Easterbrook made two
specific temperature projections based on two possible scenarios.
Not exact matches
Do you think that in the same way that the Solanki et al paper on solar sunspot reconstructions had a
specific statement that their results did not contradict ideas of strong greenhouse warming in recent decades, this (the fact that climate sensitivity
projections are not best estimates of possible future actual
temperature increases) should be clearly noted in media releases put out by scientists when reporting climate sensitivity studies?
Applies city -
specific mortality relationships for extremely hot and cold
temperatures for 33 Metropolitan Statistical Areas in the United States to develop mortality
projections for historical and potential future climates
I'm afraid that much of the strength of the reaction to your questions was based on past experiences - I can not count how many times someone has commented here and on other climate blogs claiming despite the evidence that mismatches between
specific projections and observed
temperatures somehow invalidate all climate modeling, despite the projected emissions not matching actuals.
None of these disasters has been as deadly as the August 2003 heat wave that killed as many as 70,000 in Western Europe, and one has to be careful in ascribing
specific heat waves to climate change, but the
temperatures we're seeing, coupled with the
projections from climate scientists, should be setting off alarm bells.
Let's also look at the
specific IPCC quote that Mr. Romm furnishes us with: «As global average
temperature increase exceeds about 3.5 °C [relative to 1980 to 1999], model
projections suggest significant extinctions (40 - 70 % of species assessed) around the globe.»