Climate Models Accuracy

Climate modeling isn't pop sci, it's physics. Predicting the correct outcome of complex systems is hard or impossible and depends on a lot of assumptions and interactions that you have to properly account for, this stuff gets more refined over time. The general direction of the predictions hasn't changed though so ignoring that would still be unwise.

There being no accurate model doesn't imply climate not changing

Climate models are not intended to precisely predict global temperature on short time scales, so the fact that they cannot does not disprove their accuracy or utility.Furthermore, global climate models are tools for a particular kind of research, not the basis for the theory of global warming--which predates electronic computers by about 40 years.Evolutionary theory cannot reliably predict complex outcomes either. For example, despite the relative biological simplicity of a flu virus, scie

The change in temperature observed is a fact. The explanation is a mathematical model of a very complex mechanism that we barely understand. For instance there was an article on hn recently about how the ocean could capture a lot more co2 than anticipated [1]. And none of these models had the benefit of being tested for their capacity to predict the future. Anyone who has toyed with any predictive model knows how easy it is to overfit a back-testing. I am not saying that there is no global warmi

Your ignorance doesn’t mean the science didn’t happen. The predictive models from decades ago have held up quite well, while deniers have moved from one wrong excuse to another.https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2943/study-confirms-climate-mo...<a href="https://arstechnica.com/science

I'm not a climate scientist or anything near, but from skimming the article I understood that the new model estimated worst predictions than previous models. Like you can't talk about "reality" of the future that didn't happened yet. Please correct me if I misunderstood something

First, your phrasing is vague; please be more specific.If your comment is intended as a general dismissal of climate predictions, my replies would be:* What would you recommend instead?* Would you recommend that no one make model-based predictions at all?* Would you recommend that model-based predictions be dismissed entirely?All models are wrong, but some are useful. [1] In other words, models are all simplifications in different kinds of ways, but a critical, skeptical mind can

Why can't we use the climate models?

Yes. Make predictions. Wait. Observe. Measure difference between predicted outcome and actual outcome.We've had scientists making predictions since the 80's, so we have some long term observations. I'll save you the read, historical models are fairly accurate and have become more accurate over time.I'm not sure why anyone considers this a debate. It's not a debate. It's willingness to look at data or not.<a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/a

There were dozens and dozens of "climate models" which predicted everything from global cooling to a fiery wasteland and everything in between. Of course you could go back and find a model that "predicted" correctly because every possibility was predicted.That's like dozens and dozens of "stock price models" predicting FB stock to go up, down and stay the same. Of course one is guaranteed to be correct.What is "scientific" about this? It's