How Climate Scientists Predict the Future


[INTRO ♪] Earth’s climate has been through a lot over
the past few billion years, and at this point scientists have a pretty
good handle on how our planet has changed over time. But we talk about the future of the climate
too. About how it’s changing more quickly than
it has in the past, and about the dangers of rising temperatures and more severe droughts and storms. Our methods for predicting the future of climate are a little different than those for reconstructing
the past. The past leaves physical records we can study in things like tree rings and ice cores. The future requires us to be a little more
abstract. So, we mostly predict the future of Earth’s
climate using computer models— mathematical reconstructions of our atmosphere that account for as much detail as possible to produce an accurate simulation. And it’s taken decades to build them up
to the point where we can be confident that what they say is
accurate. But it is. And what the models say is that our climate
is changing, and humans are making it happen. Global climate models, or GCMs, grew out of early computerized attempts to
model the planet’s atmosphere in the 40s and 50s. Scientists weren’t even trying to predict
the future— they just wanted to create a representation
of the Earth’s atmospheric system as it was at the time. That was hard enough. Climate models, then and now, divide the Earth’s surface into chunks a
few hundred kilometers on a side, each with different properties like air movement
and surface temperature. Then, the computer calculates how all those
chunks interact with each other to see how things change over time. Those early models were super simple. They did things like combine land and sea
into a single damp surface with no geography, or represent the Earth
as a cylinder instead of a sphere because the poles confused the computer. Thankfully, that didn’t lead to a whole
movement of cylinder-Earthers, though. All this simplifying was necessary because
early supercomputers were kind of limited. We’re talking, like, five kilobytes of RAM. Your phone has, like, 500,000 times that much. Still, it was enough to come up with a crude
picture of Earth’s atmospheric currents and its
wet and dry regions. Eventually, though, scientists wanted more than just a model of the atmosphere around
a featureless cylinder— they wanted something that fit … an actual
planet. Now, they could make the model more accurate by making the chunks smaller, but that would
take more computing power. And what about the effects of mountains on
air movement? What about warm and cold water circulating
in the oceans? To answer those questions, climate modelers
needed more juice. By the 1970s, they were also beginning to
worry about the greenhouse effect of the carbon dioxide we were adding to the
atmosphere by using fossil fuels. They thought it could trap the sun’s heat
and cause the planet to warm. At the same time, computers were getting powerful
enough that they weren’t limited to modeling the
present anymore. So, programmers wanted to start using models to predict future changes in the climate. But before a climate model can be turned loose
to predict the future, it has to be able to predict the past—what’s
known as hindcasting. And that’s an important test, because if the model’s “predictions”
match what we know already happened, we can be more confident about what it says
will happen in the future. Temperature records go back a century or more. If you start a model in 1850, it should be
able to progress through time and match the general trends in temperature
we already know happened. And by the late 1970s, climate models started
to be able to do this. In 1979, a report pulling from two different
climate models suggested that the Earth’s temperature would
increase as atmospheric carbon dioxide increased. Specifically, assuming twice as much CO2 in
the atmosphere, they predicted an increase between 1.5 and
4.5 degrees Celsius, which trends suggested could happen before
the 21st century was up. That range has proven pretty reliable ever
since. It still fits the warming we expect to happen
over the next century or so, even as models have become much more powerful. So, models in the 70s were able to answer
one simple “what if” question: What happens if the amount of carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere doubles? But these days, you can carry more computing
power in your pocket than those early programmers ever dreamed
of and use it to send people pictures of your
cat that disappear after 10 seconds. Truly, it’s a golden age. And not only are cat pictures better, but
so are climate models. We now have the resources to ask and answer
more detailed questions. And boy, do we have a lot of them. Governments want to know what will happen,
in detail, in their corner of the world. And scientists want to know what will happen if we take measures to stop global climate
change, as opposed to letting emissions run rampant. With the models we have now, we can produce more customized predictions
based on different scenarios of what humans might do in the future, like how much carbon dioxide will be emitted
over a given amount of time and how much land will be used for agriculture. You can also use these models to basically
run the predictions backwards, and calculate the factors that would lead
to a certain amount of warming. So for example, if policymakers want to see
what changes should be made to limit overall global warming to 2 degrees
Celsius, they just have to use a climate model with
