‘You’re more wrong than we are!’ – seems to be the state of play here. Are there any models that wouldn’t get improved results if their so-called ‘greenhouse gas’ forcing was reduced or even removed?
By David Wojick, Ph.D. ~
Looks like the climate modeling community may have a civil war on its hands. Some serious players are rejecting the new hot models, but probably not their owners. If so we will see modeler against modeler. Be still my heart.
The first loud public shot has been fired by the prestigious journal Science (actually it is more of a magazine but never mind). Science is devoutly alarmist but they reject the hot models in the strongest possible terms (in a lengthy article that is not paywalled).
Their blunt article title is “U.N. climate panel confronts implausibly hot forecasts of future warming“. When it comes to science, “implausibly hot” is very strong language. Scientific language is normally extremely polite. (The U.N. climate panel is of course the IPCC.)
But it gets even stronger in the text. Here we find NASA’s Gavin Schmidt, arguably…
View original post 699 more words
via Tallbloke’s Talkshop
August 16, 2021 at 03:09AM