Climate models have performed quite well..
- Thread starter futurecurrents
- Start date
emprical proof. what? a distorted perspective charts which actually shows co2 trails warming and cooling if it has correct data?
we have the data in the humlum paper on the other thread... the data shows co2 trails change in ocean temps.
we have the data in the humlum paper on the other thread... the data shows co2 trails change in ocean temps.
yeah sure jem . All you have is fringe sources and debunked scientists and lies. I have the whole world's science community behind me.
The models have performed quite well. They are not expected to have perfect resolution. Rising CO2 is causing temps to rise. It's that simple.
And here is even more empirical proof that rising CO2 leads temperatures higher.
Did you say something liar? Can't see your words. But yes, there is no doubt that CO2 is greenhouse gas.
Maybe you are interested in what these guys think (that's a joke). They should know about geophysical processes.
American Geophysical Union
"Humanâinduced climate change requires urgent action. Humanity is the major influence on the global climate change observed over the past 50 years. Rapid societal responses can significantly lessen negative outcomes." (Adopted 2003, revised and reaffirmed 2007, 2012, 2013)5
==============Christy and McNider believe it's climate contrarians like themselves who 'embrace the facts.' To support this claim, they tried to argue that mainstream climate scientists are in denial about the accuracy of climate models.
"We might forgive these modelers if their forecasts had not been so consistently and spectacularly wrong. From the beginning of climate modeling in the 1980s, these forecasts have, on average, always overstated the degree to which the Earth is warming compared with what we see in the real climate."
First of all, modern climate modeling began in the 1970s. It's also wrong to claim that their forecasts have always overstated global warming. Just as one example, NASA's James Hansen published a paper in 1981 with a model that slightly underestimated the ensuing global warming.
Hansen et al. (1981) global warming projections under a scenario of high energy growth (red) and slow energy growth (blue) vs. observations (black). Actual energy growth has been between the two Hansen scenarios.
Climate model global warming projections have also far outperformed predictions made by climate contrarians, and have performed fairly well overall (including current climate models).
IPCC AR5 Figure 1.4. Solid lines and squares represent measured average global surface temperature changes by NASA (blue), NOAA (yellow), and the UK Hadley Centre (green). The colored shading shows the projected range of surface warming in the IPCC First Assessment Report (FAR; yellow), Second (SAR; green), Third (TAR; blue), and Fourth (AR4; red).
On the other hand, Christy and Spencer's estimates of the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere have consistently underestimated global warming. In the 1990s, they initially claimed the lower atmosphere was cooling, and had to make several warming adjustments when other groups identified errors and biases in their data set.
Future C;
Thanks for the ''non hockey stick '' charts. I study trends a lot.....
Sincerely, murray t t urtle
PS= BIG problem with those charts, and almost all charts of [global warming/climate change]of the small sample charts is they're ''small sample time'';'' small sample in change.'' Another big problem is when somewhat brainy scientist
Not a prediction,LOL
"An increase by only a factor of 4 in global aerosol background concentration may be sufficient to reduce the surface temperature by as much as 3.5°K."
Well damn! You mean all we have to do is increase SO2 emissions and we can solve this "warming" problem?
Actually, yes. One thing being considered is a geo-engineering project to do just that. It would involve a few jets flying around and distributing SO2 . Would only cost a billion or two per year.
However, there are problems with the idea. One big one is that it does nothing to reduce acidification of the oceans. Another is that is messing around with the earth's climate and the consequences could be bad. But of course, we are already doing that.
==============
Future C;
Thanks for the ''non hockey stick '' charts I study trends a lot.....
Sincerely, murray t t urtle
PS= BIG problem with those charts, and almost all charts of [global warming/climate change]of the small sample charts is they're ''small sample time'';'' small sample in change.'' Anotheer big problem is when a somewhat brainy scientists, they dont know the diffrence between a small sample + a trend..
Not a prediction,LOL
You're welcome.
Here's a longer term look at temps.
http://www.newscientist.com/article...hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong.html
So jem, you may want to look at this. Just joking. It's good science. You're not interested in that.
You're welcome.
Here's a longer term look at temps.
http://www.newscientist.com/article...hockey-stick-graph-has-been-proven-wrong.html