Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, December 06, 2019

Models that climate scientists used in recent decades to project temperature changes have generally been very accurate, a new peer-reviewed study concludes.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

A deeper dive...

Even 50-year-old climate models correctly predicted global warming
www.sciencemag.org

...Climate change doubters have a favorite target: climate models. They claim that computer simulations conducted decades ago didn't accurately predict current warming, so the public should be wary of the predictive power of newer models. Now, the most sweeping evaluation of these older models"some half a century old"shows most of them were indeed accurate....

The researchers compared annual average surface temperatures across the globe to the surface temperatures predicted in 17 forecasts. Those predictions were drawn from 14 separate computer models released between 1970 and 2001. In some cases, the studies and their computer codes were so old that the team had to extract data published in papers, using special software to gauge the exact numbers represented by points on a printed graph.

Most of the models accurately predicted recent global surface temperatures, which have risen approximately 0.9C since 1970. For 10 forecasts, there was no statistically significant difference between their output and historic observations, the team reports today in Geophysical Research Letters.

Seven older models missed the mark by as much as 0.1C per decade. But the accuracy of five of those forecasts improved enough to match observations when the scientists adjusted a key input to the models: how much climate-changing pollution humans have emitted over the years. That includes greenhouse gases and aerosols, tiny particles that reflect sunlight. Pollution levels hinge on a host of unpredictable factors. Emissions might rise or fall because of regulations, technological advances, or economic booms and busts.

To take one example, Hausfather points to a famous 1988 model overseen by then"NASA scientist James Hansen. The model predicted that if climate pollution kept rising at an even pace, average global temperatures today would be approximately 0.3C warmer than they actually are. That has helped make Hansen's work a popular target for critics of climate science.

Hausfather found that most of this overshoot was caused not by a flaw in the model's basic physics, however. Instead, it arose because pollution levels changed in ways Hansen didn't predict. For example, the model overestimated the amount of methane"a potent greenhouse gas"that would go into the atmosphere in future years. It also didn't foresee a precipitous drop in planet-warming refrigerants like some Freon compounds after international regulations from the Montreal Protocol became effective in 1989....


#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-05 11:41 AM | Reply

I have to call BS on a lot of this nonsense. First, the current temperature anomaly is 0.55C for the world (not very believeable) and 0.22C for the continental USA. The USA is at least defendable as there is actual data being collected - but the world record is just utter nonsense of non compliant temp sensors, etc destroyed even further via data smoothing.

But this is the part of this article I liked best regarding 'the science is settled':

"Hausfather found that most of this overshoot was caused not by a flaw in the model's basic physics, however. Instead, it arose because pollution levels changed in ways Hansen didn't predict. For example, the model overestimated the amount of methane"a potent greenhouse gas"that would go into the atmosphere in future years. It also didn't foresee a precipitous drop in planet-warming refrigerants like some Freon compounds after international regulations from the Montreal Protocol became effective in 1989"

So, the model is WRONG but we have excuses why - but no real proof mind you - but we suspect these things to have influences. It is utter trash of a forecast regardless of how many excuses you want to throw out about its quality. The problem with the forecasts is that they don't understand the feedback loops so warming is always lower than predicted. So, to keep up the scare tactics, they are still manipulating the historic data to 'cool the past'.

Seriously, it is nearly 100 years since the temperatures were recorded. The have been analyzed for the last 40. Why on earth are the climate 'scientists' still decreasing the actual recorded temperatures in climate record? What possible justification is there for continually manipulating the data from the past?

#2 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-12-05 09:15 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

@#2 ... First, the current temperature anomaly is 0.55C for the world ...

0.55C since when, compared to what?

... So, the model is WRONG but we have excuses why ...

The article seems to say the models were good, it was that the estimates of the amounts of the man-made pollutants being fed into the model that caused some errors. Yes, that is a minor distinction, but it is a very significant distinction.

... What possible justification is there for continually manipulating the data from the past? ...

As new data and better computing becomes available, the analysis becomes more granular, resulting in a better understanding of what is happening.

That is how science works, as our knowledge improves we are able to apply that improved knowledge to the analysis past information.

It really is not all that difficult to understand, if you want to understand it.

On the other hand, one could take the other, more political approach --- it is not what I want to hear, therefore it is wrong.


#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2019-12-06 11:19 AM | Reply

I have to call BS on a lot of this nonsense.

#2 | POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG

For sure! It's not as if we can see for ourselves that temperatures are higher, fire seasons are growing longer and stronger, there's more flooding, storms are becoming more extreme...

#4 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2019-12-06 02:24 PM | Reply

#2

I'll stop you here, Champ.

Great Thunberg did not have her crew sail her private schooner half way around the world to be questioned by you.

#5 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-12-06 04:01 PM | Reply

"On the other hand, one could take the other, more political approach --- it is not what I want to hear, therefore it is wrong."

Fact: We have 540 million years of climactic data. Read through, it shows that we are still in a cold spell.

Are you willing to acknowledge that?

#6 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-12-06 04:43 PM | Reply

"Great Thunberg did not have her crew sail her private schooner half way around the world to be questioned by you."

look up "deflection" in the dictionary.

#7 | Posted by contrecoup at 2019-12-06 05:07 PM | Reply

Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine "Hero of the Environment," Green Book Award winner, and the founder and president of Environmental Progress.

Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong
Michael Shellenberger

www.forbes.com

#8 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-12-06 05:41 PM | Reply

Shellenberger is a professional climate denier and whore for the nuclear industry.

Thanks for playing.

#9 | Posted by contrecoup at 2019-12-06 06:30 PM | Reply

Michael Shellenberger is a Time Magazine "Hero of the Environment," Green Book Award winner, and the founder and president of Environmental Progress.

Why Apocalyptic Claims About Climate Change Are Wrong
Michael Shellenberger

www.forbes.com

#8 | Posted by nullifidian

Haha every climate thread is guaranteed to have a nulli appearance arguing to continue destroying his own home.

Post #8 though nulli? Usually you're 1 or 2? What took you so long? The thread lasted 7 whole posts without your injection of polluter propaganda!

#10 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-06 06:45 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

--#9 |

Bla bla bla. That's what you extremists say about anyone who doesn't accept the worst-case, catastrophic, Apocalypse Soon, scenario. I post articles like that for the benefit of rational, emotionally-balanced people, not True Believer Cultists like you.

#11 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-12-06 06:46 PM | Reply

What possible justification is there for continually manipulating the data from the past?

#2 | Posted by iragoldberg

This thing called the advancement of human knowledge. Something republicans know nothing about. Which is why people who think the earth is 6000 years old prefer your party.

#12 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-06 06:46 PM | Reply

"We have 540 million years of climactic data. Read through, it shows that we are still in a cold spell."

I guess, if a "spell" lasts 800,000 years, then sure!

But it's kind of awkward to call it a "spell," when civilization itself has only existed for an even tinier spell of only 10,000 years or so.

Just about every human achievement the world has ever seen took place during this "spell," give or take, depending on when you say ---- sapiens evolved; some say only 300,000 years ago, smack dab in the middle of the spell.

You'd have to be a fool to think it doesn't matter to human civilization if the spell ends.

And a fool you surely are.

Happy extinction!

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-06 06:59 PM | Reply

"This thing called the advancement of human knowledge. Something republicans know nothing about. Which is why people who think the earth is 6000 years old prefer your party.
#12 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY "

Clearly, you do not understand the issue. What the climate 'scientists' routinely do is to go back into the temperature record of the LAST 100 YEARS, and then systematically decrease the actual recorded temperatures that were captured at that time. There is literally zero justification to CONTINUE to do this action. I could understand a 1 time correction, but there have been many, many major corrections to the exact same data set - always making the past 'cooler' - especially the heat waves of the 30's and 50's - the 30's being most notable as they still hold most heat records across the US. Their goal is obvious, they need to cool the 30's to make the current temperatures seem like an anomaly when they really aren't when taking into account those heat waves and the long term heating trend since the end of the last ice age.

#14 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-12-06 06:59 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

The only thing we can guarantee about our models is that they are wrong; If you want a perfect truth of reality, just go outside and look around. But that doesn't mean we can't learn from our models.

