Slashdot Mirror
Consensus On Consensus: Climate Experts Agree On Human-Caused Global Warming (theguardian.com)
mspohr quotes a report from The Guardian written by Dana Nuccitelli, environmental scientist and contributor to SkepticalScience.com: There is an overwhelming expert scientific consensus on human-caused global warming. Authors of seven previous climate consensus studies -- including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, John Cook, [Dana Nuccitelli] and six of her colleagues -- have co-authored a new paper that should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are: 1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it's somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists. 2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.
Quoted from IOPscience: Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%-100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers also supported a 97% consensus. Tol comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.
Quoted from IOPscience: Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming. The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%-100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers also supported a 97% consensus. Tol comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming ('no position') represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.
Global climate change is happening now with current negative results https://www.nwf.org/Wildlife/Threats-to-Wildlife/Global-Warming/Global-Warming-is-Happening-Now.aspx. Moreover, how would you feel if previous generations had taken your attitude about lead in gasoline or about the ozone layer because it wouldn't happen to be a problem for a few years?
That site is known to be a bit of an extreme one. Not the greatest source ever (but neither would I necessarily qoute WattsUpWithThat as a neutral source.) Fair is fair.
Denial much, guys? Do you work for coal/oil companies?
Those "small increases" bring much bigger problems in their wake. Floods, tornados, droughts, etc. It's only been a few decades and we're already seeing huge changes up here in Canada.
100% of cartographers used to believe that the Earth was flat. Consensus does not equal fact. Science is not determined by how popular an idea is. It is determined by hypothesis, experimentation and repeatable results. I understand the hypothesis in this case. What is not clear is what experimentation was done to prove the hypothesis and whether said results were repeatable.
Whether climate change is caused by mankind remains a theory at best.
A more accurate statement: 1. Over 90% of scientists think the Earth is more likely to be warming up than cooling down. Even skeptics usually agree with this. 2. Most of these scientists said humans had some sort of impact on the climate, but exactly how much was under debate. In fact, the consensus view at present is that the impact of CO2 is overestimated. Sources: IPCC using too many weasel words https://www.google.com/url?sa=... https://www.google.com/url?sa=... Sorry for the messy links.
The hypothesis is that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas; adding more of it to the atmosphere will cause the atmosphere to get warmer, and this is the primary driver of climate change from, say, 1900-2100. The greenhouse effect is undeniable, otherwise the Earth would be a very cold place. It's pretty damn certain that adding more greenhouse gases will cause warming. The problem is that the models (hypotheses of how Earth's climate system behaves) predict a much larger warming than has been observed. The models are run with a variety of emissions scenarios ranging from stopping virtually all carbon emissions (low end; little warming) to business as usual (high end; lots of warming). Our emissions have tracked at the high end of the range, yet temperatures are at the low end of the spread among models. While we're establishing records, they're not nearly as high as the models predict.
This should cause scientists to pause and ask why the observations don't support the hypothesis. If the models are right, the Earth should be a lot warmer than it currently is. Instead of trying to understand what's going on in the climate system, scientists have doubled down on the dire predictions. Scientists like Kevin Trenberth, a lead author on two IPCC reports and among NCAR's top brass, have been quick to blame many extreme weather events on climate, which contributes to people conflating weather and climate, not to mention it's not really supported by the science. Instead of trying to understand the climate system better, they've basically said, damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead! That's not science anymore. It's obsession, perhaps motivated by the realities of politics and funding.
Also, the consensus can be artificially manufactured. If you hold a skeptical view, no matter how well your opinion is supported by observations, it's certainly much harder to get jobs, funding, and publications. Basically, if you want a career in climatology, you pretty much have to believe global warming, even when the evidence isn't nearly that conclusive.
Who cares if the experts agree. After all, they are not the politicians seeking to get elected/re-elected by saying the opposite while putting cash in their pockets from polluters.
And most flat earthers can't provide evidence of same, which is why their narrative is based around conspiracy theory. Like anti-vaxxers, and climate denialists.
The problems don't start till 2100, and I'll be dead by then. Global warming is future people's problem, NOT mine!
This is the true consensus, exampled by humanity's action (or lack thereof.) I personally don't care what/who caused it, blaming is pointless. The fact nothing is changing to slow it down (if that's even possible at this point, science is still out on that) is all I really care about, and there's of course the 'I won't be around to see the effects.' thought too.
From the few articles I've read, it seems like even if we stopped all CO2 emissions this very instant, we're still in for some rough changes to the climate. So it's pretty easy to get on board with the 'future humans are fucked, no matter what, so why even care?' line of thought.