the appropriate parameters. That said, just because it’s the 21st century and computers are awesome now doesn’t mean
climate models have reached their perfect final form. The Earth’s atmosphere is an unbelievably
complex system, and we don’t yet have models powerful enough
to track absolutely everything. We also can’t account for every single thing
humans do now or might do in the future. So, we now know a lot about what will happen, but there’s still work left to do in perfecting
our predictions. For example, up until 2012 or so, models weren’t great at predicting sea level
rise— they undershot it pretty badly. UN reports in 2001 and 2007 made predictions
for sea level rise that failed to track with what we observed
via satellites by about 60%. That might be because the models didn’t
fully account for the rapid changes in the ice sheets over Antarctica
and Greenland. For the UN’s most recent report in 2013, the models were re-programmed and the projections
for sea level rise increased to be more in line with what we’re
seeing happen. We want our models to do better, in part because we want to know what’s going
to happen to our climate, and in part because accounting for all the
variables is just good science. With these constant improvements, every new prediction can be more detailed. And in the last couple of decades, we’ve started to be able to tailor predictions
for specific regions. Which is helpful, because people and governments in different parts of the world want to know
very different things. A farmer in southern Europe might want to
know if drought will affect their crops more severely in the
future, while an islander from the Maldives might
be more concerned about their country being completely swallowed
by rising seas. Now we can try to answer those questions, and a lot of the answers aren’t encouraging. No matter how you look at it, the models are
very clear that the planet is warming. That’s one of the easiest things to predict— I mean, we’ve been doing it since 1979. If we pump more heat-trapping greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the
numbers come out warmer. There are factors other than greenhouse gases
that the models take into account too, like particulate matter
from volcanoes and coal-burning power plants, which can have
a cooling effect. And we know the oceans will slow warming for
a while by absorbing CO2, until they run out of capacity. But all the predictions say the warming caused
by greenhouse gases will have a stronger effect. Even in scenarios where governments around
the world work quickly to limit and phase out greenhouse gas emissions, climate models predict that the Earth’s
temperature increase will be at least around 2 degrees. In other scenarios, where we take less aggressive
action or no action at all, the planet’s average surface temperature
goes up by more like 6 degrees Celsius. Which, if you’re used to Fahrenheit? That’s 11 degrees. That’s hot. But higher temperatures are far from the only
consequence of climate change. Using models, along with other tools, researchers predict all kinds of other effects. A comprehensive report by the US Global Change
Research Program, published in 2014, lists some of the consequences. It emphasizes effects on North America, but similar things would happen all over the
world. With more and more time passing between periods
of freezing temperatures, plants could experience a longer growing season. That could actually have a net positive effect of causing plants to take up more CO2 so less
stays in the atmosphere. But the good news pretty much ends there. In general, around the world and in North
America, there would be changes in the distribution
of precipitation, including rain and snow. The changes tend toward increasing extremes. A warmer atmosphere holds more moisture, so
wet regions will get wetter. But models show shifts in large-scale movements
of air that would exacerbate dryness, too. So, for example, the dry American Southwest
will get even drier. And major events like droughts, heat waves,
and powerful storms will get worse and more frequent. The effects of climate change on Atlantic
hurricanes are hard to predict. We don’t know for sure whether it was responsible for the devastating 2017 hurricane season. But we know that as the global temperature
increases, the temperature of the surface of the ocean
does too. And warm ocean water is hurricane fuel. Historically, warmer years don’t produce
more hurricane landfalls, so we may only see stronger storms, not more
of them. But that’s not a sure thing. Climate change will have other kinds of effects,
too, like rising sea levels, melting ice caps,
and changes in ocean currents, but it would take a whole other episode to
talk about them all. Which is exactly what we did a few years ago. Thanks to decades of work improving climate
models, we now have a very good idea of what’s happening, both globally and regionally. And even though our models have gotten much
more detailed over the years, those predictions of increasing temperatures
have stayed constant. Which is a good sign for the science of climate
modeling, but maybe also cause to be a little worried. We’ve always known the Earth wasn’t just
a damp cylinder. But as our ability to model the climate has
improved over time, we’ve learned a lot about how our planet
works, and what we’re doing to it. Thanks for watching this episode of SciShow. If you’re interested in learning more about
the effects of climate change, we have another video about just that topic. [OUTRO ♪]

