copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: The models predicted about three times the amount of warming in the world we’ve seen since [1988]. (Caleb Rossiter, 2019-11-03)
Evidence (2019-12-05): The computer models used over the past five decades to predict the impact of future global warming have turned out to be very accurate so far, a new study has found. [...] So, according to Gizmodo's Earther blog, the researchers put the actual amount of global greenhouse emissions into the models to see if they would accurately predict global temperature rise since the models were created. [...] "The real message is that the warming we have experienced is pretty much exactly what climate models predicted it would be as much as 30 years ago," Hausfather said. "This really gives us more confidence that today's models are getting things largely right as well."
Claim: The models predicted about three times the amount of warming in the world we’ve seen since [1988]. (Caleb Rossiter, 2019-11-03)
Evidence (2019-03-11): Climate scientists use models to simulate and study different aspects of Earth's climate system, and to project the rate of global warming caused by human activities. These models do, in fact, simulate the rate of global warming well, and models run in the past accurately projected the rate of warming we are currently experiencing—that includes model projections from 1988. [...] At the surface 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[…] Similarly, the observations from all the different groups that measure global surface temperatures are well within the envelope of model projections: [...] This RealClimate post analyzes a famous set of climate model projections presented in 1988 by NASA’s James Hansen. Comparing global temperature data to the model scenario with the greenhouse gas emissions closest to what actually happened since then shows that the model was accurate.
Claim: The models predicted about three times the amount of warming in the world we’ve seen since [1988]. (Caleb Rossiter, 2019-11-03)
Evidence (2019-03-11): On BBC Newsnight, Myron Ebell falsely claims climate models exaggerate warming [...] Daily Wire article incorrectly claims climate models have overestimated warming CLAIM climate models have overestimated the amount of global warming and failed to predict what climatologists call the warming ‘hiatus’
Claim: The models predicted about three times the amount of warming in the world we’ve seen since [1988]. (Caleb Rossiter, 2019-11-03)
Evidence (2007-02-28): It's also important to point out that ocean temperatures are not the only factor that is crucial in knowing which disturbances will develop into a tropical storm and which systems will intensify to become extremely strong hurricanes. Other physical "ingredients" in the hurricane "recipe" include moist air and numerous thunderstorms, weak vertical wind shear (the difference in winds near the ocean versus the upper part of the atmosphere), and a triggering disturbance (in the Atlantic this is often from an African easterly wave in the atmosphere)6. Any manmade alterations to the air's moisture, thunderstorm activity, vertical shear, and originating disturbances may be as or even more important that changes to the ocean temperatures themselves. All climate models predict that for every degree of warming at the ocean that the air temperature aloft will warm around twice as much7. This is important because if global warming only affected the earth's surface, then there would be much more energy available for hurricanes to tap into. But, instead, warming the upper atmosphere more than the surface along with some additional moisture near the ocean means that the energy available for hurricanes to access increases by just a slight amount.
Claim: The models predicted about three times the amount of warming in the world we’ve seen since [1988]. (Caleb Rossiter, 2019-11-03)
Evidence (2019-09-08): Even at this late date, expressions of unrealistic hope continue to abound. Hardly a day seems to pass without my reading that it’s time to "roll up our sleeves" and "save the planet"; that the problem of climate change can be "solved" if we summon the collective will. Although this message was probably still true in 1988, when the science became fully clear, we’ve emitted as much atmospheric carbon in the past thirty years as we did in the previous two centuries of industrialization. The facts have changed, but somehow the message stays the same. [...] Our atmosphere and oceans can absorb only so much heat before climate change, intensified by various feedback loops, spins completely out of control. Some scientists and policymakers fear that we’re in danger of passing this point of no return if the global mean temperature rises by more than two degrees Celsius (maybe more, but also maybe less). The I.P.C.C.—the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—tells us that, to limit the rise to less than two degrees, we not only need to reverse the trend of the past three decades. We need to approach zero net emissions, globally, in the next three decades.
