Study: 97% Agreement on Manmade Global Warming

By: Angela Fritz , 7:36 PM GMT on May 16, 2013

Share this Blog
38
+



The scientific agreement that climate change is happening, and that it's caused by human activity, is significant and growing, according to a new study published Thursday. The research, which is the most comprehensive analysis of climate research to date, found that 97.1% of the studies published between 1991 to 2011 that expressed a position on manmade climate change agreed that it was happening, and that it was due to human activity.

The study looked at peer reviewed research that mentioned climate change or global warming. Peer review is the way that scientific journals approve research papers that are submitted. In peer review, group of scientists that weren't involved in the study, but who are experts in the field, look at the research being submitted and have approved that it meets scientific process standards, and the standards of that journal.

In 2011, 521 of those peer reviewed papers agreed that climate change is real, and that human activity is the cause. Nine papers in 2011 disagreed.

John Cook, founder of skepticalscience.com and the lead author on the study, said the motivation for the analysis was the importance of scientific consensus in shaping public opinion, and therefore policy. "When people understand that climate scientists agree on human-caused global warming, they're more likely to support climate policy," Cook said. "But when the public are asked how many climate scientists agree that humans are causing global warming, the average answer is around 50%."

This "consensus gap" is what Cook and the research team is trying to close. "Raising awareness of the scientific consensus is a key step towards meaningful climate action," Cook said.

This study is not the first to examine the overwhelming agreement among climate scientists. Surveys of actively publishing climate scientists as well as analyses of climate change papers have shown similar results.

In 2004 Naomi Oreskes, Professor of History and Science Studies at the University of California San Diego, published what many scientists consider the seminal study on climate change consensus. She also co-authored the book Merchants of Doubt, which identifies and examines the similarities between today's climate change conversation and previous controversies over tobacco smoking, acid rain, and the hole in the ozone layer.

Oreskes believes that the public isn't aware of the consensus because of deliberate efforts to cause confusion. "There has been a systematic attempt to create the impression that scientists did not have a consensus, as part of a broader strategy to prevent federal government action," Oreskes said. "The public have been confused because people have been trying to confuse us."

The study published Thursday is the first to take so many papers and authors into account. Doing a search on the popular science article website Web of Science for "climate change" or "global warming" produces over 12,000 results. Of these, 4,014 papers were identified to state a position on climate change. Among those, 3,896, or 97.1% endorsed the consensus that climate change was happening and that it was caused by human activity.

In an interesting result, Cook and his team found that over time, scientists tend to express a position on climate change less and less in their research papers. This is likely a result of consensus -- that if a scientific conclusion has been reached, there's no need to continue to state that conclusion in new research. "Scientists tend to take the consensus for granted," says Cook, "perhaps not realizing that the public still think it's a 50:50 debate."

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 449 - 399

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9Blog Index

449. WonderWeatherWoman
12:27 AM GMT on June 06, 2013
Quoting ScottLincoln:

The global climate warms/cools when something changes the equilibrium and forces it to warm or cool. Over very long term, geologic scale time periods, natural factors like orbital changes, continent movements, volcanism, and CO2 weathering (to name a few) have contributing to a changing climate. Today, the dominant factor is human activities which are changing atmospheric chemistry, and thus, climate, at a rate faster than almost all previous natural changes.

The fact that climate has changed before, or hasn't changed before, is completely irrelevant to what is causing the change now.


What is going to happen now we have passed the 11 peak in solar activity and have not seen the predicted warming. Do we need to start being concerned about global cooling, again?
Member Since: September 9, 2001 Posts: 0 Comments: 11
448. EARTHMANRAY
4:42 PM GMT on May 31, 2013
Although the heading says....Study: 97% Agreement on Manmade Global Warming...virtually NOWHERE in the article does the phrase global warming appear ...Shining the light of truth on lies and wishful thinking....
Apparently man who created God in his own image is all powerful and can now cause the climate to change. GEE WHIZ..how long has there been climate change going on anyway????
Member Since: September 3, 2005 Posts: 0 Comments: 1
447. Cadno
7:11 PM GMT on May 21, 2013
I'm sorry but at one time the "scientists of the day" believed with little opposition that the earth was center of the universe.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-225 67023 shows no real warming for the past 15 years. My problem is the science is not science but consensus. Consensus is not science...it's voting for class president.
Member Since: February 25, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 0
446. OKJunkie
1:39 PM GMT on May 20, 2013
Of the 11,944 papers reviewed:
66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW
32.6% endorsed AGW
0.7% rejected AGW
0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming.
(figures from actual Environmental Research Letters release http://www.iop.org/news/13/may/page_60200.html).

