NYTimes goes skeptic on end-of-climate-by-2047 study: Based on models with ‘acknowledged problems’ and uncertain accuracy

The NYTimes reports:

If greenhouse emissions continue their steady escalation, temperatures across most of the earth will rise to levels with no recorded precedent by the middle of this century, researchers said Wednesday.

Scientists from the University of Hawaii at Manoa calculated that by 2047, plus or minus five years, the average temperatures in each year will be hotter across most parts of the planet than they had been at those locations in any year between 1860 and 2005.

To put it another way, for a given geographic area, “the coldest year in the future will be warmer than the hottest year in the past,” said Camilo Mora, the lead scientist on a paper published in the journal Nature…

The research comes with caveats. It is based on climate models, huge computer programs that attempt to reproduce the physics of the climate system and forecast the future response to greenhouse gases. Though they are the best tools available, these models contain acknowledged problems, and no one is sure how accurate they will prove to be at peering many decades ahead.

Read more…

6 thoughts on “NYTimes goes skeptic on end-of-climate-by-2047 study: Based on models with ‘acknowledged problems’ and uncertain accuracy”

  1. Dr. Mora is not a climate scientist; rather he is a specialist in using large sets of data to illuminate environmental issues. He assigned a class of graduate students to analyze forecasts produced by 39 of the world’s foremost climate models. The models, whose results are publicly available, are operated by 21 research centers in 12 countries, and financed largely by governments.

    Yeah, right. No actual objective observations of phenomena in the real world, but instead nothing but a classroom meta-analysis of outputs from 39 computerized climate models, “financed largely by governments.

    In other words, politically tainted propaganda devices.

    Garbage in, garbage grind, garbage out.

  2. GW scientists’ thought bubble:.”Let’s see… we’ll choose a time in the future where we’ll be dead or retired and no longer accountable for our prediction. How about 2047? It’s both weird enough and precise enough sounding to keep our GW funding going. OK, 2047 it is!”

  3. Indeed. The mean, median, and mode of crap is crap.

    “The research comes with caveats.” So why does NYT publish it? It’s fun? They want to scare readers? They know it’s junk, but they print it anyway.

  4. All of these models include an assumption that CO2 plays a measurable role in climate. I believe that the temperature record, along with records of storms, floods, drouths, etc. has effectively falsified this assumption, rendering all these models meaningless.

  5. It’s kind of circular arguing, a case of a theory using itself as proof of itself. They’re doing it with the “warming hiatus” as well. Most climatologists are assuming that GW will continue ofter this “break” is over. But the only way you could say that, is if you have already proven that CO2 is the overriding factor in GW, which they have not (despite what Al Gore, et. al. says). They’re trying to make a new theories based upon an unproven theory, which I believe is supposed to be a big science no-no.

    Until they can quantify the CO2/global temperature relationship, they can’t say for certain it is the primary causation. Of course they haven’t yet, and therein lies the rub.

Comments are closed.