Are the models “running too hot"?
Analysis: How well have climate models projected global warming?
ZEKE HAUSFATHER - October 5, 2017
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-how-well-have-climate-models-projected-global-warming
Recent media headlines have again discussed the issue of whether climate models are overly sensitive to greenhouse gases. These headlines have misinterpreted a study by Millar et al. which was discussing carbon budgets to limit global temperature rise to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels.
A recent study by Medhaug et al. analysed the issue of how the models have performed against recent observations at length and largely reconciled the issue. An overly simplistic comparison of simulated global temperatures and observations might suggest that the models were warming too much, but this would be wrong for a number of reasons.
In the Medhaug et al. paper they show the range of models (blue shading in figure with median in light blue), compared with the HadCRUT4 observations and their estimated uncertainty (orange shading with light orange line). There are a number of well understood reasons why the light orange line might not follow the light blue line, namely: radiative forcings, variability, observational biases and choice of reference period.
...
Zeke Hausfather covers research in climate science and energy with a US focus. Zeke has masters degrees in environmental science from Yale University and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, and is completing a PhD in climate science at University of California, Berkeley. He has spent the past 10 years working as a data scientist and entrepreneur in the cleantech sector.How have past climate models fared?
While climate model projections of the past benefit from knowledge of atmospheric greenhouse gas concentrations, volcanic eruptions and other radiative forcings affecting the Earth’s climate, casting forward into the future is understandably more uncertain. Climate models can be evaluated both on their ability to hindcast past temperatures and forecast future ones. ...
In the examples below, climate model projections published between 1973 and 2013 are compared with observed temperatures from five different organizations. The models used in the projections vary in complexity, from simple energy balance models to fully-coupled Earth System Models. ...
Conclusion
Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account.
Models are far from perfect and will continue to be improved over time. They also show a fairly large range of future warming that cannot easily be narrowed using just the changes in climate that we have observed.
Nevertheless, the close match between projected and observed warming since 1970 suggests that estimates of future warming may prove similarly accurate.
Here we should all be up front with our own expectations and biases - Mike Yohe and allies seem to demand >99% accuracy (97% ain't good enough), before they'll allow themselves to acknowledge the obvious trend (that does not indicating glacial conditions, don't they know.) -
I'll admit to possessing an Earth Centric Bias - namely, I've spent my life learning about our natural world and how it evolved to the amazing cornucopia humanity was born into. I care about truth and honesty and I believe Earth's systems are more authoritative than people's avarice driven mind games.
Are climate models running hot or observations running cold?
Victor Venema
http://variable-variability.blogspot.com/2015/09/models-and-observations.html
... The point is that you cannot look at data without a model, at least a model in your head.
Some people may not be aware of their model, but models and observations always go hand in had.
Either without the other is nothing.
The naivete so often displayed at WUWT & Co. that you only need to look at the data is completely unscientific,
especially when it is in all agony their cherry picked miniature part of the data. ...
Why I am writing this?
What is left of "global warming has stopped" or "don't you know warming has paused?"
is that models predicted more warming than we see in the observations.
Or as a mitigation sceptic would say "the models are running hot".
This difference is not big, this year we will probably get a temperature that fits to the mean of the projections,
but we also have an El Nino year, thus we would expect the temperature to be on the high side this year, which it is not. ...
(Looks like pretty substantial warming one way or the other!)
If there is such a discrepancy, the naive British empiricist might say:
"the models are running hot",
but the other two options are:
"the observations are running cold" or
"the comparison is not fair".
And every one of these three options has an infinity of possibilities. As this series will show, there are many observations that suggest that the station temperature "observations are running cold". This is just one of them. Then one has to weigh the evidence.
If there is any discrepancy a naive falsificationist may say that the theory is wrong. However, discrepancies always exist; most are stupid measurement errors. If a leaf does not fall to the ground, we do not immediately conclude that the theory of gravity is wrong. We start investigating. There is always the hope that a discrepancy can help to understand the problem better. It is from this better understanding that scientists conclude that the old theory was wrong. ...
Mike, I'm curious are you familiar with the concept of "weighing the evidence"?
