-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Global Warming
- Thread starter Disco08
- Start date
Sure. I haven't road--tested the systems, I've just quoted people who have. The same as warmists here haven't done any of their own climate research, they've just quoted others who have. The problem is they've jumbled a lot of observational science in with long-range predictions as if they're the same thing.
I've never seen a climate model, never tinkered with one, never looked into its guts. But I don't need to have done those things to know that they are not capable of forecasting climate change (even if some of them do a passable job at predicting average weather). They are configured with a range of human-induced variables on the assumption that man is causing the warming, then the results are held up as "proving" that man has caused the warming. The results are merely replicating the assumptions. It's circular reasoning.
The IPCC has been warning for 20+ years of increasing natural disasters due to warming/climate change - cyclones, drought, flood, fires. None of these predictions have been borne out yet.
I would say there is a "consensus" that man is contributing to global warming. Whether it's a 97% consensus or not, I can't say. How much is man's contribution, nobody can say.
You can't void all opinions not emanating from scientists at the stroke of a pen any more than you can void all opinions on football that don't come from top-level footballers or coaches.
Implicit in the above was the abandonment of "global warming" in favour of "climate change" c. 2012 after global temperatures had flatlined for a decade. They were on safer ground with the former.
Sure but having an opinion on sport is very different from having an opinion on science. People are welcome to have both but they are not equal endeavours. It's a bit like having an opinion on a Monet and having an opinion the chemical composition of cobalt blue. You can express on opinion on both, but you can only be definitively wrong about one if them. So it is with science. It gets very hard to distinguish where the lines are drawn with climate science because it is such a complex area. But you will continue to make statements like:
"They are configured with a range of human-induced variables on the assumption that man is causing the warming, then the results are held up as "proving" that man has caused the warming. The results are merely replicating the assumptions. It's circular reasoning."
even though you know you can't back that up. This is basically the "grand conspiracy" I was referencing. No the models are not circular reasoning. They depend on the use of certain variables to generate modelling outcomes and the ones that consistently produce results that track with observed effects have been those that account for human activity forcing CO2 into the atmosphere. So you can stick to the idea that this forcing is coming from some mystery source or you can accept that the consistent results that align with the models that account for human activity are so consistent because they are correct. What you aren't free to do, if you want to be taken seriously, is claim the reason the results align is because they are rigged. That requires a grand conspiracy, beyond anything we've ever seen.
Ah *smile*. I'm "free" to hold any opinion I want to. It doesn't mean anything.
Climate models cannot predict climate change. Fact.
The complexity of Atmospheric and Climate Models: Assumptions and Feedbacks
This is patently false and you know it. There was no flatline. The nomenclature was changed because it was confusing to lay people that "global warming" could mean local cooling depending on your region. The world's press, and suspiciously the right leaning press, jumped on this confusion in order to sow doubt. You are perpetuating the utter garbage that The Australian has been spraying for the last decade at least. I know you are interested in accuracy in general so that really ought to give you a moment of pause.
You are free. I said you weren't free to do so "if you wanted to be taken seriously".
As I said, "if you want to be taken seriously" don't quote from someone associated with The Heartland Institute. Jesus mate.
You are once again very very wrong. Look at the decade up to 2012 and tell me there wasn't a flatline aka "global warming hiatus".
Has Global Warming Paused?
Climate scientists know the answer is no, but have trouble communicating that
www.scientificamerican.com
You are once again very very wrong. Look at the decade up to 2012 and tell me there wasn't a flatline aka "global warming hiatus".
Has Global Warming Paused?
Climate scientists know the answer is no, but have trouble communicating that
Now show me a graph that includes the full period over which we think this has been occuring. So roughly since the "industrial revolution". Lets have a look:
You are once again very very wrong. Look at the decade up to 2012 and tell me there wasn't a flatline aka "global warming hiatus".
Has Global Warming Paused?
Climate scientists know the answer is no, but have trouble communicating that
If you look at that graph and think 'flatline', then maybe that's all that needs to be said about any comment you make on this issue.
Are climate change models becoming more accurate and less reliable?
blogs.scientificamerican.com
2. cloud formation microphysics is not well understood and is omitted from climate models for that reason
Guest post: Why clouds hold the key to better climate models - Carbon Brief
Clouds in the present-day climate system cover approximately two-thirds of the globe.
Is there a net increase from, say, 2002 to 2012? I would venture there is actually a slight decline.
As was said a way back, no minds are being changed here. So I'll continue to observe, and you lot can continue to panic. Deal?
1. one of the major drivers of climate is cloud formationAre climate change models becoming more accurate and less reliable?
2. cloud formation microphysics is not well understood and is omitted from climate models for that reason
Guest post: Why clouds hold the key to better climate models - Carbon Brief
Clouds in the present-day climate system cover approximately two-thirds of the globe.www.carbonbrief.org
You fond of Scientific American? Here you go:
Climate Models Got It Right on Global Warming
Even models in the 1970s accurately predicted the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and temperature rise
www.scientificamerican.com
Climate Models Got It Right on Global Warming
Even models in the 1970s accurately predicted the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and temperature rise
Panic, that's relative. Try to be honest and accurate and stay away from making grandiose claims that we know better than the actual experts?...Colour me guilty.
I disagree, blow me down with a feather. Minds may well be being changed, just not yours. Other people read these threads Lee. A kid could be "googling" climate change and get a hit. You never know. My motivation is always to make sure that whenever I think misinformation is being posted, I will post a clarifying remark.
