I'm comparing the total warming for each dataset, calculated as linear_slope*time_interval, as time goes by:
The model is 0.04°C (5%) ahead of observations.
So here are model predictions of temperatures from the early 2000s (grey shading is mainly weather uncertainty): pic.twitter.com/vgnMM5iT0I— Gavin Schmidt (@ClimateOfGavin) July 16, 2015
(Note that these climate models are not initialized to observations, and cannot predict phase of El Niño etc. ahead of time).— Gavin Schmidt (@ClimateOfGavin) July 16, 2015
|Subject:||Breaking News: South Carolina House Backs Removal of Confederate Flag|
|Date:||Thu, 09 Jul 2015 01:12:13 -0400|
|From:||NYTimes.com News Alert <email@example.com>|
Posted: 29 Jun 2015 04:30 AM PDT
Science writer and author Matt Ridley discusses climate change with EconTalk host Russ Roberts. Based on his reading of the scientific evidence, Ridley describes himself as a "lukewarmer." While Ridley agrees that humans have made the climate warmer, he argues that the impact is small or positive over some temperature ranges and regions. He rejects the catastrophic scenarios that some say are sufficiently likely to justify dramatic policy responses, and he reflects on the challenges of staking out an unpopular position on a contentious policy issue.
Readings and Links related to this podcast episode
|You are subscribed to email updates from EconTalk||Email delivery powered by Google|
|Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States|