Comments on: Once Again, The #FauxPause Is Killed By Actual Research https://gregladen.com/blog/2015/09/18/once-again-the-fauxpause-is-killed-by-actual-research/ Sun, 04 Mar 2018 07:21:29 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=6.4.6 By: Emission Trading and climate change - Page 356 https://gregladen.com/blog/2015/09/18/once-again-the-fauxpause-is-killed-by-actual-research/#comment-571356 Sun, 04 Mar 2018 07:21:29 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=21549#comment-571356 […] Once Again, The #FauxPause Is Killed By Actual Research – Greg Laden's Blog Before you speak, ask yourself: Is it necessary, it is true, does it improve on the silence? – Baba Reply With Quote […]

]]> By: What is the “pause” in global warming? – Greg Laden's Blog https://gregladen.com/blog/2015/09/18/once-again-the-fauxpause-is-killed-by-actual-research/#comment-471903 Wed, 24 Feb 2016 14:46:20 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=21549#comment-471903 […] order to make the line flatter. So, that part of the denier pause is a different kind of lie. See this post and this post for recent research on this […]

]]> By: Global Warming Over The Next Decade: Candidates take note. – Greg Laden's Blog https://gregladen.com/blog/2015/09/18/once-again-the-fauxpause-is-killed-by-actual-research/#comment-471902 Fri, 08 Jan 2016 17:21:51 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=21549#comment-471902 […] trend of increasing surface temperature was somewhat attenuated. That attenuation was probably caused by a number of factors, and in fact, at least one of those factors had to do with inadequacies of the data itself, in that […]

]]> By: Highlights of Climate Change Research in 2015 – Greg Laden's Blog https://gregladen.com/blog/2015/09/18/once-again-the-fauxpause-is-killed-by-actual-research/#comment-471901 Tue, 29 Dec 2015 16:14:44 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=21549#comment-471901 […] 09–18 Once Again, The #FauxPause Is Killed By Actual Research […]

]]> By: Marco https://gregladen.com/blog/2015/09/18/once-again-the-fauxpause-is-killed-by-actual-research/#comment-471900 Fri, 25 Sep 2015 08:53:39 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=21549#comment-471900 CO2 is not linearly connected to T, but logarithmic. Therefore, Ian’s objection does not hold. Rebuttal done, “highly qualified scientist” Ian will now read up on basic climate change, in particular forcings. Right, Ian?

]]> By: Dan Aldridge https://gregladen.com/blog/2015/09/18/once-again-the-fauxpause-is-killed-by-actual-research/#comment-471899 Fri, 25 Sep 2015 07:39:31 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=21549#comment-471899 In reply to Ian.

Not one? I think you might be reading the wrong articles, then. For starters, if you don’t think GHG’s affect temperature, please try to come up with a convincing explanation of how the Earth escaped the pole-to-pole glaciaton or near-glaciation of the Proterozoic snowball periods. Or, for that matter, why Venus is rather a bit warmer than Earth or even Mercury.

As far as your argument regarding human activity, the correlation between human emissions and temperature do seem quite close:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/co2_temp_1900_2008.gif.

]]> By: Ian https://gregladen.com/blog/2015/09/18/once-again-the-fauxpause-is-killed-by-actual-research/#comment-471898 Fri, 25 Sep 2015 06:43:10 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=21549#comment-471898 dan,
The problem with the papers you cited and the one we are responding to is that we have a linear rate of temp increase “Emma” and “Isobel” with almost the same slope. Emma starts in late 1800’s when the population was less than half of what it is today and industrial activity an order of magnitude less . If it is Human activity producing co2 which in turn causes temp increase the temp vs time graph would look nothing like the one cited above, instead it would be increasing at a faster and faster rate. I have read dozens / hundreds of articles and not once read a convincing piece of research that can connect human activity with temp change. Interestingly I have read several that argue the opposite convincingly

]]> By: John in Oz https://gregladen.com/blog/2015/09/18/once-again-the-fauxpause-is-killed-by-actual-research/#comment-471897 Thu, 24 Sep 2015 21:54:31 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=21549#comment-471897 Your graph of global average temp anomaly in C/100 shows 1880 at approx -30 and 1980 at approx +30 (by eye).

Please explain the 60 or so degrees C over this hundred year period that should have had all mankind jumping out of the pot.

]]> By: Glenn https://gregladen.com/blog/2015/09/18/once-again-the-fauxpause-is-killed-by-actual-research/#comment-471896 Thu, 24 Sep 2015 21:24:33 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=21549#comment-471896 What about this? http://judithcurry.com/2015/06/04/has-noaa-busted-the-pause-in-global-warming/

]]> By: Dan Aldridge https://gregladen.com/blog/2015/09/18/once-again-the-fauxpause-is-killed-by-actual-research/#comment-471895 Thu, 24 Sep 2015 17:12:15 +0000 http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/?p=21549#comment-471895 Ian, I’m not going to call you anything, but the question you bring up has been studied exhaustively. Check out the following graph comparing natural to human causes:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/Contrib100-150.png

(The title of the article where that graph can be found is called “A Comprehensive Review of the Causes of Global Warming”, in case you want more info.) Note the years at the top of the graph. The human influence on climate change didn’t begin precisely in 1956 or whatever the specific year in the IPCC report declares it to have become “dominant”.

Another great resource on this was lately done by Bloomberg (and this is really cool):

http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/

]]>