copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: The temperature is not rising nearly as fast as the alarmist computer models predicted. You know, it’s much, much less, factors of 2 or 3 less. (William Happer, 2017-04-25)
Evidence (2023-11-01): We therefore advocate for additional attention to, and efforts in tracking, the evolution of the global surface temperature anomaly, when filtered for influence of internal variability. Our conclusion is that global warming continued at a steady rate through 2022, consistent with both longer term 50-year warming rates, and more recent, higher rates. Also, CMIP6 models generally do not reproduce the observed combination of mean warming rates since 1973, and the recent rate increases, which is concerning for impact studies and climate risk assessments based on these ensembles of simulations. We caution, however, that our conclusions are based on a tool from one model only (Methods), and only take into account sea-surface temperature fluctuations. More sophisticated analyses are possible, using multiple models and also taking into account a wider range of factors such as stratospheric temperatures, volcanic eruptions and the heterogeneous pattern of anthropogenic aerosol emissions, to provide both the scientific community and policy makers with accurate information on the evolution of climate risks over the coming years and decades. [...] Smith, C. J. & Forster, P. M. Suppressed Late‐20th Century Warming in CMIP6 Models Explained by Forcing and Feedbacks. Geophys. Res. Lett.48, https://doi.org/10.1029/2021gl094948 (2021). [...] CICERO Center for International Climate Research, Oslo, Norway
Claim: The temperature is not rising nearly as fast as the alarmist computer models predicted. You know, it’s much, much less, factors of 2 or 3 less. (William Happer, 2017-04-25)
Evidence (2020-04-22): Climate researchers are studying a fresh set of scenarios to model the future of the planet. [...] The hard truths of climate change — by the numbers
Claim: The temperature is not rising nearly as fast as the alarmist computer models predicted. You know, it’s much, much less, factors of 2 or 3 less. (William Happer, 2017-04-25)
Evidence (2024-03-19): Taking into account all known factors, the planet warmed 0.2 °C more last year than climate scientists expected. More and better data are urgently needed. [...] For the past nine months, mean land and sea surface temperatures have overshot previous records each month by up to 0.2 °C — a huge margin at the planetary scale. A general warming trend is expected because of rising greenhouse-gas emissions, but this sudden heat spike greatly exceeds predictions made by statistical climate models that rely on past observations. Many reasons for this discrepancy have been proposed but, as yet, no combination of them has been able to reconcile our theories with what has happened. [...] There is one more factor that could be playing a part. In 2020, new regulations required the shipping industry to use cleaner fuels that reduce sulfur emissions. Sulfur compounds in the atmosphere are reflective and influence several properties of clouds, thereby having an overall cooling effect. Preliminary estimates of the impact of these rules show a negligible effect on global mean temperatures — a change of only a few hundredths of a degree. But reliable assessments of aerosol emissions rely on networks of mostly volunteer-driven efforts, and it could be a year or more before the full data from 2023 are available.
