Actually it was conservatives who coined the phrase climate change, particularly Frank Luntz.
Not really. I know that Luntz pushed using it as a less threatening phrase than global warming but in 1958 Gilbert Plass published a paper titled "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change" so it has a long history.
Can you offer a list of pairs of links: with the first link pointing at a quantifiable prediction and the second — at evidence of it materializing within, say, 80% of the predicted figure(s)?
At this point I think you need to provide us with an example where it failed with paired links so we have a better idea of what you're looking for. Good luck.
You didn't read the Real Climate post did you. Regarding Hansen's model it said (my bold):
Finally, we update the Hansen et al (1988) (doi) comparisons. Note that the old GISS model had a climate sensitivity that was a little higher (4.2C for a doubling of CO2) than the best estimate (~3C) and as stated in previous years, the actual forcings that occurred are not the same as those used in the different scenarios. We noted in 2007, that Scenario B was running a little high compared with the forcings growth (by about 10%) using estimated forcings up to 2003 (Scenario A was significantly higher, and Scenario C was lower), and we see no need to amend that conclusion now. - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
So scenario C wouldn't match observations if the Hansen model had a sensitivity closer to current estimates.
You are right but droughts can also be exacerbated by higher temperatures causing the soil to dry out faster and more completely. That has been a factor in the current California drought.
One problem with Hansen's 1988 model is that it had and inherent climate sensitivity of about 4.2 degrees C whereas the currently most models have a sensitivity around 3.2 C. So while scenario C may match observations best it's obvious that what the scenario envisioned isn't what happened. If the sensitivity of Hansen88 were in the 3.2 C range then C would produce data well below the observations.
It's suspicious that all 90 model runs start at 0 anomaly in 1983. There is no way that's where they all started in reality which means the relationship between the different model run lines is incorrect.
It also shows the models making rather modest projections on short term temperature change, temperatures would need to stay static for the next 20 plus years still to even get outside the low end error bars of model predictions.
Those aren't error bars but rather confidence intervals. They encompass 95% of all individual model runs.
Those are great links. Thanks for posting them. But they appear to show the models almost exactly as bad as the the grandparent: both indicate reality is at the very bottom of the model prediction distribution. It's unfortunate that the grandparent is from such a sketchy source, as it demonstrates greater respect for the principles of visual display of information. It shows one thing, it shows it well, and axis that people care about (the vertical) is given reasonable scaling instead of being compressed away by cramming in multiple additional graphs.
Don't you think it's strange that all of the model runs start at the 0 anomaly point in 1983? There is no way the real model runs did that so they have been adjusted to all start there which makes the graph misleading.
The big problem with that chart is that all of the model runs start at 0 anomaly in 1983. There is no way all of those model runs just happened to be at 0 in 1983 so the comparison the chart makes is invalid.
What are you going to belive, your lying eyes that show Florida isn't under water, or alarmists that say it was under water 15 years ago?
Scientists who actually study sea level have never said any such thing. When I've looked into such claims I usually find that people like you are taking the quotes completely out of context and ignoring the time frame on predictions.
It's true that 20 meters is rather hyperbolic. The highest projections I've seen for sea level rise by 2100 is 2 meters (6 feet). But the last time CO2 in the atmosphere was at 400 ppm sea level was over 20 meters (65 feet) higher than it is now so it may just be a matter of how long it takes to get there. It could be less than 1000 years.
One interesting thing about Arctic sea ice this year is at record lows for this time of year and may set a new low for maximum annual sea ice extent (since satellite records started in 1979). "Arctic sea ice plunges to record low extent for late winter"
If the predictions of doom* in 100 years are correct they would still have 96 years to act. That might be enough.
Huh!? It's not like all the sea level rise waits for 96 years then manifests suddenly. It just continues to slowly rise and long before it reaches the 1 meter in 100 years there will be effects that have to be dealt with. Even 6 inches of rise will have a serious effect on NC's barrier islands.
As to wastes of resources, it isn't a waste if you want to use the study as policy.
As I said any future science that tries to build on a study will show if it was wrong soon enough. Most of what I've seen from the EPA is well supported from multiple lines of evidence. They spend a lot of time on that.
One way to recognize the propaganda with realclimate.org is to realize they are clearly partisan, that is, any dissent from the standard line is attacked.
As scientists shouldn't they be able to defend and in fact are obligated to defend what they understand to be true about their science? In the end empirical reality will show what is right and they know that so it doesn't make sense that they would promulgate something they know to be wrong.
