Climate change has intensified hurricane rainfall, and now we know how much

[homersapien 11,367]

"Hurricane Harvey swamped Houston with seven days of pounding rain last August. When scientists went back to look at historical weather patterns, they reported Harvey dumped 20 percent more rain than it typically would have. The culprit: climate change.

Today, we know that Harvey wasn’t an outlier. A new study, published Wednesday in Nature by the same lab, reports that climate change intensified the rains of Hurricane Katrina, Hurricane Irma and Hurricane Maria by between 4 and 9 percent. The researchers predict that future warming could increase rainfall totals for the most extreme hurricanes and tropical cyclones by up to 30 percent."

Read the full article at: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/science/climate-change-has-intensified-hurricane-rainfall-and-now-we-know-how-much

 

Incidentally, we just received over 5 inches of rain in the last three days in upstate South Carolina from just normal "gulf flow"and are under flood warnings. This is the same system that just went through Auburn.

[jj3jordan 2,051]

Harvey stopped moving because the highs and lows lined up and created a stationary front situation. That’s where the extra rain came from.

[homersapien 11,367]

16 hours ago, jj3jordan said:

Harvey stopped moving because the highs and lows lined up and created a stationary front situation. That’s where the extra rain came from.

I am sure that was a factor, but the indicated research shows how more rain was produced in such hurricanes due to AGW regardless if it stalls or not.  In other words, the stalling and rain production from temperature are two independent factors.

 

Anthropogenic influences on major tropical cyclone events

Abstract

There is no consensus on whether climate change has yet affected the statistics of tropical cyclones, owing to their large natural variability and the limited period of consistent observations. In addition, projections of future tropical cyclone activity are uncertain, because they often rely on coarse-resolution climate models that parameterize convection and hence have difficulty in directly representing tropical cyclones. Here we used convection-permitting regional climate model simulations to investigate whether and how recent destructive tropical cyclones would change if these events had occurred in pre-industrial and in future climates. We found that, relative to pre-industrial conditions, climate change so far has enhanced the average and extreme rainfall of hurricanes Katrina, Irma and Maria, but did not change tropical cyclone wind-speed intensity. In addition, future anthropogenic warming would robustly increase the wind speed and rainfall of 11 of 13 intense tropical cyclones (of 15 events sampled globally). Additional regional climate model simulations suggest that convective parameterization introduces minimal uncertainty into the sign of projected changes in tropical cyclone intensity and rainfall, which allows us to have confidence in projections from global models with parameterized convection and resolution fine enough to include tropical cyclones.

[jj3jordan 2,051]

Sorry still models and simulation. Computers give you back what you tell it to with your inputs. If your inputs are inaccurate then the data produced are also not accurate.  In one sentence you say parameterizing convection is uncertain, then you parameterize it later in the paragraph. Also AGW is not proven by any stretch. Maybe it is to you but not everyone.  Explains nothing regarding rainfall except that you changed some parameters and made it higher. It does look and sound very professional though.

[homersapien 11,367]

30 minutes ago, jj3jordan said:

Sorry still models and simulation. Computers give you back what you tell it to with your inputs. If your inputs are inaccurate then the data produced are also not accurate.  In one sentence you say parameterizing convection is uncertain, then you parameterize it later in the paragraph. Also AGW is not proven by any stretch. Maybe it is to you but not everyone.  Explains nothing regarding rainfall except that you changed some parameters and made it higher. It does look and sound very professional though.

OK, fine.  If you really want to believe AGW is unproven there's nothing I can do to dissuade you. (And I didn't say anything. I was just quoting.)

By the way, you misunderstood the part about "parameterizing convection.  What they did is modify the models to include convection while also accounting for temperature - which the directional models do not.

And it "sounds" very professional probably because the authors work at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and it was published by "Nature".