How does 32% Yes, .7% No, and 66% Neither
magically turn into a reported 97% yes?
Member Since: August 19, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 7
445. Waltanater
1:29 PM GMT on May 20, 2013
Quoting viman:

I hope so for sure, I need to see the cistern overflow become I can be happy!!
Your statement doesn't make sense.
Member Since: May 16, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 1472
444. marsHen
2:59 AM GMT on May 19, 2013
water temps out on Suwannee Sound on thurs., 5/16/13, while we were trawling out there was 23.4C, ~74F. time to shuck the waders!
Member Since: September 5, 2011 Posts: 848 Comments: 135
443. ScottLincoln
7:27 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
Quoting oracle28:


Because you say so?

No, because that's how it is.
It's just as irrelevant as someone arguing that lung cancer happened 100 years ago, so second-hand smoke couldn't be causing it today. That argument only works if there is one, and only one, cause for something to happen. That is rarely true in real life. Not because I say so, because science says so.

To reiterate, the global climate warms/cools when something changes the equilibrium and forces it to warm or cool. This can be natural factors or changes to the environment by humans. The dominant factor in the modern warming is human activities.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3234
442. oracle28
4:29 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
Quoting Neapolitan:
This particular study didn't cover attribution percentages, but other recent studies have suggested that we're responsible for between (roughly) 75% and 120% of observed warming over the past couple of decades.


120% *snicker*
Member Since: July 25, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 596
441. oracle28
4:28 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
Quoting ScottLincoln:

The fact that climate has changed before, or hasn't changed before, is completely irrelevant to what is causing the change now.


Because you say so?
Member Since: July 25, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 596
440. ScottLincoln
3:47 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
Quoting oracle28:


If the plant never warmed before the arrival of humans, then you'd be spot-on.

But it has. Amazing that the planet can somehow find a way to warm itself before the arrival of man.

The global climate warms/cools when something changes the equilibrium and forces it to warm or cool. Over very long term, geologic scale time periods, natural factors like orbital changes, continent movements, volcanism, and CO2 weathering (to name a few) have contributing to a changing climate. Today, the dominant factor is human activities which are changing atmospheric chemistry, and thus, climate, at a rate faster than almost all previous natural changes.

The fact that climate has changed before, or hasn't changed before, is completely irrelevant to what is causing the change now.
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3234
439. oracle28
3:15 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
Quoting KoritheMan:
I seriously don't understand how human-induced global warming can still be denied. It's literally right up there with other accepted scientific theories like evolution and gravity.

I learned a long time ago not to underestimate the willful ignorance and inherent logical fallacies that humans are capable of, however. Not that I am exempt from such either.


If the plant never warmed before the arrival of humans, then you'd be spot-on.

But it has. Amazing that the planet can somehow find a way to warm itself before the arrival of man.
Member Since: July 25, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 596
438. Dakster
2:49 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
i hate the new format on the usgs can't get a map or nothing


Makes me wish they had a legacy site that was still being updated.
Member Since: March 10, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 10571
437. SouthernIllinois
2:36 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
Time to turn the page...
Member Since: April 16, 2013 Posts: 27 Comments: 3168
436. SouthernIllinois
2:34 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
Quoting rattlesnake76:
You need to keep politics out of weather. Seriously this climate-change blog really sucks. Keep weather politics out of here. This used to be a pure weather page, now you are frothing at the mouth like Al Gore Jeff Masters. Did you do this on your own or did it occur when you sold your soul to the weather channel? All this hot air is going to heat up the atmosphere and cause super typhoons.

Dr. Master's has been addressing the important issue of climate change now LONG BEFORE he sold the company to The Weather Channel. Secondly, the science of climate change is not a political matter. It's a relevant topic that impacts us all. It's very important this issue get discussed. My opinion, anyway.
Member Since: April 16, 2013 Posts: 27 Comments: 3168
435. SouthernIllinois
2:30 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
Shucks! Moisture already POOF in Kentucky on it's way over the Ohio River into extreme Southern Illinois.

