State of the Planet

News from the Columbia Climate School

What Are Climate Models and How Accurate Are They?

By Lauren Harper

temperatures based on climate model
Temperature projections based on a climate model. Source: NOAA

There’s a famous saying that “The climate is what you expect; the weather is what you get.” As a native Texan moving to New York, I had an idea of what to expect, but was not fully prepared for what I would get. Because New York’s climate is drastically different from what I’m used to, every morning before I leave my apartment I religiously check the weather forecast. Very quickly I know if it’s going to rain, whether there’s a storm brewing off the coast, or if I will need extra layers.

Whereas weather can change dramatically from day to day, the climate means the average conditions over roughly 30 years—how warm is the region, on average, and how much precipitation does it get in a year? Texas’s climate, for example, tends to be warmer for the majority of the year, whereas New York is on average cooler with clearly defined seasons.

Weather and climate are sometimes used interchangeably, but scientists, meteorologists and researchers study and model them differently.

What is a Weather Model?

“Today’s weather forecast is partly cloudy with a chance of showers in the late afternoon…” This is a familiar weather summary that you have probably heard before from a meteorologist. To make these predictions, meteorologists use weather data and forecast models to determine current and future atmospheric conditions.

Weather Balloon, Weather Modeling, NASA
NASA Dryden meteorologists prepare to launch a weather balloon next to a Sonic Detection And Ranging wind profiling unit. Photo: NASA Dryden / Tom Tshida

Because weather takes place hour by hour, forecast models use current atmospheric and oceanic conditions to predict future weather. The forecast takes into account humidity, temperature, air pressure, wind speed and direction, as well as cloud cover. Geographic location, proximity to water, urban structures, latitude and elevation can also influence the weather you experience.

Weather models work at resolutions high enough to generate different predictions for neighboring towns, in some cases, but only over short timescales of about two weeks maximum.

What is a Climate Model?

Essentially, climate models are an extension of weather forecasting. But whereas weather models make predictions over specific areas and short timespans, climate models are broader and analyze long timespans. They predict how average conditions will change in a region over the coming decades.

Climate Modeling, 3-D Grid
Illustration of the three-dimensional grid of a climate model. Image: Ruddiman

Climate models include more atmospheric, oceanic and land processes than weather models do—such as ocean circulation and melting glaciers. These models are typically generated from mathematical equations that use thousands of data points to simulate the transfer of energy and water that takes place in climate systems.

Scientists use climate models to understand complex earth systems. These models allow them to test hypotheses and draw conclusions on past and future climate systems. This can help them determine whether abnormal weather events or storms are a result of changes in climate or just part of the routine climate variation. For example, when predicting tropical cyclones during hurricane season, scientists can use climate models to predict the number of tropical storms that may form off the coast and in what regions they are likely to make landfall.

When creating climate models, scientists use one of three common types of simple climate models: energy balance models, intermediate complexity models, and general circulation models. These models use numbers to simplify the complexities that exist when taking into account all the factors that affect climate, like atmospheric mixing and ocean current.

Energy balance models help to forecast climate changes as a result of Earth’s energy budget. This model takes into account surface temperatures from solar energy, albedo or reflectivity, and the natural cooling from the earth emitting heat back out into space. To predict climate, scientists use an equation that represents the amount of energy coming in versus going out, to understand the changes in heat storage—for example, as more heat-absorbing CO2 fills up the atmosphere. Scientists then take this equation and plug it into box models that represent a square of land within a three-dimensional grid, to express climate in a region or even across a continent.

This video explaining climate modeling was created by the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) in collaboration with Australian Bureau of Meteorology.

Intermediate complexity models are similar to energy balance models but they include and combine several of Earth’s geographical structures—land, oceans, and ice features, for instance. These geographical features allow intermediate complexity models to simulate large-scale climate scenarios such as glacial fluctuations, ocean current shifts, and atmospheric composition changes over long timescales. Intermediate complexity models describe the climate with less spatial and time-specific detail, so they are best used for large-scale and low-frequency variations in the earth’s climate system.

Ice, Ice Core, Modeling, Research, Carbon Dating
An ice core. Credit: NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center/Ludovic Brucker

General circulation models are the most complex and precise models for understanding climate systems and predicting climate change. These models include information regarding the atmospheric chemistry, land type, carbon cycle, ocean circulation and glacial makeup of the isolated area. This type of model also uses a three-dimensional grid, with each box representing around 100 square kilometers of land, air, or sea, which is better resolution than the typical 200 to 600 kilometers per box. This model is more sophisticated than the energy balance and intermediate complexity models, but it does require a larger amount of computing time—each simulation could take several weeks to run.