But again, blaming does nothing, it doesn't fix anything, it doesn't make positive changes. So just spinning our wheels doing 'science' to prove the science is right. How about some solutions people? And cutting emissions is not going to fly, we need a different solution than just cutting emissions, we're past the cutting emissions is gunna amount to much of anything. And it's never going to happen anyway, so solutions that work with the emissions are what is needed.
Who needs the scientific method when we have CONSENSUS? Let's just call it a day and go home now.
With or without humans the Earth's temperature will rise much higher and fall much lower over the ages -- as it always has.
The arrogant idiocy of those who think that this temperature range is perfect and will last indefinitely is fundamentally anti-scientific.
Why shouldn't England be tropical (again)? Who made these rules? Real estate owners?
The Earth's temperature isn't static and never was. Get over it.
Every Intelligent person knows that it is a redistribution plot. Yet many are ashamed to voice that in order not to be accused conspiracy theorists.
Every thinking person knows that humanity MIGHT be contributing to the climate change. We might.
However, the smartest scientists who are voicing Climate warming are also disgusted with the politicians attempts to monetize it.
Somewhere between 90 and 100% of /.ers are in agreement that this should be fun.
A recent meta-study concludes that the remaining 0-10% are actually correct in believing this will be a fairly shitty time, but are being silenced by a global cabal of carefree internet commenters who just want to have fun.
Nothing posted to
Strange how the naturalist position is that species extinction is perfectly to be expected, even essential, in the context of evolution.
Unless it happens now, where it is some sort of moral travesty.
"Negative" according to what?
I understand Linnaean Taxonomy has probably convinced you by means of a neat diagram, backed by authoritative-sounding Latin terminology, that they are basically you. So, species loss becomes a simple and understandable matter of psychological self-interest, since your end is morally and metaphysically undifferentiable.
Then you eat a steak for dinner. Ah well. Sic transit gloria mundi.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
The problem with nuclear power is the cost. If you can find a way to make it cost competitive, then by all means, promote that idea. Complaining about it it doesn't seem like a useful strategy to solve the problem.
How much of that cost is regulatory red tape?
How much the planet will heat up and what level is even harmful, instead of helpful, is very much up for debate.
Since the next ice age is an inevitability, it's a race to see how much we as a people can prosper and prepare before we are all encased in a thousand years of winter - which is in the end vastly more a danger than even the most extreme warming forecasts.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Money... what a joke. The human race is so stupid.
Capitalism is a redistribution plot...by design.
People in cars cause accidents....accidents in cars cause people
Who needs the scientific method when we have CONSENSUS? Let's just call it a day and go home now.
Consensus is PART of the scientific method. It's the only way we actually get to DO "science".
Imagine "science" without the possibility of consensus:
"Hey, that whole gravity thing could be bogus! I know other researchers have verified it thousands of times, but maybe they're wrong. Let's just do some calibration tests every day in the lab to be sure stuff doesn't randomly start floating UP instead of falling down. After all, we can't accept consensus!"
"Well, I was going to do a chemistry experiment today, but I don't really believe that whole atomic theory of matter. I mean, there's 'consensus' on the idea that molecules are made up of atoms, and a substance has consistent properties based on that. But maybe water isn't really made up of H2O. Maybe if I zap it with electricity, it will turn out that it's actually made of microscopic gnomes! The gnomes could be magically giving the illusion of molecular structure. Before I start my chem experiments, I need to be sure my hypothetical gnomes aren't going to ruin the properties of my solvent. So let's test for gnomes every day!"
Obviously these are ridiculous examples. But actual science in practice requires that we accept a bunch of "givens" to actually make progress. Those are generally derived through scientific consensus. Yes, sometimes even those fundamental assumptions are shown to be wrong, at which point we have a "paradigm shift" (in Thomas Kuhn's terms) or modify the "hard core of our research program" (in Imre Lakatos's terms).
But "normal science" simply couldn't operate without foundational assumptions. Acting like there's no role for consensus in science is just ridiculous.
Now -- I understand that there may be greater range for doubt in the scientific community about how climate change works exactly than, say, for the basic idea of gravity or that water molecules are H2O. That's reflected in TFA -- the numbers vary from 90% to 99% consensus... I assume for gravity and water the numbers would be more like 99.999%.
There's still room for people to try to question the foundational assumptions within normal science. But TFA notes that for most scientists, they consider questioning the assumption itself to be less worthy of attention than refining the models within the paradigm. That's how science works... in reality. The bizarre pseudo-Popperian nonsense that sometimes gets spouted around here that "every scientific fact is always up for falsification!" simply isn't true.
