The Tribune News Service article, “AI is fast-tracking climate research,” is misleading in its central premise. While AI can speed up certain weather data processing tasks, it does not magically make long-term climate forecasts more accurate. The piece blurs the line between short-term weather model gains and the far more uncertain, decades-scale climate projections — a fundamental error that misleads both policymakers and the public.
The article quotes AZTI marine biologist Ángel Borja saying, “It will allow us to process data and get results much faster, so people that make decisions can act faster, too”. This might be true for fisheries management or local ocean data sets, but when applied to climate, speed does not equal accuracy. Acting “faster” on flawed or incomplete climate projections risks enshrining bad policy based on noise or computer model errors, not signal.
Here is a breakdown of each of the claims in the article.
Claim: “Some AI-powered models are already outperforming conventional forecasting systems.”
Yes — but that’s in weather forecasting, which operates on hours-to-weeks timescales. Even Microsoft’s Aurora and Google DeepMind’s GraphCast, cited in the story, focus on short-term atmospheric prediction. This has almost nothing to do with the 30-year climate averages that define climate science. See Climate at a Glance: Climate Model Fallibility.
Claim: “AI models… can enable climate scientists to explore hundreds of times more scenarios than they can today.”
Quantity isn’t quality. Exploring “hundreds” of flawed scenarios faster doesn’t fix the fact that climate models — AI or not — still have massive uncertainty ranges. Observations show CMIP6 climate models overstate warming trends by nearly double actual measurements as told in Climate Models vs. Measured Data. If your inputs and physics are wrong, multiplying the number of runs just multiplies the wrongness.
Claim: “High-quality weather information is the first step to setting warning systems.”
True — but irrelevant to climate accuracy. Weather quality doesn’t fix deep uncertainties in equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS), which still ranges from 0.8°C to almost 6°C by 2100. Nor does it solve the known ±4 Watts per square meter radiative cloud forcing error — more than 4,000 times the estimated signal from a year’s worth of CO₂ emissions according to the Hoover Institution.
Claim: “AI is set to turbocharge what the center can offer policymakers… allowing them to make more-informed decisions.”
This is the most dangerous overreach. Climate is by definition a 30-year statistical average. The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) defines climate as “…the average weather conditions for a particular location and over a long period of time. “Fast-tracking” such projections is meaningless — the data horizon can’t be shortened without destroying the definition of climate itself. Worse, rushing policy on the back of still-uncertain models risks trillion-dollar mistakes.
Tribune News Service: please stop confusing flash with substance. AI is not a magical oracle of climate truth — it’s a faster, sometimes cheaper way to crunch the same flawed models that have consistently overshot observed warming. Until climate models can reconcile with reality, narrow their error bars, resolve cloud physics, and stop producing 200% exaggerations of observed warming, your framing of AI as a “climate game-changer” is not journalism — it’s marketing copy. And marketing copy dressed as science is worse than ignorance; it’s an invitation to policy disaster.
Related
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.