Posted on 12/09/2019 7:42:39 AM PST by Oldeconomybuyer
Early climate models get a bad wrap for being imprecise, but new research suggests they were surprisingly accurate.
Researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and NASA reviewed 17 climate models described in scientific papers over the last several decades. The earliest were developed in the 1970s, while the most recent were created in late 2000s.
Of the 17 models, analysis showed 14 were very accurate in predicting the average global temperature in the years following their publication.
"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," lead study author Zeke Hausfarter, a doctoral student in UC Berkeley's Energy and Resources Group, said in a news release. "This really gives us more confidence that today's models are getting things largely right as well."
Scientists looked at each model's prediction for the Earth's average temperature based on greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere, and compared the predictions to actual global temperatures recorded at similar greenhouse gas levels.
In effect, the study's authors looked at how well models simulated the relationship between emissions and temperature increases, not at how well models predicted changes in global emissions.
(Excerpt) Read more at upi.com ...
Climate Models from the 1970s predicted an Ice Age.
Are they now spinning this to be “We warmed up just like the 1970s model said we would”?
The weather folks have a hard time predicting accurate weather 3 days in advance, let alone 30 years.
About as accurate as Jerrold Nadler’s claim Trump is as guilty as sin.
Climate Change fraudsters verify studies made by other Climate Change fraudsters. What a surprise!
How much did they have to “correct” actual instrument-based weather data to achieve this result?
Well, Mr. Spock was telling us about this circa 1978 (using Buffalo's winter of '77 as an example).
The earliest models showed a coming ice age.
From there they just rigged all the data to get the results that they wanted. A complete fraud.
“14 were very accurate in predicting the average global temperature”
Determining average global temperature is ludicrous.
To the extent it could even be approximated, the standard deviation would be much greater than the changes in temperature they claim.
Exactly they even made movies about it.
Anyone can play this game.
Look back at previous predicitions.
Find those models that moved in the right direction.
Write an article showing those models were accurate. There are many more models than 17 out there over the time period.
The skeptical question is: How did they pick these 17 models?
What is their definition of “accurate”?
exactly what climate models predicted it would be as much as 30 years ago,
PUT THE PIPE DOWN you pointy headed little weenie, Up until 1979 EVERY CLIMATE SCIENTIST and EVERY CLIMATE MODEL predicted and warned of the NEW ICE AGE!!!
BS. Just like early hurricane track models SOME are accurate and some are wildly wrong. If you merely pick the ones that were right and say “see”? then you’re not buttressing science - just propagandizing.
This article was written from the underwater colony formerly known as New York City....
Not!
The descent into illiteracy continues unabated.
...is pretty much exactly what climate models predicted...
Not a scientific report -- pretty much exactly complete BS. Thanks Oldeconomybuyer.
That’s because they massaged the data to fit the models.
Excellent point. What if there 200 models? What if there were more? If only 17 were right that would mean that 92% were not accurate. I mean if I buy a ticket on every horse in the race, I can say I picked 10 winners in a row.
Such crap - Gore said Manhattan would be long underwater by now.
And the “hockey stick” is a proven fraud. No shame!
“In effect, the study’s authors looked at how well models simulated the relationship between emissions and temperature increases, not at how well models predicted changes in global emissions.”
In effect, the study’s authors massaged the data to make it look like the models were accurate, when in fact, they were not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.