Notices
Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: FOX News admits that AGW exists!

  1. #1 FOX News admits that AGW exists! 
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,008
    Well, it took someone as shortsighted as Trump to get them to admit it, but they finally did - climate change is happening, greenhouse gases are causing it, mitigations are important, we should invest in them, and the effects of climate change may be pretty bad (like flooding.)

    Of course since they are FOX News, they had to get a dig in at Obama, but that's fine. I am very happy to see science win over partisan politics even at the most republican mainstream media source out there. This is a big deal - since many conservatives get their news exclusively from conservative outlets like FOX, this will expose a lot of right-wingers to the science behind climate change.

    ===============================
    Trump is wrong on climate change
    By Oren Cass Published March 29, 2017 Fox News

    Climate change is happening; the question is what to do about it. President Obama had one answer: reduce greenhouse-gas emissions aggressively. Unfortunately, his approach was heavy on cost and light on benefit, and with yesterday’s executive order rolling back those efforts, President Trump has rightly begun the process of reversing it. But President Trump's own response to climate change appears to be: nothing. That’s not the right answer either.

    Most climate policy falls into one of two categories: There is “mitigation,” which means trying to prevent climate change by reducing greenhouse-gas emissions -- think wind farms. And then there is “adaptation,” which means dealing well with whatever change occurs -- think sea walls. The basic problem with Obama’s mitigation-focused approach is that the overwhelming majority of future emissions will come from the developing world as it grows rapidly. U.S. policy has shown little ability to influence that trend, even when we make brave commitments to incur large costs ourselves.

    We can -- and should -- invest in developing new technologies that might reduce emissions more cheaply, but that takes time, and success is not guaranteed. . . .

    If President Trump dislikes his predecessor’s approach to adaptation he should put forward an alternative. Ignoring the problem entirely is one of the few things he can do that really would make it worse
    =====================



    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    720
    We can -- and should -- invest in developing new technologies that might reduce emissions more cheaply, but that takes time, and success is not guaranteed.
    This just shifts the climate obstructionism from denial of the fundamental science to obstruction of action in the present by claiming it is better that we wait for better options - a shift in the style but not the intent - "climate change is real but probably not all that serious or urgent and if we ensure the global economy is richer by taking advantage of cheap fossil fuels we will be in a better position later to act, using technologies that will be better than what we have now". (my cynical paraphrasing of the Copenhagen Consensus/Ecomodernist approach)

    Outright denial is, as we can expect, getting less effective over time, as it tends to make those who do it look uninformed and stupid, but the underlying motivation to avoid climate responsibility and the costs arising and delay and weaken strong climate action remains a widespread "economic" motivation. I'm not convinced those who espouse this can be expected to follow through even with strong support for the low emissions energy R&D they claim to want to see developed, let alone their timely deployment.

    Glad to see the site is working again btw.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,324
    Fox News under new leadership and ratings going to take big hits as they transition from vulnerable, mostly uneducated, elderly white folks they've been lying to for decades as they slowly let some facts in.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Sophomore pineapple007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    118
    Corporations and governements are backing agw for control. AGW is big money and it is because of the money that the agw theory appears more relevant than other theories. The problem with the agw theory is it disregards the proven geological records and the eccentric orbits of our solar system. In other words, the climate on earth has always changed and the easiest way to make money off the changes are to create a problem with the changes so you can regulate and control.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,550
    And this ^ seems to be one of the people who've swallowed the lies
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,550
    I've learned from sad experience that trying to educate pineapple007 is a waste of time, but for any who are interested in facts not nonsense, this is a good introduction to how we know global warming is anthropogenic...

    https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/0...s-how-we-know/
    Last edited by PhDemon; June 14th, 2017 at 06:30 AM. Reason: typo
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    1,983
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    I've learned from sad experience that trying to educate pineapples007 is a waste of time, but for any who are interested in facts not nonsense, this is a good introduction to how we know global warming is anthropogenic...