Claim: The temperature is not rising nearly as fast as the alarmist computer models predicted. You know, it’s much, much less, factors of 2 or 3 less. (William Happer, 2017-04-25)
Evidence (2021-05-27): YouTube video falsely claims that climate models systematically over-estimated warming and that we are heading towards an ice age [...] On BBC Newsnight, Myron Ebell falsely claims climate models exaggerate warming [...] In CNN interview, William Happer incorrectly claims temperatures don’t match climate model projections
Claim: The temperature is not rising nearly as fast as the alarmist computer models predicted. You know, it’s much, much less, factors of 2 or 3 less. (William Happer, 2017-04-25)
Evidence (2022-08-11): In recent decades, the warming in the Arctic has been much faster than in the rest of the world, a phenomenon known as Arctic amplification. Numerous studies report that the Arctic is warming either twice, more than twice, or even three times as fast as the globe on average. Here we show, by using several observational datasets which cover the Arctic region, that during the last 43 years the Arctic has been warming nearly four times faster than the globe, which is a higher ratio than generally reported in literature. We compared the observed Arctic amplification ratio with the ratio simulated by state-of-the-art climate models, and found that the observed four-fold warming ratio over 1979–2021 is an extremely rare occasion in the climate model simulations. The observed and simulated amplification ratios are more consistent with each other if calculated over a longer period; however the comparison is obscured by observational uncertainties before 1979. Our results indicate that the recent four-fold Arctic warming ratio is either an extremely unlikely event, or the climate models systematically tend to underestimate the amplification. [...] Steady threefold Arctic amplification of externally forced warming masked by natural variability
Claim: The temperature is not rising nearly as fast as the alarmist computer models predicted. You know, it’s much, much less, factors of 2 or 3 less. (William Happer, 2017-04-25)
Evidence (2019-02-11): A number of media reports have asserted that our [study] indicates that global temperatures are not rising as fast as predicted by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), and hence that action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions is no longer urgent. Both assertions are false. Our results are entirely in line with the IPCC’s 2013 prediction that temperatures in the 2020s would be 0.9-1.3 degrees above pre-industrial [levels]. [...] Models do not overestimate warming by 0.3C [...] An apparent slowdown of the rise in temperatures can be seen in the early part of the 21st century. There is a potential disagreement with climate models that show no slowdown in warming, though observations remain within the model uncertainty range. A number of different studies have examined the causes and implications of this model/observation disagreement, with a recent paper in Nature neatly reconciling all the explanations.
Claim: The temperature is not rising nearly as fast as the alarmist computer models predicted. You know, it’s much, much less, factors of 2 or 3 less. (William Happer, 2017-04-25)
Evidence (2021-08-08): Scientists do not use climate models in isolation, or without considering their limitations. For a few years now, scientists have known some new-generation climate models probably overestimate global warming, and others underestimate it. [...] Read more: The climate won't warm as much as we feared – but it will warm more than we hoped
Claim: The temperature is not rising nearly as fast as the alarmist computer models predicted. You know, it’s much, much less, factors of 2 or 3 less. (William Happer, 2017-04-25)
Evidence (2018-09-01): Since this article was last updated, the slowdown in the rate of average global surface warming that took place from 1998–2012 (relative to the preceding 30 years) has unequivocally ended. Scientists have learned more about the physical factors that contributed to the short-term trend, and they have documented the continued build up in sub-surface ocean heat during the period. Check out our latest Q&A on this topic: Did global warming stop in 1998? [...] New analysis through 2014 shows that temperature is once again rising at about the same pace as it did over the second half of the 20th century. PRESS RELEASE. [...] Just because the global surface temperature has not risen significantly in the past decade doesn't mean the Earth's heat energy imbalance has vanished, though. Excess heat energy trapped by greenhouses gases can have more than one fate in the Earth system; among other things, it can cause water to evaporate, it can melt ice, and it can be mixed into the deep ocean by overturning currents.
Claim: The temperature is not rising nearly as fast as the alarmist computer models predicted. You know, it’s much, much less, factors of 2 or 3 less. (William Happer, 2017-04-25)
Evidence (2021-11-10): "This reconstruction suggests that current temperatures are unprecedented in 24,000 years, and also suggests that the speed of human-caused global warming is faster than anything we've seen in that same time," said Jessica Tierney, a UArizona geosciences associate professor and co-author of the study. [...] Computer-simulated climate models, on the other hand, provide temperature information based on scientists' best understanding of the physics of the climate system, which also isn't perfect.
Claim: The temperature is not rising nearly as fast as the alarmist computer models predicted. You know, it’s much, much less, factors of 2 or 3 less. (William Happer, 2017-04-25)
Evidence (2021-08-14): World leaders agreed in Paris to limit global warming to less than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit). The planet has already warmed about 1 degree Celsius, compared to pre-industrial levels. [...] Riahi is quick to point out that what happens in the models may not be feasible in real life. They don't account for political obstruction, for instance, or human preferences. People may just want to drive an expensive car, rather than take public transit, even when the models says that choice isn't economically rational. But the models also can be far too pessimistic, in particular about technological innovation. Ten years ago, van Vuuren says, they never anticipated the rise of cheap solar power. "We have been in the extremely fortunate situation that the cost of renewables has declined rapidly in the past decade." This has made the task of reducing carbon emissions much easier.
