Global Warming Consensus Crumbling

  • Date: 06/12/13
  • Paul Homewood, Not A Lot Of People Know That

The American Meteorological Society seems to be upset by a survey that shows that only 52% of their members believe that global warming is mostly man-made. I am sure that is jolly inconvenient for them, but it is exactly what the results of their survey show.

52percent_AMS-vs-97percent_SkS

The recent global warming survey run by the American Meteorological Society has already attracted much attention. The story has been well covered, for instance here and here.

There have been claims and counter-claims about just what the survey shows.

So, in this post, I really just want to add a few thoughts of my own as discussion points.

First, let’s take another look at the table of results that the survey published.

 

ConsenusTableCapture

The AMS seem to be upset by the fact that the “52%” result has been bandied around, and that this somehow has distorted the survey’s real findings. I am sure that is jolly inconvenient for them, but it is, of course, exactly what the results of the survey show.

Let’s also consider these points:

  • The official IPCC position is that “It is extremely likely that human influence has been the dominant cause of the observed warming since the mid-20th century”, and that “The contribution from natural forcings is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C, and from natural internal variability is likely to be in the range of −0.1°C to 0.1°C [ for the period 1951-2010]

In other words, just about all of the warming has been man made, not 51%, not 71% and not even 91%.

  • Even amongst climatologists in the AMS, only 73% say “mostly human”, well short of the fraudulent “97%” claims we often hear of. And how many of these would agree with the IPCC position that virtually all warming is man made?
  • Amongst the meteorologists, rather than the climatologists, only 49% agree with “mostly human”.
  • The category “Equally human and natural” is actually just a meaningless cop out. Nobody could seriously be so precise with the allocation of cause. It is really just another way of saying “Don’t know”
  • Level of Harm/Benefit – one of the questions asked in the survey was :

“Over the next 100 years, how harmful or beneficial do you think global warming will be to people and society, if nothing is done to address it?”

Response options were: very harmful, somewhat harmful, the harms and benefits will be more or less equal, somewhat beneficial, very beneficial, and don’t know.

Nowhere in the paper are the results of this question revealed. (There is no supplementary information available yet, so it may be included there).

This question, of course, is highly relevant, as again it is central to the IPCC viewpoint, that global warming will be extremely damaging. One therefore wonders why the results of this question have not been published. Could it be that many less than the already low 52% agreed with the IPCC view?

Let’s after all consider the facts. In the last 80 years, global temperatures have increased by about half a degree. IPCC models, that forecast much bigger increases, remain just that, models, which continue to be confounded by the 17-year temperature standstill.

Bearing all that in mind, how many of the “52%” would still agree that “warming in the next 100 years will be very harmful”?

 

Global time series

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/diagnostics.html

One final point…

Full story