As Dr. Judith Curry observes, IPCC climate models are not fit (useful) for fundamentally altering our society, economy and energy systems. Tuning models, in both hindcast and “modified forecast," does not assist one in deciding their validity. Accurate forecasts would be needed to justify spending trillions.
Paul Matthews says, climate change predictions — what went wrong?
Climate scientists have admitted their estimates of global warming were wrong. So, can we all chill out now? Not quite
As egg-on-face moments go, it was a double-yolker. Last week a group of climate scientists published a paper that admitted the estimates of global warming used for years to torture the world’s conscience and justify massive spending on non-carbon energy sources were, er, wrong.
Being wrong is not a criminal offence, especially in science, where in the long run almost everything turns out to be wrong, but the global warmers have adopted such a high-and-mighty tone to anyone who questions them that for sceptics this was pure joy.
I'll let the experts weigh the evidence. I'm nothing more than a concerned taxpayer.
The yokes on you, you willful malicious idiot.
You can find endless quotes from other malicious idiots, but i can find the science that buries all your bullshit. But, then you have the perfect weapon to counter that, don’t you?
You simply ignore it.
In denial and sticking to your story and you’re so absolutely sure of yourself there’s no need to learn anything else. The stuff of totalitarian thinking.
Science by rhetorical handwaving is bs. Global Warming - temperature anomalies by country 1900-2016 - YouTube
The yokes on you, you willful malicious idiot.
You can find endless quotes from other malicious idiots, but i can find the science that buries all your bullshit.
But, then you have the perfect weapon to counter that, don't you?
You simply ignore it.
In denial and sticking to your story and you're so absolutely sure of yourself there's no need to learn anything else. The stuff of totalitarian thinking.
Science by rhetorical handwaving is bs.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLSZ6U_VyGk
Your funny. You don’t have any science and you want me to find science that debunks your postings you pick out of tens of thousands of papers that have been paid for by the taxpayers. Which I think is possible if I wanted to. But, as in the past when I do, you just ignore the issue. I not going to waste my time. As anyone who has not been living in a box the last couple of decades knows your climate industry has been claiming a twenty-foot sea level rise by the end of the century. All the glaciers melted and the snow free Alps by 2014 or was that 2007? Was this not based upon the models? After the weather failed to follow the climate change industries predictions and the earth’s temperature went past the tipping point. The climate change industry blamed it on the climate models running hot. Is that not a fact? Then the climate change industry came out with new tipping point numbers and a new deadline date. They also lowered the sea level rise to between 20 inches and two-feet. Is that not a fact? Oh, I’m sorry, this is history and logic. The facts are you have accused me of not caring for the earth when you were posting all your science of how the sea levels were going to rise from 20 to 100 feet. You need to review your own data and find out what happened or lets us know if you still stand by those sea level rises. Then you told me that I was crazy for claiming the clouds and the sun cycles needed to use in the models. That while they did have some effect, it was so small of an effect that it really did not make a difference. Today, I don’t think you will say that. Maybe you became crazy too.
The thinking is, that in these required and approved data sets is where the hot data results came from over the years. Thus, one only needs to look at who is in control of making up the requirements for the grants and requires certain data sets to be used. The results can be predicted before the testing by the data sets required to be used in the testing. Thus, a lot of taxpayer’s money and a lot of time could have been wasted by the people in control of requiring which data sets had to be used in a test. The data sets to be used in the grant tests that gave hot results constructively helped the Climate Change industry monetarily and politically. And that seems to have been going on to some degree for a long time. The fact that no convention ever took place to address this well-known problem shows major signs of the grant controllers being bias. Can Climate Models Predict Climate Change? - YouTube
You sure know how to pick them.
Will Happer
http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/search?q=Will+Happer
May 8, 2016
Judge rules: Drs. Spencer, Lindzen, Happer are not credible expert witnesses!
____________________
Peabody coal's contrarian scientist witnesses lose their court case
Peabody Energy brought contrarians Spencer, Happer, and Lindzen to testify on their behalf, but the judge wasn’t convinced by their case
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/may/02/peabody-coals-contrarian-scientist-witnesses-lose-their-court-case
John Abraham | May 2, 2016
____________________
https://www.desmogblog.com/william-happer
Trump's potential science adviser William Happer: hanging around with conspiracy theorists
Graham Readfearn https://www.theguardian.com/environment/planet-oz/2017/feb/21/trumps-potential-science-adviser-william-happer-hanging-around-with-conspiracy-theorists
Happer has compared the “demonisation" of carbon dioxide to the “demonisation of poor Jews under Hitler" –
because a Nazi reference will always get you noticed. ...
Happer’s record of getting scientific papers published in leading journals on climate change science is at, or very close to, zero.
Simply, he knows a lot about some stuff, but he is not a climate scientist.
While he has a distinguished career as an atomic physicist, previously serving the administration of George HW Bush as a science director, the 77-year-old’s views on climate science are outnumbered by all the credible evidence, all the credible science agencies and are also being laughed at by the Earth’s thermometers and its melting ice sheets and glaciers. ...
If Happer is concerned about the reputation of science, then he’s picking some very odd places to hang around – that conference being one of them.
The Arizona gathering was organised by Freedom Force International – a group led by the famed conspiracy theorist G Edward Griffin. He fits right in with the booming culture of conspiracy that’s growing big audiences online.
Among many other things, Griffin has said there is “no such thing" as HIV and that human-caused climate change is a hoax. ...
Remembering Happer’s dislike of science being “for sale", it’s noteworthy that his CO2 Coalition colleague Patrick Moore was paid last year by a major European coal lobby organisation to give a presentation in Strasbourg telling the audience we should “celebrate CO2".
No doubt Happer would argue that money does not influence the views of people like Moore, though he does say that it influences actual climate scientists who get research grants from universities and governments. Go figure. ...
Trump's likely science adviser calls climate scientists 'glassy-eyed cult'
Hannah Devlin - https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/feb/15/trump-science-adviser-william-happer-climate-change-cult
Happer also supports a controversial crackdown on the freedom of federal agency scientists to speak out about their findings, arguing that mixed messages on issues such as whether butter or margarine is healthier, have led to people disregarding all public health information. ...
Unlike many of his scientific peers, Happer is in favour of contentious legislation aimed at reining in the ability of federal agency staff to hold press conferences, give television interviews and promote their findings on official websites.
The “Secret Science Reform Bill", which is being pushed by the Texas Republican Lamar Smith, chairman of the House science, space and technology Committee, would require federal agencies to publish all the raw data underpinning any proposed regulations and for new findings to be scrutinised extensively by outside experts before being announced. However, critics view the bill as an attempt to strip federal agencies of autonomy and reduce their regulatory powers. ... Holy fuk, every time I turn around, I find GOP is even more totalitarian then I imagined!
So that's your authority figure Mike Yohe. Should I be surprised.
Simply, he knows a lot about some stuff, but he is not a climate scientist.
Can you tell me some of the stuff he knows about?
You know if new science is proven wrong most of the time. And that is a fact. Then the only scientists that have not had wrong science are the political ones who are not really scientists. They just work with debatable issues. And where has that gotten us? Maybe another decade or two by your type of scientists and you will be able to make a prediction, you think! Want to try and post some climate change predictions today? Do you have enough science to get your feet wet?
Simply, he knows a lot about some stuff, but he is not a climate scientist.
Can you tell me some of the stuff he knows about?
You know if new science is proven wrong most of the time. And that is a fact. Then the only scientists that have not had wrong science are the political ones who are not really scientists. They just work with debatable issues. And where has that gotten us? Maybe another decade or two by your type of scientists and you will be able to make a prediction, you think! Want to try and post some climate change predictions today? Do you have enough science to get your feet wet?
Could you describe "type of scientist", I'm unfamiliar with these typologies. Could you lay out some rules for science so I can see if you are following them?
Sure, glad to. Science is proven facts. It can be changed by better proven facts. A scientist can write 400 scientific papers and not have one of them be proven correct over time. That doesn’t mean some of his papers didn’t make front cover of scientific journals and get a lot of news coverage. That also doesn’t mean he didn’t get a good teaching job and write several books on the subject. What it means is his work that was able to pass politically and the thinking of the movement at the time. But that does not mean his work was correct. Aether winds is a famous example. So far there must have been a million papers written about climate change and we have a million excuses why it is not working the way the papers explain. The question that is trying to be answered is really simple. HOW MUCH HEAT IS NATURAL AND HOW MUCH IS MANMADE. Or put another way. Create a baseline for climate change science. Emeritus Professor of Physics at Princeton University Will Happer explains why he thinks we are having this problem with the climate change baseline problem. Happer was not making any scientific predictions. And the first thing CC does is try to discredit him and his work. Therefore, I was working from the point of view that CC thinks that if scientists that have made mistakes then they are not good scientists. The way I view it is the only scientists in the world that have not made mistakes are still wet behind the ears. It is easy to criticize. So, I ask CC to make a prediction. I was curious which wet behind the ears scientists she was following. That’s where the “type of scientist" came from. She followed Michael Mann when he got his degree and wrote his first papers. That paper didn’t last a year before being changed. But after decades it is still in the courts in two countries and indirectly cost the taxpayers billions.
Rules. Peer reviews must not be done by your friends. You must make your data available for peer review to all scientists.
Changes that are needed. I would personally like to see private industry have half the seats on the grant approval boards for taxpayer’s money.
One more that I really, really, really think would help. No more grants on related subjects until the baseline is complete.
The problem with Will Happer is that he thinks his standing as a physicist makes it okay for him to misrepresent the fundamentals of climate science.
Another expert at science by the rhetoric of molesting and twisting facts and evidence and quotes from other scientists.
Basically Will Happer is another ossified liar for his extreme right wing views - ironically this one fine proud Cold Warrior is now in bed with a Russian Obligate Fraud. Disgusting how far the supposed adults in the room have fallen.
Admittedly, he’s got the scientific chops that lend him superficial credibility and allows him to spin a yarn that will fool anyone lacking critical thinking skills and who wants to be fooled about the science of AGW.
Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
Posted on 26 May 2011 by Chris Colose
https://www.skepticalscience.com/even-princeton-makes-mistakes.html
...Happer then throws in a few classical straw man attacks such as:
"CO2 levels have increased from about 280 ppm to 390 ppm over the past 150 years or so, and the earth has warmed by about 0.8 degree Celsius during that time. Therefore the warming is due to CO2. But correlation is not causation. Roosters crow every morning at sunrise, but that does not mean the rooster caused the sun to rise. The sun will still rise on Monday if you decide to have the rooster for Sunday dinner."
This would, of course, be a perfectly valid counter-argument to would-be fallacious reasoning, yet it isn't the reasoning any real scientist uses, and is therefore a smokescreen. Naturally, the WUWT crowd has eaten it up without thinking twice. The causative mechanism is the underlying radiative physics of how a CO2 molecule interacts with infrared light, and also a wide variety of indirect signatures of climate change induced by agents acting on the longwave part of the spectrum, such as stratospheric cooling or the radiative imbalance at the top of the atmosphere.
Happer can't resist throwing in a few outdated one-liners about the Vikings in a "green" Greenland, how CO2 lags temperatures in ice cores, and other boring punchlines that most skeptics don't even bother with anymore. He implies that Earth cooled by about 10 C during the Younger Dryas, but actually the YD was a time of relatively little global temperature change, even though a large area of the planet was actually being affected (see here]). There's a whole list of other quick talking points about climategate, the hockey stick, etc that readers here will be well familiar with. What is most surprising to me is that a distinguished physicist apparently has no original thoughts on the matter.
Happer's reasoning is well out of line throughout his entire article, yet that doesn't stop a Princeton physicist from declaring with such confidence that this CO2-induced global warming thing is all a sham. Throughout the article he shows his unambiguous mission to confuse the reader, and his own ignorance concerning the physics of climate. He makes a number of serious accusations against a very large community, something which if unfounded (as it is surely is) should ruin the reputation of any serious scientist. Indeed, for me at least, it has. It is possible his own area of research is so far removed from climate that none of his colleagues will bother to care.
