More dross from JM's tripe n-


Jovial Monk wrote on Jan 20^th, 2024 at 9:50am:

Quote: SAT comparisons to the CMIP5 and CMIP6 models are also in line with model expectations. Differences related to the CMIP5 specified forcings are less important than they used to be, and as long as the CMIP6 models are appropriately selected based on the constrained sensitivity, the observations lie close to the mean of the model subset. Compared to the older papers, Hansen et al 1988 for instance, 2023 brings the observations a little closer to Scenario B, which was the closest GHG concentration pathway to what actually occurred. https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2024/01/not-just-another-dot-on-the-graph-part-ii/ For a while it looked like CMIP6 models were running hot but that was against a small subset of the models.

So let's look.

"The most impressive comparison continues to be the SAT projections from the CMIP3 models:"

So not CMIP6. Oh dear.

then -

"and as long as the CMIP6 models are appropriately selected based on the constrained sensitivity, the observations lie close to the mean of the model subset. "

So you just have to use the correct models and the correct constraints and voila. Just too funny. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D