[317070]

The paper I cite is for sea level rise. IPCC models from 1990 and 2011 have made forecasts on sea level rise. When we compare those to what actually happened up to 2025, we see that we are slightly worse right now than their highest sea level prediction that was made.

We're worse than their worst case scenario, so their models were significantly too optimistic.

In the same paper, they also note that for temperature, the models have been accurate.

[timr]

> When we compare those to what actually happened up to 2025, we see that we are slightly worse right now than their highest sea level prediction that was made.

No. The paper does not show that. Figure 3 shows that recent sea level rise, accounting for measurement uncertainty, is in line with projections of any of the models (around 2mm per year). In any case, they call out explicitly that the recent data is of insufficient duration to make the comparison you’re trying to make.

Temperature data in figure one is more or less exactly in the uncertainty window of the models (not shocking, considering that they’re calibrated to reproduce recent data).

[317070]

I'm sorry, but I double checked and I do think you have it wrong. Figure 3 is for "sea level rise _rate_", and that one is indeed high but not significantly so.

Quoting "The satellite-based linear trend 1993–2011 is 3.2± 0.5 mm yr−1 , which is 60% faster than the best IPCC estimate of 2.0 mm yr−1 for the same interval"

But, as the authors point out, the worst case forecasts that were within-data, are so for the wrong reasons. Quote "The model(s) defining the upper 95-percentile might not get the right answer for the right reasons, but possibly by overestimating past temperature rise."

My previous comment is regarding Figure 2, i.e. "Sea Level". I would invite you to read the whole paper. It is only 3 pages and written without jargon.