Anthony will have a response to this silliness later today.
More than 99.9% of studies agree: Humans caused climate change
CORNELL UNIVERSITY
ITHACA, N.Y. – More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.
The research updates a similar 2013 paper revealing that 97% of studies published between 1991 and 2012 supported the idea that human activities are altering Earth’s climate. The current survey examines the literature published from 2012 to November 2020 to explore whether the consensus has changed.
“We are virtually certain that the consensus is well over 99% now and that it’s pretty much case closed for any meaningful public conversation about the reality of human-caused climate change,” said Mark Lynas, a visiting fellow at the Alliance for Science at Cornell University and the paper’s first author.
“It’s critical to acknowledge the principal role of greenhouse gas emissions so that we can rapidly mobilize new solutions, since we are already witnessing in real time the devastating impacts of climate related disasters on businesses, people and the economy,” said Benjamin Houlton, Dean of the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences at Cornell and a co-author of the study, “Greater than 99% Consensus on Human Caused Climate Change in the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature,” which published Oct. 19 in the journal Environmental Research Letters.
In spite of such results, public opinion polls as well as opinions of politicians and public representatives point to false beliefs and claims that a significant debate still exists among scientists over the true cause of climate change. In 2016, the Pew Research Center found that only 27% of U.S. adults believe that “almost all” scientists agreed that climate change is due to human activity, according to the paper. A 2021 Gallup poll pointed to a deepening partisan divide in American politics on whether Earth’s rising observed temperatures since the Industrial Revolution were primarily caused by humans.
“To understand where a consensus exists, you have to be able to quantify it,” Lynas said. “That means surveying the literature in a coherent and non-arbitrary way in order to avoid trading cherry-picked papers, which is often how these arguments are carried out in the public sphere.”
In the study, the researchers began by examining a random sample of 3,000 studies from the dataset of 88,125 English-language climate papers published between 2012 and 2020. They found only four out of the 3,000 papers were skeptical of human-caused climate change. “We knew that [climate skeptical papers] were vanishingly small in terms of their occurrence, but we thought there still must be more in the 88,000,” Lynas said.
Co-author Simon Perry, a United Kingdom-based software engineer and volunteer at the Alliance for Science, created an algorithm that searched out keywords from papers the team knew were skeptical, such as “solar,” “cosmic rays” and “natural cycles.” The algorithm was applied to all 88,000-plus papers, and the program ordered them so the skeptical ones came higher in the order. They found many of these dissenting papers near the top, as expected, with diminishing returns further down the list. Overall, the search yielded 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly skeptical, all published in minor journals.
If the 97% result from the 2013 study still left some doubt on scientific consensus on the human influence on climate, the current findings go even further to allay any uncertainty, Lynas said. “This pretty much should be the last word,” he said.
###
Their 97% in 2013 turned out to actually be 7% on analysis of the 11,000 climate papers selected. 75% of them didnt mention CC or CAGW and so were rejected from the study! In any case, we reached Peak windmills and solar panels in 2018-2019. Apparently the last year for showing an increase in renewables percentage of the total electrical generating mix was 10yrs ago. They increased in numbers, but didn’t keep pace with fossil fuels.
Arising from the ideology and policies of madmen, this winter in Europe could be the worst manmade peacetime human disaster ever. Supply chains broken, empty food shelves, skyrocketing prices for fossil fuels (to quote from an Obama speech) for heating and tranport and industry (jobs) and agriculture. Boris The Terrible and the EU Marxists will go down in infamy when the history is written.
Blaming the Russians won’t work. UK and EU refused long term supply contracts at $3/million BTU (the price that Hungary, Serbia and Turkey agreed to with much shaming from empty headed Brussels bureaucrats. Now its probably higher than the recently quoted word spot price of $40!
The only plus to this debacle is the NWO marxists’ putsch will be over at last and quickly. Even the 3 generations of deluded folk lobotomized by their ‘education’ will break ranks with their masters out an end to it
The consensus is affirmed in a conditional set a la vaccine safety and efficacy. It’s a democratic thing that undermines social and scientific integrity.
You give them far too much credit. The 97% turned out to be 2%. They found over 3,000 papers with an opinion on the cause of warming, and only 64 said it was mostly human (Cook et al). Two other papers didn’t even check whether authors stated were mostly human, but if they said humans had any effect (Doran&Zimmerman and Oreskes). A fourth, Anderegg, used assumptions as data; the actual result was that nearly twice as many scientists outright opposed the IPCC claims as supported them, with an unknown number in between.
Yep it surely is getting warmer. Why, 100 years ago it was only 99.9% as hot as it is nowadays.
They “examined” 3,000 or roughly 2.6% of the papers. What does examine mean? Did they read them? Probably not. Did they control for implicit bias? Doubtful. Seems like a case of “assume your conclusions and you’ll conclude your assumptions.”
“Examined” means they submitted them to a computer for a simple textual search for certain phrases. So, they didn’t read them.
The science is so settled that they spend more time re-affirming it than actually doing it. Especially before COP’s.
It’s a busted flush.
How many atmospheric quantum molecular spectroscopists’ papers were included in all of this. Noone outside of that discipline has any valid basis for opinion on the extent of greenhouse effect warming. I read Wijngarten and Happer on the subject and found it rather compelling. However since my atmospheric molecular spectroscopy is only at undergrad level and that 50 years ago, my opinion on the subject is worthless like Michael Mann and Kevin Trenberth except Kev and Mikie think they know better but maybe Al Gore just told them so.
humans cause enviromental changes … nobody disagrees … so what ? unless they define what changed (they don’t) they can’t begin to attribute it to humans … and they certainly can’t attribute it to CO2 …
Okay… This is absurd. Humans do alter the planet – which alters the climate from it’s pure none altered by human state. In point of fact I would argue humans ‘changed’ the climate when they killed all the buffalo. I can promise that the climate has changed due to large cities that have been built.
The question is not ‘is the climate changing’ but is it getting WORSE. Is it a crisis? SHOULD WE BE WORRIED. That is like saying that humans have changed the make up of the mix of atmospheric gases – well duh.
I am so tired over this stupid debate. I AM SKEPTICAL not of the science of Climate Change – I am Skeptical of its CONCLUSIONS.
I am also SKEPTICAL of the way people cherry pick data sources and proxy data ( on both sides )
This has NOTHING to do with the absurd idea that humans do not effect change in the environment. OF COURSE WE DO. Does that make it BAD?
So tired… SO SO SO tired at foolish metrics.
….More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree….
or
in Montgomery county, Maryland, USA 99.9% of adult population is fully or partly vaccinated, average household income is US$99,900,
When you pay your money you are free to believe the story teller’s fables if inclined so.
“ In spite of such results…”
How many papers are based on models?
Consensus is a political term
Well, that just means that 99.9% of climate studies are false.😀
“Any paper that didn’t state a few keywords must agree with us.”
By that methodology, it can be claimed the Washington Post and New York Times agree that Trump won in 2020 because most of their articles don’t use the words ‘legitimate’ or ‘proven’.
I’m not at all surprised by the number of papers. When you offer big bucks for “research” that is supposed to find that climate change is caused primarily by human activity, you get a lot of such papers. It’s all about responding to the market.
This post would have been more useful if it laid out the arguments for WHY the claim was unsupportable. We need ammunition out here!
Since COP26 is very close, has the file all.7z been opened yet?
The whole Net Zero campaign is founded on the self delusions and confirmation bias of the academic establishment consensus model forecasts . The main stream Media notably the BBC ,Guardian, NBC ,ABC, CBS,PBS have been the greatest sources of false news. They have produced a generation of scared and psychologically disturbed teenagers and green fanatics who believe that the world has no future if fossil fuels continue to be used. The effect of C02 on temperature is immeasurably small. There is no CO2 caused climate crisis. It is left to sites like WUWT and the Blogosphere in general to question and discuss the basic science on which the disastrous Net Zero policies are based. See my paper at
“Net Zero threatens Sustainable Development Goals”
https://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com
Excerpts:
“Abstract
This paper begins by reviewing the relationship between CO2 and Millennial temperature cycles. CO2 levels follow temperature changes. CO2 is the dependent variable and there is no calculable consistent relationship between the two. The uncertainties and wide range of out-comes of model calculations of climate radiative forcing arise from the improbable basic assumption that anthropogenic CO2 is the major controller of global temperatures. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between the phases of cyclic processes of varying wavelengths and amplitudes. At all scales, including the scale of the solar planetary system, sub-sets of oscillating systems develop synchronous behaviors which then produce changing patterns of periodicities in time and space in the emergent data. Solar activity as represented by the Oulu cosmic ray count is here correlated with the Hadsst3 temperatures and is the main driver of global temperatures at Millennial scales. The Millennial pattern is projected forwards to 2037. Earth has just passed the peak of a Millennial cycle and will generally cool until 2680 – 2700. At the same time, and not merely coincidentally, the earth has now reached a new population peak which brought with it an associated covid pandemic, and global poverty and income disparity increases which threaten the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals. During the last major influenza epidemic world population was 1.9 billion. It is now 7.8 billion+/. The establishment science “consensus” that a modelled future increase in CO2 levels and not this actual fourfold population increase is the main threat to human civilization is clearly untenable. The cost of the proposed rapid transition to non- fossil fuels would create an unnecessary, enormously expensive. obstacle in the way of the effort to attain a modern ecologically viable sustainable global economy. We must adapt to the most likely future changes and build back smarter when losses occur. ……………………..
Solar Activity and Temperature Correlations
Fig 4 The NRLTSI2 Solar Activity – CET Relationship 1600- Present (25,26,27)
In Figure 4 the Roth & Joos Cosmogenic Index (CI) is used as the emergent proxy for the solar activity driver of the resulting emergent global and NH temperature data.
The CI designation here integrates changes in solar magnetic field strength, TSI, EUV, IMF, Solar wind density and velocity, CMEs, proton events, the BZ sign and changes in the GCR neutron count which modulates cloud cover and thus albedo.
The effect on observed emergent behaviors i.e. global temperature trends, of the combined effect of these solar and GCR drivers will vary non-linearly depending on the particular phases of the eccentricity, obliquity and precession orbital cycles at any particular time.
Figure 4 shows an increase in CI of about 2 W/m 2 from the Maunder minimum to the 1991 activity peak. This increase, together with the other solar “activity” variations modulate the earth’s temperature and albedo via the GR flux and varying cloud cover.
The emergent temperature time series trends of the combined orbital, solar and GCR drivers also reflect turning points, changes of state and important threshold effects created by the interactions of the underlying physical processes. These exogenous forcings are also simultaneously modulated by changes in the earth’s magnetic field and length of day.
The temperature increase since the1680s is due to the up- leg in the natural solar ” activity” Millennial cycle as shown by Lean 2018 “Estimating Solar Irradiance Since 850 AD” (ibid). Figure 4 also shows the correlation between the CI driver and the Central England Seasonal Temperatures. (27). The 1650 – 1700 (Maunder), 1810 – 20 (de Vries/Dalton), and the 1890-1900 (Gleissberg) minima are obvious. The Millennial Solar Activity Turning Point (MSATP) at 1991 correlates with the Millennial Temperature Turning Point (MTTP) at 2003/4 with a 12/13 +/- year delay because of the thermal inertia of the oceans.
The CET in Figure 4 shows that this up-leg in the CET has an annual absolute temperature Millennial cycle amplitude of at least 16.5 +/- degrees C. Using the Millennial cycle lengths of Figure 3 at least that same amount of future cooling from the 2004 high is probable by the winters of 2,680-2700 +/-. These temperature changes correlate very well with the changes in energy flow from the sun shown in Figure 4 without any measurable effect of C02 levels.
Fig 5 Correlation of the last 5 Oulu neutron cycles and trends with the Hadsst3 temperature trends and the 300 mb Specific Humidity. (28,29)
The Oulu CR data shows the decrease in solar activity since the 1991/92 Millennial Solar Activity Turning Point and peak There is a significant drop to a lower solar activity base level post 2007+/-.There is a new solar activity minimum at 2009. As in Fig.4 the MSATP at 1991 correlates with the MTTP at 2003/4 with a 12/13 +/- year delay. Short term temperature spikes are colored orange and are closely correlated to El Ninos.
Temperature Predictions
Loeb et al 2018 in “Changes in Earths Energy budget during and after the “Pause” in Global Warming”(30) provided an important observational database from 1998 – 2018.This
showed that a reduction in global mean reflected short wave top of atmosphere flux in the three years following the hiatus resulted from decreased low cloud cover which added to the 2016 El Nino temperature spike.
Figure 5 also predicts SST3gl and Specific Humidity trends from 2022 – 2037. (Blue and Purple dashed lines) The secular change in the Solar Activity to a lower base level after 2007 projects to 2021. The SST3gl general decline trend from 2021 to 2037 is here projected as the reverse of the increase from 1983 – 2004 with the cycle 24 peak projected at 2028 and the cycle 25 peak at 203………………………………………….
Most importantly the models make the fundamental error of ignoring the very probable long- term decline in solar activity and temperature following the Millennial Solar Activity Turning Point and activity peak which was reached in 1990/91 as shown in Figure 5. The correlative UAH 6.0 satellite TLT anomaly at the MTTP at 2003/12 was + 0.26C. The temperature anomaly at 2021/9 was + 0.25 C. (34) This satellite data set shows that there has been no net global warming for the last 17 years. As shown above, these Renewable Energy Targets in turn are based on model forecast outcomes which now appear highly improbable. Science, Vol 373,issue 6554 July2021 in ”Climate panel confronts implausibly hot models” (35) says “Many of the world’s leading models are now projecting warming rates that most scientists, including the modelmakers themselves, believe are implausibly fast. In advance of the U.N. report, scientists have scrambled to understand what went wrong and how to turn the models…… into useful guidance for policymakers. “It’s become clear over the last year or so that we can’t avoid this,” says Gavin Schmidt, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.”
The global temperature cooling trends from 2003/4 – 2704 are likely to be broadly similar to those seen from 996 – 1700+/- in Figure 2.”
See also the published paper from Energy and Environment 2017
http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
The key point in Fig.5 is the Peak of the natural solar activity cycle at 1991/2.
Note the range in Fig 4 is 2 W/m2 Anthropogenic. CO2 has no measurable effect on Temperature. See Fgs 1 – 10 and tex
Have any of the following questions been addressed? What is the optimal temperature of the earth? What is the optimal co2 concentration of the atmosphere? How is it that a molecule eith a concentration of 0.04% controls all of the climate? Have there been warmer periods in earth’s history? Have there been colder? Are human beings living longer than before the industrial revolution? Shall I continue? I just a country pharmacist who can read. Thank you.
David, I have been asking your first two questions for years and have yet to get an answer.
I know that about 10% of the record highs and lows for my little spot on the globe between 2012 and 2007 don’t jive with each other. (ie 2012 record highs are lower that 2007 record highs for the same day, etc.)
Just what data did these papers use?
If the root of the data is corrupted, can the fruit, the conclusions, be anything but corrupted?
It seems that, yet again, the science is settled and nothing new can be learned about climate. In other words it is beyond any debate as this would be would be futile. I have never heard of any branch of science, let alone one so much still in its’ infancy, that would be so arrogant and dismissive of proper debate and discussion. The progress of science in it’s search for knowledge and understanding is absolutely dependant on listening to counter-arguements, new hypotheses, challenges to those which are out-moded and, above all upon free and open debate. The conduct of climate science at present is an absolute disgrace and brings shame on the profession. It is far too enmeshed in politics, finance, ideology to make any real progress towards gaining the necessary knowledge and understanding on which to base sound policies.
Unless they register all scientists and have them vote on the validity of the AGW conjecture it is all a matter of speculation. It is also meaningless because science is not done that way. Science is not a democracy. Scientific theories are not validated by means of a voting process or some other form of a popularity contest. For example a very important part of the AGW conjecture is that CO2 based warming must cause more H2O to enter the atmosphere and that additional H2O amplifies CO2 warming because H2O is also a so called greenhouse gas. But the undeniable reality is that H2O is a net coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere as evidenced by the fact that the wet lapse rate is significantly less than the dry lapse rate in the troposphere. So H2O must act to reduce any warming that CO2 might cause. That is fact and cannot be changed by different opinions or popularity. The AGW conjecture may sound plausible to many but upon closer analysis it is based on only partial science and is full of holes and no popularity contest can change that.
If consensus really was the defining arbiter of facts we would not need scientists.
Clearly at the moment we need some scientists to write stuff, otherwise there would not be a possibility of establishing consensus among scientists. But as scientists are made obsolete, by the consensus trumps all scientific sceptics policy, what point is there having any scientists?
In future we should just have a show of hands to define everything and once the consensus has been established nothing more needs to be done. That research activity we have been wasting so much time and effort on, not to mention state funds, could all be saved
I am suspecting BBC logic is in play, with this latest consensus is king movement..
Let’s no platform scientists and have “BBC” placards on anti science demos.
“BBC” as in Bring Back Consensus,
Uh, just because a paper was not found by their questionable methodology to be “skeptical” does not by default mean it therefore endorses anthropogenic factors as being the cause of climate change. Very likely a high percentage of papers take no position at all.
If this sort of study has been passed through peer review, things are far worse than I thought.
When you start with a premise you usually prove that premise.
The Cook et al Paper (2013) is not credible.
See “ Fraud ,Bias and Public Relations- The ‘97% Consensus’and its critics” by Andrew Montford at the GWPF.
The Lynas et al paper is equally unconvincing.
The cherry-picking is built into the funding mechanisms, you frackin’ idiots! It’s built in to the whole tendentious IPCC process, and built in to the political correctness and wokery of major research universities.
Pull your damn heads out and feel the sunshine, again.
I would have thought that given that humans have only been around for, lets be generous and say 300k years, that the 99.9% of studies was the result of a not very widely cast net.
Without reading every paper how can you possibly make pronouncements like this? You find the words “natural cycles”, but in what context? Similarly with all the other phrases. Just another pathetic attempt at manipulating public opinion. And that’s what it is. No scientist will ever bother to read it, which is the whole point of publishing a scientific paper. Pure propaganda.