Climate Change Attribution

Crick

Gold Member
May 10, 2014
29,054
5,614
290
N/A
On several occasions we have mentioned that climate models that do not assume AGW cannot match the observed warming. Here is an example:

Attribution_of_global_warming_%E2%80%93_simulation_of_20th_century_global_mean_temperatures_%28with_and_without_human_influences%29_compared_to_observations_%28NASA%29.png


Description
This graph shows two simulations of 20th century global mean temperatures compared with observed temperatures (dotted line). The red line (higher up on the right-hand side graph) shows simulated temperatures including human influences (e.g., greenhouse gases and aerosols), the blue line (lower down on the right-hand side graph) shows simulated temperatures excluding human influences. The graph is adapted from Hegerl et al. (2007) (referred to by the cited source).

From the cited Lindsey (2010) public-domain source: "Reconstructions of global temperature that include greenhouse gas increases and other human influences (red line, based on many models) closely match measured temperatures (dashed line). Those that only include natural influences (blue line, based on many models) show a slight cooling, which has not occurred. The ability of models to generate reasonable histories of global temperature is verified by their response to four 20th-century volcanic eruptions: each eruption caused brief cooling that appeared in observed as well as modeled records." For more information, see attribution of recent climate change.

References:
Hegerl, G., et al. (2007). Chapter 9: Understanding and attributing climate change. In Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Solomon, S., et al., (eds.)), Cambridge University Press.

Date: 4 May 2010

Source: natural_anthropogenic_models_narrow.png, in: If Earth has warmed and cooled throughout history, what makes scientists think that humans are causing global warming now? part of: Climate Q&A : Blogs. Publisher: Earth Observatory, part of the EOS Project Science Office, located at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center

Author: Rebecca Lindsey

Permission:
(Reusing this file)
Image Use Policy: "Most materials published on the Earth Observatory, including images, are freely available for re-publication or re-use, including commercial purposes, with the following exceptions: *where copyright is indicated, you must obtain the copyright holder’s permission; we usually provide links to the organization that holds the copyright, *images from the SeaWiFS sensor older than five years are in the public domain and can be re-used or re-published for any purpose. Images less than five years old can be re-used only for educational or scientific purposes; any commercial use of such images must be coordinated with GeoEye. We ask that NASA’s Earth Observatory be given credit for its original materials; the only mandatory credit is NASA."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
 
Last edited:
Effect_of_various_natural_and_human_factors_on_global_mean_temperature_between_1889-2006_%28NASA%29.png


This set of graphs shows the estimated contribution of various natural and human factors to changes in global mean temperature between 1889–2006.[41] Estimated contributions are based on multivariate analysis rather than model simulations.[42] The graphs show that human influence on climate has eclipsed the magnitude of natural temperature changes over the past 120 years.[43] Natural influences on temperature—El Niño, solar variability, and volcanic aerosols—have varied approximately plus and minus 0.2 °C (0.4 °F), (averaging to about zero), while human influences have contributed roughly 0.8 °C (1 °F) of warming since 1889.[43]

42) US EPA (28 January 2009), Climate Science Seminar: Natural and Anthropogenic Influences on Earth's Surface Temperature (Judith Lean, U.S. Naval Research Laboratory), Abstract, Seminars with Video: Events: NCEE: US EPA, US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA): National Center for Environmental Economics (NCEE). Last updated 2 November 2012.
43) Riebeek, H., Is Current Warming Natural? in: Global Warming (p.4), Feature Articles, Earth Observatory, part of the EOS Project Science Office, located at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_recent_climate_change
 
Yep. Reality.


Yeah.....but only to a handful, relatively speaking.


Bottom line is, this reality isn't impressing anybody. When I show up in this forum and see more than a single handful of regular forum users ( as exists for years now ) that concur with AGW theory, maybe I'll be more impressed. Too.....back a few years ago......right after the Gore movie, a lot more people cared. But then the dozens of boimb thrower predictions that ended up falling flat on their faces......the population now looks at this stuff the way they see conspiracy theorists.
 
That must explain why mainstream media have been coming to the conclusion that giving deniers equal time when reporting climate change stories is just as unjustified as it would to give equal time to flat-earthers and UFO nuts.

When objective media goes looking for the opinion of an expert on climate change, what do they find? They find scientists completely convinced in the validity of AGW. What sort of experts do they find on your side of the argument? Lord Monckton. Roy 'ID' Spencer. Bob Tisdale the massage therapist, Anthony 'Not Sure I Went to College' Watts, Roger Pielke Sr and smattering of other octogenarian retirees. VERY impressive.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top