What Can Climate Models Tell Us About the Future and Past?

For many decades, scientists have been collecting data on climate using cores from ice, trees, and coral, as well as carbon dating. From this research they have discovered details about past human activity, temperature changes in our oceans, periods of extreme drought, and much more.

As more data points are collected, they increase the accuracy of existing climate models. This enhances climate forecasting, because past climate data helps to establish a baseline for typical climate systems. From there, researchers establish climate variables that they want to keep the same, like cloud cover, and variables they want to test, like increased carbon dioxide, to evaluate hypotheses about future changes. These could estimate anything from sea level rise to increased temperatures and risk of drought and forest fires.

How Accurate are Climate Models?

Since the world can’t afford to wait decades to measure the accuracy of climate model predictions, scientists test a model’s accuracy using past events. If the model accurately predicts past events that we know happened, then it should be pretty good at predicting the future, too. And the more we learn about past and present conditions, the more accurate these models become.

Climate models are complex because of the all the elements that are in flux within Earth’s systems. If our atmosphere was like the moon’s, climate modeling would be fairly easy because the moon barely has an atmosphere. On Earth, climate scientists must account for temperature fluctuations, wind patterns, ocean currents, land surface characteristics and much more. Because of this, the models always consider some level of uncertainty – but models measuring smaller areas with higher resolutions produce more accurate models. Despite a small amount of uncertainty, scientists find climate models of the 21st century to be pretty accurate because they are based on well-founded physical principles of earth system processes. This basis solidifies the confidence of the scientific community that human emissions are changing the climate, which will impact the entire planet.

Why Are Climate Models Important?

Understanding past, present and future climate helps us to understand how Earth’s systems naturally function. This information, combined with climate models, allows us to determine how both natural and manmade influences have and will impact changes in our climate. These predictions and results can also suggest how to mitigate the worst effects of climate change, and they help decision-makers to prioritize environmental issues based on scientific evidence.

Climate Change Vulnerability
Climate change vulnerability. Credit: Wesleyan University and Columbia University

Numerous models have shown that the climate is changing. Increased greenhouse gas emissions from human activities are resulting in positive feedbacks in our climate systems. These positive feedbacks can result in not so positive changes in earth systems, like melting glacial ice, rising ocean temperatures, increasing odds of severe flooding and drought, and climbing surface temperatures.

A climate model predicts future temperatures. This model was developed by several climate modeling research groups, including NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

It is crucial that we continue to collect data and improve models, increasing their accuracy to refining our knowledge of climate and weather. It is also imperative that we recognize the importance of data-driven results and science-backed facts as they influence how communities and policy-makers plan for the future. Climate and weather models both have the ability to advance the way we plan our cities, influence business opportunities, and even how we plan out our day. These models are our best chance at finding ways to mitigate the dangerous effects of climate change.

Lauren Harper is an intern in the Earth Institute communications department. She is a graduate student in the Environmental Science and Policy Program at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

51 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Russell Potter
Russell Potter
4 years ago

So how do we know that these newer models are “more accurate” than
the older ones if there’s, in fact, been less time to measure said accuracy
in terms of comparing predicted against actual climate behaviour?

A question I haven’t yet had adequately answered is what, giving less
weight to less accurate models, and considering the various existing
models doubtless vary in the severity and consequences of any
predicted warming, what do the accurate models have in common
in terms of what in terms of *what* they’re predicting?

Lev Lafayette
Reply to  Russell Potter
4 years ago

New models have more and better tested information. Through hindcasting, that is, ensuring that past results match the modelled temperature, they improve their accuracy.

Panzerboy39
Panzerboy39
Reply to  Lev Lafayette
4 years ago

To what extent?

John doe
John doe
Reply to  Lev Lafayette
4 years ago

That’s rubbish. It’s easy to create an nth order parabola to overfit known data. The only way to know if it’s useful is if it accurately tracks new observations

Jane Die
Jane Die
Reply to  John doe
4 years ago

That’s hogwash. It’s simple to make an umpteenth order parabola to overfit current data. There’s only one way it works, and that’s if it accurately tracks new observations

Scott
Scott
Reply to  Lev Lafayette
3 years ago

Hi Lev-I can’t tell you how much money has been lost by creators of quantitative models who assumed a model that had predictive value in the past would also in the future….

