NY Times Gets Big Scoop On Unreleased Climate Report Which Predicts Total Doom

This report reads more like a political document, rather than a scientific one

Government Report Finds Drastic Impact of Climate Change on U.S.

As Tom Maguire notes, the word drastic doesn’t actually appear in the report.

The average temperature in the United States has risen rapidly and drastically since 1980, and recent decades have been the warmest of the past 1,500 years, according to a sweeping federal climate change report awaiting approval by the Trump administration.

The draft report by scientists from 13 federal agencies, which has not yet been made public, concludes that Americans are feeling the effects of climate change right now. It directly contradicts claims by President Trump and members of his cabinet who say that the human contribution to climate change is uncertain, and that the ability to predict the effects is limited.

It very much reads like the kind of apocalyptic report that would come from the Obama administration, right before he took a long fossil fueled trip to attend a fundraiser and play some golf on the West coast. Especially since it was written between December 15, 2016, and February 3, 2017.

More interestingly, despite the claim in the first paragraph, no actual temperature data is supplied in the article. I wonder why. Probably because the draft report claims the world has warmed a tiny 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit from 1865-2015. Which is rather the thing one would expect during a Holocene warm period. That’s why they’re called “warm periods.”

No mention of the multiple pauses during that time period, nor the long period of statistically insignificant warming for over 18 years starting around 1997. Nor that a goodly chunk of the last 1,500 years was a cool period.

The study examines every corner of the United States and finds that all of it was touched by climate change. The average annual temperature in the United States will continue to rise, the authors write, making recent record-setting years “relatively common” in the near future. It projects increases of 5.0 to 7.5 degrees Fahrenheit (2.8 to 4.8 degrees Celsius) by the late century, depending on the level of future emissions.

If you’re guessing that a goodly chunk of the report, and the NY Times article, focuses on doomy prognostications, you’d be correct. It predicts flooding and drought, more “extreme weather”, and all the other fun stuff that the Cult of Climastrology always predicts. And, of course, it blames it all on humanity.

It does fail to mention that the majority of the previous climate models have failed, so, it doesn’t tell us why we should believe this scareathon.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

54 Responses to “NY Times Gets Big Scoop On Unreleased Climate Report Which Predicts Total Doom”

  1. Stosh says:

    What they leave out of these reports is what is the “perfect temperature” that the earth should be and when has it been that temperature for more than a couple days in the past record.

  2. Jl says:

    As said, global temp record a farce, specially if you go back to the beginning of thermometer usage. Look at the minimal coverage.https://realclimatescience.com/2017/08/what-are-climate-scientists-doing-anyway/

  3. Jeffery says:

    The TEACH ignorantly typed:

    the world has warmed a tiny 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit from 1865-2015. Which is rather the thing one would expect during a Holocene warm period.

    Until 150 years ago, the complete temperature excursion during the Holocene was less than what you call “a tiny 1.6 degrees F”. From the so-called Holocene optimum some 8000 years ago the Earth had gradually cooled about 1 degree F to the low of the Little Ice Age. Since that time the Earth has rapidly warmed TEACH’s “tiny 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit” likely exceeding the high of the Holocene optimum! It took 8000 years for the Earth to cool 1 F, but only 150 years to warm 1.6 F. “Tiny”, indeed.

    TEACH: Can you point out other times during the Holocene when the Earth rapidly warmed 1.6 F? What other Holocene warm periods are you talking about?

    And increase in the global mean of 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit is significant, not tiny.

    j, Once again you deny that the Earth is warming, even though you deny denying this.

    Stosh, You erected a straw man regarding the “perfect” temperature. What we do know is that the entirety of human civilizations developed during the Holocene period and significant changes in the global mean temperature are likely to disrupt modern human civilization.

  4. Jl says:

    Once again, you fail to show proof of denying that its warming. “The increase in the global mean is significant, no tiny.” What’s significant is the total lack of station coverage around the globe earlier in the last century, as shown above. Which is significant because it doesn’t stop alarmists like Jeffery from using a shaky at best temperature record to proclaim his 1.6 degrees. And if it’s significant, where are the results of its significance, other than a greening of the earth? Good luck

    • Zachriel says:

      Jl: What’s significant is the total lack of station coverage around the globe earlier in the last century, as shown above.

      Statistics. Suppose you have a 1000 stations recording temperature over a few decades, and 900 show an increase of 1°C, while the remainder show a decrease of 1°C. What is the probability that this could occur due to random effects rather than because of overall warming? Feel free to adjust for reasonable clustering effects.