In short, even Princeton can make mistakes in who they decide should represent their department.
A Physicist and Possible Adviser to Trump Describes His Love of Science, and CO2
Brilliant and controversial, Dr. Will Happer of Princeton says being called a climate denier feels like being labeled a Nazi sympathizer.
by Andrew Revkin Feb. 15, 2017
https://www.propublica.org/article/a-physicist-and-possible-adviser-to-trump-describes-his-love-of-science-co2
I can understand the moral equivalence for sure!
Happer probably wishes he had the charisma,
although his close friend the real climate science (who has a very dodgy history of tweaking his own satellite reading to along with his tax payers 'gate-keeping' philosophy rather than the science Spencer) does go around calling . . .
Creationist climate change skeptic Dr Roy Spencer has come up with a name for people who call him a ‘denier’ — ‘Nazis’. Graham Readfearn from DeSmogBlog reports.
PRINCE CHARLES is a “global warming Nazi" and so, apparently, is U.S. President Barack Obama.
That’s according to Dr. Roy Spencer, one of the world’s most often cited deniers of the risks of human-caused climate change.
In a blog post titled 'Time to push back against the global warming Nazis', Dr Spencer of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, wrote he had made a decision about anyone who used the term 'denier' to describe ... well ... deniers of the threats of human-caused climate change.
He’s going to call them 'Global warming Nazis'.
Spencer wrote:
When politicians and scientists started calling people like me “deniers", they crossed the line. They are still doing it.
They indirectly equate (1) the skeptics’ view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem, with (2) the denial that the Nazi’s extermination of millions of Jews ever happened.
Too many of us for too long have ignored the repulsive, extremist nature of the comparison. It’s time to push back.
I’m now going to start calling these people “global warming Nazis".
Deliberately misrepresenting the scientific understanding of climate sciences,
crosses the line and makes both criminals against humanity and sober science.
Mike will shrug that off - but our next generations will not be as self-blinded as MikeYohe,
who himself comes from the dark side of Alt-Right disconnect from physical reality,
and who himself crosses over into extreme intellectual dishonesty, which in turn crosses over in criminality.
And one for the road, if anyone is curious about more details of Will Happer’s gross dishonesty.
https://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=Will+Happer&x=0&y=0
Blog posts matching the search Will Happer:
2017 in Review: looking back at 10 years of SkS and more
3 January 2018 by BaerbelW
2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming Digest #18
7 May 2017 by John Hartz
Evidence Squared #10: Debunking William Happer's carbon cycle myth
2 May 2017 by John Cook
Trump has launched a blitzkrieg in the wars on science and Earth’s climate
28 March 2017 by dana1981
2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #9
4 March 2017 by John Hartz
Just who are these 300 'scientists' telling Trump to burn the climate?
27 February 2017 by John Abraham
2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #8
25 February 2017 by John Hartz
2017 SkS Weekly Climate Change & Global Warming News Roundup #7
18 February 2017 by John Hartz
Climate change in 2016: the good, the bad, and the ugly
2 January 2017 by John Abraham
Coal made its best case against climate change, and lost
11 May 2016 by dana1981
Comparing models to the satellite datasets
9 May 2016 by Guest Author
Peabody coal's contrarian scientist witnesses lose their court case
2 May 2016 by John Abraham
A striking resemblance between testimony for Peabody Coal and for Ted Cruz
20 January 2016 by John Abraham
Climate researcher Bart Strengers wins wager with climate sceptic Hans Labohm
28 January 2015 by Guest Author
2013 SkS Weekly Digest #20
19 May 2013 by John Hartz
Schmitt and Happer manufacture doubt
15 May 2013 by Dumb Scientist
2013 SkS Weekly News Roundup #19B
11 May 2013 by John Hartz
Ridley, Murdoch, and Lomborg Attempt to Greenwash Global Warming
16 January 2013 by dana1981
The Latest Pre-Bunked Denialist Letter in Lieu of Real Science
1 December 2012 by dana1981
Matt Ridley - Wired for Lukewarm Catastrophe
29 August 2012 by dana1981
2012 SkS Weekly Digest #34
27 August 2012 by John Hartz
Lindzen, Happer, and Cohen Wall Street Journal Rerun
22 August 2012 by dana1981
The Continuing Denial of the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change
16 August 2012 by Andy Skuce
Ivar Giaever - Nobel Winning Physicist and Climate Pseudoscientist
12 July 2012 by dana1981
NASA Climate 'Skeptics' Respond with Science! Just Kidding.
12 April 2012 by dana1981
2012 SkS Weekly Digest #14
9 April 2012 by John Hartz
Yes Happer and Spencer, Global Warming Continues
3 April 2012 by dana1981
2012 SkS Weekly Digest #13
2 April 2012 by John Hartz
Still Going Down the Up Escalator
3 February 2012 by dana1981
The Latest Denialist Plea for Climate Change Inaction
31 January 2012 by dana1981
Clouds Over Peer Review
7 October 2011 by Captain Pithart
A new SkS resource: climate skeptics and their myths
18 August 2011 by John Cook
The Ridley Riddle Part One: The Red Queen
30 July 2011 by Andy Skuce
The Planetary Greenhouse Engine Revisited
15 June 2011 by Chris Colose
Even Princeton Makes Mistakes
26 May 2011 by Chris Colose
Sure, glad to. Science is proven facts. It can be changed by better proven facts. A scientist can write 400 scientific papers and not have one of them be proven correct over time. That doesn’t mean some of his papers didn’t make front cover of scientific journals and get a lot of news coverage. That also doesn’t mean he didn’t get a good teaching job and write several books on the subject. What it means is his work that was able to pass politically and the thinking of the movement at the time. But that does not mean his work was correct. Aether winds is a famous example. So far there must have been a million papers written about climate change and we have a million excuses why it is not working the way the papers explain. The question that is trying to be answered is really simple. HOW MUCH HEAT IS NATURAL AND HOW MUCH IS MANMADE. Or put another way. Create a baseline for climate change science. Emeritus Professor of Physics at Princeton University Will Happer explains why he thinks we are having this problem with the climate change baseline problem. Happer was not making any scientific predictions. And the first thing CC does is try to discredit him and his work. Therefore, I was working from the point of view that CC thinks that if scientists that have made mistakes then they are not good scientists. The way I view it is the only scientists in the world that have not made mistakes are still wet behind the ears. It is easy to criticize. So, I ask CC to make a prediction. I was curious which wet behind the ears scientists she was following. That’s where the “type of scientist" came from. She followed Michael Mann when he got his degree and wrote his first papers. That paper didn’t last a year before being changed. But after decades it is still in the courts in two countries and indirectly cost the taxpayers billions.
Rules. Peer reviews must not be done by your friends. You must make your data available for peer review to all scientists.
Changes that are needed. I would personally like to see private industry have half the seats on the grant approval boards for taxpayer’s money.
One more that I really, really, really think would help. No more grants on related subjects until the baseline is complete.
https://twitter.com/carlzimmer/status/965349850698207236
Follow this tweet to some real science. You almost started to answer the question, but you immediately switched to saying science is obscured by politics. That doesn't answer the question. If they are two separate things, then you can define either one. You can show when someone is claiming science but actually doing politics. I don't think you know how. That you just failed to explain that is why.
Good site. But, science is science. CC is using consensual science. I was all for IPCC and the use of consensual science at first because of the time factor. We were being told that the CO2 was going to basically cause catastrophic changes to the earth in the matter of a decade.
What we were told was happening was that the CO2 was causing heat in a fraction of a second, over and over again. Which is proven to be true. And the CO2 could stay in the atmosphere up to a thousand years. Averaging around three-hundred years before it leaves the atmosphere. And that is also true. So, yesterday’s CO2 is still creating heat just like the CO2 that was put in the atmosphere in the 1970’s. The earth was going to have so much CO2 creating heat that we would reach a point that we would have a run-a-way heating scenario. And we would have no way to fix the problem.