JEFFREY LEVINE
JEFFREY LEVINE
Reply to  Scott
1 year ago

How illuminating! What other things can’t you tell us? Wait! Please don’t answer. I’d wager you have a boundless supply of things you can’t tell us. But why should we be interested in knowing what you can’t tell us?

Knowing what we don’t know has been my long-term definition of “intelligence”, but it’s only the starting point for actual knowledge.

michael meadows
michael meadows
Reply to  Russell Potter
3 years ago

When i look at future weather reports they always state that they cant be accurate after about a week ahead as its too hard to predict, yet they are apparently really confident in their climate models that stem years into the future with very limited historical hard facts as we only recorded live temps from only recent times.

Sarah Fecht
Reply to  michael meadows
3 years ago

You are confusing weather and climate. For example, although we don’t know what the specific weather will be in Georgia in July 2021, we can guess that it will be hot and humid, whereas California will likely be hot and dry, and New York will probably be more temperate. Climate = broader, long-term, prevailing trend in weather, which is easier to project

Weather Watcher
Weather Watcher
4 years ago

Are there any climate models that have been accurate for as long as five years?

ken
ken
Reply to  Weather Watcher
4 years ago

Russian one is closest.

Alyssa Andrews
Alyssa Andrews
Reply to  Weather Watcher
4 years ago

The Russian model (INM-CM4) seems to be the most accurate, almost meeting the five year mark.

Thos Shepherd
Thos Shepherd
Reply to  Alyssa Andrews
3 years ago

And the Russian model predicts cooling.

Andrey
Andrey
Reply to  Thos Shepherd
11 months ago

No it doesn’t

Panzerboy39
Panzerboy39
4 years ago

Hindsight is 20/20. Why should we expect past reproduction of climate to mean our future forecasts are accurate? The farther in the future you attempt to forecast, the larger the variance of error. Meaning the results you attempt to tell the laymen about future climate prediction are most likely horribly wrong. Not a great pedestal to preach from surely. More like a pillory

JEFFREY LEVINE
JEFFREY LEVINE
Reply to  Panzerboy39
1 year ago

“Hindsight is 20/20” That’s a true but trivial, and rather useless observation. Are you under the impression you’ve said something profound or insightful?

Using 20/20 hindsight to understand WHAT occurred in the past and WHY it occurred is one of the principal goals, and strongest tools, of scientific research. Are you opposed to scientific research? For what reason?

I’m not aware of any forecasts… including climate or weather forecasts that do not incorporate greater uncertainty the further out that they project into the future. This makes your claim that they are “most likely horribly wrong” horribly wrong. Or, more accurately, horribly unjustified, or horribly speculative. They may be uncertain, even to the point of being useless. But are they wrong? How can you possibly know that? Do you have some sort of 20/20 future goggles that provide you with that knowledge.

Another possibility would be not to attack straw men. It’s such a distraction.

Edward Principe
Edward Principe
4 years ago

I enjoyed the article and it was very informative.

But unless I missed It, the question posed in the title was not answered specifically or numerically. There was a section describing how – based upon past events – the accuracy is estimated. But we didn’t get the Results.

Anything further you can mention to provide quantitative parameters?

Pauld
Pauld
4 years ago

The notion that the ability of a model to hindcast is an indication of its ability to forecast is simply false. Most all of the climate models demonstrate the ability to hindcast–that is the price of admission. Yet the future predicted climate sensitivity varies widely among the models: from a low range of relatively benign sensitivity to a high range alarming sensitivity. The range of sensitivities has changed much in the past 30 years. How is this possible? The climate models rely on historical estimates of climate forcing that are not well established. Those with low sensitivities use low values for the cooling effect of aerosols while those with high sensitivities use high values for the cooling effect of aerosols.

Tom Tyler
Tom Tyler
4 years ago

Climate models are unreliable due to the GIGO factor. They have become little more than political propaganda tools.

JEFFREY LEVINE
JEFFREY LEVINE
Reply to  Tom Tyler
1 year ago

“One man’s trash is another man’s treasure”. I believe Einstein said that, but I haven’t verified it.

Real climate researchers have the difficult, yet important, responsibility of ensuring that the inputs to their climate models are not “garbage”. They may look like “garbage” to you. That’s pretty harsh. You must have some really strong evidence.

