SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the removing-hot-air-from-climate-debate dept.
Carbonbrief.org is reporting on a new paper published today in the journal 'Nature.'
Claims that Climate Models Overestimate Warming are "Unfounded", Study Shows
The abstract is located here.
A new paper takes an in-depth look at the suggestion that climate models routinely overestimate the speed at which Earth's surface is warming - and finds the argument lacking.
A look back over the past century shows that, by and large, what we see in global average temperature is extremely well captured by models, the authors tell Carbon Brief.
The new research, a collaboration between scientists at the Max Planck Institute in Germany and the University of Leeds, is published today in the journal Nature.
They go on to note:
The past 15 years has received a fair bit of attention. It's notable that 14 of those years topped the charts as the warmest on record. But the difference between individual years has been slight, meaning the earth's surface has risen a fair bit slower than in previous decades.
... it's worth remembering that we're talking here about surface temperature, not the globe as a whole, says lead author Prof Jochem Marotzke from the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Germany. He tells us:
"[Surface temperature is] the temperature of a very thin layer of the climate system. Anthropogenic climate change has continued, it's just not so visible in the surface ... It's clearly visible if you look at the heat stored in the ocean, which has kept going during these 15 years. So climate change is continuing, even though surface warming has slowed down quite a bit."
[...]So what causes real-world temperatures to diverge from the models over periods as short as 15 years? That's down to natural fluctuations that temporarily boost or dampen the speed of warming, such as the global weather phenomenon known as El Niño, the paper notes.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 02 2015, @06:06AM
Second, if the models are wrong now, they may be wrong about the period of time 1970-2000 as well which is a period of pronounced warming. By this, I don't mean that AGW didn't happen. To the contrary, I do believe AGW is happening, but the same alleged short term fluctuations which are supposedly throwing off models now, maybe should have throw them off then as well. In other words, they are design to fit past data pretty well. But if that data includes a climate fluctuation effect that the model doesn't capture, then the model is incorporating an error that will make its future predictions, including long term predictions, worse.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Pav on Monday February 02 2015, @09:55AM
They can't make short term predictions so their long term predictions are invalid? Eh??? How come I can be miserable at predicting the outcome of the next round of roulette, and yet make a long term prediction that the player will lose all their money? Perhaps if I had a better grasp of the microscopic physical properties of the ball, wheel etc... I could perhaps make more accurate short term predictions, but I suspect my long term prediction will be just as valid. How about if that next cigarette will give you cancer? Looking at the longer term often eliminates the need for short term complications.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 02 2015, @07:19PM
They can't make short term predictions so their long term predictions are invalid?
Short term is still at least decade-scale. And yes, that is a good indication that long term trends are bad as well.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Tuesday February 03 2015, @04:48PM
A decade is not short term and no, it says nothing about long term trends. I would suggest taking some statistics classes, but a troll like you doesn't want to understand, do you?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 04 2015, @06:19AM