Claim: The temperature is not rising nearly as fast as the alarmist computer models predicted. You know, it’s much, much less, factors of 2 or 3 less. (William Happer, 2017-04-25)
Evidence (2017-04-25): Unsupported: Observed warming since the 1970s is consistent with climate model projections, the factor of 2 or 3 mentioned by Happer is not supported by available observations. [...] Dr. Happer’s assertion that models show 2x to 3x greater warming than observations is incorrect. At the surface (where we all live) models predict a rate of warming of 0.2°C per decade since 1970, while NASA observes warming of around 0.18°C during the same period. During this period models have been running about 10% too hot, hardly 200% to 300%. Similarly, the observations from all the different groups that measure global surface temperatures are well within the envelope of model projections: [...] Looking over the last 50 years, for example, the models and the observations are consistent in terms of the rates of global temperature warming that we expect from human activities. Over shorter decadal periods, there are natural fluctuations in climate in the real world that are much harder to predict.
Claim: The temperature is not rising nearly as fast as the alarmist computer models predicted. You know, it’s much, much less, factors of 2 or 3 less. (William Happer, 2017-04-25)
Evidence (2017-02-09): Earth is not at risk of becoming a hothouse like Venus, as Stephen Hawking claimed [...] Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability. [...] Forward projections of solar cyclicity imply the next few decades may be marked by global cooling rather than warming, despite continuing CO2 emissions.
Claim: The temperature is not rising nearly as fast as the alarmist computer models predicted. You know, it’s much, much less, factors of 2 or 3 less. (William Happer, 2017-04-25)
Evidence (2024-07-01): Changes in solar radiation and increases in stratospheric aerosols (small particles) from volcanic eruptions both affect the abundance of stratospheric ozone. Global total ozone in the early 1990s decreased by about 5% when compared to the 1964–1980 average, and is now about 2 to 3% below this value (see Q12). The longterm depletion of ozone is primarily attributed to increases in halogen source gases, with additional depletion in the early 1990s associated with the volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo. Equivalent effective stratospheric chlorine (EESC) (see definition in Q15) is often used as a measure of the potential of reactive and reservoir halogen gases to deplete ozone. Comparisons of the long-term changes in solar radiation, stratospheric volcanic aerosol, and EESC are useful in evaluating the contribution of these factors to long-term changes in total ozone. [...] The maximum UVI at Palmer Station is now larger by about a factor of 2.5 compared with the pre-ozone-hole period. The highest UVIs observed in spring now exceed those measured in spring and early summer in San Diego, despite San Diego’s much lower latitude. The large levels of UV radiation reaching the surface due to the Antarctic ozone hole have had an adverse effect on the microscopic plants and animals at the base of the food chain in the high-latitude marine environment.
Claim: The temperature is not rising nearly as fast as the alarmist computer models predicted. You know, it’s much, much less, factors of 2 or 3 less. (William Happer, 2017-04-25)
Evidence (2022-04-26): While some models projected less warming than we’ve experienced and some projected more, all showed surface temperature increases between 1970 and 2016 that were not too far off from what actually occurred, particularly when differences in assumed future emissions are taken into account. [...] As you can see in the chart above, SAR’s projections ended up being notably lower than observations, warming about 28% more slowly over the period from 1990 to 2016. This was likely due to a combination of two factors: a lower climate sensitivity than found in modern estimates (2.5C vs. 3C) and an overestimate of the radiative forcing of CO2 (4.37 watts per square meter versus 3.7 used in the subsequent IPCC report and still used today). [...] Global surface air temperatures in CMIP5 models have warmed about 16% faster than observations since 1970. About 40% of this difference is due to air temperatures over the ocean warming faster than sea surface temperatures in the models; blended model fields only show warming 9% faster than observations.