I watched your Heartland cite. Although I didn't totally agree with Denning* I didn't see that he contradicted climate science in any fundamental way. His main point was that if the political right does not offer solutions for the climate change that is coming the other side will come up with solutions they won't like. I'd love it if the political right started offering solutions rather than just more obstruction.
* His statement that "CO2 emits heat" is not the way I would describe it but maybe he was just dumbing it down for his audience.
So when the temperature falls, it's due to external factors - solar minimum, ocean currents, whatever - but when the temperature rises, it's solely due to human produced carbon dioxide? While that's not exactly specified in what you wrote, I hear that A LOT from global warming proponents. The concept of warming temperatures being due to external factors, just like cooling temperatures, is completely inconceivable to a lot of global warming proponents.
No it's more like there is a warming signal in the background from the rise in CO2 and ocean currents and whatever mostly affect where the heat gets expressed. If a bit more of it is going into the oceans then the atmosphere doesn't heat as much but the heat is still getting stored and it will come out eventually. Recent solar variation has had a miniscule effect on temperatures. There certainly can be external factors that would increase surface temperatures but we haven't observed any lately that would account for the changes seen.
Schmidt wrote several of the updates but stopped after the 2012 update because nothing he would have just been repeating what he had said previously. Sure knowledge has advanced since then but it hasn't changed anything fundamental in climate science.
As for RC being propaganda, if you say so. It is written by several leading climate scientists and invited guests and covers the mainstream of climate science well. Their posts cover mainly scientific topics and you're free to try and debunk them if you can.
The models are not garbage. It sounds like your expectation of what they should be in unrealistic. Gavin Schmidt, a person who understands the models because he helps write them (the GISS Model E climate model) wrote this comparison between models and observations in 2013. Weather is still well within the expectations of climate models.
Slashdot Mirror
Actually it was conservatives who coined the phrase climate change, particularly Frank Luntz.
Not really. I know that Luntz pushed using it as a less threatening phrase than global warming but in 1958 Gilbert Plass published a paper titled "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change" so it has a long history.
You know don't you that if your globes are too hot it makes you infertile.
Can you offer a list of pairs of links: with the first link pointing at a quantifiable prediction and the second — at evidence of it materializing within, say, 80% of the predicted figure(s)?
At this point I think you need to provide us with an example where it failed with paired links so we have a better idea of what you're looking for. Good luck.
You didn't read the Real Climate post did you. Regarding Hansen's model it said (my bold):
Finally, we update the Hansen et al (1988) (doi) comparisons. Note that the old GISS model had a climate sensitivity that was a little higher (4.2C for a doubling of CO2) than the best estimate (~3C) and as stated in previous years, the actual forcings that occurred are not the same as those used in the different scenarios. We noted in 2007, that Scenario B was running a little high compared with the forcings growth (by about 10%) using estimated forcings up to 2003 (Scenario A was significantly higher, and Scenario C was lower), and we see no need to amend that conclusion now. - See more at: http://www.realclimate.org/ind...
So scenario C wouldn't match observations if the Hansen model had a sensitivity closer to current estimates.
You are right but droughts can also be exacerbated by higher temperatures causing the soil to dry out faster and more completely. That has been a factor in the current California drought.
One problem with Hansen's 1988 model is that it had and inherent climate sensitivity of about 4.2 degrees C whereas the currently most models have a sensitivity around 3.2 C. So while scenario C may match observations best it's obvious that what the scenario envisioned isn't what happened. If the sensitivity of Hansen88 were in the 3.2 C range then C would produce data well below the observations.
It's suspicious that all 90 model runs start at 0 anomaly in 1983. There is no way that's where they all started in reality which means the relationship between the different model run lines is incorrect.
It also shows the models making rather modest projections on short term temperature change, temperatures would need to stay static for the next 20 plus years still to even get outside the low end error bars of model predictions.
Those aren't error bars but rather confidence intervals. They encompass 95% of all individual model runs.
Those are great links. Thanks for posting them. But they appear to show the models almost exactly as bad as the the grandparent: both indicate reality is at the very bottom of the model prediction distribution. It's unfortunate that the grandparent is from such a sketchy source, as it demonstrates greater respect for the principles of visual display of information. It shows one thing, it shows it well, and axis that people care about (the vertical) is given reasonable scaling instead of being compressed away by cramming in multiple additional graphs.