If your lab equipment seemed to indicate that your water was made of tiny gnomes, the vast majority of scientists would probably assume there was something wrong with the equipment -- or that someone was playing a prank. And that would be a heck of a lot more likely than that they had just falsified the atomic theory of matter by discovering tiny magical gnomes that produced the illusion of molecular structure. Realizing this is part of being a scientist, and that involves accepting current consensus about foundational concepts.
I agree with your sentiment.
I've found a few intelligent people who adamantly deny global warming, and their reasoning usually revolves around "If someone says don't do something or something bad will happen, it's purely an attempt to control you".
I somewhat understand that as the call against terrorism has always seemed like a giant power/vote grab to me, but then again we're all free to see the numbers of how little terrorism is a threat in day to day life.
The fact that different scientists all over the world do studies and come to a general consensus just makes them nervous of a global conspiracy instead of it might be the underlying truth, or somehow by default the more experts that agree on something the wronger it is.
The universal truth for these people is authority is bad and will always try to lie to you and screw you 100% of the time. I'm not sure how you educate against such an absolutist view.
It's turtles all the way down.
Actually, economists have been saying for decades that a price on carbon is the most effective way to reduce emissions with least impact on the economy.
Yes and politicians have made certain that none of the market based mechanisms implemented so far can help reduce emissions in any meaningful way.
I feel so sig.
So a meta study on several crappy papers with significant methodological problems can yield a sterling paper?
Science!
It's interesting that all the climate science deniers do is complain about "crappy" papers when the studies that produced those papers are relatively easy and inexpensive to do? Why don't they publish their own rebuttal paper? Probably because they know they couldn't produce significantly different results than said "crappy" papers. All they've got left is to do is to nitpick.
Strange how the naturalist position is that species extinction is perfectly to be expected, even essential, in the context of evolution. Unless it happens now, where it is some sort of moral travesty.
Ah, the famous "it would have happened anyway" fallacy. According to your logic, we shouldn't investigate homicides and prosecute murderers, as people will die anyway.
Basic scientific fact: all species drive the evolution of all other species, and thus form interdependent chains. Natural extinctions tend to be caused by calamities that hit very nearly *all* species at once, meaning the leftovers can start from scratch.
Taking out species one at a time however is almost entirely unprecedented in evolutionary history, and it happening repeatedly in a short space of time IS entirely unprecedented in evolutionary history. There is no way to know how the death of *any* species will end up impacting us (contrary to common belief: we are not special or any less dependent on the interdependent networks of species than any other). The cause of our own species end could be the extinction of one unknown single-celled organism we didn't even know existed. That is an entirely LIKELY scientific scenario.
The main reason to preserve biodiversity is because it's utterly impossible to even begin to predict the impact of any extinction on all other species -and we're one of the species being impacted.
Extinction is part of nature, but so are we - extinction should be something we, like all other species, try to avoid - not something we fucking cause. There will never be a time when doing so is not self-defeating to the point of insanity.
Seriously "things go extinct naturally so we can cause whatever extinctions we want and it doesn't matter" has about the same effect on a biologist as you would have on a physicist if you told him you were busy banging two pieces of subcritical uranium together to keep warm.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
who the hell is Brandon Shollenberger , what are his qualifications?
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
Suddenly you are relying on the authority of the group, not on evidence. There always needs to be the option to reproduce, otherwise it's not science. Surveys are not climate science, they are political science.
Exactly. Surveys among scientists are a way to derive policy from science. How else would you do it ? Have the President and Senate go out with thermometers and test it themselves ? Of course, scientists themselves are not basing their opinion on consensus. They are free to disagree and show evidence for their position.
Scientists now are not trying to prove that human-made global warming is true, they are trying to quantify it, like they always did. The consensus is simply the result of error margins being smaller.
The error is still present though, and it is big, that's why now we don't know much besides "global warming is happening" and that's why research is still going on.
Quantifying is very important because we have solutions but none of them are without drawbacks. There is the solution of doing nothing, which may not be that bad, and there are ridiculous solutions like covering the oceans with white stuff and there is everything in between.
Solutions exist. You might not like them, but they exist : http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/... ... ;)
Smaller cities, less car, less meat, no planes, less useless gadgets that break after 1 year, smaller flats, better insulation, seasonal and regional food, solar thermal energy, photovoltaics, nukes,
As I said, there are solutions to both global warming and peak oil, but you might not like them. Don't kill the messenger
You missed the most important, and most difficult to swallow solution: reduce the population.. by a lot.
As usual, Jane, you don't fail to amuse. The "people ripping it to shreds" is one guy, with what appears to be a personal grudge against John Cook and the Skeptical Science web site, complaining about one chart used in the paper with much histrionics and hyperbole.
Is this some new meaning of "ripping it to shreds" that I've never heard of before or are you just repeating what you read on some retired weatherman's blog?
Fanatically anti-fanatical