
Study Confirms Climate Models Are Getting Future Warming Projections Right - reddotX
https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-models-are-getting-future-warming-projections-right/
======
mirimir
Preprint: [https://sci-
hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085378](https://sci-
hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL085378)

Abstract

> Retrospectively comparing future model projections to observations provides
> a robust and independent test of model skill. Here we analyse the
> performance of climate models published between 1970 and 2007 in projecting
> future global mean surface temperature (GMST) changes. Models are compared
> to observations based on both the change in GMST over time and the change in
> GMST over the change in external forcing. The latter approach accounts for
> mismatches in model forcings, a potential source of error in model
> projections independent of the accuracy of model physics. We find that
> climate models published over the past five decades were skillful in
> predicting subsequent GMST changes, with most models examined showing
> warming consistent with observations, particularly when mismatches between
> model-projected and observationally-estimated forcings were taken into
> account.

"External forcing" means basically CO2 level. They adjust model projections
for errors in projecting CO2 increases. So what they're testing is just the
physics of the models.

------
merpnderp
Lol, you could have simply projected the warming from 1900-1940 and been in
that confidence interval.

The planet is warming, and CO2 is drastically exasperating it, but our data
and models are crap. Look how many fights and researcher nerd wars have
happened over something which sounds trivial like satellite altitude drift or
locating ground stations, and you'll see compromise, number fudge, magical
constants, and the typical amount of statistical shenanigans.

We need to do better.

------
rossdavidh
I am cheered to see that we are applying the fundamental test of good science
to a very political topic.

I would be interested to see how recent climate models differ from the (proven
able to predict) models from the 70's. Logically, one could make an argument
that we should trust the predictions of the (earlier, simpler) models of the
70's than the more recent ones, which are analogous to new medicines which
have not been through a double-blind study yet to prove that they are better
than the old standard.

~~~
polotics
How is this topic political?

~~~
thenewnewguy
In the US many (most?) prominent members of the Republican Party (our right
wing/conservative political party) deny the existence of global
warming/climate change.

~~~
fwsgonzo
There was a NYtimes article showing that the denialism has been happening in
all three english speaking countries: US, England and Australia, because of
brainwashing.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/08/world/australia/fires-
mur...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/08/world/australia/fires-murdoch-
disinformation.html?smtyp=cur&smid=tw-nytclimate)

Of course, nobody wants to hear they are the useful idiot that fell for it,
but we can't let that stop us from pointing out reality.

As far as the Republican party goes, I'm sure there are many who do believe in
climate change, however they have to fall in line and so they will not speak
up. The Republican party is known for presenting a "unified" message.

------
classicsnoot
Why was blargmaster33's comment killed within 1 minute of posting? Which
guideline does it violate? What rule does it break? Most importantly, if it is
a false statement, what proves that it is so?

~~~
grzm
'blargmaster33's account is dead, likely due to their karma (-18).

~~~
mikeyouse
And we’re all surely missing the thoughts of blargmaster featuring such
insights as “Pinochet did nothing wrong” and “The only good communist is a
dead one” and “God bless the Spanish for expunging this evil from existence”
where “this evil” is the Mayan people.