Member Since: April 16, 2013 Posts: 27 Comments: 3168
434. WunderAlertBot (Admin)
2:29 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
JeffMasters has created a new entry.
433. SouthernIllinois
2:28 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
The American Sweetgum.

Member Since: April 16, 2013 Posts: 27 Comments: 3168
432. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
2:27 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
first thing i though was a problem with the building and maybe foundation issue or something then reports started to flood in my misses called i was out in the building on 7th floor i felt it
it was weird
stongest one yet for me
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 175 Comments: 54847
431. ScottLincoln
2:27 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
Quoting VAbeachhurricanes:


How in the world can you be 120% responsible for something....

If the combination of all natural factors favors a 0.2C/century cooling rate, yet the observation is 1.0C/century warming rate, the "something-other-than-all-natural-factors" contribution is 120% of the warming rate.

(1.0 - -0.2)/1.0 = 120%
Member Since: September 28, 2002 Posts: 5 Comments: 3234
430. RitaEvac
2:26 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
Warned cell

Member Since: July 14, 2008 Posts: 1 Comments: 9648
429. PedleyCA
2:23 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
getting reports from tentants of shaking feeling on higher floors plants moving

it appears there has been a earthquake of 4.8 on the r scale in the toronto area


That would do it alright.....
Member Since: February 29, 2012 Posts: 0 Comments: 6001
428. RitaEvac
2:21 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
Keep...the end is near son...lol
Member Since: July 14, 2008 Posts: 1 Comments: 9648
427. VAbeachhurricanes
2:21 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
Quoting indianrivguy:


It's all about the U



Dang, an earthquake .. I did not know you were susceptible to those there Keeper...


Easy to win when you pay your players
Member Since: September 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 6670
426. indianrivguy
2:20 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
Quoting SouthernIllinois:

Like the avi, Dak. :-)


It's all about the U



Dang, an earthquake .. I did not know you were susceptible to those there Keeper...
Member Since: September 23, 2006 Posts: 1 Comments: 2585
425. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
2:20 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 175 Comments: 54847
424. VAbeachhurricanes
2:20 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
Quoting Neapolitan:
This particular study didn't cover attribution percentages, but other recent studies have suggested that we're responsible for between (roughly) 75% and 120% of observed warming over the past couple of decades.


How in the world can you be 120% responsible for something....
Member Since: September 6, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 6670
422. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
2:16 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 175 Comments: 54847
421. luvtogolf
2:15 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
Quoting Neapolitan:
This particular study didn't cover attribution percentages, but other recent studies have suggested that we're responsible for between (roughly) 75% and 120% of observed warming over the past couple of decades.


ok, thx.
Member Since: June 12, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1125
420. Neapolitan
2:14 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
Quoting luvtogolf:
So man is causing Global Warming. What Dr. Masters doesn't say is what percentage or is it implied that we are causing 100% of it?
This particular study didn't cover attribution percentages, but other recent studies have suggested that we're responsible for between (roughly) 75% and 120% of observed warming over the past couple of decades.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13604
419. hydrus
2:14 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
Quoting StormTrackerScott:
Gulf stream east of FL is really heating up fast this year. Sea surface temps at Melbourne are at 77 right now.

Gulf is very cool for this time of year tho.. Caribbean seems about normal.
Member Since: September 27, 2007 Posts: 1 Comments: 21751
418. luvtogolf
2:11 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
So man is causing Global Warming. What Dr. Masters doesn't say is what percentage or is it implied that we are causing 100% of it?
Member Since: June 12, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 1125
417. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
2:11 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
i hate the new format on the usgs can't get a map or nothing
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 175 Comments: 54847
416. Neapolitan
2:10 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
USGS says it was a very shallow (3.1 miles) 5.0:

quake

ectonic Summary

Earthquakes in the Western Quebec Seismic Zone

People in the large Western Quebec seismic zone have felt small earthquakes and suffered damage from larger ones for three centuries. The two largest damaging earthquakes occurred in 1935 (magnitude 6.1) at the northwestern end of the seismic zone, and in 1732 (magnitude 6.2) 450 km (280 mi) away at the southeastern end of the zone where it caused significant damage in Montreal. Earthquakes cause damage in the zone about once a decade. Smaller earthquakes are felt three or four times a year.

