Erm, is this a trick question ? It's none isn't it ? , Zilch , zero, nought.
This is a very widely acknowledged fact you know.
It's easy to predict a warming planet when it was already warming to start with. Simple climate cycles are easy to predict within certain boundaries. These climate science engineers know the cyclical nature of the climate, but you would think it was a surprise to most who don't understand how science reaches its conclusions.
Trevor panders to the ones who have know clue. Most all of those he stated were predictable without the use of climate modeling. Disingenuous science for sure!!!
Regarding Trevor’s answer, it is important to remember that these projections have always been part of AGW. They were made not only before there was empirical evidence for them; they were mostly projected to occur 50-100 years in the future; furthermore, the major scientific institutions have always advised caution in attributing current weather events to the long-term consequences of global warming.
The fact there is at least circumstantial evidence that many of these predictions may already be observable should be cause for more concern – there is no scientific evidence that contradicts or casts doubt on AGW theory or its projected overall general consequences.
=====
graphicconception --
>>What was the prediction about droughts? <<
The prediction was that AGW could change precipitation patterns in areas prone to droughts and areas prone to flooding, especially in the variability of severe events. Drought projections vary by region. IPCC’s drought projections have almost always been for specific areas and generally have been made relative to the latter part of the 21st century. The fact that much of the western US has been experiencing severe drought conditions for the past several years may or may not be affected by AGW.
The fact that Deniers object to scientific research that attempts to determine whether an AGW signal can be identified in some contemporary events is evidence of their rejection of science; and the fact that they believe such research is undertaken in order to prove AGW is real is an indication of their ignorance and scientific illiteracy.
Scientific investigations into whether AGW was real or not ended more than an decade ago. I challenge Deniers to find one federally funded research project that will give scientists money to determine that AGW is real.
As a start, you can find all past and current NSF funding opportunities here:
http://www.nsf.gov/funding/
It is difficult to take Trevor's list seriously. Sorry Trevor!
To verify a prediction you need to know what it was and what things were like before. For instance "Ocean expansion" has been occurring since the end of the last ice age. Did the scientists predict no change in the status quo despite the increase in man-made CO2?
"Migration of species" is a good one. The house martins that visit me in the UK winter in Africa. I can just see them sitting there in spring working out the 30 year trend in Arctic night time temperatures and agreeing to set of on the Wednesday and not the Friday. How many species can detect a climate change rather than a weather change? My bet is not many. Heck, we find it difficult!
What was the prediction about droughts?
http://www.nature.com/articles/sdata2014...
Did they predict that they would reduce?
So full marks for the list but not very convincing, I feel.
You have to wait at least 100 years to see, because climate is about long term averages and not weather in any one year or a change that takes less than 100 years to happen. Really it is better to wait 1,000 years or more. It is a REALLY long term thing that is just impossible to experience in only one human lifetime.
The Hippy, Grant-grubbing, AGW Activists haven't gotten one prediction right yet.
There are literally hundreds of predictions and projections that have been correct, I don’t know how many you want but here’s the first 50 that come to mind, they’re all straightforward ones, nothing complex:
? Migration of species
? Stratospheric cooling
? Basal sliding
? Atmospheric warming
? Tree line elevation
? Disease vector spread
? Ocean warming
? Ocean acidification
? Salination at low levels
? Desertification
? Permafrost melting
? Dynamic climatology disruption
? Arctic dipolar anomalies
? Formation of Rossby waves
? Hadley Cell disruption
? Atmospheric saturation vapour pressure increase
? Moulin erosion and formation
? Increased global average precipitation
? Amplification of positive ENSO phases
? Expansion of Antarctic sea-ice sheet
? Disrupted atmospheric stratification
? Feedback changes, some enhanced, some disrupted, some collapsed
? Inundation of low-lying land
? Disappearance of some streams, rivers and lakes; formation of others
? Loss and reduction of glaciers
? Transitional boundary layer disruption
? Geochemical changes in the atmos and oceans
? Expansion of viable agricultural land
? Regional increase in microbial and bacterial growth
? Disruption of global rainfall patterns
? Disruption to the Jet Streams, particularly the PJS
? Small decrease in global reflectance (large regional changes)
? Ground deconsolidation
? More heatwaves and heatwave days
? Elevation of the tropopause
? Ocean expansion
? Localised halinity changes in oceans
? Accelerated carbon cycle
? Migration of storms to southern hemisphere
? More mollusc carbonates
? Coral bleaching
? Enhanced heat transfer from atmosphere to oceans
? Retained air pollutants
? Longer growing seasons
? Faster sea-level rise
? Elevation of the Firn line
? Changed wind patterns, particularly over oceans
? Reduction of Arctic sea-ice
? Temperature sensitive ecosystem disruption
? Increased incidence of flooding
There are many more where we don’t yet have enough data to conclusively say if the predictions or projections were correct (thermohaline circulation changes, benthic boundary layer impacts, clathrate release etc).
