'1600 years of Ice melting in 25 years is a bad omen'

by designs 165 Replies latest social current

• 

  soontobe

  Other Doran/Zimmeran survey problems as well. Not only possible selection bias, but small sample size. This survey isn't a scientific survey, so it is useless for anyone trying to prove a point. Furthermore, the second question does not address CO2/climate specifically.

  http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

  So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

  Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

  That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19 th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

  The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?
• 

  besty

  The other chart is from The Economist. The data in the chart appear to be the same (although Economist maps out IPCC predictions to 2035). If you don't have a problem with the data, then I fail to see the point of your comment besides an attempt at well poisoning. I notice you tried to do the same thing with TT2C. That's not going to work here.

  I don.t have a problem with data - I do have a simple standard which is "show me the peer reviewed publication". Otherwise it descends into a he said/she said bunfight in ever decreasing standards of quality. When the cited source is a tabloid newspaper I will call it out. I note you have abandoned further comment on the NOAA data you previously quoted....?

  And, by the way, I'm not going to play the "answer 20 questions" game.

  ok I understand why not. (it was just the 3 questions though)
• 

  soontobe

  For those interested in learning about a problem with the survey here is a wikipedia link on the subject of selection bias:

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selection
• 

  besty

  And you cite what in proof of lack of consensus?
• 

  soontobe

  And what appears to be a rather poor sample:

  http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/01/03/lawrence-solomon-97-cooked-stats/

  Lawrence Solomon: 97% cooked stats

  ....This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2008 master’s thesis by student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at the University of Illinois, under the guidance of Peter Doran, an associate professor of Earth and environmental sciences. The two researchers obtained their results by conducting a survey of 10,257 Earth scientists. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers — in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

  The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth — out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, astronomers and meteorologists. That left the 10,257 scientists in such disciplines as geology, geography, oceanography, engineering, paleontology and geochemistry who were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer — those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification a factor — about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma.

  To encourage a high participation among these remaining disciplines, the two researchers decided on a quickie survey that would take less than two minutes to complete, and would be done online, saving the respondents the hassle of mailing a reply. Nevertheless, most didn’t consider the quickie survey worthy of response — just 3,146, or 30.7%, answered the two key questions on the survey:
• 

  soontobe

  And you cite what in proof of lack of consensus?

  You are the one making the claims of "98%" as a centerpiece for your line of argumentation. That's fine, but then you present a laughable survey as evidence, and use it in every other post. The survey is worthless, IMHO.
• 

  besty

  So nothing then?
• 

  besty

  You are the one making the claims of "98%" as a centerpiece for your line of argumentation.

  No - I posed 3 questions, one of which invited any poster to describe why they are personally better qualified, than 98% of climate scientists who agree with the consensus, to persuade the JWN community to their viewpoint.

  So far nobody, including you, has stepped up, focusing instead on trashing the validity of a peer reviewed publication and diverting attention to Daily Mail pictures.

  The other 2 questions are pretty much uncommented - particularly the issues of ocean temperature and acidification.
• 

  slimboyfat

  I thought you gave up defending global warming besty? Hasn't the science rather cooled on that front of late?
• 

  besty

  AGW has been recognised by scientists for a long time slimboy

  http://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/107346

  The challenge is communication