Comments on: Scientific Rejection of Global Warming

By: Aaron Galbavy

Aaron Galbavy — Sun, 24 Dec 2017 09:14:22 +0000

Ludo:Well, this analysis is mad and stupid. Well done losing your time…Writing is a creative process. Statistics and mathematics are irrelevant there.

You can certainly quantify someone’s past behavior (X amount of words written in a certain period) and use that as a predictor for the future. The accuracy of various periods and numbers can discussed and debated, that’s the fun of it. But to say that mathematics, statistics, can have nothing to do with creativity, when studies are done all the time on creative issues, with the results converted into quantifiable data? That’s just wrong. Sue the Fury

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 19:48:17 +0000

Exactly. For the most part, it just doesn’t happen (much). Why would plants lack an upper limit on a physiological process? And yes, saying “this pollutant gives us more plants, yay!” sounds kind of silly when we think of phosphates in detergents and such, and the trouble we had with that.

By: Moody834

Moody834 — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 17:37:49 +0000

My understanding is that expecting plants to save us (through their thriving in an environment with more CO2) is a mistake because plants “top out” on CO2 and their ability to capture it declines rapidly past a certain point. Similarly, expecting massive algae blooms to help is a mistake, especially because such blooms will carry their own deleterious effects with them.

That’s about right, isn’t it? As a lay person, I am never very confident when it comes to matters like these.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 16:30:40 +0000

Phil:

1) Warmer.

2) Paleo proxy data show changes in temperature and CO2 wherein the temperature increase precedes the CO2 increase when viewed at a certain scale. This is because temperature and related phenomena and CO2 and related phenomenon have their own little dance going which, when looked at a certain way, demonstrates the relationship you suggest. Here’s a simple easy to understand example: When summer in the northern hemisphere comes, temperatures go up, THEN plants follow quickly by growing a lot, and this decreases CO2 in the atmosphere because the plants convert some of it to plant tissue. There are also longer term cycles like this. It is called the Carbon Cycle. But the baseline increase of CO2 in the atmosphere is associated with a global increase in heat retained in the atmosphere and the seas.

3) only a little. We all hoped that it would be a lot, but it turned out to not be.

Here are some references you can read to find out more for your questions.

1) http://skepticalscience.com/global-cooling.htm

2) http://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

3) http://skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

By: Phil Knox

Phil Knox — Sat, 20 Apr 2013 10:13:39 +0000

Questions: 1. Is the overall surface temperature of the planet warmer or or is it cooler since the mid 1990s? 2. If more CO2 causes higher temps then why do greenland ice cores show CO2 levels increasing ..after.. temp rises? 3. Doesn’t increased CO2 actually invigorate plant groth (thus help agriculture overall)?

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Tue, 09 Apr 2013 18:05:52 +0000

Perhaps there will some day be another study that takes more of the caveats into account. If such a study emerges I’ll be sure to point to it!

By: Schenck

Schenck — Tue, 09 Apr 2013 15:27:26 +0000

I think the work behind making this graph was worth it. Yes, conesus isn’t always correct (the consensus was decidedly against continental drift, for a while anyway), yes the proportions here are a bit off because they’re not eliminating papers that study the climate system (rather than only including papers that attempt to answer ‘is there global warming), and yes, Web Of Science is an index—but not an index of every paper everywhere. These are all reasonable caveats, but the graph clearly shows that it’s a lie that there are many scientists/climate researchers who reject global warming, or who think it’s a result of solar cycles, etc. /That/ specific claim, that there’s a ‘good chunk’ of researchers who deny climate change, is nicely shown here to be utterly false.

By: Anny

Anny — Mon, 08 Apr 2013 15:24:55 +0000

I have come to the conclusion that we all have a little blame global warming and its consequences and guilt even more politicians who do not slow down.

http://www.globalwarmingweb.com/

By: J Medley

J Medley — Sun, 07 Apr 2013 16:59:12 +0000

Let’s be clear. This graph is NOT the result of a popularity contest. Acceptance in a peer review journal depends on the validity of a study or experiment’s methedology, not whether the conclusion conforms to anything. What this graph shows is the results of papers with sound methodology. The work with sound methodology leans heavily in favor of global warming.

By: Greg Laden

Greg Laden — Sun, 07 Apr 2013 13:37:32 +0000

NOTE: There are individuals who don’t know that bloggers can delete inappropriate comments. Much of that is spam from commercial or other interests, but also a given blogger may restrict other kinds of comments. On this blog I generally delete comments by the usual flock of winged monkey style science denialists. I made a comment on twitter that this particular blog post had produced an unusual amount of spam very suddenly,and this invoked a response from one of my loyal readers who does not understand blogging too well that I was telling a lie because he only saw eight comments.

Those other comments got deleted. Also, there were not too many of them; about 20 within about three hours or so. The total number is not large, but the suddenness of them …. the rate at which they arrived …. was notable, and thus, I noted it.

See my about page if you want more information on my comment policy.

Thank you very much, that is all. You may now return to your normal Sunday Morning activities!