Comments on: The Downfall of Climate Change Denialism

By: Chris O'Neill

Chris O'Neill — Wed, 25 Nov 2015 16:35:16 +0000

temperatures have not followed suit for the past 18+ years

Getting statistically significant warming out of the noisy satellite record in any period of 18 years is like getting blood out of a stone.

See how many 18 year periods in the satellite record had statistically significant warming: http://www.skepticalscience.com/trend.php

You usually need to start with an unusual cooling event like Pinatubo.

By: Brainstorms

Brainstorms — Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:23:18 +0000

Maybe he’s not the Doctor Who he says he is…?

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Mon, 23 Nov 2015 18:16:59 +0000

Matt,

First, great job on the Dr. Who, you were one of the best!

Meanwhile, I note that you picked this post, with the focus of levity rather than data or modeling, to make your comment. Why did you not pick this post, which gives lie to your statement about no warming for 18 years?

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/05/06/the-fauxpause-is-faux/

Or this post, which discusses how actual climate models by actual scientists have been pretty darn good, while the anti-science denier models have sucked?

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/03/11/climatology-versus-pseudoscience-exposing-the-failed-predictions-of-global-warming-skeptics/

Why?

By: Matt Smith

Matt Smith — Mon, 23 Nov 2015 15:24:44 +0000

You must think the earth’s climate system is simple. It’s just a minor detail that “every” model run by those massive computers has over-predicted the future expected warming. While CO2 levels continue to rise – temperatures have not followed suit for the past 18+ years. Hmm. Must not be so simple. What were the CO2 levels when Greenland was “green”? How about other periods in earth’s history that were much warmer than now? Since climate is always changing (on which everyone agrees) – which year’s climate is the one we should strive to keep as the “perfect” “natural” climate? 1935? 1974? Who should decide this? The UN? WMO? People in northern Canada? in the tropics?

By: adelady

adelady — Sun, 06 Jan 2013 07:05:27 +0000

Oh come on Jeff, you know it’s not that simple. Arrhenius laboriously worked out the straightforward CO2 physics of climate – by hand, in pen and ink – 110+ years ago. Plass designed ‘heat-seeking’ missiles in the 50s based on the well-known physics.

The crude computers of the late 70s early 80s started on the path of more detailed modelling than Arrhenius’s simplistic approach. And now we have massive computers and massive data sets all confirming what’s been known for over a century.

The truly remarkable thing is that the overall picture has changed so little. Increase CO2 by any given amount and expect a defined increase in temperature.

The big advantage we have over such projections and analysis in the past is that we can now distinguish the small but steady temperature increase signal from the very large seasonal and ENSO variations which obscure it a bit.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Sat, 05 Jan 2013 21:30:43 +0000

Yes, the idiotic crap Jeff. Insults tend to provoke further insults. I am not eloquent and still trying to learn. I believe that polite discourse is the way forward. Regardless of any expressions of Godwin’s Law here or elsewhere, I will remain polite.

Why do you say “Wrong on all counts” ? It is the essence of the scientific method to expect good data / proof, and accept it when presented with it. We do not believe what someone says based solely on their credentials. And it is a proper response to change one’s position when faced with good data. They deserve mocking when they don’t accept the data, not when they do.

There certainly is much more data behind Mississippi river levels. Very direct human activities beyond last Summer’s drought. Those quotes and the link are anecdotes.

I’m still looking for data/reports/papers explaining the magnitude of the CO2 link. I have seen people claim exactly what I said.

By: mark

mark — Wed, 02 Jan 2013 14:08:07 +0000

@Graeme: "AGW which appears to have stopped the past few years..." Are you saying global warming has ceased, or merely its human-caused component? Only by carefully selecting the beginning of "the past few years" does warming appear to have ceased, but such a period is too short to be significant considering how much noise surrounds the global temperature signal. This has been discussed many times (for example, here.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 17:40:26 +0000

bks, these are quotes taken over a couple of decades as a commemoration. Click through to the first indicated links at the top of the post.

By: bks

bks — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 15:33:40 +0000

BTW, it’s been 25 years since Hansen first testified before Congress about AGW.

–bks

By: Jeffrey

Jeffrey — Tue, 01 Jan 2013 15:13:39 +0000

Agreed. Thank you for proclaiming my innocence. I appreciate that. This reminds me of the play A Comedy of Errors. Pax Vobiscum