As to your second claim, I would 100% agree that criticisms of climate models have become little more than political propaganda tools. The climate models themselves? They are research tools.

Bob
Bob
4 years ago

So the answer to the question is “pretty accurate”. Now that’s a definitive statement. As a former atmospheric modeler I can tell you that the answer is abysmal.

DRHealy
DRHealy
4 years ago

There are over 100 climate models worldwide. Many studies use the average of these models, shown in ” spaghetti graphs” as a consensus figure. Unfortunately, averaging a large number of model results, most of which are incorrect, does not make much scientific or statistical sense. The most accurate model is the Russian model which is at the very lower end of the spectrum of temperature estimates.

JEFFREY LEVINE
JEFFREY LEVINE
Reply to  DRHealy
1 year ago

I’m pretty sure there is NOT a strong understanding of how the scientific process works among many critics of climate science. Actually, that was a very generous statement. I think most critics of climate science don’t have even the vaguest clue of how science works, and how science makes progress… and how science weeds out “the wheat” from “the chaff”, or why science has proved to be so fabulously successful over the past hundreds of years.

The persistent attacks against the very concept of scientific investigation and scientific knowledge has the potential to thrust us back into the Dark Ages, when the notion of truth rested solely on opinion and authority.

The expectation that the scientific content in a newly emerging discipline should be 100% accurate, and 100% in agreement is… um… It is NOT the way science works. Consensus is an emergent characteristic of scientific investigation, based on the compilation, evaluation, criticism of information from countless sources. (I will trust that you know the meaning of “emergent” in this context. If not, look it up.) Coherency is the ultimate measure of the strength and validity of our understanding of objective reality. To demand that this happen “yesterday” is… um…. NOT how science works.

Kerry Cox
Kerry Cox
4 years ago

I have noticed recently more than a few articles that attempt to show how accurate these climate models are. They generally have as much success as the models themselves…
In the world of AGW the models are everything and must be defended at all costs otherwise how can they justify the entrenched beurocracy and higher taxes?

JEFFREY LEVINE
JEFFREY LEVINE
Reply to  Kerry Cox
1 year ago

What you have “noticed” has, unfortunately, been strongly colored by politics. This makes the pursuit of science much more difficult. Nevertheless, it IS the situation we are presently constrained to work within. (And to be clear, I am NOT a climate scientist, but a citizen with love of science and of evidence-based reasoning in any context, who is deeply concerned about the politicization of science and the disintegration of a shared concept of objective reality within our society.)

There is not a climate researcher alive who is not acutely aware of the limitations of GCMs and other models relevant to climate research, and who does not desperately want to improve them, make them more accurate, more comprehensive, and more reliable. The notion of climate researchers as political “hacks” who are out to line their pockets with cash, and fulfill the hidden political agenda of some secret organization, is the invention of the political paranoia machine. (This is mostly coming from the political right. That’s an awkward thing to have to say, but it’s an objective fact that people have to be aware of.)

GCMs are by no means the only kind of “model” that is used in climate research. Every mathematical equation ever written describing the behavior of a natural, physical system is a “model”. So… Which “models” are you referring to? Or is it “all of them”?

When I encounter attacks against the the usage of unspecified “climate models” by members of the “skeptical” community, I tend to think of that gruesome scene in Monty Python and the Holy Grail, where our hero severs (in turn) all four limbs of a knight who challenges his forward progress, accompanied by fountains of blood. It’s not a direct analogy, because in this case it is the climate scientists who are threatened with having their limbs hacked off. Why should GCM’s or any other model be excluded as a tool for developing a better understanding of the behavior of Earth’s climate system. Think for a moment what the alternatives might be. Crystal ball? Ouija board?

You are simply wrong that “in the world of AGW the models are everything and must be defended at all costs”. I reiterate. That’s false… in both respects. As a geologist, I can attest that studying the response of Earth’s climate system to past changes in CO2 content of the atmosphere provides one of the strongest, and most compelling lines of evidence as to why we should be concerned about the impact of the massive quantities of CO2 and other GHGs we are presently adding to the atmosphere.

I hope you will be able to see that the notion that “the models are everything” is NOT something that comes from climate science. Climate scientists will use every tool at their disposal to document the impact of climate change and try to anticipate what the future effects might be. Nor are climate researchers so dogmatic and myopic as to “defend them at all cost”. Unfortunately, what they mostly have to defend them against is straw man arguments… of which, I’m sorry to say, your comment is an example.