And the temperature record is not cumulatively "corrected" as IRA suggests. We find new methods informed by progressive learning to remove bias. 100 years ago, they relied on mercury. Now we have ensembles of sensors within a single unit, we quantify the variance, and find aggreement through methods like Kalman filters, quantile mapping, et al. Modern methods are quantitative and objective.

#15 | Posted by horstngraben at 2019-12-06 07:22 PM | Reply

irrelevant Fact: We have 540 million years of climactic data. Read through, it shows that we are still in a cold spell.

Fixed it.

#16 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-06 07:31 PM | Reply

Clearly, you do not understand the issue. What the climate 'scientists' routinely do is to go back into the temperature record of the LAST 100 YEARS, and then systematically decrease the actual recorded temperatures that were captured at that time. There is literally zero justification to CONTINUE to do this action.

#14 | Posted by iragoldberg

Yes clearly if you dont understand something, the answer isn't that you're stupid, the answer is that there is a vast worldwide conspiracy going on that somehow no one has leaked out, but youve discovered the real truth.

#17 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-06 07:50 PM | Reply

"We find new methods informed by progressive learning to remove bias. "

If that were the case, you would apply increased weighting on weather stations that have been the most compliant (double readers, no change in location, no change due to rapid development in the area resulting in an urban heat island effect. But that is not what climate 'scientists' do. They given greater weight to the global readings despite that record not even being anywhere close to complete until the 1960's with the oceans completely uncovered until Argo was implemented. So, I call BS on that rationalization.

"100 years ago, they relied on mercury."

Again, you are correcting the temperature readings now from 100 years prior based on them using mercury? Really? I don't think you even understand how the temperature has been corrected. Nothing to do with mercury, has to do with applying 'smoothing' records where you discount actual readings. So, while the actual temperature records that are reported on your local news are the same as recorded at that point in time, you climate 'scientists' are saying - "no, it was not 106 degrees in Kansas on that day, it was actually 95 degrees. It is ridiculous.

"Now we have ensembles of sensors within a single unit, we quantify the variance, and find aggreement through methods like Kalman filters, quantile mapping, et al. Modern methods are quantitative and objective.
#15 | POSTED BY HORSTNGRABEN"

The fact is that NONE of that is required now as you can take satellite readings. Further, we have Argo and the weather balloon data to know the changes at the atmospheric levels. And those numbers simple do not support the underlying model of global warming.

Here is a graph showing the data manipulation plotted. realclimatescience.com

Now, before slaughtering the source, we are not even talking about their 'analysis' of the data - it is simply the plots of the raw data and the manipulated data.

Now mind you - I am not making any statement on the validity of Global Warming - I am just factually stating that the case for it using DATA ANALYSIS is sorely lacking and our models have been a disaster in forecast accuracy.

#18 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-12-06 08:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Here is a graph showing the data manipulation plotted. realclimatescience.com

Now, before slaughtering the source, we are not even talking about their 'analysis' of the data - it is simply the plots of the raw data and the manipulated data.

#18 | Posted by iragoldberg

According to....A COMPLETELY -------- SOURCE. Sources matter. Its much cheaper for exxon to throw up a bunch of propaganda websites like that for you idiots to quote from than it is for them to admit the science and sell less oil.

#19 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-06 08:40 PM | Reply

#19 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Again, we aren't arguing about the interpretation of the data - it is simply a graph of the data provided by the climate 'scientists'. It would not even be an issue except for the fact that their manipulations only go one way - cooling the past, warming the present. Again, please justify why such manipulations are justified.

#20 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-12-06 09:02 PM | Reply

"cooling the past, warming the present. Again, please justify why such manipulations are justified."

The heat island effect of cities explains why historical temperature records recorded in cities before climate science existed are warmer than they ought to be.

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-06 09:05 PM | Reply

I'm waiting for sniper to weigh in before I make up my mind..

#22 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2019-12-06 09:14 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Again, please justify why such manipulations are justified.

#20 | Posted by iragoldberg

Because they are smarter than you are stupid. And they learn new things that tell them more about the past.

You really think worldwide climate scientists could all agree to a massive conspiracy and everyone would keep it a secret?

#23 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-06 09:16 PM | Reply

"And they learn new things that tell them more about the past."