Comments 100

  • The sky is falling, the sky is falling.
    What a crock of SH*T these A**HOLES are trying to ram down everyone throats.
    Any one that is old enough to remember about 30-40 years we had only 10 years and the was about to die and were to FREEZE to death.
    I'm still shivering in the deep south. Just can't get warm anymore, it seems
    Anyone that is on board with this hoax is dumber that a pile of dog SH*T.

  • Beating it to a pulp! Seriously, I lost count to how many times you paraphrased the same sentence.
    A nine minute aimless rant, with 30 seconds worth of info.

  • I like how this video completely skips over the fact that in the 1970's scientists predicted another ice age before they changed it to global warming, but we will pretend that science is pretty consistent through history with what people thought.

  • ….so you're saying dinosaurs are coming back

  • They make a program that tells them whatever they want, because its just a computer program.

  • So… Anyone check out that IPCC report dated OCTOBER 8TH, 2018?

  • They've been making false predictions for almost 50 years on this issue. The only thing thats changed is there pay check. Scientist, Politicians & new Green start up company's have gotten rich off the Global Warming scam. Al Gore has made billions. The weather predictors cant even get it right a week in advance but people still believe in this scam.

  • Coal burning power plants have a cooling effect? I'm confused…

  • Well, they aren't doing a good job are they?

  • A warming climate with result in weaker and fewer hurricanes, not the other way around, I don't care what your computer sims say. The best evidence that we have is right in our own solar system: Consider Venus,  Jupiter, Neptune, Uranus. The colder it gets, the more powerful and sustained hurricanes become. The reason was derived by planetary science: Adding heat results in the creation of turbulence which destroys hurricane formation. QED.

  • The models are not even close to accurate. They ALL assume that the atmosphere is sensitive to a change in co2. They ASSUME that is possible to force the earth out of the ice age created when the Indian plate impacted the Eurasian plate, creating the Himalayan mountain. None of the models take into account the fact that the ice age we are in was created by tectonic plate movement.

  • what on earth do you know of what happened a few billion years ago. You have no idea what you're talking about.

  • So you have about 150 years of continuous temperature measurement, of which only the last 40 or so are reliable because they come from satellites that can actually measure the entire planet's surface. That is absolutely meaningless in geological time, and yet you want to use this to forecast decades into the future? How many models were created whose forecasts were wrong?

  • Bla bla bla show us the model already…

  • Glorified versions of Sim City 2000

  • What did I learn from this video … nothing. It doesn't explain how climate scientists predict the future.

  • WE NEED NUCLEAR AND WE NEED IT NOW. All of the idiot environmentalists who do not understand science are causing the destruction of the earth by pushing solar and wind rather than what we need which is nuclear. WAKE UP. And don’t come at me with your myths. Google nuclear power myths and educate yourself first before replying.

  • poorly made film . too much talk not enough maps, waste of green screen

  • So you mean instead of – 40 in the wither it will only be -34 I'm ok with that.

  • Have you applied the Scientific Method to the predictions of your climate models? Can your climate models reproduce the wide swings in temperature that we believe have occurred over the past 500 million years that there has been multicellular life on earth? If they cannot, doesn't that show a fundamental lack of understanding about how climate works?

  • Good summary.

