Curious.... he doesn't make distinction made between decadal vs. century predictions, but you've found it!<quoted text>
The article is referring to the basic physical processes that determine how much warming will occur over century periods.
Not the processes that determine how much warming will occur over decadal period.
Processes that incidentally the models do capture but not predict well over short periods.
A not so subtle distinction that is obviously invisible to an ignorant lout like you.
Do us favour: go and comment on a subject you do have a clue about.
Equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the ultimate change in global mean temperature in response to a change in external forcing. Despite decades of research attempting to narrow uncertainties, equilibrium climate sensitivity estimates from climate models still span roughly 1.5 to 5 degrees Celsius for a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, precluding accurate projections of future climate. The spread arises largely from differences in the feedback from low clouds, for reasons not yet understood. Here we show that differences in the simulated strength of convective mixing between the lower and middle tropical troposphere explain about half of the variance in climate sensitivity estimated by 43 climate models. The apparent mechanism is that such mixing dehydrates the low-cloud layer at a rate that increases as the climate warms, and this rate of increase depends on the initial mixing strength, linking the mixing to cloud feedback. The mixing inferred from observations appears to be sufficiently strong to imply a climate sensitivity of more than 3 degrees for a doubling of carbon dioxide. This is significantly higher than the currently accepted lower bound of 1.5 degrees, thereby constraining model projections towards relatively severe future warming.
Oh wait! He does say that research has been going on for decades, but that doesn't jive with your assertion, does it?
Bottom line, is this "model" says all the other "models" are wrong.
So you've been citing sources with wrong models in the past, yet still insist they were right (at the time), and because of this study, more so?
Put the cart before the horse and prove it won't pull it.