Hacker News Reader

Comment by repolfx | Hacker News Reader

The models used today have all predicted more warming than actually happened, so I'm very skeptical models got progressively worse over the decades instead of better.

Also note it's impossible for models in the 80's to have been accurate because the temperature data for the past itself has been continuously adjusted by climatologists since then, so any models calculated back then would be using temperatures now considered wrong (and not by a small amount!). Either the old models are wrong or the old temperature records are wrong, but they can't both be true simultaneously.

View on HN

> The models used today have all predicted more warming than actually happened

Source? Although all of this depends on what you mean by "more", as in what you assume the error bars on the models are.

> temperature data for the past itself has been continuously adjusted

Source?

> Also note it's impossible for models in the 80's to have been accurate

It's not actually. Models don't depend on the temperature. The models could have been (and in fact, were) accurate despite the alleged wrong inputs.

> Either the old models are wrong or the old temperature records are wrong, but they can't both be true simultaneously.

It doesn't really matter in the context of the legal argument about what Exxon thought to be true in 1982.

Your information on is out of date. None of the models predicted the big lag in temperature increase in the oughts but since 2015 air temperatures have jumped up to right where the consensus predictions said they would be.

Yes, scientists have been busy trying to refine their models and understanding of temperatures. But my understanding is that, quantitatively, the inaccuracies in the old temperature data was pretty small compared year to year variation. No prediction is ever perfect, even in QED you have one part in a trillion error, but instead you look at whether the result is in the error bars and whether the error bars are narrow enough to be useful.

If the models didn't predict the lag, it stands to reason that the models weren't accurate, even if current temperatures align with them. That is to say that the current alignment is just coincidental.

If I remember correctly, the lag was likely caused by not correctly accounting for deep ocean heating. That's a huge missing piece of the simulation, so how could the models from back then possibly have been accurate?

> If the models didn't predict the lag, it stands to reason that the models weren't accurate, even if current temperatures align with them. That is to say that the current alignment is just coincidental.

Or the lag was a minor factor that only briefly overrode the primary drivers of climate change, which have since reasserted themselves. I think we both know what the smart bet is.

The lag isn't a minor factor though. We are talking a decade plus of incorrect predictions. Newer models that have taken deep ocean warming into account are probably more accurate.

The oceans are now significantly warmer than earlier models predicted. There's no way that doesn't impact the outcome.

Actually newer models don't predict the lag / the pause at all.

Instead what happened is they decided the temperature records that showed a pause were wrong, went back and adjusted them so there's no longer any real pause if you look at the latest temperature datasets. The entire thing was written off as a giant measurement error.

They are climate models, not weather models. Buried somewhere in the IPCC reports is the sorts of time space they apply to. I vaguely remember 10 years or so. I do distinctly remember thinking during the pause if something dramatic didn't happen by 2016 they were in serious trouble, because that was at the end of the range.

> That is to say that the current alignment is just coincidental.

Sort of. The model is (heatIn - heatOut - seaAbsorption) = surface weather. They got the seaAbsorption wrong, something they later figured out with the Argo network as you noted. But that means they got the primary driver of global warming, heatOut dropping as CO2 increases, right. Which sadly means if you wait long enough, their predictions were always going be right because in the end heatIn - heatOut is all that matters.

Yes, our models were inaccurate for the oughts and early 2010s. There are tons of positive and negative feedback loops which our climate models are probably very badly calibrated for. But those models did have accurate predictions of what the temperature would be for 2019 so you have to give them credit for that.

But honestly it's the inaccuracy of current climate models that make me so concerned about global warming.

> The models used today have all predicted more warming than actually happened

Do you have a good source for this assertion? I mean, there are still people claiming that there is no warming at all, so "all" models seems like too strong a claim.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com