Arturo Massa
Arturo Massa
Reply to  JEFFREY LEVINE
1 year ago

Very emotional answer…regrettably…
As the measures to be taken by the Governments are absolutely dependent on the conclusions of these studies, and we are told EVERYDAY that there is no time to lose, and that we need to ACT NOW!, because of the projections of said models, and most of those measures to ¨Save the Planet¨ are draconian, and may mean serious degradation on the quality of life of billions of people TODAY, it is only fair to ask how sure are them of such threatening and dramatic projections.
Most of us know the facts. Arguing about them seems preposterous. There is warming. A major cause of that are us , humans. Key questions are:How much, how fast?
Because in this case, the limbs to be cut are not those of a fictional knight, but of VERY real human beings.

Stephanie Spada
Stephanie Spada
4 years ago

A lot of criticism seems to be harbored on what is spot on rather then successfully predicting a trend. Climate models from my understanding are based on scenarios and though some are inaccurate, they can be corrected by “blended fields.” Just something interesting to note is the idea climate models may not be accurate because it is nearly impossible to predict CO2 emissions, cloud formation, and overall human impacts

Mike Stenford
Mike Stenford
Reply to  Stephanie Spada
1 year ago

How did hippopotamuses live in the UK 110,000 years ago when CO2 was 280ppm? This scientific fact seems to contradict the CO2 argument? How can we trust a “climate model” if hippos in UK are a “fact”?

Sarah Fecht
Reply to  Mike Stenford
1 year ago

Here’s your answer: https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2022/09/20/you-asked-dinosaurs-survived-when-co2-was-extremely-high-why-cant-humans/ In short: it’s not necessarily about the levels, but about the rate of change. During other times in Earth’s history when CO2 rose or fell rapidly, life didn’t have a chance to evolve to keep up –> mass extinctions.

Alyssa Andrews
Alyssa Andrews
4 years ago

It appears that the only measure of accuracy is the based on hind casting which seemingly unreliable. This article does not seem to provide a lot of convincing facts that climate models are very reliable, there are other articles that make a better and more compelling case.

Blouis79
Blouis79
3 years ago

Covid-19 lockdowns provide a major opportunity for climate models to demonstrate their predictive skill.

Eric Ewusi
Eric Ewusi
3 years ago

Please I am in the University reading Meteorology; Can I know how weather calculations and predictions are being done.

james ottina
james ottina
3 years ago

I see climate balance models as similar to a spinning top. More energy in the system makes the top go faster (higher CO2 levels), and small changes can create instability (perturbation), eventually, if the top changes too much, it will fall (an ice age). How useful or accurate is this explanation?

alfred
Reply to  james ottina
3 years ago

Hi James,

Unfortunately I don’t think this is exactly right. It’s certainly compelling to think of stored hydrocarbons being burned as a form of energy that is released into the weather system and starts speeding up the processes of climate, but this is not what is suggested by the data. If you look into the historical record there are pheneomana such as the solar minimum causing cooling, there were periods of high carbon dioxide in the atmosphere with low temperatures, and of course there is NO model that can predict the future climate with any accuracy over any substantial length of time. Although researchers claim they understand the mechanisms of the tempera of Terra, in reality they are stabbing in the dark. I recall every prediction my science teachers and text books made about climate change failing to materialize, Mt Kilimanjaro was supposed to have all the snow melted off of it by the time I graduated high school! Seems like the models are a load of bull to me.

Sincerely,
Alfred

JEFFREY LEVINE
JEFFREY LEVINE
Reply to  alfred
1 year ago

Alfred,

The Importance of Skepticism; and the Corrupting Influence of Denialism

I appreciate and commend your efforts to skeptically question the ability of climate scientists to predict future impacts of ongoing global climate change. (For various reasons, I prefer the term Anthropogenic Global Warming, or AGW, although not everyone agrees). And I know it is frustrating trying to find reliable information; or to know whom to trust. This is all made more difficult because of the efforts of AGW Denialists (They are NOT skeptics, but people who presume, for reasons of politics or motivated bias, that AGW is false.) to sow confusion and cynical mistrust toward climate science, and even toward science in general.