[homersapien 11,367]

A broader overview of global warming and hurricanes:

Global Warming and Hurricanes

An Overview of Current Research Results

https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/global-warming-and-hurricanes/

[johnnyAU 3,630]

"We Believe Climate change has intensified hurricane rainfall, and now we claim we know how much"

There, it's fixed for the CAGW cult.

[homersapien 11,367]

24 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

"We Believe Climate change has intensified hurricane rainfall, and now we claim we know how much"

There, it's fixed for the CAGW cult.

If it's a "cult" to believe and accept the science, I plead guilty.

[johnnyAU 3,630]

You accept and believe claims. 

[homersapien 11,367]

4 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

You accept and believe claims. 

No, I accept and believe the science. 

You apparently deny it. Own it.

 

 

[johnnyAU 3,630]

I am an Engineer, who works with many other Engineers and Scientists, and speaks almost daily to other Engineers and Scientists in almost every continent about the matter. 

Your "97% Consensus" is complete BS, and so are the majority of the alarmist claims.  The science isn't settled in the least, unless of course, you are a CAGW cultist/political ideologue like yourself. 

What you believe are empty claims and conjecture, but believe it you do. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

2 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

I am an Engineer, who works with many other Engineers and Scientists, and speaks almost daily to other Engineers and Scientists in almost every continent about the matter. 

Your "97% Consensus" is complete BS, and so are the majority of the alarmist claims.  The science isn't settled in the least, unless of course, you are a CAGW cultist/political ideologue like yourself. 

What you believe are empty claims and conjecture, but believe it you do. 

Care to back this up with articles/scientific research?  Because as I see it in this thread, only one person has offered any back up data from actual sources, and it ain't you.

[homersapien 11,367]

11 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

I am an Engineer, who works with many other Engineers and Scientists, and speaks almost daily to other Engineers and Scientists in almost every continent about the matter. 

Your "97% Consensus" is complete BS, and so are the majority of the alarmist claims.  The science isn't settled in the least, unless of course, you are a CAGW cultist/political ideologue like yourself. 

What you believe are empty claims and conjecture, but believe it you do. 

No, it's not BS.  It's factual.

And in my experience, engineers aren't all that literate in science. And this post is good proof of that.

[homersapien 11,367]

https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

Scientific consensus: Earth's climate is warming

Temperature data showing rapid warming in the past few decades. According to NASA data, 2016 was the warmest year since 1880, continuing a long-term trend of rising global temperatures. The 10 warmest years in the 138-year record all have occurred since 2000, with the four warmest years being the four most recent years. Credit: NASA/NOAA.

Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals¹ show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree*: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. The following is a partial list of these organizations, along with links to their published statements and a selection of related resources.

AMERICAN SCIENTIFIC SOCIETIES

---

Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations

"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver." (2009)²

• 

  American Association for the Advancement of Science

  "The scientific evidence is clear: global climate change caused by human activities is occurring now, and it is a growing threat to society." (2006)³
• 

  American Chemical Society

  "Comprehensive scientific assessments of our current and potential future climates clearly indicate that climate change is real, largely attributable to emissions from human activities, and potentially a very serious problem." (2004)⁴
• 

  American Geophysical Union

  "Human‐induced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)⁵
• 

  American Medical Association

  "Our AMA ... supports the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s fourth assessment report and concurs with the scientific consensus that the Earth is undergoing adverse global climate change and that anthropogenic contributions are significant." (2013)⁶
• 

  American Meteorological Society

  "It is clear from extensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in climate of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of atmospheric greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide (CO2), chlorofluorocarbons, methane, and nitrous oxide." (2012)⁷
• 

  American Physical Society

  "The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruptions in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now." (2007)⁸
• 

  The Geological Society of America

  "The Geological Society of America (GSA) concurs with assessments by the National Academies of Science (2005), the National Research Council (2006), and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2007) that global climate has warmed and that human activities (mainly greenhouse‐gas emissions) account for most of the warming since the middle 1900s." (2006; revised 2010)⁹