    https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/0...s-how-we-know/
    pineapple007 does keep pineapples on his or her toes ,though as he gets mistaken for him/her
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,008
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    Corporations and governements are backing agw for control. AGW is big money and it is because of the money that the agw theory appears more relevant than other theories.
    US fossil fuel PROFITS ALONE in US and Canada, 2016: $257 billion
    US spending on climate change (all areas - research, mitigation, renewables) in 2016 - $120 billion

    So if money determines relevance, deniers have a lot more money behind them than climate change scientists.
    The problem with the agw theory is it disregards the proven geological records and the eccentric orbits of our solar system.
    Nope, it includes them. Read the IPCC report.
    In other words, the climate on earth has always changed and the easiest way to make money off the changes are to create a problem with the changes so you can regulate and control.
    No, the easiest way to make money is to dig for oil and coal, sell it as cheaply as possible, ignore the damage it causes and deny the science. Climate change research is worth billions; climate change denial is worth trillions.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Sophomore pineapple007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    118
    The consensus of "97% of the scientists" agree on AGW actual meaning and what number of scientist the "97% of scientists" represents is very manipulated. This over whelming statistic of "97%" is simply from an online polling of 10,000 scientists of which only 3000 responded. Out of this group of 3000 respondents, only 77 scientists statements counted because to actually give a statement the scientist had to have 50% of their articles peer reviewed and accepted for publication in certain biased "professional climate science journals". This is old news and was revealed in the "Climate-gate email controversy".

    What is true is that the amount on funds being diverted for climate change is huge. The cost is estimated to be 100 trillion and at best only postpones the inevitable climate changes by 48 months in the next 996 months. Wouldn't these funds be better spent for social projects such as health and education ?

    [QUOTEDanish statistician Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, the President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center: 'We will spend at least one hundred trillion dollars in order to reduce the temperature by the end of the century by a grand total of three tenths of one degree...the equivalent of postponing warming by less than four years...Again, that is using the UN's own climate prediction model.'
    'If the U.S. delivers for the whole century on the President Obama's very ambitious rhetoric, it would postpone global warming by about eight months at the end of the century.'
    'But here is the biggest problem: These miniscule benefits do not come free -- quite the contrary. The cost of the UN Paris climate pact is likely to run 1 to 2 trillion dollars every year.'][/QUOTE]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,550
    Your position is demonstrably wrong, both from an economic point of view (as posted by billvon) and a scientific point of view (as explained in the link I posted). The fact you will stick to this position ignoring the facts and parroting debunked crank nonsense that agrees with your politics means I have lost all interest in trying to persuade you. Luckily as time passes climate change deniers are dying out. In the meantime I'll help those who want to learn and wait out the dinosaurs...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,827
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    The consensus of "97% of the scientists" agree on AGW actual meaning and what number of scientist the "97% of scientists" represents is very manipulated. This over whelming statistic of "97%" is simply from an online polling of 10,000 scientists of which only 3000 responded. Out of this group of 3000 respondents, only 77 scientists statements counted because to actually give a statement the scientist had to have 50% of their articles peer reviewed and accepted for publication in certain biased "professional climate science journals".

    Not so
    .

    This is old news and was revealed in the "Climate-gate email controversy".
    "Climategate" did no such thing: "The scientific consensus that global warming is occurring as a result of human activity remained unchanged throughout the investigations."

    What is true is that the amount on funds being diverted for climate change is huge. The cost is estimated to be 100 trillion and at best only postpones the inevitable climate changes by 48 months in the next 996 months. Wouldn't these funds be better spent for social projects such as health and education ?