Earthquakes east of the Rocky Mountains, although less frequent than in the west, are typically felt over a much broader region. East of the Rockies, an earthquake can be felt over an area as much as ten times larger than a similar magnitude earthquake on the west coast. A magnitude 4.0 eastern earthquake typically can be felt at many places as far as 100 km (60 mi) from where it occurred, and it infrequently causes damage near its source. A magnitude 5.5 eastern earthquake usually can be felt as far as 500 km (300 mi) from where it occurred, and sometimes causes damage as far away as 40 km (25 mi).

Faults

Earthquakes everywhere occur on faults within bedrock, usually miles deep. Most of the bedrock in the Western Quebec seismic zone was formed as several generations of mountains rose and were eroded down again over the last billion or so years.

At well-studied plate boundaries like the San Andreas fault system in California, often scientists can determine the name of the specific fault that is responsible for an earthquake. In contrast, east of the Rocky Mountains this is rarely the case. The Western Quebec seismic zone is far from the nearest plate boundaries, which are in the center of the Atlantic Ocean and in the Caribbean Sea. The seismic zone is laced with known faults but numerous smaller or deeply buried faults remain undetected. Even the known faults are poorly located at earthquake depths. Accordingly, few, if any, earthquakes in the seismic zone can be linked to named faults. It is difficult to determine if a known fault is still active and could slip and cause an earthquake. As in most other areas east of the Rockies, the best guide to earthquake hazards in the Western Quebec seismic zone is the earthquakes themselves.


Source
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13604
415. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
2:09 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
5.0
25km NNE of Shawville, Canada
2013-05-17 09:43:22-04:00
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 175 Comments: 54847
414. hurricanehunter27
2:08 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
Quoting KEEPEROFTHEGATE:
getting reports from tentants of shaking feeling on higher floors plants moving

it appears there has been a earthquake of 4.8 on the r scale in the toronto area
This is what the USGS has so far. M5.0 - 25km NNE of Shawville, Canada.
Member Since: July 22, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 3851
413. hurricanehunter27
2:05 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
So Sunday-Monday seems like a good chance for a decent sized tornado outbreak. SPC mention the possibility for strong tornadoes. The combined population this will be affecting is 30,446,734. A large area will be affected twice.

Member Since: July 22, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 3851
412. KEEPEROFTHEGATE (Mod)
2:02 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
getting reports from tentants of shaking feeling on higher floors plants moving

it appears there has been a earthquake of 4.8 on the r scale in the toronto area
Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 175 Comments: 54847
411. MississippiWx
1:58 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
The MDR continues its downward swing today:

Member Since: July 15, 2006 Posts: 17 Comments: 10284
410. hurricanehunter27
1:57 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
Quoting FatPenguin:


Outstanding post, xyrus2000. One of the best I've ever seen. I've been "debating" with many over the last 10+ years who haven't a clue as to what they speak of, but could if they spent 1/100 of the time they spend refuting accepted science by actually looking at the science. Instead, they hear talking points and regurgitate those. In the 25 years since Hansen spoke before Congress there have only been a handful of legitimate counter arguments and they haven't come close to the level of certainty that AGW has.

And for me, the most unbelievable element of the debate is that if you have an OUNCE of logic you would look at this statement, CO2 IS A HEAT-TRAPPING GAS. WE HAVE BEEN PUMPING MORE CO2 INTO THE ATMOSPHERE FOR 200+ YEARS, and you would think, "Oh, maybe there is a correlation to rising temperatures."

The inability to least keep an open mind on the discussion reeks of prejudicial judgment tainted by ideology with zero scientific critical analysis.

Again, thank you for posting your response. It was thorough and spectacular.
Had to look back to see what post you were talking about. Glad I did. Fantastic post and I am amazed he took the time type it.
Member Since: July 22, 2010 Posts: 1 Comments: 3851
409. SouthernIllinois
1:55 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
Quoting Dakster:


It's like My Little Pony vs. Godzilla....

Like the avi, Dak. :-)
Member Since: April 16, 2013 Posts: 27 Comments: 3168
408. Dakster
1:55 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
Quoting washingtonian115:
This one is special :).