So, they learned that people 100 years ago where too stupid to accurately read a thermometer?

"You really think worldwide climate scientists could all agree to a massive conspiracy and everyone would keep it a secret?
#23 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY"

How is it a secret? They are called out on the BS constantly which is why the US is not part of the Paris Climate Accord and Obama and Gore are buying beachfront property. It is just dummies like you that choose to spend 25% more on your electricity to virtue signal changes that don't collectively add up to a pinch of ---- that are affected by this nonsense.

#24 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-12-06 09:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"changes that don't collectively add up to a pinch of ---- "

Clearly the Florida Keys are in on the conspiracy. From the NYT:

Officials in the Florida Keys announced what many coastal governments nationwide have long feared, but few have been willing to admit: As seas rise and flooding gets worse, not everyone can be saved. And in some places, it doesn't even make sense to try. On Wednesday morning, Rhonda Haag, the county's sustainability director, released the first results of the county's yearslong effort to calculate how high its 300 miles of roads must be elevated to stay dry, and at what cost. Those costs were far higher than her team expected " and those numbers, she said, show that some places can't be protected, at least at a price that taxpayers can be expected to pay. "I never would have dreamed we would say no,'" Ms. Haag said in an interview. "But now, with the real estimates coming in, it's a different story. And it's not all doable." The results released Wednesday focus on a single three-mile stretch of road at the southern tip of Sugarloaf Key, a small island 15 miles up Highway 1 from Key West. To keep those three miles of road dry year-round in 2025 would require raising it by 1.3 feet, at a cost of $75 million, or $25 million per mile. Keeping the road dry in 2045 would mean elevating it 2.2 feet, at a cost of $128 million. To protect against expected flooding levels in 2060, the cost would jump to $181 million.

#25 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-12-06 09:31 PM | Reply

How is it a secret? They are called out on the BS constantly which is why the US is not part of the Paris Climate Accord and Obama and Gore are buying beachfront property. It is just dummies like you that choose to spend 25% more on your electricity to virtue signal changes that don't collectively add up to a pinch of ---- that are affected by this nonsense.

#24 | Posted by iragoldberg

The US isn't in the paris accord because you gullible morons who's too stupid to care about the future. They are "called out" by fossil fuel shills and the idiots like you who are dumb enough to work for them free of charge. The US military says climate change is one of the largest potential threats we face. The only ones denying the problem are the idiots in your cult of idiots.

#26 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2019-12-06 09:38 PM | Reply

#25 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Boo ---- Hoo. Ocean levels rise and fall without the help of man. Some of these areas never should have been built and I don't want to bear the cost of their poor decisions. Take away federal flood insurance and we can start building in sustainable areas again - this is include New Orleans or in the woodlands or fault lines of California. But the situation in FL is not just about sea level rise - it is about the land SINKING. Which is why Gore and Obama have no issue buying beachfront property elsewhere.

#27 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-12-06 09:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Good news for climate alarmists. The climate is not getting warmer. It's getting cooler.

"This shocking news (but not-so-shocking to me) comes from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

"This graph from NOAA pretty much tells the story. Temperatures have not only declined, the rate of decline appears to be accelerating."

www.ncdc.noaa.gov

#28 | Posted by Ray at 2019-12-06 09:43 PM | Reply

#28 | POSTED BY RAY

RAY - keep in mind these these reading are ADJUSTED - and they still can't show the trend the climate 'scientists' want. So, you increasingly get this slight of hand to de-emphasize the US temperature records - which are the most accurate - in favor of readings from the rest of the world which is a patchwork of non-compliant temperature stations and unfilled areas which are 'assumed' but not measured. This type of data collection would not pass for any other branch of 'science' - climate change has turned into a Social 'Science' which non-reproducible studies and laughable predictive models. But hey, with 20/20 hindsight, they can make up some damn good excuses.

#29 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2019-12-06 10:01 PM | Reply

The fact is that NONE of that is required now as you can take satellite readings.

Wait; are you a proponent of satellite data?

#30 | Posted by horstngraben at 2019-12-06 11:22 PM | Reply

"The US military says climate change is one of the largest potential threats we face."

I love how our active duty DR Deplorables just ignore this fact.

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-07 02:30 AM | Reply

"The US military says climate change is one of the largest potential threats we face."
---
I love how our active duty DR Deplorables just ignore this fact.

#31 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I love how you want to slash their funding but view this take as unassailable because it suits your purposes.

#32 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-12-07 02:35 AM | Reply

I don't think I ever said I want to cut their funding.

Perhaps you have me confused with Dick Cheney, who dramatically downsized the military as Bush I's SecDef.

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-07 02:50 AM | Reply

The military tends to get things right, when not politicized, like when Shinseki said we would need a half million troops to subdue and secure an occupier Iraq.

Remember thinking that was wrong, and agreeing with Cheney that 150,000 troops would be enough?

#34 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-07 02:54 AM | Reply

"But it's kind of awkward to call it a "spell," when civilization itself has only existed for an even tinier spell of only 10,000 years or so. Just about every human achievement the world has ever seen took place during this "spell," give or take, depending on when you say ---- sapiens evolved; some say only 300,000 years ago, smack dab in the middle of the spell. You'd have to be a fool to think it doesn't matter to human civilization if the spell ends."

And that's certainly one viewpoint. Not sure how you're coming to the conclusion that Humans would not survive climate change...but OK.

But since we are in a cold spell, it's almost a certainty that the earth is going to get warmer, due to anthropogenic activity or otherwise. So the only real solution to the problem would be to conduct climate engineering in an effort to eliminate climate change altogether. The problem with this solution, as I see it, is that climate change affects different people in different ways. So who gets to set the temperature?

#35 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-12-07 03:08 AM | Reply

"Not sure how you're coming to the conclusion that Humans would not survive climate change"

I didn't.

"But since we are in a cold spell"

Not sure how you reached that conclusion.
How long has this spell lasted, exactly?

#36 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-12-07 03:12 AM | Reply

"How long has this spell lasted, exactly?"

The cooling period started about 130,000 years ago, bottoming out around 20,000 years ago.

#37 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-12-07 04:02 AM | Reply

Ocean levels rise and fall without the help of man. Some of these areas never should have been built and I don't want to bear the cost of their poor decisions. Take away federal flood insurance and we can start building in sustainable areas again - this is include New Orleans or in the woodlands or fault lines of California. But the situation in FL is not just about sea level rise - it is about the land SINKING. Which is why Gore and Obama have no issue buying beachfront property elsewhere.

#27 | Posted by iragoldberg

State vague, irrelevant "fact".

Move goal post.

Double down on moved goal post.

Deflect to Democrat.

*pats self on back*

-iraschitberg

#38 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-08 01:13 AM | Reply

This type of data collection would not pass for any other branch of 'science'

Please explain to me your experience in science, how long you've been doing it and how it puts you in a position to confidently make the above assertion.

Thanks.

#39 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-08 01:17 AM | Reply

I love how you want to slash their funding but view this take as unassailable because it suits your purposes.

#32 | Posted by JeffJ

Straw straw and more straw.

Throw in a non sequitur for good measure.

All on top of the same stupid assertion made every time it's pointed out that a righty idol disagrees with them. Usually as a cheap attempt at avoiding admitting the contradiction.

#40 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-08 01:19 AM | Reply

But since we are in a cold spell, it's almost a certainty that the earth is going to get warmer, due to anthropogenic activity or otherwise.

Gee it's almost as if scientists are aware of this and have conducted proper statistical analysis to show that the increased kinetics of warming is outside of statistical noise....

#41 | Posted by jpw at 2019-12-08 01:20 AM | Reply

Bla bla bla. That's what you extremists say about anyone who doesn't accept the worst-case, catastrophic, Apocalypse Soon, scenario. I post articles like that for the benefit of rational, emotionally-balanced people, not True Believer Cultists like you.

#11 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

It's spelled "Blah blah blah"

Bla makes sound like a bleating sheep. Maybe you are. Maybe you did that on purpose. There has always been a debate on whether evolutionary changes are due to catastrophic or slow processes. Democrats did not come up with that theory.

And the Republicans are the party of the apocalypse. Not Dems. Get your talking points straight you lying loser.

#42 | Posted by donnerboy at 2019-12-08 12:21 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort