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: 277 - 227

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

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:
Quoting CosmicEvents:
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. d.


Here's a few links to look at:

From Scientific American:


Three-Quarters of Climate Change Is Man-Made

An independent study quantifies the human and natural contributions, with solar radiation contributing only minimally


Natural climate variability is extremely unlikely to have contributed more than about one-quarter of the temperature rise observed in the past 60 years, reports a pair of Swiss climate modelers in a paper published online December 4. Most of the observed warming—at least 74 percent—is almost certainly due to human activity, they write in Nature Geoscience.

Since 1950, the average global surface air temperature has increased by more than 0.5 degree Celsius. To separate human and natural causes of warming, the researchers analyzed changes in the balance of heat energy entering and leaving Earth—a new "attribution" method for understanding the physical causes of climate change.

At RealClimate

Gavin,
In your opinion, what percentage of global warming is due to human causes vs. natural causes?
[Response: Over the last 40 or so years, natural drivers would have caused cooling, and so the warming there has been (and some) is caused by a combination of human drivers and some degree of internal variability. I would judge the maximum amplitude of the internal variability to be roughly 0.1 deg C over that time period, and so given the warming of ~0.5 deg C, I'd say somewhere between 80 to 120% of the warming. Slightly larger range if you want a large range for the internal stuff. - gavin]
Comment by ADR — 20 Nov 2009 @ 6:30 PM


Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth’s energy balanceMarkus Huber & Reto Knutti

The Earth’s energy balance is key to understanding climate and climate variations that are caused by natural and anthropogenic changes in the atmospheric composition. Despite abundant observational evidence for changes in the energy balance over the past decades1, 2, 3, the formal detection of climate warming and its attribution to human influence has so far relied mostly on the difference between spatio-temporal warming patterns of natural and anthropogenic origin4, 5, 6. Here we present an alternative attribution method that relies on the principle of conservation of energy, without assumptions about spatial warming patterns. Based on a massive ensemble of simulations with an intermediate-complexity climate model we demonstrate that known changes in the global energy balance and in radiative forcing tightly constrain the magnitude of anthropogenic warming. 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. The observed trends are extremely unlikely (<5%) to be caused by internal variability, even if current models were found to strongly underestimate it. Our method is complementary to optimal fingerprinting attribution and produces fully consistent results, thus suggesting an even higher confidence that human-induced causes dominate the observed warming.

It looks like the climate scientists state that it is very significant.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MississippiWx:


A lot of this year's different weather can be attributed to the orientation of the negative PDO. The North Pacific high is much farther east this year compared to the last few years when we flipped to a negative PDO. This makes a huge difference in weather across the CONUS because a persistent trough is being carved out across the Central US instead of the West Coast this year. Therefore, arctic air is being allowed to spill down into the US at a more persistent pace. This pattern during the heart of winter would have put most of the US in a serious deep freeze. We got lucky that it waited until after the coldest air had disappeared.

Current Anomaly:



Last Year:



This is also not the best pattern for the US for the upcoming hurricane season. If it persists, a Central US anomalous trough pattern is very favorable for US landfalls, especially along the Gulf and SE coasts.
That's whats got me concerned too. The warm pool is further east, thus the extratropical wave pattern is adjusted accordingly.
Quoting Levi32:
I put up a new video discussion if anyone wants to check it out.
"Last few days of May, first week of June"
Agreed, said that exactly yesterday. Will be fun to see if this GFS bias we are accounting for verifies.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MississippiWx:
I'm sure most of you remember that the front of the University of Southern Mississippi campus was badly damaged during the Hattiesburg EF-4 tornado in February. Part of the damage was the loss of several very large live oak trees that made the front of campus beautiful. An effort began this week to replace some of those trees as part of a campus beautification project. When all is said and done, the front of campus should be more beautiful than ever.

