Future climate predictions will be better!

The rather amusing article abstracted below admits that: "The large uncertainty associated with projections of future climate change is one of the barriers to political agreement on mitigation policy".  Hear, Hear!

Nice to have that admission of a large predictive failure from Warmists.  They then go on to say that future predictions will be better and that we will have made big progress with predicting 2040 temperatures by 2029 -- which seems delightfully modest.

So how do they arrive at that pearl of wisdom?  By fiddling around with models -- the very models which have repeatedly been shown to have no predictive skill.  Warmists really are a pathetic bunch

Predicting future uncertainty constraints on global warming projections

H. Shiogama et al.


Projections of global mean temperature changes (ΔT) in the future are associated with intrinsic uncertainties. Much climate policy discourse has been guided by “current knowledge” of the ΔTs uncertainty, ignoring the likely future reductions of the uncertainty, because a mechanism for predicting these reductions is lacking. By using simulations of Global Climate Models from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 ensemble as pseudo past and future observations, we estimate how fast and in what way the uncertainties of ΔT can decline when the current observation network of surface air temperature is maintained. At least in the world of pseudo observations under the Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs), we can drastically reduce more than 50% of the ΔTs uncertainty in the 2040 s by 2029, and more than 60% of the ΔTs uncertainty in the 2090 s by 2049. Under the highest forcing scenario of RCPs, we can predict the true timing of passing the 2 °C (3 °C) warming threshold 20 (30) years in advance with errors less than 10 years. These results demonstrate potential for sequential decision-making strategies to take advantage of future progress in understanding of anthropogenic climate change.

Scientific Reports 6, Article number: 18903 (2016). doi:10.1038/srep18903

No comments:

Post a Comment

All comments containing Chinese characters will not be published as I do not understand them