These researchers claim that the climate models could indeed account for this mysterious spike but only if you're prepared to wait for 500 years, give or take.
This paper sounds like damage limitation to shore up the entire climate model methodology which has demonstrably failed.
Climate models utterly failed to predict the sudden 'record-shattering' (itself an emotive term unsuitable for a scientific publication) temperature increase. So rather than accept that there's something wrong with or missing from the models the researchers appeal to the statistical outlier. A bit like winning the lottery on your first attempt.
The models simulate such an event as occurring once in every thousand years. But it happened, starting nearly two years ago. So that's exactly the logic they're using: the world responded in an extremely rare non-linear fashion to the physical drivers of climate change and it 'just happens' that was in 2023, which is curiously coincident with the West's aggressive push for decarbonisation.
These researchers claim that the climate models could indeed account for this mysterious spike but only if you're prepared to wait for 500 years, give or take.
This paper sounds like damage limitation to shore up the entire climate model methodology which has demonstrably failed.
Climate models utterly failed to predict the sudden 'record-shattering' (itself an emotive term unsuitable for a scientific publication) temperature increase. So rather than accept that there's something wrong with or missing from the models the researchers appeal to the statistical outlier. A bit like winning the lottery on your first attempt.
The models simulate such an event as occurring once in every thousand years. But it happened, starting nearly two years ago. So that's exactly the logic they're using: the world responded in an extremely rare non-linear fashion to the physical drivers of climate change and it 'just happens' that was in 2023, which is curiously coincident with the West's aggressive push for decarbonisation.