Carbon brief has an article on how well climate models have projected global warming. The total warming from 1970 to 2019 has been 1.0 degrees C. or 0.2 degrees C./decade.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis...global-warming
Conclusion: (Credit carbonbrief.org)
Climate models published since 1973 have generally been quite skillful in projecting future warming. While some were too low and some too high, they all show outcomes reasonably close to what has actually occurred, especially when discrepancies between predicted and actual CO2 concentrations and other climate forcings are taken into account.
Models are far from perfect and will continue to be improved over time. They also show a fairly large range of future warming that cannot easily be narrowed using just the changes in climate that we have observed.
Nevertheless, the close match between projected and observed warming since 1970 suggests that estimates of future warming may prove similarly accurate.
I disagree that they are not close, especially the last 3. IPCC 4 was very close. You have to read the article to understand why it is close.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/qa-how-d...te-models-work (very long article but it explains models well)
There is a graph of the projected climate out to the year 2100 based on the RCP 4.5 scenario which may be the most likely, shown in the above carbonbrief article. The shaded are represents the 95% confidence level. At the year 2100 the projected global mean temperature is 2.5 degrees C. above the 1880-1910 baseline with a 95% confidence that the GMT range will be between 1.5 and 3.4 degrees C. That is about as good of a projection as one could expect. Climate scientists could arrive at a similar estimate of 2.5 degrees C. without using computer models. The error band would be a little higher and we would not know as much about many other aspects of the climate.
Last edited by skepticalmike; 08-28-2019 at 07:07 PM.
Tradition is not the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire. ― Gustav Mahler
Let's use data from a computer model to support data from another computer model.
Why would you want to do that? Are you trying to invent new methods of fraud, to supplement the current denier fraud techniques?
Pure delusion, and flatly contradicted by reality. But then, how could you know otherwise? It's not like you're allowed to look at sources that don't confirm your political bias.It's funny when people use data generated fron a computer model to refute the fact that the only place global warming is occurring is in computer models.
In the real world, AGW theory is well-proven with no models at all. The success of the models is just icing on the cake. In the real world, people who know the science know with 100% certainty that deniers are lying about the models and the science. That's why the lies have no effect. It's like flat-earthers repeating that the earth is flat. It has no effect on people outside of the cult. You're not wrong because of your political affiliation. You're wrong because the hard data says that.
That's correct. The science was totally non-political, until conservative fraudsters started pushing their fraud.There's a political agenda behind the hoax.
Follow the money. All of the corrupting bribe money goes to the conservative side, so all of the corruption and fraud is on the conservative side. There are no anti-AGW scientists who aren't being paid to say what they say.
In stark contrast, the real scientists get paid the same no matter what they publish, so they have no monetary motivation to lie. They could double their salaries by lying for the deniers, but they don't. They reject that bribe money, effectively taking a pay cult for stating the truth, giving them even more credibility.