Claim: The temperature is not rising nearly as fast as the alarmist computer models predicted. You know, it’s much, much less, factors of 2 or 3 less. (William Happer, 2017-04-25)
Evidence (2003-07-29): Schneider's own calculations, which cast serious doubt on the IPCC's extreme prediction, broadly agree with an MIT study published in April of 2001. It found that there is a "far less" than one percent chance that temperatures would rise to 5.8 degrees C or higher, while there is a 17 percent chance the temperature rise would be lower than 1.4 degrees. [...] Despite this, the alarmists continue to use these models and all the other flimsy evidence I've cited to support their theories of man-made global warming. [...] Now I want to turn to temperature trends in the 20th Century. GCMs predict that rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations will cause temperatures in the troposphere, the layer from 5,000 to 30,000 feet, to rise faster than surface temperatures-a critical fact supporting the alarmist hypothesis.
Claim: The temperature is not rising nearly as fast as the alarmist computer models predicted. You know, it’s much, much less, factors of 2 or 3 less. (William Happer, 2017-04-25)
Evidence (2000-01-01): I personally believe that there should be some slight warming. But I think the warming will be much less than the current models predict. And I think it will be barely detectable. Perhaps it will be detectable, perhaps not. And it certainly will not be consequential. That is, it won't make any difference to people. After all, we get climate changes by 100 degrees Fahrenheit in some places on the earth. So what difference does a 1-degree change make over 100 years? Well, for instance, it might increase the size of oceans through thermal expansion. So, over time, it would increase the water levels, which have been increasing naturally. [...] But let me go a step further and ask: Supposing carbon dioxide does increase by a factor of four, five--mention any number you wish. What has happened in the past? We have geologic evidence that carbon dioxide levels were twenty times as large during the fossil record as in the last 600 million years, and have been decreasing steadily. So carbon dioxide levels have been decreasing. The earth has experienced much, much higher levels than we have today, without any apparent ill effects, because life developed quite well. In fact, it blossomed forth at the beginning of the Cambrian period.
Claim: The temperature is not rising nearly as fast as the alarmist computer models predicted. You know, it’s much, much less, factors of 2 or 3 less. (William Happer, 2017-04-25)
Evidence (2020-01-17): - Increases in carbon dioxide CO2 in the atmosphere is not as bad a thing as 'alarmists' make it. [...] - Therefore the 'alarmists' might be wrong in the figures they are using. [...] - p15: Tropical troposphere warming less than at surface. But "Climate models predict that we should have seen a relatively greater warning in the troposphere than at the surface" But earlier he disdains computer models. But now that they suit his cause, he welcomes their operation.
Claim: The temperature is not rising nearly as fast as the alarmist computer models predicted. You know, it’s much, much less, factors of 2 or 3 less. (William Happer, 2017-04-25)
Evidence (2022-09-23): As the result, I only get my news and weather from the radio, at the top of each hour…much less nonsense, no "dancing two finger pointing at the bleeding obvious" and always to-the-point!
Claim: The temperature is not rising nearly as fast as the alarmist computer models predicted. You know, it’s much, much less, factors of 2 or 3 less. (William Happer, 2017-04-25)
Evidence (2017-07-09): Climate-change skeptics point out that the planet has warmed and cooled many times before, but the climate window that has allowed for human life is very narrow, even by the standards of planetary history. At 11 or 12 degrees of warming, more than half the world’s population, as distributed today, would die of direct heat. Things almost certainly won’t get that hot this century, though models of unabated emissions do bring us that far eventually. This century, and especially in the tropics, the pain points will pinch much more quickly even than an increase of seven degrees. The key factor is something called wet-bulb temperature, which is a term of measurement as home-laboratory-kit as it sounds: the heat registered on a thermometer wrapped in a damp sock as it’s swung around in the air (since the moisture evaporates from a sock more quickly in dry air, this single number reflects both heat and humidity). At present, most regions reach a wet-bulb maximum of 26 or 27 degrees Celsius; the true red line for habitability is 35 degrees. What is called heat stress comes much sooner.
Claim: The temperature is not rising nearly as fast as the alarmist computer models predicted. You know, it’s much, much less, factors of 2 or 3 less. (William Happer, 2017-04-25)
Evidence (2017-04-04): A large proportion of the warming that occurred in the 20th century occurred in the first half of the century, when the amount of anthropogenic CO2 in the air was one quarter of the total amount there now. The rate of warming then was very similar to the rate of warming recently. We can’t have it both ways. The current warming can’t be unambiguously caused by anthropogenic CO2 emissions if an earlier period experienced the same type of warming without the offending emissions. [...] Before we put too much credence in any climate model, we need to assess its predictions. The following points highlight some of the difficulties of current models. [...] The ultimate test for a climate model is the accuracy of its predictions. But the models predicted that there would be much greater warming between 1998 and 2014 than actually happened. If the models were doing a good job, their predictions would cluster symmetrically around the actual measured temperatures. That was not the case here; a mere 2.4 percent of the predictions undershot actual temperatures and 97.6 percent overshot, according to Cato Institute climatologist Patrick Michaels, former MIT meteorologist Richard Lindzen, and Cato Institute climate researcher Chip Knappenberger. Climate models as a group have been "running hot," predicting about 2.2 times as much warming as actually occurred over 1998–2014. Of course, this doesn’t mean that no warming is occurring, but, rather, that the models’ forecasts were exaggerated.
Claim: The temperature is not rising nearly as fast as the alarmist computer models predicted. You know, it’s much, much less, factors of 2 or 3 less. (William Happer, 2017-04-25)
Evidence (2021-11-29): In CNN interview, William Happer incorrectly claims temperatures don’t match climate model projections
Claim: The temperature is not rising nearly as fast as the alarmist computer models predicted. You know, it’s much, much less, factors of 2 or 3 less. (William Happer, 2017-04-25)
Evidence (2019-07-30): Earth absorbs energy from sunlight, but as the surface warms, it also emits energy in the form of infrared radiation (which we know of as heat) out into space. Water vapor and CO2, however, act like a cap, making it more difficult for Earth to get rid of this energy. Without gases like these to absorb the energy, our planet’s average surface temperature would have been near zero degrees Fahrenheit.
Claim: The temperature is not rising nearly as fast as the alarmist computer models predicted. You know, it’s much, much less, factors of 2 or 3 less. (William Happer, 2017-04-25)
Evidence (2024-06-24): Something to be concerned about if it continues for a few more years. But, probably just the sort of natural variation we can expect in a "charged up" climate system.
Claim: The temperature is not rising nearly as fast as the alarmist computer models predicted. You know, it’s much, much less, factors of 2 or 3 less. (William Happer, 2017-04-25)
Evidence (2007-12-26): And that brings us back to the question I promised to raise at the beginning, which is this:
Claim: The temperature is not rising nearly as fast as the alarmist computer models predicted. You know, it’s much, much less, factors of 2 or 3 less. (William Happer, 2017-04-25)
Evidence (2017-04-04): Global temperatures have risen an average of 1.4˚ F since 1880. Sea ice in the Arctic has thinned and decreased in the last few decades; the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are decreasing in mass. The North and South Poles are warming faster than anywhere else on Earth. Glaciers are retreating on mountains all over the world. Spring snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the last 50 years. [...] Evidence from ocean sediments, ice cores, tree rings, sedimentary rocks and coral reefs show that the current warming is occurring 10 times faster than it did in the past when Earth emerged from the ice ages, at a rate unprecedented in the last 1,300 years. [...] Findings from NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies show clearly how much natural and manmade factors contribute to global warming.