SCIENCE ACADEMIES

---

International academies: Joint statement

"Climate change is real. There will always be uncertainty in understanding a system as complex as the world’s climate. However there is now strong evidence that significant global warming is occurring. The evidence comes from direct measurements of rising surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures and from phenomena such as increases in average global sea levels, retreating glaciers, and changes to many physical and biological systems. It is likely that most of the warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities (IPCC 2001)." (2005, 11 international science academies)10

• 

  U.S. National Academy of Sciences

  "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify taking steps to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere." (2005)¹¹

U.S. GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

---

• 

  U.S. Global Change Research Program

  "The global warming of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human 'fingerprints' also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice." (2009, 13 U.S. government departments and agencies)¹²

INTERGOVERNMENTAL BODIES

---

• 

  Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

  “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen.”¹³
  
  “Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.”¹⁴

OTHER RESOURCES

---

List of worldwide scientific organizations

The following page lists the nearly 200 worldwide scientific organizations that hold the position that climate change has been caused by human action.
http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-scientific-organizations.html

U.S. agencies

The following page contains information on what federal agencies are doing to adapt to climate change.
https://www.c2es.org/site/assets/uploads/2012/02/climate-change-adaptation-what-federal-agencies-are-doing.pdf

---

 

 

 

*Technically, a “consensus” is a general agreement of opinion, but the scientific method steers us away from this to an objective framework. In science, facts or observations are explained by a hypothesis (a statement of a possible explanation for some natural phenomenon), which can then be tested and retested until it is refuted (or disproved).

As scientists gather more observations, they will build off one explanation and add details to complete the picture. Eventually, a group of hypotheses might be integrated and generalized into a scientific theory, a scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena.

---

References

1. J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
   
   Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] 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.”
   
   J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
   
   Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”
   
   W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
   
   P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
   
   N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.
2. Statement on climate change from 18 scientific associations (2009)
3. AAAS Board Statement on Climate Change (2006)
4. ACS Public Policy Statement: Climate Change (2010-2013)
5. Human‐Induced Climate Change Requires Urgent Action (2013)
6. Global Climate Change and Human Health (2013)
7. Climate Change: An Information Statement of the American Meteorological Society (2012)
8. APS National Policy 07.1 Climate Change (2007)
9. GSA Position Statement on Climate Change (2015)
10. Joint science academies' statement: Global response to climate change (2005)
11. Understanding and Responding to Climate Change (2005)
12. Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States (2009)
13. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (2014)
14. IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Summary for Policymakers (2014)

[johnnyAU 3,630]

In 2013 a study led by Australian researcher John Cook examined the claim there is a 97% consensus on global warming.  In the study Cook analyzed the abstracts of 11,944 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published between 1991 and 2011 to see what position they took on human influence on the climate.

Of those papers, just over 66 percent, or 7,930, took no position on man-made global warming. Only 32.6 percent, or 3,896, of peer-reviewed papers, endorsed the consensus humans contribute to global warming, while one percent of papers either rejected that position or were uncertain about it.

In 2013 a study led by Australian researcher John Cook examined the claim there is a 97% consensus on global warming.  In the study Cook analyzed the abstracts of 11,944 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published between 1991 and 2011 to see what position they took on human influence on the climate.

Of those papers, just over 66 percent, or 7,930, took no position on man-made global warming. Only 32.6 percent, or 3,896, of peer-reviewed papers, endorsed the consensus humans contribute to global warming, while one percent of papers either rejected that position or were uncertain about it.

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No, it's not BS.  It's factual.

LOL, no it isn't.

6 minutes ago, homersapien said:

And in my experience, engineers aren't all that literate in science. And this post is good proof of that.

LOL again. The very backbone of all Engineering is science. This is just more hand waving from a political ideologue.
 

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

14 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

In 2013 a study led by Australian researcher John Cook examined the claim there is a 97% consensus on global warming.  In the study Cook analyzed the abstracts of 11,944 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published between 1991 and 2011 to see what position they took on human influence on the climate.

Of those papers, just over 66 percent, or 7,930, took no position on man-made global warming. Only 32.6 percent, or 3,896, of peer-reviewed papers, endorsed the consensus humans contribute to global warming, while one percent of papers either rejected that position or were uncertain about it.

In 2013 a study led by Australian researcher John Cook examined the claim there is a 97% consensus on global warming.  In the study Cook analyzed the abstracts of 11,944 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published between 1991 and 2011 to see what position they took on human influence on the climate.

Of those papers, just over 66 percent, or 7,930, took no position on man-made global warming. Only 32.6 percent, or 3,896, of peer-reviewed papers, endorsed the consensus humans contribute to global warming, while one percent of papers either rejected that position or were uncertain about it.

LOL, no it isn't.

LOL again. The very backbone of all Engineering is science. This is just more hand waving from a political ideologue.
 

johnny.....you are right in referring to the cult. Most everyone agrees there is some global warming going on but won't acknowledge it has been going on in cycles for thousands of years as proven by deep bores into artic ice. They think on scientists know the facts but refute the claims of scientists who disagree. They will argue that GW is the cause of heavy hurricane rain while ignoring the drought in California contributing to the wild fires. Arguing with this cult is a waste of time. Here is an interesting recent article by NASA SCIENTISTS about the current winter storms sweeping across the U.S.  I bet the people affected don't think there is much GW.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/scientists-surprised-by-relentless-cosmic-cold-front.html

[homersapien 11,367]

36 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

In 2013 a study led by Australian researcher John Cook examined the claim there is a 97% consensus on global warming.  In the study Cook analyzed the abstracts of 11,944 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published between 1991 and 2011 to see what position they took on human influence on the climate.

Of those papers, just over 66 percent, or 7,930, took no position on man-made global warming. Only 32.6 percent, or 3,896, of peer-reviewed papers, endorsed the consensus humans contribute to global warming, while one percent of papers either rejected that position or were uncertain about it.

In 2013 a study led by Australian researcher John Cook examined the claim there is a 97% consensus on global warming.  In the study Cook analyzed the abstracts of 11,944 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published between 1991 and 2011 to see what position they took on human influence on the climate.

Of those papers, just over 66 percent, or 7,930, took no position on man-made global warming. Only 32.6 percent, or 3,896, of peer-reviewed papers, endorsed the consensus humans contribute to global warming, while one percent of papers either rejected that position or were uncertain about it.

LOL, no it isn't.

LOL again. The very backbone of all Engineering is science. This is just more hand waving from a political ideologue.
 

Actually, the Cook paper has received a lot of criticism from the fact it limited itself to only those papers in which a position was taken, as you point out above. Cook's results yielded the estimate of 97%, which implies that 3% do not.

The problem with Cook's analysis is that very few authors make a generalized statement supporting the theory their paper addresses.

So, most of the criticism has been that Cook actually underestimated the actual percentage of scientists who endorse the theory of AGW, and the actual number is more like 99.9+% 

Here's a good analysis of that conclusion:  (emphasis mine)

https://www.csicop.org/si/show/the_consensus_on_anthropogenic_global_warming

The Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming

James Lawrence Powell

Skeptical Inquirer Volume 39.6, November/December 2015

On May 16, 2013, President Obama tweeted that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.” The President is one of countless people who have come to believe that there is a “97% consensus” on anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

Since it is inconceivable that any climate scientist today could have no opinion on the subject, if 97 percent accept AGW it follows that 3 percent reject it. To those outside of science, 3 percent may seem an insignificant percentage. However, we scientists know that a small minority has often turned out to be right, otherwise there would have been no scientific revolutions. In the 1950s, for example, the percentage of American geologists who accepted continental drift was likely less than 3 percent. Yet they were right.

If there were a 3 percent minority on AGW it would matter, but there is not. The “97% consensus” is false. The percentage of publishing climate scientists who accept AGW is at least 99.9 percent and may verge on unanimity.