    Danish statistician Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, the President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center: 'We will spend at least one hundred trillion dollars in order to reduce the temperature by the end of the century by a grand total of three tenths of one degree...the equivalent of postponing warming by less than four years...Again, that is using the UN's own climate prediction model.'
    'If the U.S. delivers for the whole century on the President Obama's very ambitious rhetoric, it would postpone global warming by about eight months at the end of the century.'
    'But here is the biggest problem: These miniscule benefits do not come free -- quite the contrary. The cost of the UN Paris climate pact is likely to run 1 to 2 trillion dollars every year.'
    No source cited.
    However, with regard to Lomborg: "deliberately misleading data and flawed conclusions" and "scientifically dishonest through misrepresentation of scientific facts" but "Lomborg himself not guilty due to his lack of expertise in the fields in question". [My italics]. Here.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,008
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    The consensus of "97% of the scientists" agree on AGW actual meaning and what number of scientist the "97% of scientists" represents is very manipulated.
    97% of CLIMATE scientists agree. The farther they are from climate research the less they agree. For example, economic "scientists" only have about a 60% agreement.
    This over whelming statistic of "97%" is simply from an online polling of 10,000 scientists of which only 3000 responded. Out of this group of 3000 respondents, only 77 scientists statements counted because to actually give a statement the scientist had to have 50% of their articles peer reviewed and accepted for publication in certain biased "professional climate science journals". This is old news and was revealed in the "Climate-gate email controversy".
    Nope. Four separate metastudies have confirmed the 97% (or greater) number.

    Oreskes 2004 - 928 peer reviewed papers on climate change. 75% explicitly endorsed the consensus position, evaluated impacts of warming, or proposed mitigation strategies for warming. 25% did not state a position. Zero papers explicitly disagreed with the consensus.

    Doran 2009 - survey of 3146 earth scientists. Of the scientists who list climate in their specialty, and have published papers on the topic, 96.2% answered yes to this: "When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?" 97.4 answered yes to this: "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

    Anderegg 2010 - Paper on expert credibility in climate change - Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. "97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change."

    Cook 2013 - 14,000 PR papers on climate change from ISI science web. 4000 expressed an opinion on climate change. Of those, 97.1% accepted the consensus view.

    Cook 2013 follow-up - directly contacted 8500 authors of the above papers; 1200 responded. 97.2% of them accepted the consensus view
    What is true is that the amount on funds being diverted for climate change is huge. The cost is estimated to be 100 trillion and at best only postpones the inevitable climate changes by 48 months in the next 996 months. Wouldn't these funds be better spent for social projects such as health and education ?
    Or stolen by fossil fuels, as they are now?

    Again, let's do this: End all subsidies. End all land giveaways and subsidized leases. Require responsibility from the people who sell energy. Then let the market decide.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Sophomore pineapple007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDemon View Post
    Your position is demonstrably wrong, both from an economic point of view (as posted by billvon) and a scientific point of view (as explained in the link I posted). The fact you will stick to this position ignoring the facts and parroting debunked crank nonsense that agrees with your politics means I have lost all interest in trying to persuade you. Luckily as time passes climate change deniers are dying out. In the meantime I'll help those who want to learn and wait out the dinosaurs...
    Your link does not actually have any data that reveals the magnitude of climate change and suggests that AWG is the main cause of climate change meaning that humans are responsible for at least 51% of climate change. That is somewhat problematic as there is no way to accurately prove this 51% agw and the link also incorrectly categorizes fossil fuels as bad for the environment. So yes, agw does exist but the magnitude of agw will never be accurately defined and it is likely to be under 51% meaning that agw is not the main cause of climate change.

    The truth is that the IPCC in 2007 has stated there is no possible way to predict the future climate. Everyone acknowledges that the use of fossil fuels has increased atmospheric carbon, which is a greenhouse gas, and that greenhouse gasses can cause warming.

    The truth about fossil fuels is that without these products the world would be a very polluted and uninhabitable place. The benefits of using fossil fuels far outweighs the unproven negative and alarmist positions many take. Certainly there are problems with fossil fuels but the use has benefited mankind more than any other product created to date.

    I wouldn't describe my way of thinking on climate in a negative as in "denier", which is an alarmist type label for those that are not convinced there is a man made climate problem of great magnitude upon us. The word denier in this context derives its roots in the term " Holocaust denier" and is not an accurate portrayal.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,008
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    Your link does not actually have any data that reveals the magnitude of climate change and suggests that AWG is the main cause of climate change meaning that humans are responsible for at least 51% of climate change.
    Here's the data you asked for. It breaks down where the heat that drives climate change is coming from. Note that CO2 and CH4 drive most of it.



    the link also incorrectly categorizes fossil fuels as bad for the environment.
    They are - and not just because of CO2.