You fond of Scientific American? Here you go:
Climate Models Got It Right on Global Warming
Even models in the 1970s accurately predicted the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and temperature rise
Climate Models Got It Right on Global Warming
Even models in the 1970s accurately predicted the relationship between greenhouse gas emissions and temperature rise
This is typical of the horseshit you need to sift through to get at the truth.
Hansen's model with scenarios A, B, C versus observations
Revisionist history suggests Hansen's model was out because of overestimated levels of CFC's and methane (his scenarios A & B already use accurate forecasts of CO2).
Hansen's model does not include El Nino impacts. Hansen also factored in a major volcanic event in scenarios B & C, which didn't happen (i.e. a guess).
After reasonable adjustments are factored in, only scenario C is anywhere near observed temperatures. But scenario C allowed for no increase in CO2 beyond 368 ppm (currently 412 ppm).
It is just *smile* to retrofit some figures and not others to a highly speculative model and claim it was accurate. If it was any good, ask yourself why it is not being used now.
Thirty Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up?
James Hansen issued dire warnings in the summer of 1988. Today earth is only modestly warmer. (paywalled)
James E. Hansen wiped sweat from his brow. Outside it was a record-high 98 degrees on June 23, 1988, as the NASA scientist testified before the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources during a prolonged heat wave, which he decided to cast as a climate event of cosmic significance. He expressed to the senators his “high degree of confidence” in “a cause-and-effect relationship between the greenhouse effect and observed warming.”
With that testimony and an accompanying paper in the Journal of Geophysical Research, Mr. Hansen lit the bonfire of the greenhouse vanities, igniting a world-wide debate that continues today about the energy structure of the entire planet. President Obama’s environmental policies were predicated on similar models of rapid, high-cost warming. But the 30th anniversary of Mr. Hansen’s predictions affords an opportunity to see how well his forecasts have done—and to reconsider environmental policy accordingly.
Mr. Hansen’s testimony described three possible scenarios for the future of carbon dioxide emissions. He called Scenario A “business as usual,” as it maintained the accelerating emissions growth typical of the 1970s and ’80s. This scenario predicted the earth would warm 1 degree Celsius by 2018. Scenario B set emissions lower, rising at the same rate today as in 1988. Mr. Hansen called this outcome the “most plausible,” and predicted it would lead to about 0.7 degree of warming by this year. He added a final projection, Scenario C, which he deemed highly unlikely: constant emissions beginning in 2000. In that forecast, temperatures would rise a few tenths of a degree before flatlining after 2000.
Thirty years of data have been collected since Mr. Hansen outlined his scenarios—enough to determine which was closest to reality. And the winner is Scenario C. Global surface temperature has not increased significantly since 2000, discounting the larger-than-usual El Niño of 2015-16. Assessed by Mr. Hansen’s model, surface temperatures are behaving as if we had capped 18 years ago the carbon-dioxide emissions responsible for the enhanced greenhouse effect. But we didn’t. And it isn’t just Mr. Hansen who got it wrong. Models devised by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have, on average, predicted about twice as much warming as has been observed since global satellite temperature monitoring began 40 years ago.
James Hansen testifies before a Senate Transportation subcommittee in Washington, D.C., May 8, 1989. Photo: Dennis Cook/AP
What about Mr. Hansen’s other claims? Outside the warming models, his only explicit claim in the testimony was that the late ’80s and ’90s would see “greater than average warming in the southeast U.S. and the Midwest.” No such spike has been measured in these regions.
As observed temperatures diverged over the years from his predictions, Mr. Hansen doubled down. In a 2007 case on auto emissions, he stated in his deposition that most of Greenland’s ice would soon melt, raising sea levels 23 feet over the course of 100 years. Subsequent research published in Nature magazine on the history of Greenland’s ice cap demonstrated this to be impossible. Much of Greenland’s surface melts every summer, meaning rapid melting might reasonably be expected to occur in a dramatically warming world. But not in the one we live in. The Nature study found only modest ice loss after 6,000 years of much warmer temperatures than human activity could ever sustain.
Several more of Mr. Hansen’s predictions can now be judged by history. Have hurricanes gotten stronger, as Mr. Hansen predicted in a 2016 study? No. Satellite data from 1970 onward shows no evidence of this in relation to global surface temperature. Have storms caused increasing amounts of damage in the U.S.? Data from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration show no such increase in damage, measured as a percentage of gross domestic product. How about stronger tornadoes? The opposite may be true, as NOAA data offers some evidence of a decline. The list of what didn’t happen is long and tedious.
The problem with Mr. Hansen’s models—and the U.N.’s—is that they don’t consider more-precise measures of how aerosol emissions counter warming caused by greenhouse gases. Several newer climate models account for this trend and routinely project about half the warming predicted by U.N. models, placing their numbers much closer to observed temperatures. The most recent of these was published in April 2018 by Nic Lewis and Judith Curry in the Journal of Climate, a reliably mainstream journal.
These corrected climate predictions raise a crucial question: Why should people world-wide pay drastic costs to cut emissions when the global temperature is acting as if those cuts have already been made?
On the 30th anniversary of Mr. Hansen’s galvanizing testimony, it’s time to acknowledge that the rapid warming he predicted isn’t happening. Climate researchers and policy makers should adopt the more modest forecasts that are consistent with observed temperatures.
That would be a lukewarm policy, consistent with a lukewarming planet.
-----
For a more detailed analysis: https://judithcurry.com/2018/07/03/the-hansen-forecasts-30-years-later/
Indeed they do. Some have contacted me privately to express their own reservations and have remarked on the level of vitriol directed at "deniers".
