Delving into the technical section (see below), this puzzling statement appeared:
‘One of the main innovations of the dataset is its inclusion of [a named] dataset, which provides regional climate projections covering the land components of the globe by combining two regional climate models and six general circulation models, which were selected to span the widest possible range of uncertainty.’ — Another section is headed ‘Quality assured data’ but surely models with a wide range of uncertainty must include some which are more uncertain, aka inaccurate, than others. What purpose does that serve for policymakers?
– – –
The Copernicus Interactive Climate Atlas, launched by the Copernicus Climate Change Service on 20 February, is set to be an important new resource for policymakers looking to formulate effective climate policy and for other users needing to visualise and analyse climate change information, says the European Commission.
. . .
Let’s get technical
So, how does the Copernicus Interactive Climate Atlas work? The gridded monthly dataset used for the Atlas integrates information from several climatic observational, reanalysis and projection datasets. The data is harmonised across the different datasets and catalogues to ensure standard common definitions and units for each of the variables.
One of the main innovations of the dataset is its inclusion of the CORDEX-CORE dataset, which provides regional climate projections covering the land components of the globe by combining two regional climate models and six general circulation models, which were selected to span the widest possible range of uncertainty. Due to its global continental coverage and higher resolution, this is a strategic dataset for the C3S Atlas, making it possible to analyse climate change in even higher resolution, such as for megacities around the world, for example.
Full article — Copernicus Interactive Climate Atlas: a game changer for policymakers.
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Caption to one of maps:
“Spatial coverage of the CORDEX-CORE simulations (displaying near-term temperature change for RCP8.5 relative to 1961-1990). Source: C3S”
Heh, RCP8.5…
And “Quality assured data”…
I see!
In other words ‘ when playing computer games the more garbage you put in the greater is the garbage response’. It appears the members of the UN Church of Climatology will never learn to get away from their computer games and walk out in the real world because they might have to think for themselves and not just spout the received ‘wisdom’ from the games.
more PlayStation climatology games to mislead the pols
It’s a ‘puppet’!
Kind regards Ray Dart (AKA suricat).
The graphic for ‘Mean annual temperature climate change signal at RCP8.5’ doesn’t work, but RCP2.6 does (below).
https://cordex.org/experiment-guidelines/cordex-core/cordex-core-simulations/
Caption: ‘Ensemble mean temperature climate change signal (CCS): about +0.5 to +3.5 K (high CCS over North America and European domains).’
Good game 🤪
“The data is harmonised across the different datasets”
“six general circulation models, which were selected to span the widest possible range of uncertainty”
The data can not be trusted. And it has been carefully selected to be as scary as possible.
The models are built on a false premise: CO2 is a strong climate change force.
A poor foundation will collapse any theory or system of models designed specifically to support that theory.
A true example of “Garbage in, Garbage out”… but in this case, the “Garbage” is the underlying theory.
Bob Webster says: February 26, 2024 at 10:51 pm
“The models are built on a false premise”
I concur Bob.
I’ve seen some of the ‘programmes’ that are used in the ‘super computers’ that ‘model’ these ‘climate projections’.
IMHO the main problem lays within the ‘interpreter’ for the ‘sub routines’ that feed data into the main ‘O/S’ (operating system). ‘Short cuts’ may well be employed to ‘speed’ the operation for the ‘main’ O/S to receive data from ‘another’ O/S. The ‘interpreter’ is the ‘link’ between the O/S that ‘makes the calculation’ and the ‘satellite O/S’ that garners the ‘data’.
Question, is the ‘satellite data’ correct, or is it ‘interpreted’ correctly into the ‘collating O/S’?
Kind regards, Ray Dart (AKA suricat).
The models can’t possibly work.
Computer
gamesmodels based on physical processes such as radiative physics, thermodynamics and Navier-Stokes equations are not capable of predicting future climate.“In sum, a strategy must recognise what is possible. In climate research and modelling, we should recognise that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.”
IPCC Working Group I: The Scientific Basis, Third Assessment Report (TAR), Chapter 14 (final para., 14.2.2.2), p774.
Anyone who claims that a purported
computer gameclimate simulation of an effectively infinitely large open-ended non-linear feedback-driven (where we don’t know all the feedbacks, and even the ones we do know, we are unsure of the signs of some critical ones) chaotic system – hence subject to inter alia extreme sensitivity to initial conditions, strange attractors and bifurcation – is capable of making meaningful predictions over any significant time period is either a charlatan or a computer salesman.Ironically, the first person to point this out was Edward Lorenz – a climate scientist.
Lorenz’s early insights marked the beginning of a new field of study that impacted not just the field of mathematics but virtually every branch of science–biological, physical and social. In meteorology, it led to the conclusion that it may be fundamentally impossible to predict weather beyond two or three weeks with a reasonable degree of accuracy.
Some scientists have since asserted that the 20th century will be remembered for three scientific revolutions–relativity, quantum mechanics and chaos.
http://news.mit.edu/2008/obit-lorenz-0416
You can add as much computing power as you like, the result is purely to produce the wrong answer faster. But for some climate “scientists” I suppose it pays the mortgage…
catweazle666 says: March 3, 2024 at 7:13 pm
“The models can’t possibly work.”
Finally, someone that speaks my language.
“‘Lorenz’s early insights marked the beginning of a new field of study that impacted not just the field of mathematics but virtually every branch of science–biological, physical and social. In meteorology, it led to the conclusion that it may be fundamentally impossible to predict weather beyond two or three weeks with a reasonable degree of accuracy.‘”
However, where/when ‘bifurcation’ is extant within a ‘weather model’ the accurate ‘forecast’ can’t be ‘accurate’ for more than 2-4 ‘days’. Take note of what our ‘weather people’ say when ‘multiple weather models’ offer ‘differing outcomes’. This is just ‘weather’ and ‘not’ climate.
‘Mathematically’, ‘two’ interacting systems are ‘predictable’, but when a ‘third interacting system’ (conjoining all three systems) is included ‘predictability’ becomes ‘impossible’ and ‘chaos’ ensues.
Is this why the IPCC only consider ‘temperature and CO2’ for the ‘prediction/assumption’ on ‘climate change’? There are many ‘other “forcing” systems’ that can alter ‘climate’!
Kindest regards, Ray Dart (AKA suricat).