    So yes, agw does exist but the magnitude of agw will never be accurately defined and it is likely to be under 51% meaning that agw is not the main cause of climate change.
    AGW is responsible for more than 80% of the additional heat that drives climate change.
    The truth about fossil fuels is that without these products the world would be a very polluted and uninhabitable place. The benefits of using fossil fuels far outweighs the unproven negative and alarmist positions many take. Certainly there are problems with fossil fuels but the use has benefited mankind more than any other product created to date.
    No one is arguing that we should use no fossil fuels. We should just use a lot less.
    I wouldn't describe my way of thinking on climate in a negative as in "denier", which is an alarmist type label for those that are not convinced there is a man made climate problem of great magnitude upon us. The word denier in this context derives its roots in the term " Holocaust denier" and is not an accurate portrayal.
    The term "climate change denier" is quite simple. If someone denies climate change in all its forms, they are a climate change denier. That's not alarmist or "just like Hitler" - that's English.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,827
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    it is likely to be under 51%
    This is based on... what, exactly?


    The truth about fossil fuels is that without these products the world would be a very polluted and uninhabitable place.
    Source? facts? Data?

    The benefits of using fossil fuels far outweighs the unproven negative and alarmist positions many take.
    Source? Facts? Data?

    I wouldn't describe my way of thinking on climate in a negative as in "denier"
    Given that you have, and continue to do so, in fact denied the facts then what term would you use?

    The word denier in this context derives its roots in the term " Holocaust denier" and is not an accurate portrayal.
    Godwin? Really?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore pineapple007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    118
    I know that many of you think the issue of anthopogenic co2 destroying the earth is incontrovertible. That being said, viewpoints of the skeptics of corporate or government sponsored climate science seem to have no relevance. AGW is based on model simulations and will never be able to accurately replicate the earths atmosphere, so the theory is not empirically sound and can not be analyzed quantitatively or qualitatively. Regardless of which side of the AGW theory a person takes, the real time observations are that global warming, to date, is not near as bad as predicted and climate policies are expensive.

    Saying 97% of scientists believe in AGW is like saying 97% of Catholics believe in God. In other words, the scientists that believe that AWG is destroying the earth are the vast majority of the 97% consensus of those that agree with AGW theory. A consensus of all scientists would agree that co2 is a greenhouse gas and that greenhouse gasses can cause warming in the atmosphere. A majority consensus is 51%. There is a majority consensus of "climate scientists" that agree with AGW theory and not a majority consensus of scientists overall.

    My points are 1. regarding why a corporation like Fox flip flops publicly on AGW only means they are looking for more advertisers and nothing more, imo. 2. A greater portion of funds spent on agw should be spent on helping the human populations on the earth with better education, healthcare and overall life. I for the most part agree with Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever that climate science is pseudoscience and for the most part disagree with Al Gore.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,008
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    I know that many of you think the issue of anthopogenic co2 destroying the earth is incontrovertible.
    Co2 won't destroy the Earth. It's been way higher in the past and the Earth is still here. The additional CO2 will just cause problems for beings like us who like to eat and prefer the oceans stay where they are.
    AGW is based on model simulations and will never be able to accurately replicate the earths atmosphere, so the theory is not empirically sound and can not be analyzed quantitatively or qualitatively.
    Of course it can be. Compare what the model predicts to what actually happens. And since there is a strong correlation, the theory is sound, and the models are validated.
    Regardless of which side of the AGW theory a person takes, the real time observations are that global warming, to date, is not near as bad as predicted
    It is matching IPCC predictions.
    and climate policies are expensive.
    Yes they are. They are like education - which is expensive, but far cheaper than ignorance.
    Saying 97% of scientists believe in AGW is like saying 97% of Catholics believe in God.
    No, because you can't demonstrate God to anyone. So they are very different.

    It's more like saying that 97% of doctors believe smoking is bad for you. That is demonstrable.
    In other words, the scientists that believe that AWG is destroying the earth . . . .
    Scientists do not believe that AWG (sic) is destroying the Earth. Your fears are unfounded.
    My points are 1. regarding why a corporation like Fox flip flops publicly on AGW only means they are looking for more advertisers and nothing more, imo.
    And that, in turn, is because more and more people are starting to understand the science, and FOX realizes that they will lose credibility (and readers) if they continue their science denial.
    2. A greater portion of funds spent on agw should be spent on helping the human populations on the earth with better education, healthcare and overall life.
    Spending on AGW does help the least-advantaged people on the planet.

    When the oceans rise, the rich oil company executives living in Denver won't care. The poor people living in Bangladesh will. So let's take just a few of their limos and use the money to help the people those executives are harming.
    and for the most part disagree with Al Gore.
    And I disagree with Howard Stern.

    Anything else?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Washington State
    Posts
    8,324
    "AGW is based on model simulations and will never be able to accurately replicate the earths atmosphere, so the theory is not empirically sound and can not be analyzed quantitatively or qualitatively."
    Was the most absurd thing in his long list of the confused statements. Models are now almost entirely empirical, based on physics--the very things that make them well suited for quantitative comparisons with observations.
    Meteorologist/Naturalist & Retired Soldier
    “The Holy Land is everywhere” Black Elk
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Bullshit Intolerant PhDemon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Newcastle-upon-Tyne, UK
    Posts
    4,550
    Why is this tit (pineapple007) still being allowed to pollute the hard science areas with easily refuted ignorance?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,827
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    Blah blah blag
    Your next post WILL contain the information asked for: just because you hold a contrary position to the majority of scientists qualified to voice a conclusion doesn't absolve you of supporting your claims.

    I for the most part agree with Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever that climate science is pseudoscience and for the most part disagree with Al Gore.
    And a mechanical engineer who works for an organisation that not only has a vested interest in denying AGW but also managed to deny the health risks of smoking (i.e a non-qualified person who works for an agenda-driven somewhat loony institute) is more believable than scientists specialising in the topic because...?
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Sophomore pineapple007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by Dywyddyr View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    Blah blah blag
    Your next post WILL contain the information asked for: just because you hold a contrary position to the majority of scientists qualified to voice a conclusion doesn't absolve you of supporting your claims.

    I for the most part agree with Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever that climate science is pseudoscience and for the most part disagree with Al Gore.
    And a mechanical engineer who works for an organisation that not only has a vested interest in denying AGW but also managed to deny the health risks of smoking (i.e a non-qualified person who works for an agenda-driven somewhat loony institute) is more believable than scientists specialising in the topic because...?
    Because the climate models have failed to accurately predict climate and these predictions are used to shape policies. Data from most of the climate models are not accurate according the IPCC's last report on why climate models can not predict the climate. The IPCC has stated that uncertainty regarding climate models exists for numerous reasons in their report. Reasons given include cloud cover and solar variance. In other words, the ICPP statement means that clouds could cancel out most of the forcing effects of greenhouse gasses regarding the climate models ability to predict accurately. Looking through chapter 9 of the IPCC assessment of climate models reveals uncertainty which is not an attribute of empirical evidence to support creating policies that are more political than scientific. The reality seems to be that the climate has not significantly changed and that sea levels are stable.

    Scroll down to 9.7.1 of the pdf if you do not want to read the entire 218 pages.

    https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-r..._All_Final.pdf

    Hopefully this satisfies your need for the information you requested even though we likely view it in juxtaposition with somewhat differing thoughts on interpretation.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Genius Duck Moderator Dywyddyr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Scunthorpe, UK
    Posts
    10,827
    Still waiting for our supporting data as requested in my post #15.
    And the linked document does NOT justify your acceptance of an engineer's opinion over that of climate scientists.
    Nor are your "conclusions" - i.e "the climate has not significantly changed and that sea levels are stable" - supported by that document.
    "[Dywyddyr] makes a grumpy bastard like me seem like a happy go lucky scamp" - PhDemon
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,008
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    Because the climate models have failed to accurately predict climate and these predictions are used to shape policies. Data from most of the climate models are not accurate according the IPCC's last report on why climate models can not predict the climate.
    ======================
    IPCC model global warming projections have done much better than you think Global warming since 1990 has fallen within the range of IPCC climate model projections

    Dana Nucciceli
    The Guardian



    The figure below from the 2013 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report compares the global surface warming projections made in the 1990, 1995, 2001, and 2007 IPCC reports to the temperature measurements.




    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).

    Since 1990, global surface temperatures have warmed at a rate of about 0.15°C per decade, within the range of model projections of about 0.10 to 0.35°C per decade. As the IPCC notes, "global climate models generally simulate global temperatures that compare well with observations over climate timescales ... The 1990–2012 data have been shown to be consistent with the [1990 IPCC report] projections, and not consistent with zero trend from 1990 ... the trend in globally-averaged surface temperatures falls within the range of the previous IPCC projections."

    What about the Naysayers?

    In the weeks and months leading up to the publication of the final 2013 IPCC report, there has been a flood of opinion articles in blogs and the mainstream media claiming that the models used by the IPCC have dramatically over-predicted global warming and thus are a failure. This narrative clearly conflicts with the IPCC model-data comparison figure shown above, so what's going on?

    These mistaken climate contrarian articles have all suffered from some combination of the following errors.

    1) Publicizing the flawed draft IPCC model-data comparison figure

    Late last year, an early draft of the IPCC report was leaked, including the first draft version of the figure shown above. The first version of the graph had some flaws, including a significant one immediately noted by statistician and climate blogger Tamino.

    "The flaw is this: all the series (both projections and observations) are aligned at 1990. But observations include random year-to-year fluctuations, whereas the projections do not because the average of multiple models averages those out ... the projections should be aligned to the value due to the existing trend in observations at 1990. Aligning the projections with a single extra-hot year makes the projections seem too hot, so observations are too cool by comparison."

    In the draft version of the IPCC figure, it was simply a visual illusion that the surface temperature data appeared to be warming less slowly than the model projections, even though the measured temperature trend fell within the range of model simulations. Obviously this mistake was subsequently corrected.

    This illustrates why it's a bad idea to publicize material in draft form, which by definition is a work in progress. That didn't stop Fox News, Ross McKitrick in the Financial Post, Roger Pielke Jr., the Heartland Institute, and Anthony Watts from declaring premature and unwarranted victory on behalf of climate contrarians based on the faulty draft figure.

    2) Ignoring the range of model simulations

    A single model run simulates just one possible future climate outcome. In reality, there are an infinite number of possible outcomes, depending on how various factors like greenhouse gas emissions and natural climate variability change. This is why climate modelers don't make predictions; they make projections, which say in scenario 'x', the climate will change in 'y' fashion. . . .
    This is why it's important to retain the shaded range of individual model runs, unlike Bjorn Lomborg in The Australian, Judith Curry in The Australian, Benny Peiser at GWPF, Roger Pielke Jr., David Rose in the Mail on Sunday (copied by Hayley Dixon in The Telegraph), and Der Spiegel, all of whom only considered the model average.
    This group all made an additional related third error as well.

    3) Cherry Picking

    Most claims that the IPCC models have failed are based on surface temperature changes over the past 15 years (1998–2012). During that period, temperatures have risen about 50 percent more slowly than the multi-model average, but have remained within the range of individual model simulation runs.
    However, 1998 represented an abnormally hot year at the Earth's surface due to one of the strongest El Niño events of the 20th century. Thus it represents a poor choice of a starting date to analyze the surface warming trend (selectively choosing convenient start and/or end points is also known as 'cherry picking'). For example, we can select a different 15-year period, 1992–2006, and find a surface warming trend nearly 50 percent faster than the multi-model average, as statistician Tamino helpfully illustrates in the figure below.


    Global surface temperature data 1975–2012 from NASA with a linear trend (black), with trends for 1992–2006 (red) and 1998–2012 (blue).

    In short, if David Rose wasn't declaring that global surface warming was accelerating out of control in 2006, then he has no business declaring that global surface warming has 'paused' in 2013. Both statements are equally wrong, based on cherry picking noisy short-term data.

    IPCC models have been accurate

    "The long-term climate model simulations show a trend in global-mean surface temperature from 1951 to 2012 that agrees with the observed trend (very high confidence). There are, however, differences between simulated and observed trends over periods as short as 10 to 15 years (e.g., 1998 to 2012)."

    The IPCC also notes that climate models have accurately simulated trends in extreme cold and heat, large-scale precipitation pattern changes, and ocean heat content (where most global warming goes). Models also now better simulate the Arctic sea ice decline, which they had previously dramatically underestimated.

    All in all, the IPCC models do an impressive job accurately representing and projecting changes in the global climate, contrary to contrarian claims. In fact, the IPCC global surface warming projections have performed much better than predictions made by climate contrarians.

    =============================
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,008
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple007 View Post
    The IPCC has stated that uncertainty regarding climate models exists for numerous reasons in their report. Reasons given include cloud cover and solar variance. In other words, the ICPP statement means that clouds could cancel out most of the forcing effects of greenhouse gasses regarding the climate models ability to predict accurately. Looking through chapter 9 of the IPCC assessment of climate models reveals uncertainty which is not an attribute of empirical evidence to support creating policies that are more political than scientific. The reality seems to be that the climate has not significantly changed and that sea levels are stable.

    Scroll down to 9.7.1 of the pdf if you do not want to read the entire 218 pages.
    I read a lot of it. Perhaps you did not, and thus missed this important conclusion:
    ==============
    There continues to be very high confidence that models simulate realistically the surface temperature on continental and larger scales (Section 9.4.1.1, Figure 9.2). There is likewise very high confidence that models simulate realistically the global-scale surface temperature increase over the historical period, especially the last fifty years (Section 9.4.1.3.1, Figure 9.8). Together with the fact that climate models are based on fundamental physical and biogeochemical principles,these assessments lead to the very high confidence that models generally respond correctly to external forcing like changing greenhouse gases (Box 9.1, Chapter 10, 12.)
    ==============
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    2,008
    Just saw this. No surprises, but another confirmation of the speed of warming.

    =============
    New study confirms the oceans are warming rapidly

    Although there’s some uncertainty in the distribution among Earth’s ocean basins, there’s no question that the ocean is heating rapidly

    The Guardian










    John Abraham



    Monday 26 June 2017 06.00 EDT Last modified on Monday 26 June 2017 06.01 EDT



    As humans put ever more heat-trapping gases into the atmosphere, the Earth heats up. These are the basics of global warming. But where does the heat go? How much extra heat is there? And how accurate are our measurements? These are questions that climate scientists ask. If we can answer these questions, it will better help us prepare for a future with a very different climate. It will also better help us predict what that future climate will be.


    The most important measurement of global warming is in the oceans. In fact, “global warming” is really “ocean warming.” If you are going to measure the changing climate of the oceans, you need to have many sensors spread out across the globe that take measurements from the ocean surface to the very depths of the waters. Importantly, you need to have measurements that span decades so a long-term trend can be established.


    These difficulties are tackled by oceanographers, and a significant advancement was presented in a paper just published in the journal Climate Dynamics. That paper, which I was fortunate to be involved with, looked at three different ocean temperature measurements made by three different groups. We found that regardless of whose data was used or where the data was gathered, the oceans are warming.
    ==============
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Hello from Siberian Fox!
    By Siberian Fox in forum Introductions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: January 12th, 2011, 05:58 PM
  2. Fox News on Top
    By Golkarian in forum Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: August 22nd, 2009, 01:25 PM
  3. Jesus admits he is not God. Do we need a new Bible?
    By Greatest I am in forum Scientific Study of Religion
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: December 30th, 2008, 06:08 PM
  4. Real Vampires On FOX News' Hannity's America - Video
    By Merticus in forum Pseudoscience
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: December 10th, 2008, 07:27 AM
  5. fox taming through selective breeding
    By dejawolf in forum Biology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 3rd, 2008, 06:08 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •