Not the actual simulations, but the already fading credibility thereof. What scientific reason is there to rely on their results?
Ross McKitrick and John Christy have an important new paper out in Earth and Space Science, writes Andrew Montford for The GWPF.
This is the latest fusillade in the long battle over whether the climate simulations that lie behind demands for decarbonisation and other political action actually amount to nothing but a hill of beans (as they say on the other side of the pond).
Computer climate simulations predict that manmade global warming will cause the troposphere over the tropics to warm much faster than the surface, and there have been a series of scientific papers arguing whether these predictions are being borne out in practice.
In a blog post published yesterday, McKitrick relates some of the back story, including attempts by one mainstream scientist to withhold his data, and the subsequent revelation that he had truncated it in a way that fundamentally altered the conclusions that would be drawn.
McKitrick also outlines a series of subsequent papers that have concluded that real-world warming in the troposphere is much less than predicted:
[W]hether we test the tropospheric trend magnitudes, or the ratio of tropospheric to surface trends, across all kinds of data sets, and across all major trend intervals, models have been shown to exaggerate the amplification rate and the warming rate, globally and in the tropics.
Continued here.
Paper: Ross McKitrick and John Christy (2018) – A Test of the Tropical 200-300MB Warming Rate in Climate Models
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
September 18, 2018 at 04:27PM
Iowa Climate Science Education 