Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 21^st, 2023 at 5:55pm:

Totally.

Beyond yours as well, more to the point.



Slipping and sliding like a pig on ice is NOT comprehension.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 21^st, 2023 at 5:20pm:


Nope. They can't even hindcast effectively.

Jovial Monk wrote on Nov 21^st, 2023 at 5:20pm:


You are the one claiming they are good. So why is it Hausfather and Schmidt want the climate models to be weeded out?

"
The latest generation of climate models that predict future temperatures and their impacts present what some researchers have defined as the “hot model problem”. The solution may be to shift from model democracy to model meritocracy.

Climate models give us a glimpse into the future. They provide a range of the best- and worst-case scenarios for what lies ahead and, in the process, supply stakeholders with crucial information that can then be used to inform further research and decision making processes.

Since the early 1990s climate modelling has been done largely in conjunction with the IPCC process through Coupled Model Intercomparison Projects (CMIP): rather than each modelling group producing their own scenarios on an ad hoc basis, they coordinate with each other and run climate models using the same set of inputs in terms of radiative forcing representative of different scenarios.

“One thing that is a little underappreciated by the larger community is that when we look at the various projections in future warming that the IPCC provides, they are based on CMIP that do concentration driven runs,” explains climate change researcher and modelling expert Zeke Hausfather, when talking to ClimateForesight. “Essentially, you take a set of different climate models and you have them all run the same concentrations of greenhouse gasses such as CO2, methane or nitrous oxide.”

Modellers do this because approximately one-third of climate models are still unable to include dynamic carbon cycling modelling. In other words, they can’t factor in the impact of emissions on atmospheric concentration levels in a dynamic way.

However, a subset of the latest generation of models is recognised as being “too hot” and therefore projects climate warming in response to carbon dioxide emissions that is larger than that supported by other evidence.

In fact, some of these models predict that a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations could lead to global warming of over 5 degrees Celsius, a conclusion which is not supported by other lines of evidence and previous models."

https://www.climateforesight.eu/articles/the-hot-model-problem/

Yeah...They're good.

With more model results available—yup, they are working well.

Are they perfect? No, nor will they ever be perfect but as they are compared with data they will get better.

The first ever numerical climate model by Manabe and Wetherald is still predicting temperatures pretty well.

Because when more model results were released, the models did well.

No doubt there will be future editions of the models.

No, the running hot was with a small subset of model results. With more results the models are predicting climate quite well.

LOL, lees is already desperate. That graph mixing up surface, lower and upper troposphere temps is deliberately designed to confuse the stupid like lees.

Polar bear populations recovered after hunting them was forbidden.

Now there are various populations, either stable or declining, so overall polar bear populations are declining.

Biggest population is on the remnant thick ice off the CAA.

As ice keeps disappearing more polar bear populations will decline or become another land bear and merge with the Kodak/grizzly bear population.