Claim: The models predicted about three times the amount of warming in the world we’ve seen since [1988]. (Caleb Rossiter, 2019-11-03)
Evidence (2018-06-30): If we compare the H88 forcings since 1984 to an estimate of the total anthropogenic forcings calculated for the CMIP5 experiments (1984 through to 2012), the main conclusion is very clear – forcing in scenario A is almost a factor of two larger (and growing) than our best estimate of what happened, and scenario B overshoots by about 20-30%. By contrast, scenario C undershoots by about 40% (which gets worse over time). The slight differences because of the forcing definition, whether you take forcing efficacy into account and independent estimates of the effects of aerosols etc. are small effects. We can also ignore the natural forcings here (mostly volcanic), which is also a small effect over the longer term (Scenarios B and C had an "El Chichon"-like volcano go off in 1995). [...] The shading in the figure (showing results from the CMIP5 GISS ModelE2), is a 95% confidence interval around the "all natural forcings" simulations. From this it’s easy to see that temperatures in 1988 (and indeed, since about 1978) fall easily outside the uncertainty bands. 99% confidence is associated with data more than ~2.6 standard deviations outside of the expected range, and even if you think that the internal variability is underestimated in this figure (double it to be conservative), the temperatures in any year past 1985 are more than 3 s.d. above the "natural" expectation. That is surely enough clarity to retrospectively support Hansen’s claim.
Claim: The models predicted about three times the amount of warming in the world we’ve seen since [1988]. (Caleb Rossiter, 2019-11-03)
Evidence (2024-04-10): This brings us to an important question: Can we trust climate models on this? Generally, climate models have done a great job in predicting global mean temperatures. Even rather simple models from the 1980s predicted global warming quantitatively correctly—including the models run by Exxon (Supran et al., 2023). But that’s relatively easy, as it just depends on Earth’s energy balance.
Claim: The models predicted about three times the amount of warming in the world we’ve seen since [1988]. (Caleb Rossiter, 2019-11-03)
Evidence (2018-08-28): June 23 marks 30 years since United Nations Foundation Vice Chair and former Senator Timothy E. Wirth convened a historic hearing of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources to discuss the issues of global warming and the greenhouse effect. At this hearing in 1988, policymakers were alerted to the irrefutable connection between man-made global warming and the impacts on our climate, and urged cutting greenhouse gas emissions and working to manage and mitigate their impacts. In the three decades since, multiple major United Nations climate bodies have been established, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 1988 and the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992. [...] We have only just begun to meaningfully address many of the questions posed in that 1988 hearing, and the next 30 years must see dramatic and impactful steps to meet our climate challenge head-on. There’s simply no time to waste.
Claim: The models predicted about three times the amount of warming in the world we’ve seen since [1988]. (Caleb Rossiter, 2019-11-03)
Evidence (2024-01-12): In "Assessing ExxonMobil’s Global Warming Projections," researchers from Harvard and the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research show for the first time the accuracy of previously unreported forecasts created by company scientists from 1977 through 2003. The Harvard team discovered that Exxon researchers created a series of remarkably reliable models and analyses projecting global warming from carbon dioxide emissions over the coming decades. Specifically, Exxon projected that fossil fuel emissions would lead to 0.20 degrees Celsius of global warming per decade, with a margin of error of 0.04 degrees — a trend that has been proven largely accurate. [...] Harvard’s scientists used established Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) statistical techniques to test the performance of Exxon’s models. They found that, depending on the metric used, 63-83 percent of the global warming projections reported by Exxon scientists were consistent with actual temperatures over time. Moreover, the corporation’s own projections had an average "skill score" of 72 percent, plus or minus 6 percent, with the highest scoring 99 percent. A skill score relates to how well a forecast compares to what happens in real life. For comparison, NASA scientist James Hansen’s global warming predictions presented to the U.S. Congress in 1988 had scores from 38 to 66 percent.
Claim: The models predicted about three times the amount of warming in the world we’ve seen since [1988]. (Caleb Rossiter, 2019-11-03)
Evidence (2023-07-19): Hansen, whose testimony to the US Senate in 1988 is cited as the first high-profile revelation of global heating, warned in a statement with two other scientists that the world was moving towards a "new climate frontier" with temperatures higher than at any point over the past million years, bringing impacts such as stronger storms, heatwaves and droughts. The world has already warmed by about 1.2C since mass industrialization, causing a 20% chance of having the sort of extreme summer temperatures currently seen in many parts of the northern hemisphere, up from a 1% chance 50 years ago, Hansen said. [...] Should global temperatures rise by a further 1C or more, which is widely predicted to happen by the end of the century barring a drastic reduction in emissions, Huber said Hansen was "broadly correct" that the world will be plunged into the sort of warmth not seen since 1-3m years ago, a period of time called the Pliocene.
Claim: The models predicted about three times the amount of warming in the world we’ve seen since [1988]. (Caleb Rossiter, 2019-11-03)
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. [...] Of the three, scenario B was closest to actual radiative forcing, though still about 10% too high. Hansen et al also used a model with a climate sensitivity of 4.2C per doubling CO2 – on the high end of most modern climate models. Due to the combination of these factors, scenario B projected a rate of warming between 1970 and 2016 that was approximately 30% higher than what has been observed. [...] 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 models predicted about three times the amount of warming in the world we’ve seen since [1988]. (Caleb Rossiter, 2019-11-03)
Evidence (2021-08-09): The report shows that emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are responsible for approximately 1.1°C of warming since 1850-1900, and finds that averaged over the next 20 years, global temperature is expected to reach or exceed 1.5°C of warming. This assessment is based on improved observational datasets to assess historical warming, as well progress in scientific understanding of the response of the climate system to human-caused greenhouse gas emissions. [...] Many characteristics of climate change directly depend on the level of global warming, but what people experience is often very different to the global average. For example, warming over land is larger than the global average, and it is more than twice as high in the Arctic. [...] The report projects that in the coming decades climate changes will increase in all regions. For 1.5°C of global warming, there will be increasing heat waves, longer warm seasons and shorter cold seasons. At 2°C of global warming, heat extremes would more often reach critical tolerance thresholds for agriculture and health, the report shows.
Claim: The models predicted about three times the amount of warming in the world we’ve seen since [1988]. (Caleb Rossiter, 2019-11-03)
Evidence (2010-06-03): Models predict that as the world consumes ever more fossil fuel, greenhouse gas concentrations will continue to rise, and Earth’s average surface temperature will rise with them. Based on plausible emission scenarios, average surface temperatures could rise between 2°C and 6°C by the end of the 21st century. Some of this warming will occur even if future greenhouse gas emissions are reduced, because the Earth system has not yet fully adjusted to environmental changes we have already made. [...] Models predict that Earth will warm between 2 and 6 degrees Celsius in the next century. When global warming has happened at various times in the past two million years, it has taken the planet about 5,000 years to warm 5 degrees. The predicted rate of warming for the next century is at least 20 times faster. This rate of change is extremely unusual. [...] The models predict that as the world consumes ever more fossil fuel, greenhouse gas concentrations will continue to rise, and Earth’s average surface temperature will rise with them. Based on a range of plausible emission scenarios, average surface temperatures could rise between 2°C and 6°C by the end of the 21st century.