How, then, has nearly everyone from President Obama on down come to buy the claim of a 97 percent consensus? The figure comes from a 2013 article in Environmental Research Letters by Cook et al. titled “Quantifying the Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming in the Scientific Literature.” They reported that “Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming” (emphasis added). The 97 percent figure went viral and, not surprisingly, the qualifying phrase “expressing a position”—the fine print, if you will—got dropped. But those three words expose the false assumption inherent in the Cook et al. methodology.

Cook et al. used the Web of Science science-citation research site to review the titles and abstracts of peer-reviewed articles from 1991–2011 with the keywords “global climate change” and “global warming.” They classified the articles into seven categories from “(1) Explicit endorsement with quantification” to “(7) Explicit rejection with quantification.” In the middle was “(4) No position.”

The sine qua non of the Cook et al. method is the assumption that publishing scientists who accept a theory will say so—they will “endorse” it in the title or abstract. To count an article as part of the consensus, Cook et al. required that it “address or mention the cause of global warming.” Of the 11,944 articles that came up in their search, 7,970—two thirds—did not. Cook et al. classified those articles as taking no position and thus ruled them out of the consensus.

Do we need to know any more to realize that there is something wrong with the Cook et al. method? The consensus is what the majority accept; you cannot rule out a two-thirds majority and still derive the consensus.

Moreover, is it true that scientists routinely endorse the ruling paradigm of their discipline? To find out, I used the Web of Science to review articles in three fields: plate tectonics, the origin of lunar craters, and evolution.

Of 500 recent articles on “plate tectonics,” none in my opinion endorsed the theory directly or explicitly. Nor did a single article reject plate tectonics. This statement was about as close to an endorsement as any came: “Plate tectonics, which shapes the surface of the Earth, is the result of solid-state convection in Earth’s mantle over billions of years.”

What of lunar craters? As recently as 1964, nearly every scientist who had studied the moon believed that its craters were volcanic. Then in July of that year, the first successful Ranger mission returned thousands of photographs showing that the moon exhibits craters ranging in size from the colossal to the microscopic. Except for a few senior holdouts, scientists quickly embraced the meteorite impact theory. A Web of Science search for “lunar craters” today turns up 185 articles stretching back to 1920 (including an overlooked 1921 article by Alfred Wegener that showed convincingly that the craters are due to meteorite impact). I reviewed the abstracts of the most recent 100 articles, which go back to 1997. As with plate tectonics, none explicitly endorsed meteorite impact, nor did any reject it. The closest any came to an endorsement may be this sentence: “It is known that most of the craters on the surface of the Moon were created by the collision of minor bodies of the Solar System.”

Do biologists writing about evolution routinely endorse Darwin’s theory? I reviewed the abstracts of articles in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology from 2000 through 2014. Of 303 articles, 261 had abstracts. Not surprisingly, none of the 261 rejected the modern evolutionary synthesis; neither did any endorse it. The closest any came may have been this statement: “A long line of biologists have followed [Darwin] in seeing, in the concept of ‘descent with modification,’ a framework naturally able to incorporate both adaptation and constraint.”

Are the sentences quoted in the three preceding paragraphs endorsements or simple statements of fact?

To calculate their 97.1 percent result, the Cook et al. study divided the number of abstracts that they said endorsed AGW (3,896, including 2,909 “implicit” endorsements) by the total that expressed a position (4,014, which included the rejecting articles.) Would the method work for plate tectonics, the origin of lunar craters, and evolution? Since none of the authors of the articles I reviewed in those fields reject the theory in question and only a handful, if that, could be said to directly endorse it, the Cook et al. method would wind up classifying the vast majority as taking no position and omit them from the calculation. We would be left dividing a tiny number of perceived implicit endorsements, a highly subjective measure, by the same tiny number and wind up with 100 percent, after having ruled out nearly all the scientific literature. We might be left dividing zero by zero.

