Climate model uncertainties ripe to be squeezed

January 7, 2019, University of Exeter
Credit: CC0 Public Domain

The latest climate models and observations offer unprecedented opportunities to reduce the remaining uncertainties in future climate change, according to a paper published in Nature Climate Change by a team of 29 international authors.

Although the human impact of recent climate change is now clear, future climate change depends on how much additional greenhouse gas is emitted by humanity and also how sensitive the Earth System is to those emissions. Reducing uncertainty in the sensitivity of the climate to is necessary to work-out how much needs to be done to reduce the risk of dangerous climate change, and to meet international climate targets.

The study, which emerged from an intense workshop at the Aspen Global Change Institute in August 2017, explains how new evaluation tools will enable a more complete comparison of models to ground-based and satellite measurements. As lead author Veronika Eyring of DLR in Germany explains, "we decided to convene a workshop at the AGCI to discuss how we can make the most of these new opportunties to take climate evaluation to the next level".

The agenda laid-out includes plans to make the increasing number of global climate models which are being developed worldwide, more than the sum of the parts. One promising approach involves using all the models together to find relationships between the climate variations being observed now and future climate change. "When considered together, the latest models and observations can significantly reduce uncertainties in key aspects of ", said workshop co-organiser Peter Cox of the University of Exeter in the UK.

The new paper is motivated by a need to rapidly increase the speed of progress in dealing with . It is now clear that humanity needs to reduce emissions of carbon dioxide very rapidly to avoid crashing through the global warming limits of 1.5oC and 2oC set out in the Paris agreement. However, adapting to the changes that we will experience requires much more detailed information at the regional scale. "The pieces are now in place for us to make progress on that challenging scientific problem", explained Veronika Eyring.

Explore further: Dangerous climate change is likely, concludes new research

More information: Veronika Eyring et al, Taking climate model evaluation to the next level, Nature Climate Change (2019). DOI: 10.1038/s41558-018-0355-y

Related Stories

Dangerous climate change is likely, concludes new research

June 26, 2018

A new study has revealed sensitive regions of the world are still at risk from the dangerous and potentially irreversible effects of climate change; even if we meet the target of not increasing global temperature above 1.5°C ...

How China is taking on climate change

July 20, 2018

In 2017, China was the world's leading emitter of heat-trapping gases by a wide margin. Its policies for limiting emissions will have a significant impact on the global climate for decades to come.

Paris Climate Agreement targets challenged

December 21, 2017

New research into the targets set out in the Paris Climate Agreement challenges conventional wisdom on the way that global warming and climate change should be tackled in the long term.

Recommended for you

27 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
2.2 / 5 (10) Jan 07, 2019
The soothsayers expect to improve upon the models that have already been an utter failure, shouldn't be difficult.
snoosebaum
2 / 5 (12) Jan 07, 2019
Taxpayers ripe to be squeezed

models don't work now , just massage the data
Parsec
4.2 / 5 (15) Jan 07, 2019
It is always amazing to me that scientific know nothings come onto this site and make wild idiotic and purely political statements and expect not to be ignored.

The thing about facts are that they continue to exist untouched whether you believe them or not. They just are.
SamB
1.7 / 5 (11) Jan 07, 2019
It is always amazing to me that scientific know nothings come onto this site and make wild idiotic and purely political statements and expect not to be ignored


If you had just not dropped in we would have had a nice quiet conversation without the wild idiotic and purely political ramblings you seem to like spouting.
Try a little conversation instead of trolling and insults .
Ojorf
4.1 / 5 (13) Jan 08, 2019
If you had just not dropped in we would have had a nice quiet conversation without the wild idiotic and purely political ramblings you seem to like spouting.
Try a little conversation instead of trolling and insults .


Nice one, troll.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 08, 2019
The thing about facts are that they continue to exist untouched whether you believe them or not. They just are.
These are people who think if you can successfully worm your way out of them in court they don't exist.
STR
1.6 / 5 (13) Jan 08, 2019
The soothsayers expect to improve upon the models that have already been an utter failure, shouldn't be difficult.


Models that were absolute proof of AGW and CO2 etc... yet didn't match reality at all, didn't include some of the strongest forcings and feedbacks.

And they wonder why people don't buy into it.
rrwillsj
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2019
Oh please! Polite to denierbots? I don't see the point.

Those are just evilly coded Artificial Stupids. Programmed to disrupt public discourse.

Puppets prancing on the internet stage.
Bought & paid for by their puppetmasters in riyadh & moscow.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 08, 2019
Climate models have been "ripe" at the get-go, as confirmed by the loads of shite from them, that the AGW Cult has used to soil science. Now, they must squeeze the last drops out, to satiate the hunger of their ignorant Chicken Littles.
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 08, 2019
And they wonder why people don't buy into it.


No one wonders why troll does not buy into acknowledged science [IPCC] on science sites: those who do not are trolls.

No one wonders why some groups of public in US and other populist expressing nations does not buy into acknowledge science: those who do not are political groups.

But hey, it is just the observed world and its - in this case risky - consequences. Have fun, but do not expect us others to partake in your stupidity!
torbjorn_b_g_larsson
4.3 / 5 (11) Jan 08, 2019
AGW Cult


Trolling the article, still.