Claim: The models predicted about three times the amount of warming in the world we’ve seen since [1988]. (Caleb Rossiter, 2019-11-03)
Evidence (2008-07-15): Turning to future climate projections, current climate models suggest that tropical Atlantic SSTs will warm dramatically during the 21st century, and that upper tropospheric temperatures will warm even more than SSTs. Furthermore, most of the CMIP3 models project increasing levels of vertical wind shear over parts of the western tropical Atlantic (see Vecchi and Soden 2007). Both the increased warming of the upper troposphere relative to the surface and the increased vertical wind shear are detrimental factors for hurricane development and intensification, while warmer SSTs favor development and intensification. To explore which effect of these effects might "win out", we can run experiments with our regional downscaling model. [...] The relatively conservative confidence levels attached to our Atlantic hurricane projections, and the lack of a claim of detectable anthropogenic influence on Atlantic hurricane activity at this time contrasts with the situation for other climate metrics, such as global mean temperature. The IPCC AR6 concludes that it is unequivocal that humans have caused the earth’s climate to warm, with a likely human contribution of 0.8 to 1.3 degrees Celsius to global mean temperature since the late 1800s.
Claim: The models predicted about three times the amount of warming in the world we’ve seen since [1988]. (Caleb Rossiter, 2019-11-03)
Evidence (2024-07-18): At 1.5 degrees of warming, the IPCC predicts that higher ocean temperatures would drive some marine species toward higher latitudes where they could potentially survive but which could then cause major disruptions in existing ecosystems. And, of course, not all species can simply move away. For instance, between 70 and 90 percent of tropical coral reefs would likely die, imperiling the $11 trillion in ecosystem services they currently provide annually in the form of fisheries, tourism, coastal protection, and more. Climate projections also have both heavy rains and droughts growing in frequency and intensity, along with increasing poverty levels. [...] We must also consider the unprecedented nature of the climate crisis, which means there is still a lot that scientists just don’t know. Spikes in land and sea temperatures in 2023 greatly exceeded predictions by climate models, revealing the gaps that remain in our overall understanding of how rising temperatures could affect the complicated systems and feedback loops that govern life as we know it on this planet.
Claim: The models predicted about three times the amount of warming in the world we’ve seen since [1988]. (Caleb Rossiter, 2019-11-03)
Evidence (2018-06-26): 1988 turned out to be the hottest year since modern instrumental records began in the 19th century. That mark has since been broken, in 1990, 1998, 2010, 2014, 2015 and 2016. The global average temperature has not gone up quite as much as Hansen predicted—among other things, 30 years ago scientists lacked the sophisticated instruments, accumulated data and vast computing power informing today’s climate models—but he was remarkably close given the limitations, and was dead right on the overall trend. A wide variety of media marked the anniversary. Justin Gillis, writing in The New York Times, noted that, among the confounding factors in 1988, Hansen’s models assumed that we would continue emitting refrigerant gases that contributed mightily to global warming. The following year, the nations of the world agreed to control those gases—"proof that scientific warnings, if taken seriously, can be acted upon at a worldwide scale," said Gillis. "So while his temperature forecast was not flawless, in a larger sense, Dr. Hansen’s 1988 warning has turned out to be entirely on target," said Gillis Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) recounted Hansen’s testimony in a 17-minute speech on the Senate floor, noting that "30 years of added science" have proved just how right Hansen was."
Claim: Vitamins C and D are now finally being adopted in the conventional treatment of SARS-CoV-2; Vitamin C at extremely high doses acts as an antiviral drug, actually killing viruses; vitamin D helps the body fight SARS-CoV-2 infection and can cut infection risk. (Joseph Mercola, 2020-04-02)
Evidence (2020-04-02): Although no public health agencies have recommended vitamins C or D as standard COVID-19 treatments, both have demonstrated some ability to shorten the length of respiratory infections by boosting the strength of the immune system. Vitamin D has also demonstrated the ability to reduce the risk of respiratory infection, especially in individuals who are vitamin D deficient. Many in the scientific and medical communities are recommending vitamin D supplementation or getting at least 15 minutes of sun exposure a day to prevent deficiencies.
