If the models didn't predict the lag, it stands to reason that the models weren't accurate, even if current temperatures align with them. That is to say that the current alignment is just coincidental.
If I remember correctly, the lag was likely caused by not correctly accounting for deep ocean heating. That's a huge missing piece of the simulation, so how could the models from back then possibly have been accurate?
> If the models didn't predict the lag, it stands to reason that the models weren't accurate, even if current temperatures align with them. That is to say that the current alignment is just coincidental.
Or the lag was a minor factor that only briefly overrode the primary drivers of climate change, which have since reasserted themselves. I think we both know what the smart bet is.
The lag isn't a minor factor though. We are talking a decade plus of incorrect predictions. Newer models that have taken deep ocean warming into account are probably more accurate.
The oceans are now significantly warmer than earlier models predicted. There's no way that doesn't impact the outcome.
Actually newer models don't predict the lag / the pause at all.
Instead what happened is they decided the temperature records that showed a pause were wrong, went back and adjusted them so there's no longer any real pause if you look at the latest temperature datasets. The entire thing was written off as a giant measurement error.
They are climate models, not weather models. Buried somewhere in the IPCC reports is the sorts of time space they apply to. I vaguely remember 10 years or so. I do distinctly remember thinking during the pause if something dramatic didn't happen by 2016 they were in serious trouble, because that was at the end of the range.
> That is to say that the current alignment is just coincidental.
Sort of. The model is (heatIn - heatOut - seaAbsorption) = surface weather. They got the seaAbsorption wrong, something they later figured out with the Argo network as you noted. But that means they got the primary driver of global warming, heatOut dropping as CO2 increases, right. Which sadly means if you wait long enough, their predictions were always going be right because in the end heatIn - heatOut is all that matters.
Yes, our models were inaccurate for the oughts and early 2010s. There are tons of positive and negative feedback loops which our climate models are probably very badly calibrated for. But those models did have accurate predictions of what the temperature would be for 2019 so you have to give them credit for that.
But honestly it's the inaccuracy of current climate models that make me so concerned about global warming.
If I remember correctly, the lag was likely caused by not correctly accounting for deep ocean heating. That's a huge missing piece of the simulation, so how could the models from back then possibly have been accurate?