THIS POST IS A CRITICAL EVALUATION OF A PUBLISHED PAPER IN THE AAAS JOURNAL THAT ESTABLISHES THE CREDIBILITY OF CLIMATE SCIENCE WITH THE STATEMENT THAT “EVEN 50 YEAR OLD CLIMATE MODELS CORRECTLY PREDICTED GLOBAL WARMING.

LINK TO SOURCE: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/12/even-50-year-old-climate-models-correctly-predicted-global-warming

PART-1: WHAT THE SOURCE PAPER SAYS

Global temperatures have risen approximately 0.9°C since 1970, though some areas have warmed much more than others. Seven older models missed the mark by as much as 0.1°C 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 James Hansen predicted that if climate pollution kept rising at an even pace, average global temperatures today would be approximately 0.3°C warmer than they actually are. Most of this overshoot was caused not by a flaw in the model’s basic physics but 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.When Hausfather’s team set pollution inputs in Hansen’s model to correspond to actual historical levels, its projected temperature increases lined up with observed temperatures. The new findings echo the truth that climate models work but It’s still nice to see it confirmed.” Even today’s computer programs have some uncertainties. But, “We know enough to trust our climate models” and their message that urgent action is needed, he says.The new research is a useful exercise that “should provide some confidence that models can be used to help provide guidance regarding energy policies,” adds Hansen, now director of the Climate Science, Awareness and Solutions Program at Columbia University.

BLOGGER’S SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION OF THIS STATEMENT IN PLAIN ENGLISH

Yes there are gross errors and inaccurcies in climate model predictions but that’s not because the model is bad but because the there are large uncertainties in the data. Therefore that climate science predictions are wrong should be understood as uncertainty in the data but sadly, the stupid climate deniers don’t understand that and make the false claim that climate model predictions are not credible because of their prediction errors. Oh well! Deniers will be Deniers, I guess. May they burn in hell.

WHAT IS PRESENTED AS A CLIMATE SCIENCE PAPER TURNS OUT TO BE AN ATTACK ON SKEPTICAL EVALUATION OF CLIMATE SCIENCE WITH NAME CALLING AND WORDS LIKE “DENIER”. THE REAL QUESTION HERE IS WHY THE SCIENCE THAT IS SO VERY CORRECT AND CREDIBLE NEEDS TO BE PROTECTED FROM CRITICAL EVALUATION IN THIS WAY.

LINK TO RELATED POST ON THE AAAS: https://tambonthongchai.com/2021/04/06/the-corruption-of-science/

LINK: https://tambonthongchai.com/2020/10/21/climate-change-and-religion/