Climate change

[pjclarke]

Except that predictions from climate theory have a pretty good track record, models have predicted:

That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.
That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.

Polar amplification (greater temperature increase as you move toward the poles).
That the Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
The magnitude and duration of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption - which also confirmed the water vapour feedbacks

Models came up with a different trend than the UAH satellite observations - the discrepency was resolved when a bug was found in the satellite processing.
The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
The expansion of the Hadley cells.

The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in the tropics.
The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.

Further reading http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Pu...ience_2007.pdf

Hat Tip Models

[BlasterBates]

Professor Happer of Princeton University would disagree:

William Happer: Global Warming Models Are Wrong Again - WSJ.com

A good quote from Feynman:

"In general we look for a new law by the following process. First we guess it. Then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right. Then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience; compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong."

The observations don't mach the models.

[amcdonald]

You can use both Newton's and Einstein's theories to predict things, engineer things. You can't make AGW predictions

Yes you can, green taxes stop global warming. Our government told us, so it must be true

[d000hg]

You can use both Newton's and Einstein's theories to predict things, engineer things. You can't make AGW predictions

Of course you can, it's just a lot harder. Similarly you can predict how a weather system will behave but chaotic effects make it really hard to make long-term predictions

There are levels of proof, but climate change can't be proven at all, not unless you got a sample of 50 or so planets and you tweak the atmosphere.

You could say exactly the same about evolution. In fact without other planets, we are even less able to make predictions about evolution since we have to wait an infeasible time to test them.

[pjclarke]

Professor Happer of Princeton University would disagree:

I see your opinion piece in the editorial pages of the WSJ by a lone physicist and raise you one by three dozen practicising climate scientists

Climate experts know that the long-term warming trend has not abated in the past decade. In fact, it was the warmest decade on record. Observations show unequivocally that our planet is getting hotter. And computer models have recently shown that during periods when there is a smaller increase of surface temperatures, warming is occurring elsewhere in the climate system, typically in the deep ocean. Such periods are a relatively common climate phenomenon, are consistent with our physical understanding of how the climate system works, and certainly do not invalidate our understanding of human-induced warming or the models used to simulate that warming.

Check With Climate Scientists for Views on Climate — Letters to the Editor - WSJ.com

Happer gives no evidence to back up his assertions about the models. This is because he is incorrect.

[pjclarke]

You can't make AGW predictions

here is one from over thirty years ago.



And here is how it measured up RealClimate: Evaluating a 1981 temperature projection

Not so shabby.

[EternalOptimist]

You could say exactly the same about evolution. In fact without other planets, we are even less able to make predictions about evolution since we have to wait an infeasible time to test them.

Completely wrong.
Anyone who believes in evolution will be able to give you a thousand things that would prove the theory wrong. They are not experiments that need to be done, but simple observations of fact.
e.g. if a human skeleton were found in a sediment that preceded the amoebas, it would be impossible to claim that the amoeba evolved from the humanoid.

you try getting the cagw crowd to explain an observation of fact that will disprove their theory. (they have done in the past, but everytime we hit the deadline, they move the goalposts,we are still waiting for ten feet of sea level rise to swamp Manhatten)

[pjclarke]

you try getting the cagw crowd to explain an observation of fact that will disprove their theory. (they have done in the past, but everytime we hit the deadline, they move the goalposts,we are still waiting for ten feet of sea level rise to swamp Manhatten)

Just the usual blog/tabloid science blah blah blah.

In fact if the observations went outside the range predicted by 95% of model runs, that would be a pretty good test. But it sure ain't happened yet.

[EternalOptimist]

yeah yeah


and snow will become a thing of the past

[stevejohnson]

Yes you can, green taxes stop global warming. Our government told us, so it must be true

How does money going to a banker to run their yachts saves energy ?