IPCC models have been accurate For 1992–2006, the natural variability of the climate amplified human-caused global surface warming, while it dampened the surface warming for 1997–2012. Over the full period, the overall warming rate has remained within the range of IPCC model projections, as the 2013 IPCC report notes. "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 dramaticallyunderestimated. 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 . It's important to remember that weather predictions and climate predictions are very different. It's harder to predict the weather further into the future. With climate predictions, it's short-term variability (like unpredictable ocean cycles) that makes predictions difficult. They actually do better predicting climate changes several decades into the future, during which time the short-term fluctuations average out. That's why climate models have a hard time predicting changes over 10–15 years, but do very well with predictions several decades into the future, as the IPCC illustrates. This is good news, because with climate change, it's these long-term changes we're worried about: IPCC AR5 projected global average surface temperature changes in a high emissions scenario (RCP8.5; red) and low emissions scenario (RCP2.6; blue). http://www.theguardian.com/env...projections-accurate
Simple Jem saw his favorite chart, the "no increase in temperature since the 90's," shot down. Linear regression lines are a bitch! Perhaps a better source of info could be, NASA : Climate change: How do we know? As for the headline of this thread, I wonder if someone forgot to tell Venus that CO2 in the atmosphere causes cooling.
every truth telling person knows the models failed... here is a top nutter scientist... over a year ago... stating the models have failed outside the acceptable 2.5% confidence interval... though he tries to paint it in the best light he can. http://www.spiegel.de/international...lems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html So far, no one has been able to provide a compelling answer to why climate change seems to be taking a break. We're facing a puzzle. Recent CO2 emissions have actually risen even more steeply than we feared. As a result, according to most climate models, we should have seen temperatures rise by around 0.25 degrees Celsius (0.45 degrees Fahrenheit) over the past 10 years. That hasn't happened. In fact, the increase over the last 15 years was just 0.06 degrees Celsius (0.11 degrees Fahrenheit) -- a value very close to zero. This is a serious scientific problem that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) will have to confront when it presents its next Assessment Report late next year. SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now? Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase. SPIEGEL: How long will it still be possible to reconcile such a pause in global warming with established climate forecasts? Storch: If things continue as they have been, in five years, at the latest, we will need to acknowledge that something is fundamentally wrong with our climate models. A 20-year pause in global warming does not occur in a single modeled scenario. But even today, we are finding it very difficult to reconcile actual temperature trends with our expectations. SPIEGEL: What could be wrong with the models? Storch: There are two conceivable explanations -- and neither is very pleasant for us. The first possibility is that less global warming is occurring than expected because greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have less of an effect than we have assumed. This wouldn't mean that there is no man-made greenhouse effect, but simply that our effect on climate events is not as great as we have believed. The other possibility is that, in our simulations, we have underestimated how much the climate fluctuates owing to natural causes. SPIEGEL: That sounds quite embarrassing for your profession, if you have to go back and adjust your models to fit with reality…
wow... you need to get yourself up to date... co2 is not just about warming. since the hansen was ejected NASA, NASA has come out with science showing CO2 has a cooling effect. Here is one of the studies... we have real science showing how co2 blocks income energy and cools the earth... from NASA... so the question is .. what happens if you add more co2... warming or cooling? blanker or shield. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/ Mlynczak is the associate principal investigator for the SABER instrument onboard NASA’s TIMED satellite. SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planet’s surface. “Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.” That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field. (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe. “The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.” For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.
FC and other leftists might want to take a look at Pandora's Promise, a documentary you won't find on Comrade Gores must watch list. The film points out that it is the leftist policies that are actually contributing to climate change. The real poke in the eye for FC and others will be all of the people being interview are former left leaning environmental activists. The film and these people do not deny climate change, they just use facts to illustrate how wrong they were in the past, and how important it is for us to change the leftist path we're currently following in regard to our energy policies. http://pandoraspromise.com/
You have no science showing CO2 cools the planet. If you did you would win a noble prize. I keep waiting for real science from you and all you show is bullshit.
This SABER thing was to demonstrate NASA's solar research project and does not show cooling. It's clear Jem is reading off a global warming deniers website. Quick search: A misinterpreted claim about a NASA press release, CO2, solar flares, and the thermosphere is making the rounds
more fraud from the left... I did not make the mistake your article claims the slayers have.. I did not deny the greenhouse effect... I stated you have to tell me if adding more co2 causes more warming or cooling.. more shield or blanket.
this is science fraudcurrents... see the spike... that shows that when the solar flare arrived the co2 ejected some of the energy. as NASA stated co2 is very efficient coolant. I did not say it is only a coolant. Scientists had papers saying co2 causes cooling. Nasa Set up an experiment... and saw the earth bounce the solar flares energy back to space. it really does not get more science than that... fraudcurrents. http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/ Mlynczak is the associate principal investigator for the SABER instrument onboard NASA’s TIMED satellite. SABER monitors infrared emissions from Earth’s upper atmosphere, in particular from carbon dioxide (CO2) and nitric oxide (NO), two substances that play a key role in the energy balance of air hundreds of km above our planet’s surface. “Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.” That’s what happened on March 8th when a coronal mass ejection (CME) propelled in our direction by an X5-class solar flare hit Earth’s magnetic field. (On the “Richter Scale of Solar Flares,” X-class flares are the most powerful kind.) Energetic particles rained down on the upper atmosphere, depositing their energy where they hit. The action produced spectacular auroras around the poles and significant1 upper atmospheric heating all around the globe. “The thermosphere lit up like a Christmas tree,” says Russell. “It began to glow intensely at infrared wavelengths as the thermostat effect kicked in.” For the three day period, March 8th through 10th, the thermosphere absorbed 26 billion kWh of energy. Infrared radiation from CO2 and NO, the two most efficient coolants in the thermosphere, re-radiated 95% of that total back into space.[/quote]
now... in that article is an incredible comment... I would like to see the scientists debate this.. more. Notice how CO2 has a cooling effect right from the lower stratosphere and up into the mesosphere, its peak cooling effect around the stratopause, while ozone has a clear warming effect in the lower stratosphere (and even into the troposphere) but a cooling effect like CO2 in the middle and upper stratosphere. So depletion of stratospheric ozone would induce cooling (less warming) in the lower stratosphere (where most of the ozone is to be found). Cooling (enhanced) would also happen with an increase in stratospheric CO2, but here the effect would be stronger the further up the column you go. Also worth noting from the diagram is how supremely important H2O is in cooling the troposphere (transporting absorbed heat from the sun up and away from the ground and back out towards space), and at the same time how insignificant CO2 is. CO2 does its job in the stratosphere/mesosphere, H2O does its job in the troposphere.