  • Nobody can doubt that global climate is changing. However, as this video acknowledges, global climate is an immensely complex and dynamic system, resulting from very large numbers of constantly interacting variables and effects. The design of all computer models is dependent on two critical factors: the underlying theoretical assumptions, and the choice of which variables to include and which ones to omit. The underlying theoretical assumptions determine which variables are chosen and which ones are omitted. Furthermore, the models can be run over and over again and redesigned until the predictions fulfil the theoretical assumptions. This is a closed, and self-fulfilling system of thought. It has no more scientific validity than a mystic in a fairground with a crystal ball. To find out more about this kind of intellectual absurdity go to thesleepofreason.net where you will find a range of articles about the irrationality it gives rise to, and the increasing hysteria it is orchestrating.

  • So in essence, the past is the key to the future. That's the technique of the Farmers Almanac. News flash nerd boy, you can't predict the future no matter how super your computer. That's why we still can't predict the weather. It's non linear like the climate. Changing models to conform to historical reality is circular logic. Why don't modellers ever publish their sampling methods, the algorithms used or probabilities of occurrence? Statistics would expose these models for what they are. Highly unreliable predictors of the future and the farther into the future, the worse they are at predicting an event with nay accuracy. Climate science didn't exist as a field when I studied hydrology in college, but statistics did. We've come a long way since then and now we know there's a lot more that we don't know about the underlying global processes that we do. Alarmists cherry pick model predictions, no matter how astronomical the probabilities of them ever occurring and distort them like doomsayers did the Aztec Calendar. This video explained nothing.

  • Humanity needs to be destroyed

  • FAILING COMPUTER MODELS AND THIS GUY CAN STAND THERE AND FEED US HIS BS WITH A STRAIT FACE ????? REALLY … NOTHING LIKE JUMPING ON THE BAND WAGON A LITTLE LATE1!

  • This is a Scientist that works with climate models who will explain the truth about them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xI3doCKhI7Q&t=1089s
    This is summary about climate models which confirms my opinion of them. Here is a reasonable video presented by Gavin Schmidt Director of Nasa Goddard Institute. Pro – CO2 Climate warming person https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C89_Cr-oVTM&list=LLsyr8XkjlSTpc3VH-7WEjyg&index=4&t=0s In this video Gavin points out at 21:20 That all climate models are wrong. Earlier in the video he mentions what goes into the very complex measurements and variables that makes it extremely difficult to get climate models right. And of course, they are improving the technology which is understandable. Just to add clouds which are big factor in climate are not considered because of their complexity. Side note: The Iris Effect work by Climate Scientist Richard Lindzen is worth looking into further. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iris_hypothesis An article on the complexity of clouds https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/03/06/cloudy-modeling-problems-todays-clouds-might-not-be-the-same-as-pre-industrial-ones/ At 39:00 minutes graphs are presented showing climate models predictions and actual recorded data. The large thick grey area covering the highest points (hottest points) and lowest points the (coldest recordings) are the climate model predictions. This could be termed as having a bet each way. Projecting a large corridor of projections (high to low) makes it fairly difficult to be too much out. But this is a classic way to fudge the model’s reliability. If the climate changes you can alter the large corridor accordingly. As you can see from graphs the grey area the models having generally being predicting warmer temperatures than reality. The video I thought was interesting but goes on to be generally alarmist without pointing out things like the difference of highest recorded temperature being a few hundredths of degree. Overall temperature increase only 0.8 degree Celsius since 1880. It doesn’t really discuss how it gets all the data that it puts into the models or the inaccuracies of the data. The overall usefulness of the models is only as good as the accurate data that is put in. Overall a good informative video to see how Nasa are predicting the future. But draw your own conclusions on influences. There were other videos but this was the most informative.

  • This is the actual current records for March 2019 of temperature records from satellite data https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/ you can download records and do your own judgement on it, but since 1978 – 2019
    Result +0.13 C degree per decade 13/100ths of a degree per decade a minuscule amount. For those who want to be more informed.

  • I’ll believe models when they can predict weather patterns for an entire year at once. If you can’t do that you can’t predict the future.

  • Are you a rower? I see the marks on your hands. Sorry for being offtopic.
    What are your thoughts on analyzing ice core data graphs, shouldnt we try to look close at the graphs including the CO2 lag behind temperature, to proof at what point CO2 takes it forcing effect?

  • They have trouble predicting the weather for tomorrow. How can anyone believe they can predict the weather years from now.

  • They haven't predicted the future

  • Their main climate tool is grant money. https://youtu.be/WNyQ7bHbVQQ

  • Remember government should not be immediately trusted watch this. https://youtu.be/WNyQ7bHbVQQ

  • It's funny, majority of the world had said that in 2019, the sun would blow up. It is a very high chance that this global warming is definitely not to happen. All we need to do is help the earth, to provent it not becoming extremely toxic

  • Take a friggin breath!

  • When you understand that these computer models have not used correct formulae to predict the action of CO2 as it increases for whatever reason and CO2 makes up only a minute 3% of Greenhouse Gases, you realise what a perfect Ponzi the Climate Change Hoax really is. Here is the actual science behind what part CO2 actually plays in Climate Change scam.
    https://youtu.be/c8QZLdePwrE

  • So, when are we going to be under water, again?
    He kept on saying predictions are more accurate, when are they happening?

  • And get it horribly wrong! The only way they can be accurate is to use actual data to produce actual results. Time to give up using pretend numbers & preferred outcomes instead of fact.

  • Best thing to do with computer weather modeling? Print out the data on toilet paper…

  • The models have been so very correct…. I wouldn't buy a ocean side house like al gore did…..

  • So what you're saying is:
    All this hysteria is based on models that have always gotten pretty much everything wrong?
    And yet we have to overhaul our complete system?
    You just said the only thing the models got right, is that overall the earth has warmed a little.
    So much wrong with this video. Please people, do some serious research outside of the left wing censored media .Even the IPCC has recognised this in its SFP of January 2019. This is from a group of ACTUAL scientists.

    https://youtu.be/Nd-1YoXVd5w?list=PLsKvA1evYLw7kfHKzGEMh_6M9lu780FQF

  • https://dailycaller.com/2016/04/22/7-enviro-predictions-from-earth-day-1970-that-were-just-dead-wrong/

  • Patrick Moore says CO2 is the currency of life…. It is the source of all life….. CO2 is not pollution….. CO2 is good for all living things on earth……

  • The Sun determines the climate and tempature, due to uneven heating and cooling of earth. The sun and planetary motion is not in our control. Models have amplification factors of x3 and have been far off. They don't include the stability factors that account for earth's robust environment.

  • We can not control global climate, it is normal cycles… based on Sun and planetary motion.

  • Only someone who is totally unaware of global climatic conditions can believe that ‘climate change’ is not real, and thinking that the ‘rate of change’ in the global conditions is natural indicates a lack of knowledge that is unfortunate. For some, this is a simple lack of knowledge, while for others, it’s an act of willful ignorance engendered by fear. Now that is something I can understand. Global warming IS insanely scary!

    Climate Change:
    https://samslair.blogspot.com/search?q=Climate+change&max-results=20&by-date=false&m=1

  • Decent video, but significant error at the 3:20 mark. You have a graphic showing 'predicted heating' with increased CO2 in the atmosphere being between 1.5 to 4.5 Celsius. This is correct. However, just underneath that range you show the corresponding range for Fahrenheit to be 2.7 to 8 degrees. Wrong. Fahrenheit = Celsius x 1.8 + 32. Only pointing this out because people hear these ranges that are use to hearing temps in Fahrenheit and think they will just need to turn to A/C up….wrong. Earth as we know it is D-O-N-E and all the denial in the world will not change this…

  • Yep, climate models are so accurate your predictions to date have been garbage. As the saying goes, garbage in garbage out.

  • Those ears though !

  • Crap Models, that cannot predict anything.

  • Finally, some fun! I want climate change to happen. We are in an unprecedented era of peace. There hasn't been a major war since WW2. Finally something exciting is happening.

  • Why am I crying I’m to young

  • alia would save the day

  • The only thing we know for sure about the future is that the climate change apocalypse is always approximately ten years away.

