Climate Models Run Too Hot: Settled Science Again

Reason ^ | September 21, 2017 | by Ronald Bailey

[Oldeconomybuyer]

Climate computer model projections of future man-made warming due to human emissions of carbon dioxide are running too hot, says a fascinating new study in Nature Geoscience. Consequently, researchers reckon that humanity has more time to prevent dangerous future climate change than had been suggested earlier by the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

This is really good news. This new article shows that climate science is not yet "settled science."

Of course, this is just one article among many thousands addressing aspects of man-made climate change. While its authors are members in good standing in the climate science establishment, they could be wrong.

The Met Office attributes the temperature slowdown in the early 21st century to natural climate variations. Specifically, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation had flipped to its cool phase, thus masking ongoing man-made global warming between 1999 and 2014. If true, this would suggest that the climate models are right after all about the long-term temperature trends and that the carbon budget is smaller than the new study calculates.

These rough temperature increase calculations imply an even larger carbon budget. That might mean that humanity could burn significantly more carbon dioxide-emitting fossil fuels without necessarily crossing the 2 C above preindustrial average temperature threshold set out in the Paris Agreement.

[DuncanWaring]

I know models are models.

We use a lot of models where I work.

Some we build into our product, others we use to test our product.

But we can’t do any of that until we can demonstrate that they produce results that match what they’re modeling within an appropriate tolerance.

That process is called “Validation”.

The global warming “models” are UNvalidated.

[gleeaikin]

You are right, they won’t be validated until the target date is reached. So they can’t really be models. Perhaps projections, guestimates, etc. would be a better label. Of course, model sounds more elegant, like an architects model which is a miniature of something that can be made real in the same design.

[SunkenCiv]

Equifax hack... ouch!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3586205/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3586398/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3586473/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3587448/posts

[SunkenCiv]

Models are models, that’s a hot one (as it were)... yet everyone pushing the AGW scam scorns everyone who disagrees (including Al “The Debate is Over” Gore, who also sold his disaster of a TV network to tiny oil giant Qatar), and furthermore don’t agree that models are different from facts. Their models happen to differ from facts, because they aren’t based on facts, they’re entirely political in origin, and designed to turn everyone else into serfs. I am not going.