Don't you think it's strange that all of the model runs start at the 0 anomaly point in 1983? There is no way the real model runs did that so they have been adjusted to all start there which makes the graph misleading.
Models compared with reality.
The big problem with that chart is that all of the model runs start at 0 anomaly in 1983. There is no way all of those model runs just happened to be at 0 in 1983 so the comparison the chart makes is invalid.
Put it on a railroad car.
What are you going to belive, your lying eyes that show Florida isn't under water, or alarmists that say it was under water 15 years ago?
Scientists who actually study sea level have never said any such thing. When I've looked into such claims I usually find that people like you are taking the quotes completely out of context and ignoring the time frame on predictions.
It's true that 20 meters is rather hyperbolic. The highest projections I've seen for sea level rise by 2100 is 2 meters (6 feet). But the last time CO2 in the atmosphere was at 400 ppm sea level was over 20 meters (65 feet) higher than it is now so it may just be a matter of how long it takes to get there. It could be less than 1000 years.
One interesting thing about Arctic sea ice this year is at record lows for this time of year and may set a new low for maximum annual sea ice extent (since satellite records started in 1979). "Arctic sea ice plunges to record low extent for late winter"
If the predictions of doom* in 100 years are correct they would still have 96 years to act. That might be enough.
Huh!? It's not like all the sea level rise waits for 96 years then manifests suddenly. It just continues to slowly rise and long before it reaches the 1 meter in 100 years there will be effects that have to be dealt with. Even 6 inches of rise will have a serious effect on NC's barrier islands.
I doubt you have a clue about what empirical tests can be usefully applied to climate models.
Good. Nice to see government employees muzzled for a change. Climate change is a fraud.
And yet temperatures continue to rise, ice continues to melt, sea level continues to rise (look out Florida) and the oceans continue to acidify.
You must be talking about the doomers who say we'll have to go back to living in caves if we respond the cause of AGW.
Then you shouldn't mind if their budget increases enough to cover all of the extra work these changes would impose on them.
As to wastes of resources, it isn't a waste if you want to use the study as policy.
As I said any future science that tries to build on a study will show if it was wrong soon enough. Most of what I've seen from the EPA is well supported from multiple lines of evidence. They spend a lot of time on that.
One way to recognize the propaganda with realclimate.org is to realize they are clearly partisan, that is, any dissent from the standard line is attacked.
As scientists shouldn't they be able to defend and in fact are obligated to defend what they understand to be true about their science? In the end empirical reality will show what is right and they know that so it doesn't make sense that they would promulgate something they know to be wrong.
I watched your Heartland cite. Although I didn't totally agree with Denning* I didn't see that he contradicted climate science in any fundamental way. His main point was that if the political right does not offer solutions for the climate change that is coming the other side will come up with solutions they won't like. I'd love it if the political right started offering solutions rather than just more obstruction.
* His statement that "CO2 emits heat" is not the way I would describe it but maybe he was just dumbing it down for his audience.
There may have been some individual station records broken in February 2015 but overall it was a warm winter across the US.
So when the temperature falls, it's due to external factors - solar minimum, ocean currents, whatever - but when the temperature rises, it's solely due to human produced carbon dioxide? While that's not exactly specified in what you wrote, I hear that A LOT from global warming proponents.
The concept of warming temperatures being due to external factors, just like cooling temperatures, is completely inconceivable to a lot of global warming proponents.
No it's more like there is a warming signal in the background from the rise in CO2 and ocean currents and whatever mostly affect where the heat gets expressed. If a bit more of it is going into the oceans then the atmosphere doesn't heat as much but the heat is still getting stored and it will come out eventually. Recent solar variation has had a miniscule effect on temperatures. There certainly can be external factors that would increase surface temperatures but we haven't observed any lately that would account for the changes seen.
Schmidt wrote several of the updates but stopped after the 2012 update because nothing he would have just been repeating what he had said previously. Sure knowledge has advanced since then but it hasn't changed anything fundamental in climate science.
As for RC being propaganda, if you say so. It is written by several leading climate scientists and invited guests and covers the mainstream of climate science well. Their posts cover mainly scientific topics and you're free to try and debunk them if you can.
The models are not garbage. It sounds like your expectation of what they should be in unrealistic. Gavin Schmidt, a person who understands the models because he helps write them (the GISS Model E climate model) wrote this comparison between models and observations in 2013. Weather is still well within the expectations of climate models.