  • You look at the stats yourself but to cut it short there ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE! Its going to get bad real quick.

  • It's actually a bit of shame Cylinder Earths didn't come out of closet when they had a chance

  • I thought it will be a video about what will propably happen in the future

  • Climate model projections are remarkably discordant with observed data. The models are profoundly wrong and are demonstrably not fit for guiding climate policy.

    Climate is driven by the sun and moderated by ocean currents. CO2 does not affect climate. Build your climate model based on these simple facts and the model projections will be much better.

  • Here in Campbell River, the City is using model projections that sea levels will rise 1 meter by 2100. NOAA tide gauge data for Campbell River shows the relative sea level trend is actually -1.64 mm per year for the entire life of the gauge since mid 1960s. Isostatic rebound means the land is rising faster than the 1.5 mm per year observed in global long period reliable tide gauge data. Models are absurdly wrong.

  • Great video! Exactly what I was looking for. Keep spreading the awareness!

  • Global warming

  • Though predicting a particular future and specific timeline is iffy, we do know that if we keep headed in the same direction of wrong headed thinking that we’re currently embarked upon, we all know where we will eventually land (and not on our feet / more like our ears). To change this outcome at this late date, it’ll take more than so-called decarbonization:
    Greenhouse gases more than CO2:
    http://samslair.blogspot.com/2019/07/greenhouse-gases-more-than-co2.html?m=1
    Artificial fertilizers and petroleum:
    http://samslair.blogspot.com/2019/07/artificial-fertilizers-and-petroleum.html?m=1
    Hope for climate change reversal:
    http://samslair.blogspot.com/2019/06/hope-for-climate-change-reversal.html?m=1

  • I don’t know about anyone else.. but temperatures are getting cooler here in Canada 🇨🇦…

  • Stop lying.

  • How do they predict future climate? Just like in the 1970s and 1980s. Make some stupid propaganda about "global warming", make a prediction that will scare everyone, and most importantly, make a prediction that is wrong and lie to the public that the Earth is warming.
    Facts:
    The ice at the poles is not melting.

    Temperatures are not rising.

    Heat waves and droughts are not getting worse, they were way worse in the past.

    CO2 does NOT control the climate.

    The Earth's climate works in cycles and is controlled by the SUN.
    Al Gore and his mafia lied to us all and stole our money.

  • If they even can't predict the weather of next month, how about the climate in a few decades?
    They predict a catastrophe, but if you hand over your wallet to them, everything will be fine.
    How much of a brain do you need to understand this is all a major scam.

  • It snowed like once last winter 😑

  • Ik this sounds bad but climate change is going to happen anyway. Look at the ice age. It melted and then turned warm and dry
    That was climate change
    So this is going to happen again
    We can slow it down but it will still happen.
    Someone has to tell you that
    Because its true

  • Agriculture is are main concern tho not oil drilling and methane is more of ah issue then co2 emissions

  • hold it! if carbon dioxide doubles temperature will go up 1.5 to 4.5 degrees. 4.5 is three times more than 1.5. That is a huge difference considering it took 120 years to go up 1.0 degree.

  • I don't want sea level rise 😭😭😭

  • In other words, you make it up. Your models are just like the planes I built as a kid. Fake but real.

  • Models are a complete failure.

  • The world is really gonna end in 2021?

  • https://youtu.be/Vuy7v88YUPA

  • Why am i happy?

    I am from norway and er will Get more snow!!!!!

  • Please give us examples of past predictions that have come to be real?!? Why not show us in a controlled experiment how you can change the weather by lowering CO2 and using solar and wind energy?!? You can’t even do that.

  • IPCC´s shitbox-fraud-data creator Michel E Mann is now finally convicted in court for lying and manipulating data, and create fals claims and shitbox graphs like IPCC´s "hockey stick-graph". Now that is ecsactly "pulling predictions from thin air if annything in my world !!! I´m not surprised that IPCC is doing that, they have to becaus they have no scientific evidence for their claims of "man made climatchange" due to CO2 levels in the atmosphere. So they simply make things up as they go..

