How accurate are NASA's climate predictions? [SPOILER ALERT: Very accurate]

Every year, NASA partners with the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) to update the global temperature. They use temperature data dating back to 1880 from land and sea surface measurements, combined with more modern measurements from over 6,300 weather stations research stations, and ships and weather buoys around the world.
Using all this data, the pair of organizations concluded that 2018 was the fourth-warmest year on record, and that 2016 was the warmest.
In this new study, NASA scientists analyzed the GISTEMP data to see if past predictions of rising temperatures were accurate. They needed to know that any uncertainty within their data was correctly accounted for.
The goal was to make sure that the models they use are robust enough to rely on in the future. The answer: Yes they are. Within 1/20th a degree Celsius. Kudos.


ScienceAlert: Here's How Scarily Accurate NASA's Long-Term Climate Predictions Have Been So Far.
https://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-s-long-term-climate-predictions-are-accurate-to-within-1-20th-of-a-degree

Okay, then...

@ Tommy, smelly' and DYKbrain :

You three dirt-ignorant denialist twats can shove those latest results up your collective backsides -- and spin on them..

And take your 3 or 4 denialist supporters with you for the ride.

Especially DYKnose, after his arrogant and unsupported bullshit claims re: modelling from last week..

OOhhh hark at him, he could crush a Grape !

Ben Reilly wrote:Every year, NASA partners with the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) to update the global temperature. They use temperature data dating back to 1880 from land and sea surface measurements, combined with more modern measurements from over 6,300 weather stations research stations, and ships and weather buoys around the world.
Using all this data, the pair of organizations concluded that 2018 was the fourth-warmest year on record, and that 2016 was the warmest.
In this new study, NASA scientists analyzed the GISTEMP data to see if past predictions of rising temperatures were accurate. They needed to know that any uncertainty within their data was correctly accounted for.
The goal was to make sure that the models they use are robust enough to rely on in the future. The answer: Yes they are. Within 1/20th a degree Celsius. Kudos.


ScienceAlert: Here's How Scarily Accurate NASA's Long-Term Climate Predictions Have Been So Far.
https://www.sciencealert.com/nasa-s-long-term-climate-predictions-are-accurate-to-within-1-20th-of-a-degree

Be afraid.

Always remember, NASA destroyed two space shuttles, putting politics over safety. I believe in climate change, but frankly I don't trust NASA.

What I found in the Challenger litigation is that the Pentagon has time's ten the safety measures over NASA.

I think NASA's responsibilities ought to be given to the military. The Pentagon has good judgment; NASA does not.

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Okay, then...

@ Tommy, smelly' and DYKbrain  :

You three dirt-ignorant denialist twats can shove those latest results up your collective backsides --  and spin on them..

And take your 3 or 4 denialist supporters with you for the ride.

Especially DYKnose, after his arrogant and unsupported bullshit claims re: modelling from last week..

It really is quite irritating that you seem incapable of presenting a comment on this matter that utilises and enhances your undoubted scientific knowledge of the subject, rather than with your usual rather childish, meaningless and utterly pointless attacks on your nemesis trio.

Original Quill wrote:Always remember, NASA destroyed two space shuttles, putting politics over safety.  I believe in climate change, but frankly I don't trust NASA.

What I found in the Challenger litigation is that the Pentagon has time's ten the safety measures over NASA.

I think NASA's responsibilities ought to be given to the military.  The Pentagon has good judgment; NASA does not.

But the space division and the weather division are totally separate.

Fred Moletrousers wrote:

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

Okay, then...

@ Tommy, smelly' and DYKbrain  :

You three dirt-ignorant denialist twats can shove those latest results up your collective backsides --  and spin on them..

And take your 3 or 4 denialist supporters with you for the ride.

Especially DYKnose, after his arrogant and unsupported bullshit claims re: modelling from last week..

It really is quite irritating that you seem incapable of presenting a comment on this matter that utilises and enhances your undoubted scientific knowledge of the subject, rather than with your usual  rather childish, meaningless and utterly pointless attacks on your nemesis trio.

It's like he has tourettes in his hands?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Always remember, NASA destroyed two space shuttles, putting politics over safety.  I believe in climate change, but frankly I don't trust NASA.

What I found in the Challenger litigation is that the Pentagon has time's ten the safety measures over NASA.

I think NASA's responsibilities ought to be given to the military.  The Pentagon has good judgment; NASA does not.

But the space division and the weather division are totally separate.

It's still NASA, my friend. It's a private contractor-driven, government organization. Reality is what the profiteers say it is.

Heads of aerospace and nuclear development at Boeing, Lockheed, Northrup-Grumman and Rockwell (all real defense contractors), all forewarned me of that fact. They were fond of saying, the Morton Thiokol solid rocket motor was the 'K-mart blue light special'.

We lost two Space Shuttles, plus payload and astronauts, before we learned that lesson.