      • david7134 says:

        Z,
        It really does not matter what the climate is doing as we are powerless to alter it. If the climate change is secondary to fossil fuels, big deal, we are going to continue to use fossil fuels. All of the so called green measures that you and the other communist have advocated are far from being green and have their own set of pollutants, many much worse than fossil fuels. And then your solutions are laughable, the only one that you consistently advocate is global communism, destruction of the economy, total government control of every aspect of our lives and the establishment of a superior, elite group in the form of super rich, politically connected individuals (ie. Hillary and group). If you are so concerned for environmental measures, start with all the liberals getting together and actually changing their lifestyles and energy use short of government intervention for the rest of us. And also, making sure that all countries are on board for regulation, which has never been achieved other than lip service, notably China and Russia doing something more than agreeing and just laughing at your efforts.

        • Zachriel says:

          david7134: It really does not matter what the climate is doing as we are powerless to alter it.

          The science indicates otherwise. The basic physics of heat energy implies that as greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere increase, the surface will warm.

          david7134: the only one that you consistently advocate is global communism, destruction of the economy, total government control of every aspect of our lives and the establishment of a superior, elite group in the form of super rich, politically connected individuals

          In fact, we reject communism, think that robust market economies are essential for the growth necessary to respond to climate change while also providing a better life for people, that governments must be constrained to protect liberties, and that democracy is the worst form of government — except for all the others.

          Let us know when you graduate from fighting your strawman.

          • david7134 says:

            Z,
            As a high school child, you really don’t understand statements that people make and come up with comments of your own that are not reality. No, you can not do anything about accumulated greenhouse gases, if they exist. You don’t understand physics and it does not support your positions. And, the only solution to all this is a socialistic government that is all powerful. You do not support “robust markets” as you advocate for carbon taxation and other measures of your global government. Get some education, explore the world, come back when you have some maturity.

          • Zachriel says:

            david7134: No, you can not do anything about accumulated greenhouse gases, if they exist.

            Well, we know that greenhouse gases have accumulated in the atmosphere over the last several decades. It’s something easy to measure. And we know that it is humans activities which are emitting the greenhouse gases that are accumulating in the atmosphere.

            david7134: You don’t understand physics and it does not support your positions.

            Instead of merely waving your hands, this is where you explain. What aspect of physics do you think is relevant?

          • Zachriel says:

            david7134: You do not support “robust markets” as you advocate for carbon taxation and other measures of your global government.

            Taxes and markets are not incompatible.

  5. Zachriel says:

    NY Times Gets Big Scoop On Unreleased Climate Report Which Predicts Total Doom

    “Evidence for a changing climate abounds, from the top of the atmosphere to the depths of the oceans… Many lines of evidence demonstrate that human activities, especially emissions of greenhouse (heat-trapping) gases, are primarily responsible for recent observed climate change.”

  6. drowningpuppies says:

    So can anyone post the average global temperature for 2016?

    • Zachriel says:

      drowningpuppies: So can anyone post the average global temperature for 2016?

      Mean global temperature is difficult to determine, especially due to sparseness of ocean records, but it is estimated to be about 15°C. What is known with somewhat more reliability is the temperature anomaly.

      https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/monitoring-references/faq/anomalies.php

      • drowningpuppies says:

        So around 288°K.

        • Zachriel says:

          That is correct.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            So y’all agree that’s the best guesstimate at this time considering the difficulty in determining the global mean temperature.

          • Zachriel says:

            drowningpuppies: So y’all agree that’s the best guesstimate at this time considering the difficulty in determining the global mean temperature.

            That’s correct. While the surface temperature anomaly can be known with some certainty, the absolute mean surface temperature is not known with precision.

          • Zachriel says:

            Consider a simple example. We have a small but complex geographic region. Because of the geographical complexity, if we place thermometers in different locations, we see that temperature varies across the region. We can’t be sure of the average mean temperature because we can’t measure all places simultaneously, but if all the thermometers show an increase in temperature, it suggests that the mean temperature has increased. How many thermometers it takes to rule out random fluctuations is a statistical question.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            While the surface temperature anomaly can be known with some certainty

            Some certainty? What does that mean?
            Compared to what?

          • Zachriel says:

            drowningpuppies: Some certainty? What does that mean?

            GISTEMP, 1980 to present: 0.177 ±0.041°C/decade (2σ)

          • Zachriel says:

            In case you need further explanation, that means there is a 97.7% chance that the temperature anomaly is at least 0.136°C/decade and a 99.7% chance that temperature anomaly is at least 0.120°C/decade. There is a 50% chance the temperature anomaly is above 0.177°C/decade.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            GISTEMP, 1980 to present: 0.177 ±0.041°C/decade (2σ)

            So there’s some certainty in temperature anomalies compared to other temperature anomalies compared to what exactly?

  7. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: So there’s some certainty in temperature anomalies compared to other temperature anomalies compared to what exactly?

    A temperature reading is subject to measurement uncertainty (due to observational limitations), and actual temperature is subject to random fluctuations (even if heat is constant, it is moving among the spaces between the thermometers). This creates uncertainty in determining a trend from the underlying data.

    There are a variety of statistical techniques to determine the trend and the uncertainty. Here’s an example using the law of propagation of uncertainty. Nowadays, Monte Carlo or other methods are commonly used.

    • drowningpuppies says:

      A temperature reading is subject to measurement uncertainty… and actual temperature is subject to random fluctuations… This creates uncertainty in determining a trend from the underlying data.

      So some “certainty” means temperature anamolies that are calculated and expressed in hundredths and thousandths of a degree over entire earth?

      • Zachriel says:

        GISTEMP, 1980 to present: 0.177 ±0.041°C/decade (2σ) means it is virtually certain that the temperature anomaly is at least 0.12°C/decade, and probably higher.

        • JGlanton says:

          By starting at 1980 at the end of the 1960 – 70’s cold period, of course you will see warming rather than starting mid-century or early century. It is a cherry-picked starting point. Then by choosing GISS, who have added 1/2 degree of warming through their adjustments to post-1980 data (as well as having lowered the pre-1950 temperatures to hide earlier warmth) and you are guaranteed to see a substantial temperature slope.

          Use more ethical approaches, however, and there is nothing so dramatic to see.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            JG,
            It’s a “virtual” certainty in a “virtual” world with “virtual” temperatures. Hard to argue with that kind of logic.

          • Zachriel says:

            JGlanton: By starting at 1980 at the end of the 1960 – 70’s cold period, of course you will see warming rather than starting mid-century or early century.

            Of course, that wasn’t drowningpuppies question, which concerned statistical certainty.

            If you prefer, we can use a different dataset and starting date.

            HadCRUT4, 1998 to current: 0.145 ±0.106°C/decade (2σ)

            Which means it is virtually certain that the mean surface temperature has risen during that period.

          • Zachriel says:

            drowningpuppes: It’s a “virtual” certainty

            virtually, almost entirely : nearly

          • drowningpuppies says:

            Virtual:
            -not physically existing as such but made by software to appear to do so.

          • Zachriel says:

            drowningpuppies: -not physically existing as such but made by software to appear to do so.

            The temperature anomaly is an observation. Your question appeared to exhibit confusion about accuracy and precision.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            The temperature anomaly is an observation. Your question appeared to exhibit confusion about accuracy and precision.

            The confusion is in your perception.

            Both “Global Average Temperature” and “Temperature Anomalies” describe things that are never actually measured by anyone, anywhere, at any time. Anomalies are differences from a fake baseline, and are used to create a new fake baseline, that people are led to believe is real.

  8. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: “Temperature Anomalies” describe things that are never actually measured by anyone, anywhere, at any time.

    If we observe a thermometer and note that the temperature is increasing, we can describe that temperature increase against a baseline.

  9. Jeffery says:

    Climate change denialism will end up in the waste bin of history, much like creationism, geocentrism, the 6000 yr old Earth, and the flat Earth.

    Conservatism by its nature abhors scientific findings that challenge their orthodoxy.

    • Zachriel says:

      Jeffery: Conservatism by its nature abhors scientific findings that challenge their orthodoxy.

      To be fair, everyone has trouble with scientific findings that challenge their foundational beliefs.

      • david7134 says:

        Z,
        Good statement and very introspective, now apply it.

        • Zachriel says:

          david7134: Good statement and very introspective, now apply it.

          We do. It’s why we address your comments in detail, and take time to discuss the basics of scientific inquiry. You might start with drowningpuppies confusion concerning accuracy and precision.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            Once again the confusion is yours, kiddez, but y’all already knew that.

            -There are two major issues with regard to the trustworthiness of current and historical temperature data. One is the accuracy of recorded temperatures over the useable temperature range…
            -The second issue is the precision with which temperatures are recorded, and the resulting number of significant figures retained when calculations are performed, such as when deriving averages and anomalies.

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/12/are-claimed-global-record-temperatures-valid/

  10. Jeffery says:

    We must push back just a bit. Although, no one enjoys their orthodoxy being challenged, conservatives (nearly by definition) resist new evidence more than do others.

