Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, January 22, 2020

There's an old saying that "the proof is in the pudding," meaning that you can only truly gauge the quality of something once it's been put to a test. Such is the case with climate models: mathematical computer simulations of the various factors that interact to affect Earth's climate, such as our atmosphere, ocean, ice, land surface and the Sun. For decades, people have legitimately wondered how well climate models perform in predicting future climate conditions. Based on solid physics and the best understanding of the Earth system available, they skillfully reproduce observed data. Nevertheless, they have a wide response to increasing carbon dioxide levels, and many uncertainties remain in the details. The hallmark of good science, however, is the ability to make testable predictions, and climate models have been making predictions since the 1970s. How reliable have they been? Now a new evaluation of global climate models used to project Earth's future global average surface temperatures over the past half-century answers that question: most of the models have been quite accurate.

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.

I'm rooting for a second dinosaur age.

#1 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2020-01-22 01:17 AM | Reply

@#1

How might you propose to bring back the dinosaurs?

And, as a side question, what does your comment have to do with the topic at hand?

thx.

#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2020-01-22 01:38 AM | Reply

"How might you propose to bring back the dinosaurs?"

Well, first you find a mosquito trapped in 65 million + year old amber....

Or bide your time and let our reptilian overlords take care of it.

#3 | Posted by goatman at 2020-01-22 02:30 AM | Reply

#2 It's called "climate change". Duh.

#4 | Posted by HeliumRat at 2020-01-22 04:33 AM | Reply

NASA: Our model is right, and so are the models that agree with our model.

#5 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-01-22 12:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Dulli: Our rwing climate change denial model is right, and so are the nutjobs that agree with our model.

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2020-01-22 12:57 PM | Reply

Climate change denial is dead save for among a few Fanatics, contrarians, and Dullards.

#7 | Posted by Tor at 2020-01-22 02:14 PM | Reply

Only a complete f**king idiot at this point is denying climate change. So that would include AMattress, Nulli, Goatman, and the rest of the right wing zealot contrarians on this site. (God, I hold these people in such contempt. And yet still I come back.)

#8 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-22 02:28 PM | Reply

#8

Surely you recognize the difference between acknowledging that increasing the volume of greenhouse gases accelerates warming and the absurd appocalyptic predictions of mass doom unless we adopt Socialism being peddled by lefty icons like AOC and Greta Thunberg.

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 02:38 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The world Greta Thunberg and her generation will inherit from the Boomer Generation is in many ways indeed a world of "mass doom". Our selfish short-terms aspirations have f**ked over future generations for a long time to come. Deal with it. Or don't deal with it. You are a Republican. You don't put stock in anything super horrific until after it happens.

#10 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-22 02:46 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

--Climate change denial

It's fascinating how the word "denial," originally an ugly, ad hominem attempt to equate critics of AGW with holocaust deniers, has jumped the shark and is now applied to anyone who disagrees with the most apocalyptic, worst-case, sky-is-falling, forecasts of catastrophic global warming, which, as usual, requires replacing capitalism with some form of socialism, the standard leftist solution to any and all problems.

#11 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-01-22 02:48 PM | Reply

#10

They are using MMGW as an excuse to implement a command economy that won't to ---- to slow the rate of warming. That these people vehemently oppose things like nuclear power and carbon capture exposes the fact that they do t really give a ---- about warming but use it as a reason to try and seize the economy.

#12 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 02:50 PM | Reply

#12: Spoken like a true, hard-core right winger attempting to sound reasonable.

JeffJ: Grow the f**k up. None of us, least of Greta Thumberg, is trying to seize the economy. I don't know if you are just being AMattress levels of dishonest or Boaz levels of stupid.

#13 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-22 02:54 PM | Reply

Now even climate-change believers count as deniers'

Al Gore recently had a telling altercation with a journalist. The Spectator's Ross Clark wanted to ask him about Miami sea-level rises suggested in the new film, "An Inconvenient Sequel." The reporter started to explain that he had consulted Florida International University sea-level-rise expert Shimon Wdowinski. Gore's response: "Never heard of him " is he a denier?" Then he asked the journalist, "Are you a denier?"

When Clark responded that he was sure climate change is a problem but didn't know how big, Gore declared, "You are a denier."

nypost.com

#14 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-01-22 03:07 PM | Reply

"absurd appocalyptic predictions of mass doom"

I'm not aware of these.
Got any examples?

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-22 03:09 PM | Reply

Mod8

Don't be naive. Does "Green New Deal" ring any bells?

If implemented it would turn this country into Venezuela.

#16 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-22 03:13 PM | Reply

#16 LOL.
Where'd you hear that nonsense?
Link, so we can point and laugh please.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-22 03:17 PM | Reply

Mod8

Don't be naive. Does "Green New Deal" ring any bells?

If implemented it would turn this country into Venezuela.

#16 | Posted by JeffJ

If you actually believe that then you are naive. But obviously you have consumed the right wing Kool-Ade. Anything that FoxNews has warned you against is now the recipe for the USA turning into Venezuela. It's magic. C'mon JeffJ, are you really that stupid to believe that taking concrete steps to deal with the world damaging phenomena of MMGW would be the downfall of the USA? Have you really become that big a hack? Disappointing.

#18 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-22 03:18 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Greta Thunberg tells Davos we have less than 8 years to save the planet."

Only 8 years left!

When is the House going to vote on the non-binding resolution to declare a "climate emergency" which was introduced in July, 2019?

It doesn't budget a dime, so what are they afraid of?

#19 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-01-22 03:19 PM | Reply

Mankind will end up, just as we began...
in caves...

#20 | Posted by earthmuse at 2020-01-22 03:23 PM | Reply

Still waiting for that exciting link!

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-22 03:42 PM | Reply

Any one with more than one brain cell knows it has been getting warmer after the coldest pert of the mini ice age.

#22 | Posted by Sniper at 2020-01-22 04:12 PM | Reply

Interesting. So we all WON'T be dead dead in 11 years like AOC and Greta have said.

#23 | Posted by jamesgelliott at 2020-01-22 06:25 PM | Reply

Climate change is the term used for the result of global warming. Global warming is the result of increasing greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere. It is pure physics that the Earth receives energy from the sun and radiates it out as infrared. Gasses that block infrared keep more of the energy from radiating back out to space and cause the Earth as a whole to increase in temperature. This is the greenhouse effect that was first discovered around 1820 by the French mathematician Jean-Baptiste Joseph Fourier who served in Napoleon's army. Today, thanks to quantum mechanics, we can calculate the amount of temperature increase of the Earth for any increase in greenhouse gasses.

What is difficult to model is the effect on the atmosphere, including the oceans, of the increased temperature of the Earth as a whole. Oceanic phytoplankton are responsible for half of our oxygen so if temperature and acidification kill them off we are screwed.

If you want to argue with the physics stop wasting time on DR and find a college, take some physics and the prerequisite calculus courses, and get back to us.

#24 | Posted by TenMile at 2020-01-22 07:09 PM | Reply

Interesting. So we all WON'T be dead dead in 11 years like AOC and Greta have said.

#23 | Posted by jamesgelliott

If they were wrong you wouldnt have to lie about what they said.

#25 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2020-01-22 08:10 PM | Reply

If implemented it would turn this country into Venezuela.

#16 | Posted by JeffJ

Why? Would it make us run an economy based entirely on fossil fuel sales like venezuela did?

If not then we dont have to worry about their fate.

#26 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2020-01-22 08:11 PM | Reply

"The world Greta Thunberg and her generation will inherit from the Boomer Generation is in many ways indeed a world of "mass doom". Our selfish short-terms aspirations have f**ked over future generations for a long time to come. Deal with it. Or don't deal with it. You are a Republican. You don't put stock in anything super horrific until after it happens."

How on earth do you come to the conclusion that climate change will result in "mass doom?" At worst, it will be mass change.

We can document the last 540 million years of climate change. Hysterical comments like the one you just made are the reason it is difficult to engage in rational discussions on climate change.

#27 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-23 08:54 AM | Reply

"None of us, least of Greta Thumberg, is trying to seize the economy."

You're not familiar with the Green New Deal?

#28 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-23 08:56 AM | Reply

"I'm not aware of these. Got any examples?"

Moder8 offered you one in #10.

You can refer to him/her for the details. I'm a bit curious myself.

#29 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-23 09:00 AM | Reply

"Where'd you hear that nonsense? Link, so we can point and laugh please."

Have you read through the the GND?

It's like someone pulled the economic points from the National Socialist's 25 point plan and dusted it with some environmentalism. It is literally designed to create a command economy, where the government oversees all aspects of wealth creation and distribution. Or lack thereof.

#30 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-23 09:04 AM | Reply

MADBOMBER -- GND is also the Going Nowhere Deal. It is not going to happen so stop hyperventilating.

#31 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2020-01-23 10:18 AM | Reply

-- so stop hyperventilating.

Tell it to the climate hysterics like Crazy Cortez and Thunberg, who is now saying we have just 8 years left.

#32 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-01-23 10:36 AM | Reply

#32 - While I do agree that they shouldn't be so hysterical about it, we do need changed and activism brings that.

#33 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2020-01-23 10:44 AM | Reply

Historian Niall Ferguson has slammed Greta Thunberg's climate change hypocrisy at Davos, asking why "I don't see her in Beijing or Delhi."

Teenage environmentalist Thunberg gave another hysterical speech at the global confab yesterday in which she claimed, "Our house is still on fire. Your inaction is fueling the flames by the hour. We are still telling you to panic, and to act as if you loved your children above all else."

"We don't want these things done in 2050, 2030, or even 2021," Thunberg said. "We want this done now."

"60% of CO2 emissions since Greta Thunberg was born is attributable to China ... but nobody talks about that. They talk as if its somehow Europeans and Americans who are going to fix this problem ... which is frustrating because it doesn't get to the heart of the matter," said Ferguson.

"If you're serious about slowing CO2 emissions and temperatures rising it has to be China and India you constrain," he added, noting that while Greta travels to New York and Davos, "I don't see her in Beijing or Delhi."

#34 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-01-23 10:49 AM | Reply

#34 | Posted by nullifidian

How pathetic are you that a little girl scares you so.

#35 | Posted by jpw at 2020-01-23 11:00 AM | Reply

"I don't see her in Beijing or Delhi."

130 countries are represented at Davos, including China and India.

But she's not doing enough because she's not talking to... less countries???

#36 | Posted by Derek_Wildstar at 2020-01-23 01:00 PM | Reply

Once again a Liberal establishment has a No Duh! moment. The Earth has been warming for millennia. This is nothing new. Most people aren't disagreeing with global warming, they are disagreeing with the man-made part of it and also the projected effects of it. But the fact that the globe is warming is nothing new. The best part of this article though is how it proves the climate is not changing like the IPCC and other Liberal doomsdayers say it is. If it were, you would see an elliptical trend develop in the graph, even over 50 years. But you don't see that. You see a gradual, steady trend. The IPCC and others have claimed the weather is increasing exponentially on itself (thus an elliptical curve would be seen). That is written in all of their reports. It's good to see an article indirectly prove wrong the illogical conclusions people have made.

""60% of CO2 emissions since Greta Thunberg was born is attributable to China ... but nobody talks about that. They talk as if its somehow Europeans and Americans who are going to fix this problem ... which is frustrating because it doesn't get to the heart of the matter," said Ferguson."

Well, technically, you are making a conclusion based on the end result and not on the causation. It doesn't matter if China holds the most CO2 right now. If they didn't someone else would simply because the demand for the products made in those factories and industries would not go away. Consumers wouldn't stop buying products made in CO2 generating industries just because China isn't making them. If China shut down today, all of those factories would be built somewhere else. So, indirectly, America and Europe as the most populous of the goods consumed by these industries, do play a part in the emissions. Now, that doesn't excuse the fact that Greta has been proven to be a puppet of her father and the other guy he works with and that they are ruining her childhood for their own gain. That is inexcusable and I'm surprised Liberals are embracing her father so much by turning a blind eye to the evidence that proved her father is the one behind it all. The fact Libs are OK with a child's life being taken from her and controlled is terrible.

#37 | Posted by humtake at 2020-01-23 01:07 PM | Reply

"While I do agree that they shouldn't be so hysterical about it, we do need changed and activism brings that."

Really?

What exactly do we need to change?

And anyone who elevates a wealthy teenager as a political icon shouldn't be allowed to vote.

What part of California did you move to Idaho from?

#38 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-23 01:07 PM | Reply

I am not elevating her to anything. I said activists are needed and they are. Better recycling and less plastic use would be great starters. 31,000 balloons are found on US beaches each year. Where I moved from has nothing to do with this topic, this is happening everywhere.

#39 | Posted by justagirl_idaho at 2020-01-23 01:42 PM | Reply

That these people vehemently oppose things like nuclear power and carbon capture

I actually think nuclear power will eventually have to be a significant part of the solution. I just hope they manage to find reasonable ways to recycle the waste. They're working on it.

Recycling Nuclear Fuel: The French Do It, Why Can't Oui?

And for the sake of context, I normally hate the Heritage Foundation.

#40 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2020-01-23 02:04 PM | Reply

#40 | Posted by Whatsleft

Thorium reactors is what Andrew Yang is advocating, and that's a good thing. They are cleaner and safer.

#41 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-01-23 03:13 PM | Reply

>all those wrong predictions we made were actually correct

#42 | Posted by berserkone at 2020-01-24 12:44 AM | Reply

Interesting. So we all WON'T be dead dead in 11 years like AOC and Greta have said.

#23 | POSTED BY JAMESGELLIOTT

When did they say that?

Do you have a link?

Oh, you're full of ---- like usual? No one is surprised.

#43 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-01-24 12:10 PM | Reply

""60% of CO2 emissions since Greta Thunberg was born is attributable to China ... but nobody talks about that. They talk as if its somehow Europeans and Americans who are going to fix this problem ... which is frustrating because it doesn't get to the heart of the matter," said Ferguson."

#37 | POSTED BY HUMTAKE

How? China is responsible for only about 29% of world emissions each year.

It might be 60% of emissions from the world's coal plants, but that's about it. And Chinese central government is fighting local Chinese governments to get rid of coal plants.

#44 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-01-24 12:15 PM | Reply

Surely you recognize the difference between acknowledging that increasing the volume of greenhouse gases accelerates warming and the absurd appocalyptic predictions of mass doom unless we adopt Socialism being peddled by lefty icons like AOC and Greta Thunberg.

#9 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

No one is saying apocalyptic doom. They are saying that it will severely affect areas near the oceans, have serious effects on plant and animal life, and severely disrupt food production especially in poorer countries. We could be seeing massive famines and refugees at some point.

It will be insanely disruptive to our way of life.

#45 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-01-24 12:18 PM | Reply

"No one is saying apocalyptic doom."

From #10

"The world Greta Thunberg and her generation will inherit from the Boomer Generation is in many ways indeed a world of "mass doom".

You may have meant smart people are not saying "apocalyptic doom." The scientists certainly aren't.

That doesn't mean there aren't millions of idiots out there spouting off like Moder8 was.

#46 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-24 12:33 PM | Reply

--"No one is saying apocalyptic doom."

"Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us are looking up and we're like: The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?" Ocasio-Cortez told Coates. "This is the war " this is our World War II."

#47 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-01-24 12:35 PM | Reply

www.treehugger.com

It really cold outside

#48 | Posted by Petrous at 2020-01-24 12:35 PM | Reply

"Millennials and people, you know, Gen Z and all these folks that will come after us are looking up and we're like: The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?" Ocasio-Cortez told Coates. "This is the war " this is our World War II."

#47 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Why do you pretend people are being literal just to pretend you are making a point?

Ocasio-Cortez was referring a report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released last October that predicted that there's only a dozen years left to keep global warming to a maximum of 1.5 degrees Celsius. Any higher, even by half a degree, would significantly increase risks of floods, drought, extreme heat and potential poverty for hundreds of millions.

So yeah, the end of the Climate we know and depend on is in 12 years based on the models...which have been correct thus far.

Does she mean the world will literal end? No. She has even talked about how to deal with the changes in the coming decades.

But are we going to start seeing the real effects of climate change and see them happening faster? Yep.

#49 | Posted by Sycophant at 2020-01-24 01:33 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