OT? Climate Predictions vs. Observations

[Dean]

The predictions overstated the warming, so far anyhow.

[Boris]

Dean [e-mail] wrote in news: [e-mail]:

[Bob F]

REALLY??

"The planet is heating up faster than predicted, says scientist who sounded climate alarm in the 1980s "

"Climate change: Is the world warming faster than expected?"

"Is climate change speeding up? Here’s what the science says." "Zeke Hausfather, a climate scientist with Berkeley Earth, has similarly called the last few months of temperatures “absolutely gobsmackingly bananas” and noted, “there is increasing evidence that global warming has accelerated over the past 15 years.”"

[Scott Lurndal]

Ah yes, the experienced climate scientists at power line blog have spoken!

*Sheesh*.

[Scott Lurndal]

"The Heritage Foundation rejects the scientific consensus on climate change.[93][94] The foundation is one of many climate change denial organizations that have been funded by ExxonMobil; an oil and petroleum company with over $413 billion in revenue as of 2022 that is currently the eighth-largest corporation in the world.[93][95]"

[Boris]

[e-mail] (Scott Lurndal) wrote in news:lfRtN.409413$83n7.399996 @fx18.iad:

Can you give no attribution to that quote?

Let's not shoot the messenger, heritage.org, The study was not commissioned by The Heritage Foundation. The article was based on "five different observation-based databases and 36 climate models taking part in the sixth IPCC Climate Model Intercomparison Project, and KNMI Climate Explorer". Sounds like data base, scientific based, not model-based, data.

Reminds me of "The Population Bomb", and Global Cooling. (On the other hand, Rachel Carson's "The Silent Spring" was prescient.)

A Scientific American article, 1975, reads:

"Journalists should not ignore climate deniers, he cautioned. "You have to give all sides a fair hearing." But that does not mean they have to be treated equally "if they don't have the data." To do so, he said, is false balance "that leaves readers out on a limb." I agree.

"Your job as a journalist is to give each side its best shot," said Gwynne. Even if the ammunition is four decades old."

The question of causation and what can be done, if true, is still wide open.

[Bob F]

Causation is clearly indicated by the basic science. CO2, methane, and H20 all are greenhouse gasses that absorb IR being reflected or radiated from ice and everything else the sun hits, preventing much of the heat from re-radiating back into space.

Ever notice how much faster the air cools after the sun goes down when the air is really dry? That radiation into space is why. If there is high humidity, it does not cool nearly as fast or much, because the water vapor gets heated by the IR energy trying to escape, which holds the heat down lower. That is H2O as a greenhouse gas. CO2 and methane have similar effects.

[Cindy Hamilton]

The footnote style suggest Wikipedia.

[Scott Lurndal]

Have you not heard of google? search for that quote and you'll find in very quickly (hint: it came from the wikipedia page about hertiage foundation).

Here - read this and then get back to us once you've read it.

[micky]

Even if that were not present, I've found that just searching on some of the text, almost any part, like The Heritage Foundation rejects the scientific consensus on >>> climate change. will probably find anything for which no url had been given. I don't even take out the >>>. Google ignores it or something. Google is very smart.

Yes, it found it and yes it was wikipedia. It was the 9th hit, which I don't understand since the others were not as close a match. And they don't hate wikipedia. It often comes up first.

[micky]

Sarcasm is not needed. Many people have not thought of this method.

[Slevin]

I think Goggle censors their search results which makes them useless to me.