Claim: Vitamins C and D are now finally being adopted in the conventional treatment of SARS-CoV-2; Vitamin C at extremely high doses acts as an antiviral drug, actually killing viruses; vitamin D helps the body fight SARS-CoV-2 infection and can cut infection risk. (Joseph Mercola, 2020-04-02)
Evidence (2022-06-02): Multi-Level Immune Support by Vitamins C and D during the SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic - PMID: 35277048 - PMCID: PMC8840673 - DOI: 10.3390/nu14030689 [...] Vitamins C and D have well-known immune supportive roles, with deficiencies in both vitamins predisposing to increased risk and severity of respiratory infections. Numerous studies have indicated that administration of these vitamins, particularly to people who are deficient, can decrease the risk and severity of respiratory infections. This has stimulated an interest in the potential efficacy of these vitamins in people with novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infection and its more severe disease (COVID-19). In this overview, we highlight the current research evidence around the multiple levels of immune support provided by vitamins C and D in the context of general respiratory infections and with a focus on the current SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. These include: prevention of infection; attenuating infection symptoms and severity; adjunctive therapy for severe disease; attenuating ongoing sequelae (long COVID); and immunisation support. Although some of these topics have not yet been investigated in great depth concerning SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19, extensive research into the role of these vitamins in general respiratory infections has highlighted directions for future research in the current pandemic. [...] Vitamins C and D and COVID-19 Susceptibility, Severity and Progression: An Evidence Based Systematic Review.Medicina (Kaunas). 2022 Jul 15;58(7):941. doi: 10.3390/medicina58070941. Medicina (Kaunas). 2022. PMID: 35888660 Free PMC article. Review.
Claim: Vitamins C and D are now finally being adopted in the conventional treatment of SARS-CoV-2; Vitamin C at extremely high doses acts as an antiviral drug, actually killing viruses; vitamin D helps the body fight SARS-CoV-2 infection and can cut infection risk. (Joseph Mercola, 2020-04-02)
Evidence (2024-10-09): In this context, we want to analyze of vitamin D and C supplementation in patients with COVID-19 are associated with a reduction in severity (mortality, morbidity, average length of stay, peripheral oxygen capillary saturation, body temperature, and other changes on the World Health Organization's Ordinal Scale for Clinical Improvement (OSCI) for COVID-19. [...] References [1]. Jamali Moghadam Siahkali S, et al. Safety and effectiveness of high-dose vitamin C in patients with COVID-19: a randomized open-label clinical trial. BMC 2021;26:20. [...] Google Scholar [4]. Quesada-Gomez JM, Entrenas-Castillo M, Bouillon R. Vitamin D receptor stimulation to reduce acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in patients with coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 infections. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 2020;202:105719.
Claim: Vitamins C and D are now finally being adopted in the conventional treatment of SARS-CoV-2; Vitamin C at extremely high doses acts as an antiviral drug, actually killing viruses; vitamin D helps the body fight SARS-CoV-2 infection and can cut infection risk. (Joseph Mercola, 2020-04-02)
Evidence (2023-11-16): Vitamin D is efficient at alleviating SARS-CoV-2 infection, according to a retrospective observational analysis of SARS-CoV-2 positivity in relation to serum 25(OH) D concentration measurements in the United States [18]. Data indicated that SARS-CoV-2 positivity in those with a serum concentration of 55 ng/mL was roughly half that of those with a serum value of 20 ng/ml. Data from a meta-analysis of 43 observational studies with a total of 612,601 patients indicated that among subjects with vitamin D deficiency (a serum 25(OH)D concentration < 20 ng/ml), the risk for COVID-19 infection was higher compared to those with serum 25(OH)D concentrations > 30 ng/mL (OR, 1.26; P < 0.01) [6]. Additionally, data from a large cohort study conducted in the United Kingdom indicated that supplementation with omega-3 fatty acids, probiotics, multivitamins, or vitamin D was related to a reduced risk of infection with the COVID-19 virus; however, vitamin C, zinc, or garlic supplementation did not show therapeutic effects against COVID-19 [19].