---

Remember that to count an article as endorsing, the Cook et al. study required that it “address or mention the cause of global warming.” Climate scientists refer to this as attribution. Some climate articles are about attribution but many are not. Consider these two examples.

In 1993, James Hansen and his colleagues published an article in Research & Exploration titled “How Sensitive Is the World’s Climate?” The purpose of the research was to “estimate climate sensitivity from observed climate change.” In other words, not only did Hansen et al. accept AGW, they were gauging how strong it is, reporting a temperature rise of 3 ± 1°C for doubled CO². The abstract included this sentence: “Observed global warming of approximately 0.5°C in the past 140 years is consistent with anthropogenic greenhouse gases being the dominant climate-forcing in that period.” The sentence is evidently why Cook et al. classified this article in category 1: “explicit endorsement with quantification.”

Hansen et al.’s 1992 article “Potential Climate Impact of Mount Pinatubo Eruption” considered the effect of aerosols on global climate, successfully predicting that the injection of sulfur aerosols during the 1991 Mount Pinatubo eruption would temporarily lower global temperature. However, in this article Hansen and colleagues were researching the role of a natural event—volcanic eruptions—rather than the human contribution to global warming. Because of that their abstract did not “endorse the consensus position that humans are causing global warming,” as Cook et al. required. The Cook et al. study classified Hansen et al.’s 1992 article as taking no position and ruled it out of the consensus calculation.

James Hansen also had articles in the three endorsing categories and thus is represented in four. But Hansen does not have four different opinions about AGW—he has only one opinion, and we know very well what it is. His articles may use different language according to what he and his colleagues happen to be writing about, i.e., they may seem to “endorse” AGW or not, but these are distinctions without a difference. The Cook et al. classification is not about Hansen’s core belief but about the subject of his articles.

Hansen had a total of six articles in Cook et al.’s “no position” category. A number of other prominent climate scientists show up there as well. These include (with the number of articles): R. Bradley (3), K. Briffa (2), E. Cook (5), M. Hughes (2), P. Jones (3), T. Karl (5), M. Mann (2), M. Oppenheimer (3), B. Santer (2), G. Schmidt (3), the late S. Schneider (3), S. Solomon (5), K. Trenberth (7), and T. Wigley (3). Cook et al. ruled them all out of the consensus calculation. Most of these authors, like Hansen, also have articles in one or more of the three endorsing categories. Again, we see that the Cook et al. method is about language and the subject of articles rather than whether their authors accept AGW.

---

If scientists do not endorse the ruling paradigm, can we still quantify the extent of a scientific consensus? Yes, we can.

The articles that turned up in the Cook et al. search were not drawn at random but appeared because they answered the search topics “global warming” or “global climate change.” The authors in the Cook et al. database were writing about AGW. Would they have written about a theory that they believe is false yet never say so?

We can get a further clue using the research category classification that Cook et al. provided. Of the 7,970 “no position” articles, 56.8 percent were on the impacts of global warming, 18.4 percent on mitigation, 17.1 percent on measurements and modeling methods, and 7.7 percent on paleoclimatology. Would authors write about those aspects of global warming if they believed that AGW is false yet never say so? What would be the point?

We know from the history of science that the most important advances come when stubborn facts overthrow the ruling paradigm. This is how scientific reputations are made. It is why we remember Alfred Wegener and not his opponents. A scientist who has evidence that AGW is false will be eager to say so and to present that evidence. Who among us would not love to be that scientist!

Putting all this together, I argue that we can judge the extent of the consensus by the number of articles that explicitly reject AGW. Cook et al. found seventy-eight, 0.7 percent, that did so. From that one can infer that the authors of 99.3 percent of the articles in the Cook et al. database accept AGW. This would be the average over the twenty years of their survey. More recently, the percentage of acceptance has grown even higher.

I used the Web of Science to review the titles and abstracts of peer-reviewed articles from 2013 and 2014, adding the search topic “climate change” to “global climate change” and “global warming.” Of 24,210 abstracts, only five—one in 4,842 or 0.021 percent—in my judgment explicitly rejected AGW. Two of the articles had the same author, so four authors of 69,406 rejected AGW. That is one in 17,352, or 0.0058 percent.

