Environment & Energy
Related: About this forumStudy reveals scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change
http://www.iop.org/news/13/may/page_60200.html16 May 2013 | Source: Environmental Research Letters
[font size=4]A comprehensive analysis of peer-reviewed articles on the topic of global warming and climate change has revealed an overwhelming consensus among scientists that recent warming is human-caused.[/font]
[font size=3]The study is the most comprehensive yet and identified 4000 summaries, otherwise known as abstracts, from papers published in the past 21 years that stated a position on the cause of recent global warming 97 per cent of these endorsed the consensus that we are seeing man-made, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW)
Led by John Cook at the University of Queensland, the study has been published today, Thursday 16 May, in IOP Publishings journal Environmental Research Letters.
The study went one step further, asking the authors of these papers to rate their entire paper using the same criteria. Over 2000 papers were rated and among those that discussed the cause of recent global warming, 97 per cent endorsed the consensus that it is caused by humans.
[/font][/font]
kristopher
(29,798 posts)jpak
(41,759 posts)DreamGypsy
(2,252 posts)More info and a video summarizing the findings of the study here: http://skepticalscience.com/
I like the pacman resemblance in this graphic -
Thanks for the post, OIIJM.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)Additionally, I have this question: Since the 3% is a measure of papers published in the past 2 decades, and not the authors current opinions, how many of them have changed their minds since their papers were published.
dixiegrrrrl
(60,010 posts)But also have some first hand experience.
There are a large number of Fox viewers in this state, esp. in the non-cities.
They tend to believe what Fox, and their ultra conservative ministers, and their pasty white demagogue Republican
Gov't people tell them.
Fox and the Bible....main sources of info.
DreamGypsy
(2,252 posts)The data is presented historically for the papers from 1991 to 2011, with graphs showing the percentages of No Position on AGW, Endorse AGW, and Reject AGW. The data is for two phases of the study: 1) a review of article abstracts by a group of independent raters of 11 944 papers written by 29 083 authors and published in 1980 journals, and 2) a self-review (by actual authors of the papers) where 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors (this serves an accuracy test for the independent review group).
The independent review and self-review findings show some significant differences in the early years, but converge with small margin of error to 97% for 2011.
So, the 97% number reflects data from 2 years ago and there is confirming evidence that the number reflects the authors' self assessments at the time (which albeit could have possibly changed in the intervening 2 years) with a clear trend of increasing endorsement of AGW over the period of the study.
The paper elucidates some sources of uncertainty in the study.
OKIsItJustMe
(19,938 posts)[font size=4]3.2. Endorsement percentages from self-ratings[/font]
[font size=3]We emailed 8547 authors an invitation to rate their own papers and received 1200 responses (a 14% response rate). After excluding papers that were not peer-reviewed, not climate-related or had no abstract, 2142 papers received self-ratings from 1189 authors. The self-rated levels of endorsement are shown in table 4. Among self-rated papers that stated a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. Among self-rated papers not expressing a position on AGW in the abstract, 53.8% were self-rated as endorsing the consensus. Among respondents who authored a paper expressing a view on AGW, 96.4% endorsed the consensus.
The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.
[/font][/font]
66.4% of the papers (lets call that 2/3s) did not express a position on AGW (based on reading the abstract) of those, 53.8% were rated by their authors as supporting the consensus.
So, lets say that accounts for 1/3 of the papers. (i.e. half of 2/3's)
The authors note this:
Roughly 1/3 of the papers clearly expressed a position. Of those, 97%+ of them endorsed the scientific consensus (but the majority expressed no position on AGW.)
So, that leaves me with (about) 2/3s of the papers being rated by their authors as endorsing the scientific consensus, a very few opposing the consensus, and (about) 1/3 neutral.
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)In some years, in some places (even in the Northern Hemisphere), April 15 is warmer than July 15. If sincere scientists take careful measurements of the temperature at multiple spots around City Hall at multiple times during the day, and compare them for the two days, a certain number of reports will conclude that from April to July there's a cooling trend.
Obviously, the studies included in this meta-analysis were much more complex. Nevertheless, they'd still be subject to the randomness of nature.