It's like My Little Pony vs. Godzilla....
Member Since: March 10, 2006 Posts: 0 Comments: 10571
407. SouthernIllinois
1:54 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
Rain trying to make it's way into Southern Illinois and extreme southwest Kentucky. At least the dew points and precipitable water values are there to support the moisture.
Member Since: April 16, 2013 Posts: 27 Comments: 3168
406. SouthernIllinois
1:52 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
Quoting Neapolitan:
I don't think it would take a climate scientist; anyone who's taken a 9th-grade physics class would be able to do the ripping...

9th-grade? You kidding?! That's giving him a bit more credit than what he's worth...
Member Since: April 16, 2013 Posts: 27 Comments: 3168
405. SouthernIllinois
1:48 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
Quoting Neapolitan:
Joe's a reasonably smart guy; he'll eventually figure it out.

I hope...

Wouldn't bet on it.
Member Since: April 16, 2013 Posts: 27 Comments: 3168
404. Neapolitan
1:46 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
Quoting Chucktown:
Wow, Big Joe on another rant this morning on his Twitter account. While I don't always agree with some of his concepts and forecasts, he does bring up some valid points.

Link
I read today's batch of Twitter rants and have to say that, IMO, Bastardi "brings up valid points" in much the same way that a child does at Christmas just after an older sibling has told him that Santa Claus isn't real; there's always a lot of shouting and screaming and kicking the floor until the truth finally settles in. When one has built a life--and, in Bastardi's case--an entire career off of one ideological but illogical belief, it's understandably difficult to accept the truth that everything you thought is, in fact, utterly and completely wrong. But Joe's a reasonably smart guy; he'll eventually figure it out.

I hope...
Quoting FatPenguin:
Wow, an actual climate scientist would rip his "twittler logic" to shreds.
I don't think it would take a climate scientist; anyone who's taken a 9th-grade physics class would be able to do the ripping...
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13604
403. FatPenguin
1:46 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
Quoting Chucktown:
Wow, Big Joe on another rant this morning on his Twitter account. While I don't always agree with some of his concepts and forecasts, he does bring up some valid points.

Link


Wow, an actual climate scientist would rip his "twittler logic" to shreds.
Member Since: August 13, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 319
402. viman
1:45 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
Quoting CaribBoy:
Look at the N Leewards and Virgin Islands.



This time, I really hope to see the rain.


I hope so for sure, I need to see the cistern overflow become I can be happy!!
Member Since: August 12, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 382
401. SouthernIllinois
1:43 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
Member Since: April 16, 2013 Posts: 27 Comments: 3168
400. FatPenguin
1:40 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
Quoting Xyrus2000:


Absolutely false. You have no concept of what the peer review process actually involves. First, papers do not begin with opinions. The begin with a hypothesis.

You are not going to magically get answers to your questions. You're going to need to put some effort into it. Just like any other field of study you want to ask intelligent questions of.



Outstanding post, xyrus2000. One of the best I've ever seen. I've been "debating" with many over the last 10+ years who haven't a clue as to what they speak of, but could if they spent 1/100 of the time they spend refuting accepted science by actually looking at the science. Instead, they hear talking points and regurgitate those. In the 25 years since Hansen spoke before Congress there have only been a handful of legitimate counter arguments and they haven't come close to the level of certainty that AGW has.

And for me, the most unbelievable element of the debate is that if you have an OUNCE of logic you would look at this statement, CO2 IS A HEAT-TRAPPING GAS. WE HAVE BEEN PUMPING MORE CO2 INTO THE ATMOSPHERE FOR 200+ YEARS, and you would think, "Oh, maybe there is a correlation to rising temperatures."

The inability to least keep an open mind on the discussion reeks of prejudicial judgment tainted by ideology with zero scientific critical analysis.

Again, thank you for posting your response. It was thorough and spectacular.
Member Since: August 13, 2007 Posts: 0 Comments: 319
399. washingtonian115
1:37 PM GMT on May 17, 2013
Quoting SouthernIllinois:

Wash ~ That's quite a departure from your usually bright, happy avatars. Kind of dark and spooky!!
This one is special :).
Member Since: August 14, 2010 Posts: 10 Comments: 17482

Viewing: 449 - 399

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.