(For a tragic example of the latter, look at what happened when Covid was politicized. Literally hundreds of thousands of completely avoidable deaths occurred here in the USA; tens of thousands of unneeded deaths in the state of Texas alone, where I live. These deaths occurred almost entirely among those who refused to be vaccinated. (Most of the others were in the highest risk category of our oldest citizens) And their reason for refusing vaccination? I guess I’d better stay on topic)

Efforts to mislead the public are partially intentional and malicious. For the most part, however, they are unintentional, and occur as a consequence of the flawed way we human beings form our beliefs about the world. In either case, these malicious agents of denial depend upon unwitting participants to propagate misinformation, which multiplies its effect. The net impact of these efforts have had a toxic influence on our entire society… not just in how we respond to climate change. It can lead even the most well-intentioned people to reach unjustified conclusions about what is happening in the world, and why.

Sincere skepticism is an immense burden to carry around , and I hope you always retain it, although it may require you to spend more time than you’d like trying to dig down to the underlying “facts”. But be forewarned. This involves a lot more than the popular notion of “doing your own (online) research”. Because unless you can see through the surface layers to what’s driving this conflict, you will be ill-prepared to process it. This is a topic of the highest interest to me, but to simplify things, let me emphasize the single most important thing you need to know: which is that valid science AND valid skepticism ultimately depend on reliable evidence.

Evidence is the Bed Rock for Rational Knowledge

Evidence is the primary product of science. It comes from observations, and measurements that have been validated by sharing, and comparing, and correlating, and critiquing. Interpretation is secondary in science… but realistically, the two evolve simultaneously. In any case, always look for the evidence, and try to avoid unsubstantiated “opinion”, no matter how sincere and persuasive it may seem. You will also need to be able to recognize and avoid logical fallacies… and this can be very difficult. It’s NOT something they do a good job of teaching our high schoolers… although students are quite capable of learning it!

If your immediate sources are not reporting the ultimate sources that THEY are relying on for their claims, then you should have immediate cause for suspicion. Then you will have some work to do to discover whether what they are saying is justified or not. In science this mostly means referring to peer-reviewed publications, reports, databases, etc. The peer-review process is not perfect, but it’s the best system we have to quality check (QC) the evidence and claims being made.

A Tale About Mt. Kilimanjaro

Let me tell you a story in response to your comments about Mt. Kilimanjaro:

Back in 2007, I was appointed to serve on a newly formed committee within the American Association of Petroleum Geologists (I am, or was, a geologist specializing in petroleum and coal exploration). This committee was supposed to serve as a focus for rational, science-based dialog relating to global change, and also as a conduit for reliable science-based information relating to climate change.

One of the first decisions we made as a committee was that we would rely primarily on the peer-reviewed scientific literature. Everyone on the committee was initially in agreement on this, yet it was THIS decision that ultimately led to the Committee being dissolved three years later, in 2010 The collapse occurred when certain members began to insist that we provide a platform for speculative, unverified (and sometimes simply false) hypotheses about climate change… that it was not occurring, that it was the sun causing it, or “ABC” (anything but carbon dioxide). Those of us on the Committee who were committed to science “pushed back”, and trouble ensued. A tragedy, really. 🙁

Prior to its premature death, however, the Committee organized several highly successful forums held in association with AAPG’s national and international meetings, where we invited some of the world’s leading experts in various aspects of climate research to present the “state of the art” in their particular areas of expertise. This was intended for the benefit of AAPG members (many of whom were skeptical that AGW was occurring or that anthropogenic CO2 is the primary driver. This “skepticism” (intentionally in quotes!) remains in effect for some of them, although we don’t really know how many).

One of the experts we invited–for a forum I helped to organize and I co-chair in Cape Town, South Africa–was a researcher named Dr. Georg Kaser from the University of Innsbruck. He was (and is!) a glaciologist who studies the impact of climate change on the world’s cryosphere, especially mountain glaciers.

One of the specific reason we invited Dr. Kaser was that he could speak in an informed way about the broad topic of global climate change, but could also speak specifically about the retreat of the glaciers and snow cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro, which had already attracted the attention of AGW Denialists, owing to certain claims that had been made by Al Gore and in the popular media. So if you’d like to know what the best scientific understanding was in 2007 about the shrinking snow and ice cap on Kilimanjaro, you can find a reasonable overview of it here:

https://www.washington.edu/news/2007/06/11/the-woes-of-kilimanjaro-dont-blame-global-warming/

You need to be aware that AGW Denialists try to promote confusion and misinformation by making no distinction between information published in peer reviewed studies, such as the IPCC reports, and potentially sensationalized stories in the popular media and social media. To them it ALL falls under the heading of “alarmism”. But as I said above, what we really need to know is what is the actual scientific evidence, and what is it telling us… NOT what Al Gore is saying, or what Anthony Watts is reporting on WattsUpWithThat.

