forever by crushing Furbies with your thighs. While advanced climate science requires a good deal of education, study, and research you can get a pretty good estimation of climate response just with basic physics (conservation of energy, black body radiation, absorption spectra, etc.). Unless you happen to know of a secret evil base somewhere that has a global spider web of invisible heating elements that have been cranking out terrawatts of power over the last 100 years, any low percentage really is in the realm of fantasy.

If you really want answers, try an intro/summary site like Skeptical Science. Not only do they provide decent high level summaries, they also give references to the papers that back them up. If you want it straight from the horses mouth you can review the published science (of which there is quite a bit) but slogging through those can be quite time consuming.
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1625

Quoting Snowlover123:


The big question is how much? That's a question that is absolutely open for debate.
Probably the vast majority of it.
Member Since: March 7, 2007 Posts: 601 Comments: 21199
Quoting Gearsts:
Sad news here in PR because of the rain event:Adolescentes muertas tras caer en rio de San Sebastian estaban bajo la custodia del DF.Teen dead after falling into river San Sebastian were in the custody of the DF.Link


Yes,sad news about this. Here is the tralslation to English.

Link
Member Since: April 29, 2009 Posts: 75 Comments: 14757
Quoting trHUrrIXC5MMX:
My contribution to todays blog...

Im my old met class, we had this GW debate, my group lost :(
The final statement from the teacher was
"GW occurs naturally but humanity is speeding the process"


The big question is how much? That's a question that is absolutely open for debate.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting JeffMasters:
It turns out that John Cook, founder of skepticalscience.com, doesn't have his Ph.D. yet--he is scheduled to get it in December of this year. I've changed his title to "Mr." instead of "Dr."

Jeff Masters


Thanks Doc, I wish I could be mistakenly called a doctor even though I don't have a PhD...oh wait, a friend of mine at school calls me Dr. (my last name here). Wish granted, yay!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Astrometeor:


He did Jason and the Argonauts??? I loved that particular movie, my Latin teacher let my class watch that one, the skeleton fight was hilarious. Condolences to his family then, one young person over here will miss him.




Member Since: Posts: Comments:
My contribution to todays blog...

Im my old met class, we had this GW debate, my group lost :(
The final statement from the teacher was
"GW occurs naturally but humanity is speeding the process"
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Sad news here in PR because of the rain event:Adolescentes muertas tras caer en rio de San Sebastian estaban bajo la custodia del DF.Teen dead after falling into river San Sebastian were in the custody of the DF.Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GeoffreyWPB:
Sad news for us older folk on here....Ray Harryhausen passed away today...Link


He did Jason and the Argonauts??? I loved that particular movie, my Latin teacher let my class watch that one, the skeleton fight was hilarious. Condolences to his family then, one young person over here will miss him.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
How many of those 100 scientists get funding grants from their respective governments to further research agw? Could be a skewed survey.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CosmicEvents:
I was asking for some clarification on the issue of significance. From folks who know more than I about the science. If we knew that man is ONLY 49% responsible do we throw in the towel to the cosmos? How about 1%? I'm not attacking you, I'm asking.


This.

The study was extremely ambiguous with what a "significant contributing factor" is. To some scientists, that could be 10%, others could be 25%, 40%, 60% etc. There really was not a clear cut definition given by the study.
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Doesn't look like I'll have time to complete Sandy's TCR before the 15th. Instead, I'll just release it in [highly] incomplete form, and I'll make a seasonal summary blog for both basins, similar to the NHC's publications of the hurricane season within the Monthly Weather Review.
Member Since: March 7, 2007 Posts: 601 Comments: 21199
Sad news for us older folk on here....Ray Harryhausen passed away today...Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
Again--and this is almost becoming a habit--your sources are lying to you. Cook graduated from the University of Queensland in Australia with a degree in physics, after which he majored in solar physics during his post-grad honors year. No, he is not a climate scientist, nor does he claim to be. But his formal higher education certainly included more than "studying physics" and "doodling too much".*

(I won't address the rest of your comment, as I skipped it; since you were so wrong in your first paragraph that I simply didn't bother reading the rest.)

* - For what it's worth, since his website can't and doesn't rely on his own findings--you know, like Goddard, Watts, and McIntyre do in their pursuit of blog "science"--he insists that any and all dialog revolve around only peer-reviewed scientific articles. No blog science or unsupported personal opinions allowed.


This is what John Cook wrote about himself in the link I provided:

This site was created by John Cook. I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade. I did a Physics degree at the University of Queensland and while I achieved First Class Honours and could've continued onto a PhD, I instead quit academia and became a professional scrawler.

So you are correct that he has some sort of a degree. My point focused around Dr. Masters referring to Mr. Cook as "Dr. Cook."

If my secondary point about the Dorman and Zimmerman study is so wrong, why don't you explain to us what defines as a "significant contributing factor" to the warming in the 20th Century? What percentage is it?
Member Since: April 1, 2010 Posts: 9 Comments: 2699
Quoting psetas23:


i no that but in my lifetime 24 years we have not nobody knows but with the canadian high along with the bermuda high are conditions higher for a storm to skirt the west coast of florida


I am not sure about the Gulf of Mexico yet. As I said in my March outlook, my feeling is that Florida, the eastern seaboard, and the eastern Caribbean islands have the largest probability relative to normal of being hit this year, but it would only take a slight weakening of the expected Cape Verde season to cause the rest of the Caribbean and GOM to light up in a year like this.
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26698
Quoting KoritheMan:

Never gonna let me live that down, are you? >_>

Nope!
Member Since: March 16, 2012 Posts: 127 Comments: 7972

Quoting wxchaser97:

Speaking of bets...
I haven't forgot about ours.
:)


Never gonna let me live that down, are you? >_>
Member Since: March 7, 2007 Posts: 601 Comments: 21199
Quoting Neapolitan:
That 97% figure Dr. Masters cited comes from a peer-reviewed study. That means other experts looked at the research, tried vigorously to tear it apart, and utterly failed to do so. In other words, it passed muster.

On the other hand, we have your opinion. Now, before I would consider that opinion anything more than just that, I would need to see your professional credentials. And I'm afraid mere "fascination with probabilities and odds" aren't sufficient; I'll need to see records of your formal education, lists of professional associations to which you belong, and publication information for every scientific paper you've authored in the field of statistical mathematics. That's only fair, don't you think? After all, the authors of the peer-reviewed paper Dr. Masters cited weren't bashful about publishing their credentials. Same with the paper's referees. Until I see that, I'll have no choice but to keep your commentary classified as "Opinion: Non-Expert".

Bottom line: a very large percentage of scientists across many disciplines--climatologists, meteorologists, atmospheric dynamicists, atmospheric physicists, atmospheric chemists, solar physicists, historical climatologists, geophysicists, geochemists, geologists, soil scientists, oceanographers, glaciologists, palaeoclimatologists, palaeoenvironmental reconstructionists, ecologists, synthetic biologists, biochemists, global change biologists, biogeographers, ecophysiologists, ecological geneticists, applied mathematicians, mathematical modellers, computer scientists, numerical modellers, bayesian inferencists, mathematical statisticians, time series analysts, etc.--agree that the climate is warming and it's our fault. As a fascinated but non-expert person myself, you'll forgive me for deferring to them, and not contrarians on an internet forum...

That's only logical, ain't it?
Where do you have my opinion? I'm not giving an opinion. I'm just noting the 82% figure from across the broad spectrum of 3,146 scientists you mention(whice included some "documented" skeptics) as opposed to the 97% of the 79 climate scientists. Either one is still a clear majority in my odds book. The rest of your snarky post asking for my credentials is moot.
.
I was asking for some clarification on the issue of significance. From folks who know more than I about the science. If we knew that man is ONLY 49% responsible do we throw in the towel to the cosmos? How about 1%? I'm not attacking you, I'm asking.
Member Since: August 3, 2005 Posts: 10 Comments: 5673
Quoting Levi32:


Tampa Bay could be hit by a hurricane in any year.


i no that but in my lifetime 24 years we have not nobody knows but with the canadian high along with the bermuda high are conditions higher for a storm to skirt the west coast of florida
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
277. beell
Some snippets from the results of the Doran survey liked by Dr Masters in today's post.


An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists.

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or
remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing
mean global temperatures?

With 3146 individuals completing the survey, the participant response rate for the
survey was 30.7%. This is a typical response rate for Web-based surveys

More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s,

the most common areas of expertise reported were geochemistry (15.5%), geophysics (12%), and oceanography (10.5%). General geology, hydrology/hydrogeology, and paleontology each accounted for 5-7% of the total respondents. Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists

In our survey, the most specialized and knowledgeable respondents (with regard to climate
change) are those who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who
also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the
subject of climate change (79 individuals in total). Of these specialists, 96.2%
(76 of 79) answered "risen" to question 1 and 97.4% (75 of 77) answered yes to question 2.


The two areas of expertise in the survey with the smallest percentage of participants answering yes to question 2 were economic geology with 47% (48 of 103) and meteorology with 64% (23 of 36)


Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 327 - 277

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

Light Rain
48 °F
Light Rain