It appears they are finally paying attention to empirical data and the predictive reocrod of the models. They are finally realizing what skeptics have known for a while. That the models are unable to predict shroter and mid term trends then how can they be expected to be accurate on the longer term predictions where the level and range of uncertanty expands? For ny predictive models based on science, the farther out in time that you make your predictions the less certain they are. This is a scientific fact related to probabilities.
It would seem they have reached their satuation point for predictions that are being proven wrong by the empirical data.
Missing heat is the explaination? Then some here try to convince with data that the heat is in the deep oceans? I wish these individuals understood science. Because if we had data showing the heat was in the deep oceans then the heat would NOT be "missing". By definition we do NOW know where that heat is. They say the deep oceans because you can imagine possible ways for it to be possible. If you can get empirical data to support it then it is no longer "missing". Well there have been multiple attempts to measure this "misisng heat" ver the past few years. Well, its still "missing". Sounds like the editors at nature may know more about science then I was begginning to give them credit for. Of course, based on their multi-year track record of late, they are likely to do somehting else in the near term to once again make me doubt their scientific training.
I guess the problem here is that it is only deniers who claim that scientists think models are that accurate, models are a tool to try and forecast what will happen for 'weather' they don't work very well but they have improved for other things they work a little better but are not meant to be an exact prediction. Of course while denier shout that models have failed or fallen well below forecasts the fact what has happened in the real world is so far in line with the mid-level forecasts some things like Arctic ice melt have happened far sooner than estimated, sea level is also on spec with the mid level models.
Here and in other forums deniers spent several years claiming temperatures had fallen below the Ar4 models yet based on the temperatures we have seen we are in line with the A2 model, one of the higher IPCC models.
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data...
Because the simple fact is despite denier claims of 15 years of cooling we have had the the warmest decade as 2000-2009, the new decade started with the warmest year in the modern record 2010 (tied with 2005) and now even the years we call cool (like 2008 or 2011) are in fact warmer than years like 1995, which back then was the warmest year on record, to be honest based on this, I can't see why anyone with even half a brain would believe denier rubbish about cooling.
By the way, you note the article is about short term climate change, in the short term climate has always been variable, affected by cycles like ENSO or the PDO the odd volcano cooling things a little etc, but any look at the temperature record will tell you that, many dips and rises but given much of the denier argument is built on screaming about just the dips while trying to solidly to ignore the longer term rise, I would have thought you knew that. It will become plain to all over the next few years as the so called cooling simply doesn't happen.
Climate models are improved through others criticizing them. Nature publishes articles concerning science. The article you posted concerned short-term climate models and how they are becoming better and forecasting short term change. By this they talk about decade to decade. It states that as climate models have advanced they are seeing less of a warming in the short term and they state that the 'missing heat' as you like to call it has gone into the ocean. This is basically what we have been saying to you. We are aware that, in the short term, such as the next couple decades, warming will be less. However, when those currents that that heat exists in change cycles again that extra heat will, once again, show itself. The article talks about how models are becoming better for short term forecasts. This is a well known problem and is why we constantly say that short term temperature variations, such as the last ten years or 15 years, are too short to define a climate trend and models can not accurately portray many short term variables with as high confidence as would be liked..
Jeff Engr:
ftp://kakapo.ucsd.edu/pub/sio_220/e03%20...
ftp://soest.hawaii.edu/coastal/Climate%2...
Merely because you are not aware of the measurements doe snot mean they do not exist.
I don't know but it is interesting that you cite the leading environmental science journal as "pro climate change"
Is Kano finally understanding and admitting that all climate scientists are telling us that climate change is real? Any time you look at real published research, you will find that scientists do not dispute climate change. There is no exception.
Climate change deniers hate published research. So I suspect that Kano hates a serious journal like Nature.
In this case, Nature, which is published for the benefit of serious scientists, published an article about another model that seeks to advance models. As always, Nature shares with environmental scientists what other environmental scientists have learned.
Nature is a science journal that publishes articles by the world's leading scientists - in all fields. If it appears "pro climate change" that is because the science is pro climate change. If it appears biased against Deniers that is because Denier arguments are mostly political and scientifically unsound.
It's a Denier problem - not a Nature problem.
For hacks who depend on models to push their leftist propaganda, alarmists, e.g. most of the previous answerers, these kind of articles must be like salt in their wounds and it sure seems they are getting pretty snippy.
http://www.nature.com/news/climate-change-the-forecast-for-2018-is-cloudy-with-record-heat-1.13344