I don’t what year you graduated high school. Nor do I know when you took your science class, nor if your claim about “every prediction my science teachers and text books made about climate change failing to materialize”. This frankly seems unlikely to me. You mean to say they got nothing right? Is it possible that some of it was correct, and some not? (Sorry… not trying to be nitpicky, but “all-or-nothing” “black-and-white” thinking is a common logical fallacy in AGW Denialism. Science doesn’t work that way. Science tends to see the world in “shades of gray” or, more importantly, in degrees of uncertainty and imprecision. This is actually how it is, by the way: shades of gray; not black-and-white.)

I’m not in a position to question your recollections from high school. However, human memory is far from perfect, and your recollections of the past may have been influenced by things you’ve heard more recently. Sorry, but it happens. How confident are you that you actually understood what your teacher and the textbook were saying? Or consider… What if your teacher AND your text book were wrong in certain details of climate science. Would this prove that AGW is false? (I’ll return to this important question at the end.) If you’re a true, sincere skeptic, then you have to doubt your own beliefs as well as the claims of others. I do this all the time to myself!

So, to wrap things up: In the real world–I mean the one we actually live in–essentially every mountain glacier on the planet is currently retreating. (Remember: Look.At.The.Evidence.; https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-glacier-mass-balance ). The Greenland Ice Sheet is retreating rapidly: https://www.carbonbrief.org/new-climate-models-suggest-faster-melting-of-the-greenland-ice-sheet/; I used this article because it integrates the results of observations together with climate modeling).

Climate scientists from around the world concur, with essentially 100% agreement, that these things are occurring as a consequence of AGW, and that anthropogenic CO2 is the primary driver. And am I to understand that you are prepared to throw away all of this evidence because your high school science teacher led you to have a misunderstanding about “The Snows of Kilimanjaro”?

Just think about this, sincerely, and with an open mind. And I don’t mean to pressure you unduly, but our future rests in the hands of people like you, so please take it seriously.

And free to contact me if you’d like some further dialog on this.

Jeffrey Levine
Jeffrey@LevineOnLine.com

Malcolm Shaw
Malcolm Shaw
3 years ago

The Google link says there are over 100 climate models yet I can’t find that in the text. Did anyone else see it?

Sof
Sof
3 years ago

Hello, I used a future climate model of the year 2050 in my research and reviewers have asked me to verify the accuracy of my predicted climate model of 2050, the model was taken from the meteonorm software used under IPCC AR4 – scenario A2.. Please is there any methods to do this verefication.

bob
bob
3 years ago

according to information I’ve seen, somewhere around the time of the Gettysburg address the earths temps started to increase. what was the cause of change change and as one scientist has shown the earths temps has ave. about a .6 increase per yr. what happened back in the day that cause the temp to change from cooling to heating. I really do want an answer because we get so much fake stories like the ice age of 1974 and the north pole will be gone by 2014

Arturo Massa
Arturo Massa
Reply to  bob
1 year ago

Have you tried to correlate it with population growth?
I find interesting that perhaps the main reason to think that the increase is caused by humans, is that a variable that fits well with temperature increase is global,population…and furthermore, energy consumption, which has dramatically increased since 2000 due to the strong development in China and India, that together moved 10% of the world ´s population out of poverty in a very short period of time, with a considerable increase in the use of energy.
just saying…

brandon
brandon
2 years ago

Hello I am wondering what are the most common climate prediction models and what are the final conclusions regarding what the full effects of climate change would be.

Terry Oldberg
Terry Oldberg
Reply to  brandon
2 years ago

Brandon:

The climate models do not “predict.” Instead they “project.” Though “predict” and “project” are often assumed to be the same concepts these two concepts differ. In particular, a statistical population underlies a model that makes predictions, no statistical population underlies a model that makes projections. Consequently a model that makes projections lacks empirical support thus being unscientific.

keyvan
keyvan
2 years ago

Hello 
I want to research the impact of climate change on fish abundance and distribution in the Indian Ocean. I extracted environmental factors such as temperature and salinity of the water surface and the depth of the mixing layer using satellite imagery from 1999 to the present. I also want to predict the trend of change using RCP scenarios. My question is, do these scenarios tell us the process of changing these factors in the future? For example, if I find that salinity has a positive or negative effect on this fish, will these models give us future salinity changes? Please advise on suitable climate models for this study? Thank you

matthew T Running
matthew T Running
1 year ago

Is a climate model peer reviewed? How? In a journal?

adam
adam
1 year ago

i noticed when answering the question: how accurate are climate change models? you didn’t answer it. in fact you avoided answering it. just wondering if you could give actual data concerning the accuracy. both long term and short term accuracy would be helpful as a 1% inaccuracy in the short term means an even greater deviation in the long term. thanks.

