Claim: policies based on previous climate model output and predictions might need to be reconsidered

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 1
Passage: The 2017 United States-published National Climate Assessment notes that "climate models may still be underestimating or missing relevant feedback processes".

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: This article is about climate change scenarios.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: In a recent DICE model, DICE-2013R Model, the social cost of carbon is estimated based on the following alternative scenarios: (1) a baseline scenario, when climate change policies have not changed since 2010, (2) an optimal scenario, when climate change policies are optimal (fully implemented and followed), (3) when the optimal scenario does not exceed 2oC limit after 1900 data, (4) when the 2oC limit is an average and not the optimum, (5) when a near-zero (low) discount rate of 0.1% is used (as assumed in the Stern Review), (6) when a near-zero discount rate is also used but with calibrated interest rates, and (7) when a high discount rate of 3.5% is used.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: After this calibration period the model may be run in climate mode.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate (considerable progress since the 1990 report in distinguishing between natural and anthropogenic influences on climate, because of: including aerosols; coupled models; pattern-based studies) Climate is expected to continue to change in the future (increasing realism of simulations increases confidence; important uncertainties remain but are taken into account in the range of model projections) There are still many uncertainties (estimates of future emissions and biogeochemical cycling; models; instrument data for model testing, assessment of variability, and detection studies) The Third Assessment Report (TAR) was completed in 2001 and consists of four reports, three of them from its Working Groups: Working Group I: The Scientific Basis Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability Working Group III: Mitigation Synthesis Report A number of the TAR's conclusions are given quantitative estimates of how probable it is that they are correct, e.g., greater than 66% probability of being correct.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: Insertion of bugs into climate models?

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: <poem>Models consistently suggest that SRM would generally reduce climate differences compared to a world with elevated GHG concentrations and no SRM; however, there would also be residual regional differences in climate (e.g., temperature and rainfall) when compared to a climate without elevated GHGs...

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: Climate models include different external forcings for their models.

Relevance (1 = gold evidence, 0 = mined hard negative): 0
Passage: Projections were made over future climate change impacts.