Do you need specific predictions to convince you of anthropogenic global warming?

Question

This should satisfy Mr. Jello, at least. A combination of climatology and meteorology has made specific predictions as to the average global temperature in the near future:

"Global warming is forecast to set in with a vengeance after 2009, with at least half of the five following years expected to be hotter than 1998, the warmest year on record, scientists reported on Thursday.

Climate experts have long predicted a general warming trend over the 21st century spurred by the greenhouse effect, but this new study gets more specific about what is likely to happen in the decade that started in 2005.

To make this kind of prediction, researchers at Britain's Met Office -- which deals with meteorology -- made a computer model that takes into account such natural phenomena as the El Nino pattern in the Pacific Ocean and other fluctuations in ocean circulation and heat content."

http://green.yahoo.com/index.php?q=node/1268

Will this satisfy global warming deniers?

What a shock - the study provides exactly what Jello requested and he's still not satisfied.

That, ladies and gentlemen, is the definition of denial.

Answer 1

Jello - It's not easier to go six months out (weather). It's far easier to predict "half of the next 6 years" (climate).

Climate is much more predictable than weather. This graph shows it clearly. Year to year things jump around a lot. That's called "weather". But the long term climate change is undeniable.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif

Unless we take action, the long term future is very predictable. Man made greenhouse gases are driving the train, making prediction downright easy.

http://www.globalwarmingart.com/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png

Answer 2

I am not sure how long a time interval you need to be talking about to qualify as climate instead of weather, but 100 years comes to mind. So was the 20th century warmer than the 19th century? I think it was. Were the last decade warmer than the previous decade? I think it was, but now were are talking more about weather than climate. Was 1999 warmer than 1998? No. But that is definitely weather and not climate.

Answer 3

1934 is the warmest year on record. Those crack scientists you are relying on made a slight whoops. Of the 10 warmest years in the US, 5 are before 1940. You know during the Great Depression when industrial production dropped or was it all those horsedrawn SUVs in the 1890's. Check climateaudit and GISS.

Answer 4

That is a load of crock. Scientists cannot predict the weather accurately. They said there would be all kinds of hurricanes last year but that never happened. They cant even predict accurately what the weather will be like tomorrow

Answer 5

I could go back to 2005 and show you where global warming was blamed for the active hurricane season, and show specific predictions that 2006,and 2007 would have even more hurricanes than 2005.

I read that article. Why not cut the prediction to 6 months out? That would be far easier then 2 years out.

Remember that Dr. Hansen predicted that we would have a super el nino this year, and this year would be hotter than in 1998, and we would have more hurricanes than 2005.

Yet some will hold a prediction as proof that a thought is accurate. It's not the prediction, as any idiot can make claims, it's the accuracy of their prediction that counts.

This is what is now passes for science in the global warming world.

Answer 6

I notice with interest that you stopped your quote where you did dana and thus left out the next bit which said that…

“…climate could be dominated over this period by… natural changes, rather than human-caused global warming…”

So, NOT anthropogenic warming then after all.

As ever with global warming - don't believe the hype.

Answer 7

I thought that climate took more then a couple years?????? I mean a couple years mean nothing, sure they might get warmer over the next couple years but how can you prove that's man made, oh that's right you can't sorry :(

Answer 8

Good grief! Of course your source would provide "evidence" of the great "scientific consensus" on global warming! IT'S A "GREEN" SITE! The Brits have swallowed the MMGWS (Man Made Global Warming Syndrome) hook, line, and sinker ... just as you have.

Does the computer model at Britain's Met Office take into consideration atmospheric water content? Nope. How about global precipitation? Nope. Because no one yet has figured out how to figure these factors in, although they are two of the most important factors in climatology according to professional climatologists. All the computer models are faulty, not worth the paper wasted to print out their data.

They even got the hottest year wrong ... it was 1934. This according to NASA.

Answer 9

Actually what is needed is specific predictions that actually come true... so far they have missed by miles and miles.... any idiot can make predictions.....

Answer 10

see http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming051607.htm

Also see co2science.org

Lots of good data questions to ponder