This result would allow the claim that 99.99 percent of scientists publishing today accept AGW. To be conservative, I prefer to say above 99.9 percent.

Excluding self-citations, only one of the five rejecting articles has been cited and that article only once.

Remember that the 99.9 percent figure does not represent what we usually mean by consensus: agreement of opinion. Rather it is derived from the peer-reviewed literature and thus reflects the evidence therein. It tells us that there is virtually no publishable evidence against AGW. That is why scientists accept the theory.

The consensus on anthropogenic global warming is not 97 percent. Instead, publishing scientists are close to unanimous that “global warming is real, man-made, and dangerous,” as President Obama put it.

 

---

Notes

I have a paper under review in Environmental Research Letters in which I critique the Cook et al. paper. See jamespowell.org and please leave comments in the forum.

[homersapien 11,367]

And the fact that Engineering is based on science doesn't mean any given engineer are generally scientifically literate.  And in my experience many are not, particularly in fields outside of their expertise, like climatology.

"LOL"  

[johnnyAU 3,630]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

And the fact that Engineering is based on science doesn't mean any given engineer are generally scientifically literate.  And in my experience many are not, particularly in fields outside of their expertise, like climatology. 

It's my experience that liberals are the least "science literate".  That conjecture, as well as yours, are nothing but conjecture. Engineers are by nature skeptical, as they should be. It's our job to diagnose issues and fix problems.  It's not within our DNA to blindly accept politically driven propaganda or "consensus" on faith alone.

[johnnyAU 3,630]

17 minutes ago, Proud Tiger said:

They will argue that GW is the cause of heavy hurricane rain while ignoring the drought in California contributing to the wild fires.

To the cult, the Magic Molecule (which represents about 4.2 molecules/10,000...only ~1.2 molecules of those can be reasonably attributed by humans) is the cause of everything, and can do anything. It causes warming and cooling, more rain, more drought, fewer tropical storms, more tropical storms, less snow, more snow, etc...When you take the stance and cover all bases, you can never be refuted.    

Man most definitely is affecting the environment, and climate.  Deforestation, urban heat islands, pollution, C02 emissions to some extent, etc... However, how significant of an effect is the issue. Reality will be the ultimate arbiter. Over the next say 5-15 years one side believes there will be a cooling trend. The other side believes there will be a continuation of warming. We won't have to wait the 50-150 years offered after the recent moving of the goal posts to figure this out. 

[homersapien 11,367]

6 hours ago, johnnyAU said:

It's my experience that liberals are the least "science literate".  That conjecture, as well as yours, are nothing but conjecture. Engineers are by nature skeptical, as they should be. It's our job to diagnose issues and fix problems.  It's not within our DNA to blindly accept politically driven propaganda or "consensus" on faith alone.

Well then you should live up to your standards.

And this liberal has a BS and MS and worked as a scientist for a significant part of my career. I will be the first to admit that I have no expertise in climatology but continue to follow science in various fields as a hobby.

All of my career work was done in collaboration with engineers. So my experience with engineers isn't conjecture, it's experience.   I will grant that some of those engineers were very scientifically savvy with a broad perspective.  (Typically, they were the ones that shot up the management ladder; one became my boss and I respected him enormously.) 

But many others had distinctly non scientific beliefs, such as creationism (for example). And I once even had a chemical engineer argue the rear brakes of a car carried most of the braking load.  (This was when disc brakes were used only on the front, and his argument was that drum-shoe brakes were more efficient, as the rear brakes did most of the work.  But I digress.)

However, you are correct in that my opinion concerning engineers in general is totally irrelevant. I shouldn't have brought it up. It was petty and I apologize.

But you aren't doing yourself any favors by characterizing AGW as "political propaganda". 

That really comes across as a science denier.