  • False theory give false result
    In short: garbage IN garbage OUT!
    My won calculator give me better result that supercomputer, one equation give me better result than entire climate model.

  • I've got The Universe dvds & on them they say that the sun causes 20% of global warming

  • is there a . like, hand waving class that presenters have to go to…i really think it looks stupid… when's he gonna pull out my card… climatologists…HA HA HA HA HA HA HA…..

  • UPDATE.. 2019 September. 70,000 wild fires burning in the Amazon.. plus the Californian wild fires.have put more CO2 into the air than the whole of the industrial age…. take them figures into your calcs….. and what has changed…NOTHING…… plants love CO2… more plants more oxygen… who knows maybe we'll all grow taller.. just like the dinos….lol

  • All predictions in this field is hucksterism and pseudo science.

  • It's Standard Unit Number 406. At 1:15 "A few hundred kilometres on the side". No. The grid is 90 x 90 km and there are 5,000,000 boxes. The time slice is 15 minutes. At some place "computers very fast now, climate models don't have all they need" (I paraphrase). Not really. Slow computer speed is the main issue. Will require computers 10,000x as fast as the fastest present supercomputers to make it 1/10th of the present resolution in all 4 dimensions. For example, to get a 9 x 9 km grid and scale the other 2 dimensions finer proportionally. Example, Gulf Stream is much <90 km wide some places and grid is 90 x 90 km. A feature can't be defined well when there isn't even a single grid box across its side. Imagine a beautiful photo you take with a camera that has 1 x 1 pixel resolution. It's a single square on the screen, will you pick out the fine detail of that hot air balloon well ? At some place here computer simulation climate models and climate sensitivity 1.5 to 4.5 degrees. Climate models aren't needed to know climate sensitivity because it's been bracketed at 2.4 to 4.8 degrees for CO2x2 for equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) by 18 paleo-climate proxy analyses, no computer simulation climate models involved.

  • This is obvious propaganda.

  • current climate models DO NOT INCLUDE variables such as total solar activity and effects of comic rays on the atmosphere and weather. If they included this information then the impact caused by humans would be decrease although human activity still contributes to a large part of climate change. Without including all the variables predictions based on those models will be flawed.

    if you wanna learn more about climate change and how flawed the current models are then check out this video.

    https://youtu.be/rEWoPzaDmOA

  • Are you from Montana?

  • Everyone has comments trying to be funny but it makes me wonder if anyone really cares about dying. Brain cells have already started to die off

  • Why did you use a Mercato projection

  • We have to wake up give up many things which destroy environment
    We have to act still we have time to save our beautiful planet
    Pls give up greed save natural resources

  • With over 60 nuclear power stations warming the sea see all the way up the coast of America including Canada what do you expect? Let's blame CO2 then we can pay for more nuclear power stations with the change, after politicians have taken their cut?

  • 27th September 2019 a lot has happened since this was made

    What does the climate model have to say now …

  • How can volcanic activity and coal based power plants have a cooling effect on earth's temperature? @SciShow

  • Climate models are great for understanding our climate but not for predicting it.

  • How many times were the models predictions even close to being accurate?

  • More junk science. If you want to see how bad the models are at predicting the climate then Roy Spencer who runs the satellite program of the troposphere compares them https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1BAhfjH4g4 their is actual warming of 0.13 C per decade and in align with natural cycle.Computer modes are geared for CO2 minor greenhouse gas because they have a blinkered vision to prove man made warming .

  • Not only can you not tell as much of the past as you claim you sure can't tell the future!!!!

  • Extremes in nature, antibiotic resistence, high plastic pollution in food and water… please continue my list

  • Ok which models exactly are predicting the future correctly…
    All computer models rely on what data is put in..
    Maby if they didn't adjust the temperature records and stop tampering with the modern ones.
    Sea level rise is a joke. Why well it hasn't changed so the science is a load of crap. As for the Maldives in 1970 they were 1mt above sea level . 2019 they are 1mt above sea level..
    So take your models and file them under S …

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *