The scale of this chart makes it useless as a means of estimating how accurate the models are. May I point out to you that all models 'predict' past temperature with near perfection!, because they are fit to past data and have so many parameters that they can be made to fit any data. The fitting to past data is where their parameter values come from! I have a model that 'predicts' with 100% certainty the past winners of the World Series. I sell it to you. The following comment is from: http://environ.andrew.cmu.edu/m3/s2/subsect/predict.htm It greatly understates the problems with current models and their unreliability. Unfortunately, there are still major areas of uncertainty that render the climate-modeling process highly complicated and far from totally accurate. Eric J. Barron, chair of the USGCRP Forum on Global Change Modeling, writes: "Predictions of future climate are imperfect because they are limited by significant uncertainties that stem from: (1) the natural variability of climate; (2) our inability to predict accurately future greenhouse-gas and aerosol emissions; (3) the potential for unpredicted or unrecognized factors, such as volcanic eruptions or new or unknown human influences, to perturb atmospheric conditions; and (4) our as-yet incomplete understanding of the total climate system." (from "Climate Models: How Reliable are Their Predictions?" Consequences, Vol. 1 No. 3, 1995.)
No one denies reality. If Disney World sinks out of sight, so be it, but what does this have to do with CO2? That is the point that the worlds climate experts are trying to get across to the media and politicians, but failing miserably. Maybe James Hansen will drown and we can return to real science unencumbered by politics and hysteria. The Nature article beautifully illustrates that the science of climate change is in a state of chaos just as the climate is.
No the chart is fine. The only thing in chaos is your thought process. Models predicted a simple continuation of the trend and that is happening. There was no slowdown. The models are correct. Increasing levels of the powerful greenhouse gas CO2 is causing increasing temperatures. It's pretty simple. I don't know why a smart guy like you does not understand that. There’s a common myth that models are unreliable, often based on apples-to-oranges comparisons, like looking at satellite estimates of temperatures higher in the atmosphere versus modeled surface air temperatures. Or, some contrarians like John Christy will only consider the temperature high in the atmosphere, where satellite estimates are less reliable, and where people don’t live. This new study has shown that when we do an apples-to-apples comparison, climate models have done a good job projecting the observed temperatures where humans live. And those models predict that unless we take serious and immediate action to reduce human carbon pollution, global warming will continue to accelerate into dangerous territory. http://www.theguardian.com/environm...odels-are-even-more-accurate-than-you-thought
FC, my own experience is that modeling is considerably complicated, fraught with assumptions that can totally misrepresent reality. But it is not the model that gives us confidence. It is the statistics applied to the conclusions of the model. The models have had every conceivable statistical measure that we now of thrown at them. We have proven, as certain as anything we have ever statistically proven in science (e.g., the existence of the Higgs boson) that HFGW has a vector component to an incredibly high degree of causation to average global mean temperature rise.
Huh? Every updated data point and study that comes out simply shows that AGW is a disproved theory with no basis in reality or fact. "Climate Change" is a political movement, not a scientific reality.
nitro if you wish to considers statistics why don't you consider this peer review papers which explains that your vector is accurate because the co2 levels lag change in ocean temps by 11-12 months. how can you not read this or take the datas sets and do the analysis yourself. co2 lags change in ocean temps and change in air temps. its the laggard. 1. How can you say the laggard causes change in the leader without real science backing you up? Please for the sake of your credibility and integrity answer the above question. Cause I don't understand how it can be ignored by anyone with a brain. a. are you saying its not the laggard b. it does not matter c. you don't care to think about this issue or analyse the data yourself so you just want to drone on? see this peer reviewed paper I have presented to you before. If you really believe in science... you would admit...this give yourside serious problems. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921818112001658 Using data series on atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperatures we investigate the phase relation (leads/lags) between these for the period January 1980 to December 2011. Ice cores show atmospheric CO2 variations to lag behind atmospheric temperature changes on a century to millennium scale, but modern temperature is expected to lag changes in atmospheric CO2, as the atmospheric temperature increase since about 1975 generally is assumed to be caused by the modern increase in CO2. In our analysis we use eight well-known datasets; 1) globally averaged well-mixed marine boundary layer CO2 data, 2) HadCRUT3 surface air temperature data, 3) GISS surface air temperature data, 4) NCDC surface air temperature data, 5) HadSST2 sea surface data, 6) UAH lower troposphere temperature data series, 7) CDIAC data on release of anthropogene CO2, and 8) GWP data on volcanic eruptions. Annual cycles are present in all datasets except 7) and 8), and to remove the influence of these we analyze 12-month averaged data. We find a high degree of co-variation between all data series except 7) and 8), but with changes in CO2 always lagging changes in temperature. The maximum positive correlation between CO2 and temperature is found for CO2 lagging 11–12 months in relation to global sea surface temperature, 9.5-10 months to global surface air temperature, and about 9 months to global lower troposphere temperature. The correlation between changes in ocean temperatures and atmospheric CO2 is high, but do not explain all observed changes.
You guys keep citing peered review journals. What are your climate models telling you? Here is a website/book that comes with source code where you can plug in your own numbers to make projections. The "hard" part is getting the data: http://www.climatemodellingprimer.net/
Wall Street checks out of coal mines Banks’ exodus from coal projects financing comes as several industry leaders face painful restructuring. Few Wall Street banks are still willing to get their hands dirty in the coal business. Under pressure from government officials and environmental advocacy groups, a growing number of top financial services firms are scaling back their financing of coal mining operations... http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/16/wall-street-checks-out-of-coal-mines.html