Tree going up:



Tree in place:



Here is the link to the overall campus beautification project. It is rather impressive: Link


Oh golly! Not quite as extreme, but similar happened here, had read about it earlier today by chance when searching for something totally unrelated Link

After hovering around 70' and sunny the last few days, tomorrow and rest of week, back to normal cool and rainy and 55' or so. Was just odd the few days of the weather after so cold and late start to spring. Was talking to a local today who was saying spring was a solid 5 weeks behind. Blossoms on the trees only now coming, but the few warm days really have given a boost to the leaves and flowers. Something similar feeling in the southern states I reckon right now?!

Off to bed, hope everyone's fine!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
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 for clearing that up Dr. Masters..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:


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

Right answer!

Quoting GeoffreyWPB:


Hello my friend...but what about my house in Lake Worth behind the Publix on 10th Ave. North? Could I be hit?


Oh...well, you are in good shape!
:o)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
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 main driver behind the warming we have been seeing?


Pretty much all of them. Otherwise aggregated science reviews (like the IPCC) wouldn't be able to make claims that almost all climate scientists agree human activity is the primary instigator for modern global warming (since such documents are reviewed by the scientists). And the current consensus puts our contribution between 80% to 120%.
Member Since: October 31, 2009 Posts: 0 Comments: 1453
269. JeffMasters (Admin)
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
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?


Speaking of citing educational credentials, can you provide a source, with a link citing "Dr." Cooks? Google must be on hiatus, cuz I can't seem to find anything........even his own blog, doesn't recognize anything more, than his given name.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:


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


Hello my friend...but what about my house in Lake Worth behind the Publix on 10th Ave. North? Could I be hit?

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GeoffreyWPB:


True Rob. I like going back and reading the comments around a few years ago from this time. It's like deja vu all over again.

Ahhhh! The good old days!
LOL

262. wxchaser97
Yeah, gonna take a while to get the gulf warmed up to the depth that would support rapid intensification of anything.

I knew when that low crossed central FL and my temps dropped like a rock that anything that developed would definitely be cold core. Now I'm sitting on my deck and the wind off the lake is making be debate putting on a long sleeved shirt. We all start getting a little excited/nervous about this time of year. I'll prolly wait a couple weeks before dragging out the gensets and testing them. (although I've already stocked up on 20 gals water this week...that time of year)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
265. beell
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?


Throw yours in their too, Neap. So one may pass judgement on your ability to develop your own opinion.
;-)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting psetas23:


so levi what youre saying is even tampa bay could be hit by a hurricane/ major hurricane this year


Tampa Bay could be hit by a hurricane in any year.
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26548
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.
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?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting KoritheMan:

Obliterate? No. Tickle my curiosity? You bet.

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

TCHP is actually down from what it was a week ago.

So is just regular SST's.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting CosmicEvents:
It strikes me as nit-picking the methodology of the randomness. It seems to me that the methodology was random enough. 10 out of 12,000 seems a bit too low a sample size, but it's likely valid enough. I'm thoroughly confused at the whole situation. It appears that there's an argument strictly amongst a group of 100% "believers". We have some questioning this Dr. Cook, and others, like Dr. Masters, who says the Cook site is one of his favorites.


Thanks for taking a look....it appeared to me, that the 12,000 random abstracts, were not actually such....based on what I read (and I have no background in programming), the programming of the survey, was done in such a manner, that subsets were used, and the participant, was not, in fact, receiving a random selection, from 12,000, but a selection of pre-designated (for lack of a better term)abstracts, from a much more narrowed down amount.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting MississippiWx: Post# 238
I'm sure most of you remember that the front of the University of Southern Mississippi campus was badly damaged during the Hattiesburg EF-4 tornado in February. Part of the damage was the loss of several very large live oak trees that made the front of campus beautiful. An effort began this week to replace some of those trees as part of a campus beautification project. When all is said and done, the front of campus should be more beautiful than ever.

Tree going up:



Tree in place:



Here is the link to the overall campus beautification project. It is rather impressive: Link


Hey Mississippiwx..
Thats quite an impressive project they have laid out..
I've always liked that area of Mississippi anyway..
The honor wall is going to be located in a great place by Lake Byron..
Best of luck to them all..
I'd like to go see it after it's completed..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RobDaHood:

TCHP is actually down from what it was a week ago.


True Rob. I like going back and reading the comments around a few years ago from this time. It's like deja vu all over again.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
258. SLU
Quoting Levi32:
I put up a new video discussion if anyone wants to check it out.


Great stuff as always. Keep it up.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Quoting Dakster:


Yep. After seeing and dealing with death, destruction, and the total elimination of neighborhoods. I guess I am boring to not want to go thru it or have to deal with it again. I will if the situation presents itself, but I would rather not.

I guess that means you wanted to see 'superstorm sandy' obliterate the NE US?

Just playing devils advocate here.
Obliterate? No. Tickle my curiosity? You bet.
Member Since: March 7, 2007 Posts: 555 Comments: 19953
Quoting Sangria:


Hey Sombrero Man......you are definitely a numbers guy....can you make some sense, of this? From what I gather, the "randomness" (of the survey abstracts) is not so random.....

Link
It strikes me as nit-picking the methodology of the randomness. It seems to me that the methodology was random enough. 10 out of 12,000 seems a bit too low a sample size, but it's likely valid enough. I'm thoroughly confused at the whole situation. It appears that there's an argument strictly amongst a group of 100% "believers". We have some questioning this Dr. Cook, and others, like Dr. Masters, who says the Cook site is one of his favorites.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting GeoffreyWPB:


I read earlier it was Rocket Fuel in the Gulf?

TCHP is actually down from what it was a week ago.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:
I put up a new video discussion if anyone wants to check it out.


so levi what youre saying is even tampa bay could be hit by a hurricane/ major hurricane this year
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RobDaHood:
Before getting too excited about a "hot Gulf" worth checking here:

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/cyclone/data/go.htm l

We're still a ways from that.


I read earlier it was Rocket Fuel in the Gulf?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
252. VR46L
Quoting Xulonn:
Any of you guys have a good link for analysis and discussion of GOM surface and subsurface heating with respect to insolation, air temp, cloud cover, current flow from the Caribbean into the loop current, dynamics of GOM warm and cold-core eddy currente, etc.

I know that the sea surface can warm quickly in calm weather and in the absence of currents to carry the heat away. Also, I am aware that powerful hurricanes depend on heat to a fair depth for to "fuel" their growth and sustain their winds.

In light of the cool spring and lots of cloud cover, what are the 3D (not just surface) temps and heat content, and how might we expect to see temps and heat content increase over the next few weeks? How long could we expect it to take for GOM and Caribbean heat content levels to increase to the levels needed to propagate and fuel hurricanes to major status? How predictable is the GOM loop current and its eddies?

(Even in asking questions, I am boggled by the complexity of tropical cyclonic systems and the conditions that they require to exist!)


Doesn't cover everything you are looking for but these links might get you started
OSPO SST analysis fields

and

Sea Surface Temperature OSPO
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Before getting too excited about a "hot Gulf" worth checking here:

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/cyclone/data/go.htm l

We're still a ways from that.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
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.


Hey Sombrero Man......you are definitely a numbers guy....can you make some sense, of this? From what I gather, the "randomness" (of the survey abstracts) is not so random.....

Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:


Coming, I promise - just not sure when. I'm in the middle of final exam week at UAF so coding is delayed.
I saw you using it and i rush to your site xD
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Good luck on your exams, Levi!!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Gearsts:
Very nice Levi! Where's the CFS on your site?


Coming, I promise - just not sure when. I'm in the middle of final exam week at UAF so coding is delayed.
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26548
While I hope Levi32 is wrong, he generally is correct...


Looking like this could be a season to watch out for, as far, as those of us living in the Caribbean and East Coast US.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:
I put up a new video discussion if anyone wants to check it out.
Very nice Levi! Where's the CFS on your site?
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.
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.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Gulf of Mexico waters have really cooled these past few days due to the strong,cold upper level low now getting into the mid-atlantic.
 


Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Good job man!!!:)
Quoting Levi32:
I put up a new video discussion if anyone wants to check it out.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I put up a new video discussion if anyone wants to check it out.
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26548
I just can't believe that Nino 1 2 region reach -5 degree celcius below normal in september 2010!!!

Member Since: June 20, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 2150
Testing IntelliGeoff....

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I'm sure most of you remember that the front of the University of Southern Mississippi campus was badly damaged during the Hattiesburg EF-4 tornado in February. Part of the damage was the loss of several very large live oak trees that made the front of campus beautiful. An effort began this week to replace some of those trees as part of a campus beautification project. When all is said and done, the front of campus should be more beautiful than ever.

Tree going up:



Tree in place:



Here is the link to the overall campus beautification project. It is rather impressive: Link
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
MesoWest Jurupa Valley CA US SGXWFO, Riverside, California (PWS)
Updated: 2:49 PM PDT on May 07, 2013
Scattered Clouds
71 °F
Scattered Clouds
Humidity: 44%
Dew Point: 48 °F
Wind: 4 mph Variable
Wind Gust: 14.0 mph
Pressure: 29.95 in (Falling)
Heat Index: 77 °F
Visibility: 10.0 miles
UV: 7 out of 16
Pollen: 4.10 out of 12
Pollen Forecast new!
Clouds:
Scattered Clouds 5500 ft
(Above Ground Level)
Elevation: 794 ft

Nice temp there Keeper. I got 72.2F right now. Uphill from here...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Xulonn:
Any of you guys have a good link for analysis and discussion of GOM surface and subsurface heating with respect to insolation, air temp, cloud cover, current flow from the Caribbean into the loop current, dynamics of GOM warm and cold-core eddy currente, etc.

I know that the sea surface can warm quickly in calm weather and in the absence of currents to carry the heat away. Also, I am aware that powerful hurricanes depend on heat to a fair depth for to "fuel" their growth and sustain their winds.

In light of the cool spring and lots of cloud cover, what are the 3D (not just surface) temps and heat content, and how might we expect to see temps and heat content increase over the next few weeks? How long could we expect it to take for GOM and Caribbean heat content levels to increase to the levels needed to propagate and fuel hurricanes to major status? How predictable is the GOM loop current and its eddies?

(Even in asking questions, I am boggled by the complexity of tropical cyclonic systems and the conditions that they require to exist!)


Well, here is a link to what NOAA says about the Loop Current. Link

As far as heat content goes, it's pretty low as well due to the below average temps in the Gulf. I can't really give you a great time frame for how long it should take, but once you see cold fronts stop penetrating into the Gulf, you'll start to notice the temps warm. It all just depends on amount of heat available, wind speed, and cloud cover. The Gulf is so unique that it can go from being -1C below average to +1C above average in just a couple of weeks. I don't really have any scientific papers to show you the process and what causes it, but I'm just going off experience.

Here's a great example from 2010. Notice how cold the Gulf is on May 3 relative to average and then a week later...bam!

May 3, 2010:



May 10, 2010:

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Toronto Pearson Int'l Airport
Date: 6:00 PM EDT Tuesday 7 May 2013
Condition:Mainly Sunny
Pressure:30.0 inches
Tendency:falling
Visibility:15 miles
Temperature:75.2°F
Dewpoint:40.3°F
Humidity:28%
Wind:SE 6 mph
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Dr. John
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting KoritheMan:

You're boring.


Yep. After seeing and dealing with death, destruction, and the total elimination of neighborhoods. I guess I am boring to not want to go thru it or have to deal with it again. I will if the situation presents itself, but I would rather not.

I guess that means you wanted to see 'superstorm sandy' obliterate the NE US?

Just playing devils advocate here.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TropicalAnalystwx13:

Yeah. It's not going to last though. The CFS has a return of above-average trades by mid-month.


Maybe. The predictability of the anomalies in the MDR hasn't been very skillful. It has cooled when we thought it would warm and vice versa.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 277 - 227

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

Partly Cloudy
61 °F
Partly Cloudy