Scientists: 30 Years On, How Well Do Global Warming Predictions Stand Up?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by gwb-trading, Jun 23, 2018.

  1. James Hansen wishes he wasn't so right about global warming
    NEW YORK — Jun 18, 2018, 3:19 AM ET

    NASA's top climate scientist in 1988, Hansen warned the world on a record hot June day 30 years ago that global warming was here and worsening. In a scientific study that came out a couple months later, he even forecast how warm it would get, depending on emissions of heat-trapping gases.

    The hotter world that Hansen envisioned in 1988 has pretty much come true so far, more or less. Three decades later, most climate scientists interviewed rave about the accuracy of Hansen's predictions given the technology of the time.

    Hansen won't say, "I told you so."

    "I don't want to be right in that sense," Hansen told The Associated Press, in an interview is his New York penthouse apartment. That's because being right means the world is warming at an unprecedented pace and ice sheets in Antarctica and Greenland are melting.

    Hansen said what he really wishes happened is "that the warning be heeded and actions be taken."

    They weren't. Hansen, now 77, regrets not being "able to make this story clear enough for the public."
    #21     Jun 23, 2018
    Slartibartfast likes this.
  2. LacesOut


    Why are you fucking lying?
    The 70s was about cooling.

    #22     Jun 23, 2018
    Poindexter and gwb-trading like this.
  3. gwb-trading


    Did You Know the Greatest Two-Year Global Cooling Event Just Took Place?

    Would it surprise you to learn the greatest global two-year cooling event of the last century just occurred? From February 2016 to February 2018 (the latest month available) global average temperatures dropped 0.56°C. You have to go back to 1982-84 for the next biggest two-year drop, 0.47°C—also during the global warming era. All the data in this essay come from GISTEMP Team, 2018: GISS Surface Temperature Analysis (GISTEMP). NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies (dataset accessed 2018-04-11 at This is the standard source used in most journalistic reporting of global average temperatures.

    The 2016-18 Big Chill was composed of two Little Chills, the biggest five month drop ever (February to June 2016) and the fourth biggest (February to June 2017). A similar event from February to June 2018 would bring global average temperatures below the 1980s average. February 2018 was colder than February 1998. If someone is tempted to argue that the reason for recent record cooling periods is that global temperatures are getting more volatile, it's not true. The volatility of monthly global average temperatures since 2000 is only two-thirds what it was from 1880 to 1999.

    (More at above url)
    #23     Jun 24, 2018
  4. No it wasn't. You are ignorant. You think that mass media is science. The vast majority of SCIENCE papers predicted global warming.


    So global cooling predictions in the 70s amounted to media and a handful of peer reviewed studies. The small number of papers predicting cooling were outweighed by a much greater number of papers predicting global warming due to the warming effect of rising CO2. Today, an avalanche of peer reviewed studies and overwhelming scientific consensus endorse man-made global warming. To compare cooling predictions in the 70s to the current situation is both inappropriate and misleading. Additionally, we reduced the SO2 emissions which were causing global cooling. The question remains whether we will reduce the CO2 emissions causing global warming.


    Why you nitwits never seem to learn the truth and keep repeating falsehoods is a mystery. But it must have someting to do with being stupid and unwilling to accept facts.
    #24     Jun 24, 2018
  5. LacesOut


    Did you make that pie chart with your EZ bake oven?
    #25     Jun 24, 2018
  6. jem


    pretty funny... not single peer reviewed paper states man made co2 causes warming exists... unless it deals with failed models.

    and very few scientists state man made co2 causes warming.
    whereas there are thousands of skeptics....

    yet we have whack job lefties claiming the opposite.

    I challenge these whackos give us a list of scientists who state man made co2 causes warming.
    not scientists who state man contributes... but scientists who state man made co2 causes warming.

    the list is much smaller than the list of skeptical scientists.
    Skepticism is the proper stance for a scientist.
    #26     Jun 24, 2018
  7. jem


    plus this is for wikipedia..

    Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections

    These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the 21st century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

    Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes
    Graph showing the ability with which a global climate model is able to reconstruct the historical temperature record, and the degree to which those temperature changes can be decomposed into various forcing factors. It shows the effects of five forcing factors: greenhouse gases, man-made sulfate emissions, solar variability, ozone changes, and volcanic emissions.[71]
    These scientists have said that the observed warming is more likely to be attributable to natural causes than to human activities. Their views on climate change are usually described in more detail in their biographical articles.

    Scientists arguing that the cause of global warming is unknown
    These scientists have said that no principal cause can be ascribed to the observed rising temperatures, whether man-made or natural.

    Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences
    These scientists have said that projected rising temperatures will be of little impact or a net positive for society or the environment.

    Deceased scientists
    These scientists have published material indicating their opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming prior to their deaths.

    See also
    #27     Jun 24, 2018
    gwb-trading likes this.
  8. #28     Jun 24, 2018
  9. jem


    did you all notice...

    the fake consensus is a cherry picked 95 out of 10000 scientist who were sent the questionnaire.

    and that even the fake consensus does not address man made co2.
    the fake consensus is that man (not man made co2) contributes to warming.
    #29     Jun 25, 2018

  10. Liar



    The 97% consensus on global warming
    Link to this page
    What the science says...
    Select a level... [​IMG] Basic [​IMG] Intermediate [​IMG] Advanced
    97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming.

    Climate Myth...
    There is no consensus
    The Petition Project features over 31,000 scientists signing the petition stating "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere ...". (Petition Project)

    Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy.

    But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory.

    So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon.

    In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them.

    Authors of seven climate consensus studies — including Naomi Oreskes, Peter Doran, William Anderegg, Bart Verheggen, Ed Maibach, J. Stuart Carlton, and John Cook — co-authored a paper that should settle this question once and for all. The two key conclusions from the paper are:

    1) Depending on exactly how you measure the expert consensus, it’s somewhere between 90% and 100% that agree humans are responsible for climate change, with most of our studies finding 97% consensus among publishing climate scientists.

    2) The greater the climate expertise among those surveyed, the higher the consensus on human-caused global warming.

    Expert consensus results on the question of human-caused global warming among the previous studies published by the co-authors of Cook et al. (2016). Illustration: John Cook. Available on the SkS Graphics page

    Scientific consensus on human-caused global warming as compared to the expertise of the surveyed sample. There’s a strong correlation between consensus and climate science expertise. Illustration: John Cook. Available on the SkS Graphics page

    Expert consensus is a powerful thing. People know we don’t have the time or capacity to learn about everything, and so we frequently defer to the conclusions of experts. It’s why we visit doctors when we’re ill. The same is true of climate change: most people defer to the expert consensus of climate scientists. Crucially, as we note in our paper:

    Public perception of the scientific consensus has been found to be a gateway belief, affecting other climate beliefs and attitudes including policy support.

    That’s why those who oppose taking action to curb climate change have engaged in a misinformation campaign to deny the existence of the expert consensus. They’ve been largely successful, as the public badly underestimate the expert consensus, in what we call the “consensus gap.” Only 16% of Americans realize that the consensus is above 90%.
    #30     Jun 25, 2018