    It’s no coincidence that almost all global warming “skeptics” are American conservatives.

    It’s not being fair to anyone to equate the motives of practicing scientists with the motives of politically motivated “skeptics”.

  11. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: -The second issue is the precision with which temperatures are recorded, and the resulting number of significant figures retained when calculations are performed, such as when deriving averages and anomalies.

    The author is wrong about the statistics. Multiple measurements do decrease the standard error, which can be significantly less than the margin of error of any single measurement. With complex and disparate data, Monte Carlo methods can be used to determine the standard error.

    Here’s a simple illustration: Assume you have a dozen thermometers placed at various places in a small region. The thermometers are showing an average increase of 0.5°C ± 0.5°C. What are the chances that the observed increase is due to random errors? What if instead you had used a hundred thermometers with the same result?

    • drowningpuppies says:

      Still confused, kidz? Do y’all remember this discussion was about the annual global average temperature?
      Your example is irrelevant to the discussion.

      • Zachriel says:

        drowningpuppies: Do y’all remember this discussion was about the annual global average temperature?

        Yes. You exhibited misunderstanding of the difference between accuracy and precision, and between absolute temperature and temperature anomaly.

        drowningpuppies: Your example is irrelevant to the discussion.

        That is incorrect. The claim concerns confidence intervals and multiple measurements. The example we provided concerns confidence intervals and multiple measurements.

        • drowningpuppies says:

          Anyone can read what was posted and decide who is confused, kidz.

          • Zachriel says:

            drowningpuppies: Anyone can read what was posted and decide who is confused

            Sure they can.

            You said “Anomalies are differences from a fake baseline, and are used to create a new fake baseline, that people are led to believe is real.” Baselines aren’t “fake”, but arbitrary. You can choose any baseline you want, but an average of recent decades is typical.

            You asked, “So some “certainty” means temperature anamolies that are calculated and expressed in hundredths and thousandths of a degree over entire earth?” Actually, standard error ranges vary, being larger for short periods and smaller for long periods. For instance, GISTEMP for 2000 to present shows 0.205 ±0.125 °C/decade (2σ). Note the two-standard deviation error range is more than an tenth of a degree. Nonetheless, it is virtually certain that the anomaly is positive.

            Then you more or less gave up and reverted to semantics, saying “It’s a ‘virtual’ certainty in a ‘virtual’ world with ‘virtual’ temperatures. Hard to argue with that kind of logic.”

        • drowningpuppies says:

          Baselines aren’t “fake”, but arbitrary.

          Ahem.

          • Zachriel says:

            drowningpuppies: Baselines aren’t “fake”, but arbitrary.

            That is correct. Baselines are chosen for convenience, but you can use any baseline you choose. For instance, this graph uses a baseline of 1961-1990, but the curve would be the same regardless of the chosen baseline. The only thing that would change is that the zero line would move up or down accordingly.

          • Zachriel says:

            This chart uses a 1951-1980 base line. It also includes 21st century temperatures.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            Thanks for making my case with your graphs.
            Please explain how a 1951-1980 “arbitrary” baseline lowers the temp “anomalies”, of say the 1930s, to accurately to reflect the actual recorded temperatures.
            Oh wait, it’s an IPCC chart which reflects Mann’s mythical hockey stick.
            Never mind.

          • Zachriel says:

            drowningpuppies: Please explain how a 1951-1980 “arbitrary” baseline lowers the temp “anomalies”, of say the 1930s, to accurately to reflect the actual recorded temperatures.

            You had argued that a baseline was “fake”. Shifting goalposts indicates the weakness of your position.

            Now you argue something something about the 1930s. Choice of baseline does not change the curve.

          • drowningpuppies says:

            Shifting goalposts indicates the weakness of your position.

            And you kidz should know because that’s what you did.

      • Zachriel says:

        Let’s make it easier. Assume you have a thousand thermometers that are accurate to ±0.5°C, and they show an average increase of 0.1°C. What are the chances that the observed increase is due to random errors?

  12. Zachriel says:

    drowningpuppies: And you kidz should know because that’s what you did.

    This is the topic of this subthread:

    drowningpuppies: –The second issue is the precision with which temperatures are recorded, and the resulting number of significant figures retained when calculations are performed, such as when deriving averages and anomalies.

    Assume you have a thousand thermometers that are accurate to ±0.5°C. What is the probability that the actual change is zero, but the average of the observations is 0.1°C or greater due to random errors?

Bad Behavior has blocked 3629 access attempts in the last 7 days.