We have past the date that we were to stop putting CO2 into the air. And all the scenarios that were supposed to happen on the way to hot-house earth was not happening.
Therefore, I did not want consensual science anymore. I wanted real science. And we don’t have it yet. For example, the sea level rise. By 2100, it was to rise from 20 to 100 feet. Today there is a lot of data out showing a rise of 8 to 20 feet. Your posting connection has from 1 to 8 feet. Our senior scientists are predicting 11 inches. The normal rise is 10 inches.
To answer your question that I am sure you are asking. Would I know science if it sat on me? Probably not. Therefore, I follow the money. There are law firms across America wanting to do class action climate change law suits for hundreds of millions of dollars. What is stopping them is that there is no science that can even prove Climate Change even exists past the point where the earth can take care of the problem. There are thousands of consensual scientists, just like there was in the Aether Winds. But no scientists that can stand on solid ground and prove Climate Change in the legal system that requires real science. That is one reason why the baseline is so important.
“Consensual science" – you just made that up. Or you don’t understand the term “scientific consensus". Either way, you’re just wrong.
“time factor" – I assume here you mean that everyone can’t be an expert on everything, so we rely on experts in fields we aren’t experts in and use review boards and open data to validate results.
“catastrophic change" – I’m sure you can find some people who said something that was wrong, but how catastrophic would you like the change to be? More hurricanes? More flooding?
“no way to fix the problem" – That remains to be seen, but I don’t see much evidence that we can fix it.
“all the scenarios" – really? All of them? Fires aren’t increasing? Drought isn’t happening? Islands aren’t disappearing? Coastlines aren’t eroding?
“real science" – as you say later, you don’t know what that is.
“no science that can even prove Climate Change even exists" – Yet you described the CO2 effect earlier.
“the baseline" – another thing you made up or don’t understand.
Consensus science - Wikipedia
Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study.
Lessons from the IPCC: do scientific assessments need to be consensual to be authoritative?
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) consensual scientific knowledge on climate change and its effects is to some extent the known truth, but not necessarily the entire truth. Consensual scientific knowledge is only a minimum common denominator for thousands of scientists of different disciplines and thousands of studies that due to their multiplicity, heterogeneity, and complexity, may sometimes mismatch. If we, scientists and science managers just precut credibility and consensus, we may end up misguiding society. http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1579/0044-7447(2008)37[321:CCPICI]2.0.CO;2?journalCode=ambi
Please explain where I am wrong. And let’s be clear on what I am saying. A theory is built from a hypothesis that has been proven correct. And the hypothesis is that CO2 is the sole cause of climate change. We had Al Gore use the Ice Core data to show that when the CO2 increases the earth warms up. The warm ups followed 100,000-year cycles. Then Gore use the hockey stick to show that the Industrial Age of CO2 levels were putting the earth in an un-natural situation of extremely high levels of man-made climate, thus creating Climate Change.
A question that was ask about Gore’s hypothesis was. Why did the CO2 follow the heating of the earth by hundreds of years? Shouldn’t the CO2 levels increase first, then the earth starts warming? The Ice Core graphs clearly showed that the earth warming in its natural cycle and the CO2 levels increasing with the heat. For a couple of years, the CO2 scientists looked for the missing heat and said they found it in the oceans.
Predictions came out using the hypothesis and what the extra CO2 levels would do to the earth. It is a fact that the CO2 does create heat. Example, if the heater in your house was on all the time and you were fine and the heat was just right for you. Then your heater needed replaced. And you replaced it with a heater twice the size. Representing twice as much CO2 in the air. Then you would be burning up with the hotter temperatures. You would put a regulator on your heater so that you could control the heat. Gore’s hypothesis does not have a regulator. And the climate change computer models don’t use a regulator. The reason is that if a regulator is used, then the hypothesis is wrong. And the CO2 has to follow the earth’s heating cycles. Yes, the more CO2, the warmer the earth to a point where the regulator starts cooling. It might end up being the hotter the earth, the more greenhouse effect and the more greenhouse effect the more clouds. The more clouds, the cooler the earth.
Talk about something that is hard to measure. And that would be clouds. Time factor
When you got eight-hours to do a forty-hour job. You have to deal with a the time factor and get the job done. I think we agree on this meaning. Catastrophic change
No, we were told whole countries would disappear under water and many species would go extinct. No way to fix the problem.
All kinds of ideas. From building big machines that would pull CO2 out of the air to planting trees and plants. But I could not agree with you more. There really is no way to fix the a problem like the CO2. All the scenarios.
It snowed today, OMG, it has to be climate change. Seems to be the movement. Remember that climate change is at the most 3% of the weather. The weather you are talking about matches up with the GCM’s (grand solar minimums) much better than climate change. Real science
Real science uses theories and not just hypothesis. “no science that can even prove Climate Change even exists"
Cherry picking. Try adding some more of the sentence.
…. no science that can even prove Climate Change even exists past the point where the earth can take care of the problem. The baseline.
Please explain to me how you are going to separate the natural from man-made heat data without a baselines or datum point.
When you say I made up the baseline. Can you give me a short review of where you are on the climate change issues?
Expert points to need for baselines in climate change research Expert points to need for baselines in climate change research
Does the choice of climate baseline matter in ecological niche modelling? Does the choice of climate baseline matter in ecological niche modelling? - ScienceDirect
Baseline/Reference
The baseline (or reference) is any datum against which change is measured. It might be a “current baseline”, in which case it represents observable, present-day conditions. It might also be a “future baseline”, which is a projected future set of conditions excluding the driving factor of interest. Alternative interpretations of the reference conditions can give rise to multiple baselines. Definition of terms
I ask you where you are on climate change. Ok, let me try again. Lausten where are you and NASA at on climate change?
You do understand that climate change is the man-made heat. Not the global warming natural cycle. And what you posted from NASA was consensual science. The chart that of the posting was the earth warming. Somewhere in the earth’s warming is the climate change warming. Can you get me a chart just showing the climate change warming? Oh, wait, you can’t because there are no charts until the baseline is established.
Therefore, you are using science that states “Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities." Science based upon “extremely likely". Would you call that a theory or a hypothesis?
Now if you are the attorney for the California cities that are suing the oil companies for climate change. What percentage of that chart is your client responsible for? You want the United States money establishment to rewrite and revalue the risk of the bond market based upon “extremely likely". Remember no construction can take place without a building bond. Many cities cannot build without bond funding. The system we use will have to be adjusted and updated at a cost of billions of dollars once the climate change is established “scientifically". So, why is California cities suing the oil companies if they don’t have the facts? Because it is political. And they are viewed as a political joke. Many California cities are upside down financially and close to bankruptcy. The State of California is controlled by the Trial Lawyers Association. And they are floating in cash. But the fact remains that Climate Change has not been proven yet. Just follow the California cities lawsuits if you need further proof.
Right now, the President is asking NASA to reprioritize to work on the moon and Mars. And get out of the political science.
Rep. Jim Bridenstine is being considered for NASA’s next administrator. This is Jim’s views. Am I to consider them your views too if he is confirmed?
During a hearing of the Senate Commerce, Space, and Transportation Committee, U.S. Rep. Jim Bridenstine, a Republican from Oklahoma, said human-caused climate change “depends on a whole lot of factors.”
Bridenstine, 42, said he agreed with the statement that “climate warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."
“I believe carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas,” he told the committee. “I believe humans have contributed to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.”
But when asked by U.S. Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) to what extent humans have contributed, Bridenstine said it is a “question I do not have an answer to.”
“But I do know that scientists absolutely contribute to global warming,” he added.
Schatz tried to nail down whether Bridenstine believed that humans were the driving force behind climate change.
“Sir, I would say human activity is absolutely a contributor to the climate change we are currently seeing," he said. “I think right now we are just scratching the surface as to the climate system of the Earth.”
Schatz asked: “Is it the primary cause.”
“Well, it’s going to depend on a whole lot of factors and we’re still learning more about that every day,” Bridenstine said. “In some years you could say absolutely. In other years, during sun cycles and other things, there are other contributing factors that would have maybe more of an impact.”