 

[homersapien 11,367]

29 minutes ago, johnnyAU said:

To the cult, the Magic Molecule (which represents about 4.2 molecules/10,000...only ~1.2 molecules of those can be reasonably attributed by humans) is the cause of everything, and can do anything. It causes warming and cooling, more rain, more drought, fewer tropical storms, more tropical storms, less snow, more snow, etc...When you take the stance and cover all bases, you can never be refuted.    

Man most definitely is affecting the environment, and climate.  Deforestation, urban heat islands, pollution, C02 emissions to some extent, etc... However, how significant of an effect is the issue. Reality will be the ultimate arbiter. Over the next say 5-15 years one side believes there will be a cooling trend. The other side believes there will be a continuation of warming. We won't have to wait the 50-150 years offered after the recent moving of the goal posts to figure this out. 

Again, you're not helping your image.

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/CO2-and-global-warming-faq.html

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-warming-35-percent.htm

[homersapien 11,367]

1 hour ago, Proud Tiger said:

johnny.....you are right in referring to the cult. Most everyone agrees there is some global warming going on but won't acknowledge it has been going on in cycles for thousands of years as proven by deep bores into artic ice. They think on scientists know the facts but refute the claims of scientists who disagree. They will argue that GW is the cause of heavy hurricane rain while ignoring the drought in California contributing to the wild fires. Arguing with this cult is a waste of time. Here is an interesting recent article by NASA SCIENTISTS about the current winter storms sweeping across the U.S.  I bet the people affected don't think there is much GW.

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chandra/news/scientists-surprised-by-relentless-cosmic-cold-front.html

Go figure.  

[homersapien 11,367]

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/hot-thought/201108/climate-change-denial

Climate Change Denial

Why don’t politicians recognize that humans cause global warming?

..........Scott Findlay and I recently published an article in which we explained climate change denial as resulting from a natural thinking tendency called motivated inference, in which beliefs are based on people's goals and emotions rather than on good evidence. All of us are prone to motivated inference, in situations such as these:

Romantic relationships: my lover treats me poorly, but he/she will change.
Parenting: my child hates school, but will settle down and straighten out eventually.
Medicine: this pain in my chest is indigestion, not a heart attack.
Politics: the new leader will be the country's savior.
Sports: our team has been losing, but we're going to play great today.
Law: the evidence against my hero is serious, but he couldn't have done it.
Religion: life is hard, but my caring God will lead me to eternal bliss.
Economics: this rapid economic growth is a sign of a new kind of economy, not a bubble.
Research: the article I'm writing is my best ever and will get into a top journal.

Motivated inference is not just simpleminded wishful thinking, in that motivations do not lead directly to beliefs. Rather, our goals lead us to acquire and consider information selectively, so that we manage to find some evidence that makes us think we are being reasonable in maintaining an emotion-based belief that we ought to doubt.

The motivations that encourage politicians such as Rick Perry to deny human-caused global warming are clear: they don't like government intervention in the economy in general, and in particular they don't like interference with the oil industry, a major source of carbon emissions. If global warming is a serious problem, then there needs to be massive actions by governments across the world to change people's energy practices that produce greenhouse gases. Oil company executives and allied politicians do not want to see such actions take place, so they make various kinds of maneuvers to undermine scientific conclusions: research is flawed, global warming is just natural fluctuation, and so on.

Hence psychology is very useful for explaining why politicians and other people continue to hold beliefs that are contrary to the available evidence and to the interests of billions of people. It is less obvious what can be done to overcome denial of a world-threatening problem. Providing more evidence that global warming is accelerating as the result of human carbon emissions is only part of a solution. We also need to convince people that the needs of the vast majority of the world's people are more important than the interests of an industrial minority and the anti-government ideology that supports them. Overcoming motivated inference requires recognizing and changing motivations.

[johnnyAU 3,630]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/04/28/the-disgraceful-episode-of-lysenkoism-brings-us-global-warming-theory/#60f7f1067ac8