Don't know why you're being downvoted. Zero carbon emissions is firstworldism at its core. Climate modeling is the pinnacle of pop sci. The intersection is very frustrating to live in.
Modeling decades out is impossible for systems we do understand. For systems we don't -- like climate -- it's an exercise in confirmation bias.
What evidence do you have that leads you to believe that the models used now will have less predictive power than those of the past which had high predictive power?
A model will produce what one is comfortable with.
What is comfortable or not shouldn't be a factor. In fact most climate scientists would search for any and all redeeming factors. It is concerning how insignificant they all seem to be. Major contrary findings would make great news, get prizes and grants.
Timelines are indeed less useful and accurate, than levels of temperature and descriptions of accumulated and latent effects. Prediction is too hard and a sidetrack from all that is established peer-reviewed science so far.
What are you trying to say when you claim that (climate) models produce what you are comfortable with?
No reason to believe these models are different ( it is not about the models, it is about the people building them ).
> that is not based on what actually happens?
That is not what I said. These models are used to say things about the future, so by definition they are an assumption about what actually happens.
I will try to explain my point by a fictitious example :
Researcher A is building model for global temperature supposedly correlated with compound X. Model shows that within 100 yrs the temperature will plateua and then drop off to pre-industrial levels.
The model will be considered faulty and will be tweaked until it does feel comfortable : that is, aligns with one's assumptions.
Models are crystalizations of one's assumptions, there is no truth.