Chom Noamsky
2017-07-08 17:14:10 UTC
Another paper attempting to validate model-based climate sensitivity
estimates gets refuted.
***
Conclusions
When correctly calculated, median ICS estimate for CMIP5 GCMs, based on
the evolution of forcing over the historical period, is 3.0°C, not 2.5°C
as claimed in PH17. Although 3.0°C is below the median ECS estimate for
the GCMs of 3.4°C, it is well above a median estimate in the 1.6–2.0°C
range for good quality observationally-based climate sensitivity
estimates. PH17’s headline claim that it reconciles historical and
model-based estimates of climate sensitivity is wrong.
https://climateaudit.org/2017/07/08/does-a-new-paper-really-reconcile-instrumental-and-model-based-climate-sensitivity-estimates/
estimates gets refuted.
***
Conclusions
When correctly calculated, median ICS estimate for CMIP5 GCMs, based on
the evolution of forcing over the historical period, is 3.0°C, not 2.5°C
as claimed in PH17. Although 3.0°C is below the median ECS estimate for
the GCMs of 3.4°C, it is well above a median estimate in the 1.6–2.0°C
range for good quality observationally-based climate sensitivity
estimates. PH17’s headline claim that it reconciles historical and
model-based estimates of climate sensitivity is wrong.
https://climateaudit.org/2017/07/08/does-a-new-paper-really-reconcile-instrumental-and-model-based-climate-sensitivity-estimates/