Terry Oldberg
Terry Oldberg
Reply to  adam
1 year ago

Hi Adam:
The question to which I have responded is of whether the argument made by a climate model is logically sound. The answer to this question is that this argument is logically unsound. It follows that the conditional outcome os the events of the future for Earth’s climate system cannot be requlated through the use of this model. Thus, the Biden administration’s energy policy lacks a basis in logic.
Terry

Terry Oldberg
Terry Oldberg
Reply to  adam
1 year ago

Adam:

Further to my answer to your question, if the climate models made “predictions,” as claimed by Ms. Harper then each prediction would exhibit a degree of accuracy. However early in the history of the IPCC, the IPCC Expert Reviewer Vincent Gray discovered that instead of “predictions” these models made “projections.” He describes this incident in the memoir entitled “Spinning the Climate.” One of the properties of a “projection” was that it did not exhibit an accuracy. In tacit agreement with Dr. Gray, the IPCC changed the word “prediction” to the term “projection” but they did not do so consistently.

Terry Oldberg
Terry Oldberg
1 year ago

What about the logicality of the argument that is made by the model of Earth’s climate systern upon the Biden administration’s energy policy is based? It turns out that.this argument falsifies the Law of the excluded middle (LEM) and “unit measure” where the LEM is among Aristotle’s three Laws of Thought whereas “unit measure” is an axiom of probability theory and assumption of mathematical statistics. It follows that this energy policy lacks a basis in logic or in science. The Biden Administration, however, claims that this policy has a basis in logic and in science. How did the Biden Administration come to think this policy has a position in logic and science when it does not? I have looked into this matter and have found that the argument made by the climate models upon which this argument is based is dressed up to look like the LEM and “unit” measure are both satisfied by this argument. They are dressed up through attachment of usual and deceptive meanings to statistical terms that create the illusion of satisfaction of the LEM and “unit measure” by this argument. I have made this discovery through the use of an algorithm I have devised that determines the true meanings of statistical terms given that these terms may not take on non-technical and deceptive meanings in the argument made by a climate model.For example, the term “probability” may take on the meaning of a measure of an event which falsifies the LEM and “unit measure.”

I am Terry Oldberg
Engineer/Scientist/Public Policy Researcher
Los Altos Hills, CA
1-650-941-0533
terry_oldberg@yahoo.com

Joyce
Joyce
11 months ago

Why are theoretical models considered to be more powerful than empirical models in weather and climate prediction?

Brian
Brian
8 months ago

As a mathematical modeler, I have not seen climate models that have been any good at predicting the past or the present. Could you point me to a or some models that work within a degree of certainty (in a statistical sense). Examing correlation often expand the chance of finding of causality.

Anni
Anni
Reply to  Brian
7 months ago

I find it funny that author is unwilling to give the actual accuracy percentages. I remember reading article where some 100 predictive programs were tested and the best model scored something like 85%…

Shane Flemming
3 months ago

Riddle me this? My local boat ramp was clogging with sand. They used computer models to predict the new sand and water movement when the wall was extended and its angle changed. This makes sense, like climate change, there’s not multiple earth/boats ramps to experiment with, thus, models are the only way. But they had plenty of real data to enter, years of historical ocean and sand movements on the coast from that local area, plus no doubt, they looked to to other ramps or harbors on same coastline to aid in their decision about the model. Now, this boat ramp is in a very protected harbor, and this harbor has a very small entrance, nor is it a large harbor, thus, I theories, its small size and largely enclosed would make things even more predictable than a more open ramp faced with more severe currents and storms etc. Anyway, the long and the short: if said modelling resulted in building a new wall that utterly failed, put differently, if the modelling for this project failed to run accurately the small amount of variables, code, in a relatively closed system, failed in that now they are spending millions on pumping sand out and dredging it again….
WHY WOULD I BELIEVE A CLIMATE MODEL IS A REASONABLE BASIS TO JUSTIFY WORLD WIDE REVOLUTIONAIRY SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CHANGE?