4 ms·

Sources?

• pdonis 8y ago
  For a start, see the first graph here: https://judithcurry.com/2016/04/05/comparing-models-with-observations/ https://judithcurry.com/2016/04/05/comparing-models-with-obs... Some other relevant posts from the same blog: https://judithcurry.com/2017/09/26/are-climate-models-overstating-warming/ https://judithcurry.com/2017/09/26/are-climate-models-overst... https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/17/a-test-of-the-tropical-200-300-mb-warming-rate-in-climate-models/ https://judithcurry.com/2018/09/17/a-test-of-the-tropical-20...
  • sxcurry 8y ago
    For the curious, here's a website that thoroughly debunks Judith Curry's "science" : https://www.skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_arg.htm https://www.skepticalscience.com/Judith_Curry_arg.htm
• pdonis 8y ago
  For the IPCC AR5, the Summary for Policymakers of the WG1 report is linked here: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ The key items are on p. 16: first, that the "likely" range of equilibrium climate sensitivity is 1.5 - 4.5 C (which is the same as the first report in 1990--we have learned nothing in 28 years), and second, the footnote at the bottom of the page: "No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies". First, this raises the question: if there is lack of agreement, how did they even come up with the "likely" range? How can they say anything at all? And second, since the climate sensitivity is a key input to the models, how can the models possibly be valid?