« Ch-ch-ch-changes | Main | PIOMAS May 2013 »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Dan P.

It was fun. Unsurprisingly there were no papers doubting AGW in my bunch. However there were 2 papers that were refuting half-baked alternatives and one examining the disconnect between science and policy, so AGW deniers can look on the bright side: their efforts are occupying a lot of time and space in the top journals!

Nightvid Cole

PIOMAS has updated.


So have I: PIOMAS May 2013.


please accept java. took part on one earlier project from SkS and then the java was ok, though there are places where it's not ok.


my batch was almost totally neutral wrt AGW, but I'd like to point out that it's easier to just click on some value than to read the abstract. some people may find this sort of activity amusing.

Steve Bloom

Speaking of consensus, it looks like Springer is providing a useful service in issuing open-access summaries of the state of the science within each Earth Science specialty (many, but not all, will pertain to climate science).

The new polar science one is further organized by sub-specialty, each containing a brief discussion of the science and (most valuable IMO) links to a number of papers comprising the state of the science. It's short enough so that someone unfamiliar with the field can acquire an overview in short order. Apparently the plan is to update annually.

It seems worth highlighting here, Neven.

I should add that IMO this is more or less what the IPCC should be doing, noting that after seven years of waiting the forthcoming WG1 report section on Arctic sea ice looks likely to be a virtual dead letter upon issuance as a consequence of publication lags, scheduled as it is to be made public within days of the likely 2013 minimum. (Check out the IPCC front page just now, BTW; someone there at least has a sense of humor.)

Steve Bloom

Erimaassa, I expect that part of the point is to study the spread of responses in regard to such things.


It seems worth highlighting here, Neven.

Indeed, will do. In a couple of days.

And congratulations on getting two comments in a row published directly.

He said sarcastically...


(Check out the IPCC front page just now, BTW; someone there at least has a sense of humor.)


Very funny.

Jai Mitchell

This survey is completely flawed. One cannot determine the attribution of global warming to human impacts that a paper has if the abstract is simply about the rate of CO2 sequestration using bio-char. It probably mentions AGW in the body of the paper but doesn't want to bring that part out in the abstract.

Ac A

Thanks for bringing this up, Neven. I filled 20 abstracts. Average rating 3,1.

BTW it is an unreparable pitty we still need such studies - by this time we should have been ALL massively involved in decarbonisation of our society - forever. But we are doing opposite, of course - and "discussing" irrelevant details.

On my own blog I am explaining to fake septics that Beck "analysis" of 400 ppm CO2 in 1940 is not correct. I did not succeed - WTF?


Chris Reynolds

Most of mine were neutral too, but science is not a popularity ranking.


I did that one with some jerks on a message board once, IIRC the samples they were saying were the correct ones were all from locations typically downwind of, or in the middle of, major industrial centres, and had been rejected by real researchers.


Camel racing? More like Elephant mating: Starts with a lot of stamping and trumpeting, and takes 18 months to produces results.


Hans Verbeek
BTW it is an unreparable pitty we still need such studies - by this time we should have been ALL massively involved in decarbonisation of our society - forever.

Ac A: Decarbonisation has already started. The process is picking up speed and may be happening a lot faster than you'd like. Ask the Greek and the Spaniards.
If you want to stay informed on the decarbonisation check the Post Carbon Institute-website and Gail Tverberg's weblog Our Finite World.


Mine were nearly all neutral too.

Now, I know this might seem like a whole lot of "conspiracy ideation", but I suspect Cook and his peeps are not really trying to quantify the consensus on climate change via crowdsourcing. Other authors have done these studies and Cook says that they've already done the work: "we analysed over 12,000 papers..."

My money is on data mining for the next round of papers with Lewandowsky et al, perhaps a parthian shot before Lew heads off to his new chair in Bristol. A strongly bimodal result on a subset of papers will make some nice grist to the psychological mill.

Did I just reveal to the Milgram "teachers" that they were actually the subjects of the experiment? If so, my bad. I trust the select readership here to do this survey faithfully. I have less confidence in the residents of other highly-trafficked blogs. I can't imagine why Cook et al would feel otherwise...

Of the 10 papers that you rated, your average rating was 3.1 (to put that number into context, 1 represents endorsement of AGW, 7 represents rejection of AGW and 4 represents no position). The average rating of the 10 papers by the authors of the papers was 2.0.

That was a surprise, I had the feeling I was rating on the low (numerically) side.

Kat Brennan

Great post. I am writing a paper on online surveys and this will be a great article to site. I found a website that has been a great resource for the paper as well. http://www.upsurveys.com

The comments to this entry are closed.