But okay, so: your references? The world reference to climate science is IPCC; does that term even come up (since AGW is a fact, not a 'cult')?
zz5555
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 08, 2019
Models that were absolute proof of AGW and CO2 etc

Actually, basic physics were the proof of AGW and CO2. Climate models aren't required for that in any way.
... yet didn't match reality at all, didn't include some of the strongest forcings and feedbacks.

It's well known that even simple models from the '80s did very well against reality, so obviously they already include the strongest forcing and feedbacks. It's true that models aren't perfect, but the fact that models already do very well indicates that they're already very useful (https://www.clima...vations/ ).

And they wonder why people don't buy into it.

Yes, people do seem more and more incompetent and innumerate these days.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Jan 08, 2019
Meanwhile, looks like these models are going to get more precise again. They've apparently always been accurate.

The trolling deniers of course won't understand the difference between precision and accuracy.
antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2019
Meanwhile, looks like these models are going to get more precise again. They've apparently always been accurate.

The trolling deniers of course won't understand the difference between precision and accuracy.

LMAO.
Da Snot, the "meat" loving, knob gobbler, brays again.
You'd think, with his boyfriend pounding the stupid out of his ass, that he would be getting less stupid. Hey jackass, if something is accurate then it's impossible for it to get more precise.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2019
So the algorebot doesn't know the difference between accuracy and precision either.

QED.

Accuracy is the difference between measurements and the actual value. Precision is the difference between different measurements.

A more accurate measurement gives the real value better than a less accurate one. A more precise measurement gives that value to a higher precision: more decimal places.
Bert_Halls
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2019
@SamB Your mother's last john was a syphilitic neonazi who, mid-coitus, stabbed her with a handful of rusty needles full of dish washing liquid.

Yet still she preferred that to fucking your father. After all, an embolism and tetanus together are less degrading and painful than knowing she produced you.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2019
So the algorebot doesn't know the difference between accuracy and precision either.

QED.

Accuracy is the difference between measurements and the actual value. Precision is the difference between different measurements.

A more accurate measurement gives the real value better than a less accurate one. A more precise measurement gives that value to a higher precision: more decimal places.

LMAO.
You sure relish in confirming your stupidity. Now, go back and read your original comment.
howhot3
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2019
People, chill for a moment and read the article. Basically, it's suggesting that we need to look at our climate models very closely so that we know exactly the target is that we are shooting for. There is no need for a flamewar, just some reality notice on should we set the goal at 5oC or 8oC.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2019
I'm not gonna "chill" when someone lies about the difference between accuracy and precision. Looks like you're vacillating on the science, @howhot, which I didn't expect from you.
STR
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2019
Models that were absolute proof of AGW and CO2 etc

Actually, basic physics were the proof of AGW and CO2. Climate models aren't required for that in any way.
... yet didn't match reality at all, didn't include some of the strongest forcings and feedbacks.

It's well known that even simple models from the '80s did very well against reality, so obviously they already include the strongest forcing and feedbacks. It's true that models aren't perfect, but the fact that models already do very well indicates that they're already very useful (https://www.clima...vations/ ).

And they wonder why people don't buy into it.

Yes, people do seem more and more incompetent and innumerate these days.


The data and the reality don't match without a lot of modification to the data. Never mind the large error bars.

With more data though, we will get a clearer picture.
Some solar and cosmic ray forcings were largely ignored.
Bert_Halls
3 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2019
@STR Fuck off. You're lying.
snoosebaum
1 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2019
howhot3
5 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2019
@Da Schneib
Looks like you're vacillating on the science, @howhot, which I didn't expect from you.
Yeah, I was just having a bad day. Science is a total rejection of fallacy and better days will happen with science in your hip pocket, You all may quote me on that.

Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2019
Sure ain't no other way we're gonna fix it.
howhot3
5 / 5 (1) Jan 09, 2019
Yeah, for sure. And it seems from the article a lot of good science is being collected into a single model that can really predict future changes in climate based on our CO2 generation. If this results in the reduction a CO2 generation from fossil fuel combustion then it is a good thing.

Heck, even the trumpster types should be for that.
STR
1 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2019
@STR Fuck off. You're lying.


Ha, the data manipulation doesn't lie!
And even the IPCC acknowledged they didn't fully account for all forcings because not enough was known about them. But let's not worry about it, eh...
zz5555
4.3 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2019
The data and the reality don't match without a lot of modification to the data.

Raw data is almost always useless in science. This is especially true of temperature data - much of which was taken at different times of day or, in the case of ocean temperatures, with different techniques. Attempting to correct known errors in the temperature data is not wrong.
With more data though, we will get a clearer picture.
Some solar and cosmic ray forcings were largely ignored.

Cosmic ray forcings have been known to be negligible for quite some time. A great deal of data confirms this, from CLOUD experimental data to climate data from the past. Literally no data suggests otherwise. As for the sun, it's well known that the current warming cannot be due to the sun. The warming signature is completely wrong for that. Measured GHG forcings do match, however.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.