FAQ
It is currently Mon Oct 23, 2017 10:31 pm


Author Message
marnixR
Post  Post subject: "there is no consensus on global warming"  |  Posted: Fri Nov 23, 2012 8:16 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4883
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
which is a true statement when you talk about the general public
however, when it comes to scientific papers, you come to the conclusion that not only is there a consensus, but it's as solid a consensus you can get on any well-established scientific theory

The State of Climate Science - A Thorough Review of the Scientific Literature on Global Warming

basically, what happens in the political arena is the same as what happens when creationism attempts to attack evolution : lively debate about the hows and whys of global warming is distorted and misrepresented as doubts over the actual fact of global warming

Image

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
SkinWalker
Post  Post subject: Re: "there is no consensus on global warming"  |  Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 1:43 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 10:57 pm
Posts: 433

Offline
I was most interested in his methodology, which was fairly straight-forward:

James Lawrence Powell wrote:
Methodology

Search the Web of Science [WoS: university access required] as follows:

Step 1
Search with:
Topic = "global climate change" (quotation marks essential)
Publication Year=1991
Document Type=Article
Enhanced Science Index only

On November 10, 2012 this gives 40 results.

Step 2
Repeat this search but substitute Topic="global warming". This gives 131 results.

But some articles will have used both "global warming and "global climate change" and these must be subtracted otherwise they are counted twice.

Step 3
Search with Topic="global warming" AND Topic=" global climate change" in the second field. Use Publication Year=1991 and add a field for Articles or refine the search for articles only. This gives 11 results.

Therefore the total number of unique records for 1991 is 40 + 131 - 11 = 160

Repeat for each year. Or, one could do the three searches for the entire period, 1991-2012, then combine the searches to remove the double counting.

Read some combination of titles, abstracts, and entire papers as necessary to judge whether a paper "rejects" human-caused global warming or professes to have a better explanation of observations.

The Web of Science also lists the number of times each article has been cited, and much more. At the bottom of the search page, you can export the results to an Excel file.

Note that some papers that one might expect to find listed were classified as "Review" or "Editorial Material" by WoS. I did not count these.


I think the next logical step would be to list the "rejecting" papers and then see what refutations and rejoinders exist related to them.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: "there is no consensus on global warming"  |  Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 3:55 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5730
Location: Iowa

Offline
I've encountered similar charts recently. I liked this one a bit more:


Image


As seems clear, we should wait until those 24 change their minds before we decide to take responsible actions in response. :roll:

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: "there is no consensus on global warming"  |  Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 5:21 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4883
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
iNow wrote:
As seems clear, we should wait until those 24 change their minds before we decide to take responsible actions in response. :roll:


that's 24 papers, but by how many authors ?

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
bunbury
Post  Post subject: Re: "there is no consensus on global warming"  |  Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 8:02 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 5:55 am
Posts: 978
Location: Denver, Colorado

Offline
More than 24 as this list shows.

http://jamespowell.org/styled/index.html

Some of the usual suspects are there: Pat Michaels and David Bellamy (a lumbering buffoon of a TV personality if I recall correctly from old BBC days). Don't recognize the rest.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: "there is no consensus on global warming"  |  Posted: Sat Nov 24, 2012 9:32 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5730
Location: Iowa

Offline
marnixR wrote:
that's 24 papers, but by how many authors ?

I'm unsure, but I think we should only count each denier as 3/5ths of a person anyway. ;)

I suspect also that if we counted the number of authors on the papers that accept global warming as valid and compare that to the number of authors on those that reject global warming (as you recommend), that number would cause the relative difference to become even more clear than it already is and make the consensus look even stronger.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
iceaura
Post  Post subject: Re: "there is no consensus on global warming"  |  Posted: Wed Nov 28, 2012 11:30 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 8:05 pm
Posts: 391

Offline
By my quick count, the 24 papers listed have 32 authors, in 17 distinct groups (counting the co-authors with Chilinger as one group, say).

Ten of the papers have one author listed, and 5 of the remaining 14 include Chilinger as co-author.

It's a small community, as scientific communities go.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: "there is no consensus on global warming"  |  Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2012 3:19 am
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5730
Location: Iowa

Offline
Nice. Thanks for doing the leg work on that, iceaura. That's good to know, actually.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: "there is no consensus on global warming"  |  Posted: Mon Sep 30, 2013 6:20 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5730
Location: Iowa

Offline
Image
http://www.livescience.com/40019-global ... aphic.html

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: "there is no consensus on global warming"  |  Posted: Sun Jan 12, 2014 12:47 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4883
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
update on the OP

science and global warming

Image

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
jimmydasaint
Post  Post subject: Re: "there is no consensus on global warming"  |  Posted: Sun Jan 12, 2014 1:13 pm
User avatar

Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2011 4:53 pm
Posts: 380
Location: Farnham Royal, Bucks

Offline
What worries me, and this is a bit selfish I know, is that interruption of the Thermohaline Circulation can cause climate to cool here. The estimates are up to 8 to 9 Celsius cooler http://thescienceforum.org/topic339.html. The implications of that statement are absolutely huge in terms of conserving energy and fuel bills and the knock-on effects economically. It is not just a case of wearing more woolly jumpers in the house :roll: is it?

_________________
Barbarus hic ego sum quia non intelligor illis (I am a barbarian to those who do not know me) Ovid


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: "there is no consensus on global warming"  |  Posted: Sun Jan 12, 2014 2:30 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4883
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
it's gone a bit quiet on the thermohaline front of late - don't know if that is because the decline hasn't continued, or whether it proved to be a red herring, or because other factors have overtaken the attention of the press
all i know is that currently the wobbly polar front and long-persistent positioning of the jet stream appears to have had far more effect on weather patterns than the effect of the gulf stream, weakening or not

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Print view

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:   


Delete all board cookies | The team | All times are UTC


This free forum is proudly hosted by ProphpBB | phpBB software | Report Abuse | Privacy