There are also some that we now know were wrong (rate of species loss, climate refugee numbers, extent of insect infestation).
There will probably be other errors that become apparent in time (possibly cloud formation impact, early climate sensitivity calculations and atmospheric sulphate/carbon/nitrate reactions).
There are still others where climate change has to have had an impact but where it’s difficult/impossible to separate the manmade and natural influences/effects (cyclonic influences, thermal uplifting, forest fires).
- - - - - - - -
EDIT: TO GRAPHIC CONCEPTION
Thank you for your observations, I would comment as follows:
Ocean expansion hasn’t really been ongoing since the end of the last ice-age. It takes about 6,000 years for the ocean temperature to reach equilibrium with the atmosphere. The warming phase at the end of the last ‘ice-age’ lasted approx 10,000 years and so much of the expansion of the oceans occurred during this phase. Residual expansion then continued at a declining rate until about 4,000 years ago.
With the last ice-age having ended, Earth was progressing toward the next ice age, the atmosphere was cooling and now the oceans began to contract. However, other factors have to be taken into consideration such as isostatic rebound, hydroisostatic rebound, changes to thermohaline circulation and ocean density together. The net result was that whilst the oceans cooled very slightly, they also rose, albeit at a rate of just a few cm per thousand years.
With average temperatures now rising, the net heat flow is once again from atmosphere to ocean and this is obviously causing expansion. The current rate is 1.5mm per year. Besides being observed, it can of course be calculated very easily.
The scientists predicted the oceans would rise – they’re rising. They predicted they would rise faster in the future – this is exactly what we’re seeing. In fact, in recent years the rise has been considerably greater than predicted (it’s not been long enough yet to draw any conclusions but it will be very worrying if it keeps going at current rates).
Species migration isn’t based on the behaviour of one species, in one country, in one year. It’s the observation of many species, right around the world over periods of decades.
The UK has seen many changes to it’s bird population. There are now new species arriving in southern Britain such as the Cettis Warbler and Little Egret. Many native species now have more northerly territories. Not just bords of course but across the whole range of British fauna and flora.
Migratory birds now spent an average 23 days longer in the UK before leaving for warmer climes (which is also the same length that growing seasons have extended by). These aren’t one offs, this is the overall average for all species over periods of 30+ years.
As for the droughts, as I also mentioned in the list, there has been an increase in global precipitation levels, this is a consequence of an accelerated hydrological cycle. With more precipitation falling globally then the total number of drought events will decline (just as predicted). Also predicted, and also shown to be accurate, is the fact that drought conditions will affect different areas. Some areas that were prone to drought now have more rainfall, others that had a low drought risk now have a high risk.
Historically the drought prone areas were unproductive, people avoided living or farming there; increased precipitation in such areas is therefore of limited benefit. A corresponding decrease in rainfall in a more populated area will have a much greater impact.
None of them Reality 10 climate scientist 0
Scientists don't have time to waste dealing with phony prefab fossil fuel industry trick complaints from people who cannot spell forecast. Climate change science does not depend on forecasts and never did.
The one that matters.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp...
What results have happened that back up their forcasts, or at least might in the future.
