Australian Politics Forum - Insights for CMIP6 models for Australia

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16400
Gender: male

Insights for CMIP6 models for Australia
May 20^th, 2020 at 6:57pm

" Using the 1850–1900 baseline as an approximation for the preindustrial climate, some models within CMIP6 project changes in global and Australian temperature of over 7 °C before the end of the century, which is unprecedented in CMIP5. "

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2019EF001469

Meanwhile Stefan Rahmstorf, alarmist, has quietly conceded the CMIP 5 models run too hot.

"Rahmstorf: "The comparative study by researchers from the University of Exeter now shows that in particular the warming since 1975 – i.e. most of the modern global warming – is clearly too strong in the sensitive models. More recent analyses by ETH Zurich, for which more models have already been evaluated, confirm this conclusion. This is a reason to breathe a sigh of relief: there is currently some evidence that these models are not better than the old ones, but are simply too sensitive.""

https://www.climatedepot.com/2020/05/15/climate-alarmist-rahmstorf-quietly-conce...

So if CMIP 5 is running too hot where does that leave CMIP6?

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 20^th, 2020 at 10:08pm by lee »

IP Logged

Robot Senior Member Offline Conspirator Posts: 441 Engadine Maccas	Re: Isights for CMIP6 models for Australia Reply #1 - May 20^th, 2020 at 9:35pm lee wrote on May 20^th, 2020 at 6:57pm: Meanwhile Stefan Rahmstorf, alarmist, has quietly conceded the CMIP 5 models run too hot. LOL no he didn't. Perhaps you read Rahmstorf's whole article and the paper by Tokarska et al, instead of getting it through the filter of a hysterical blog post.
Back to top	IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16400
Gender: male

Re: Isights for CMIP6 models for Australia
Reply #2 - May 20^th, 2020 at 9:51pm

Oh look Robot's back. How about those ECS estimates? Wink

Robot wrote on May 20^th, 2020 at 9:35pm:

Perhaps you read Rahmstorf's whole article and the paper by Tokarska et al, instead of getting it through the filter of a hysterical blog post.

I never quoted Tosarka et al, I quoted MR Grose et al. Wink

Did you read it in the German? Grin

https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/klimawandel-warum-die-neuesten-berech...

or perhaps a translation?

"The comparative study by researchers from the University of Exeter now shows that in particular the warming since 1975 – i.e. most of the modern global warming – is clearly too strong in the sensitive models. More recent analyses by ETH Zurich, for which more models have already been evaluated, confirm this conclusion. This is a reason to breathe a sigh of relief: there is currently some evidence that these models are not better than the old ones, but are simply too sensitive.“

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 20^th, 2020 at 9:56pm by lee »

IP Logged

Robot

Senior Member

Offline

Conspirator

Posts: 441
Engadine Maccas

Re: Isights for CMIP6 models for Australia
Reply #3 - May 20^th, 2020 at 10:01pm

lee wrote on May 20^th, 2020 at 9:51pm:

Oh look Robot's back. How about those ECS estimates? Wink

Did you explain where you got a climate sensitivity of 1.2 K? Grin

lee wrote on May 20^th, 2020 at 9:51pm:

Robot wrote on May 20^th, 2020 at 9:35pm:

Perhaps you read Rahmstorf's whole article and the paper by Tokarska et al, instead of getting it through the filter of a hysterical blog post.

Did you read it in the German? Grin

https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/mensch/klimawandel-warum-die-neuesten-berech...

or perhaps a translation?

"The comparative study by researchers from the University of Exeter now shows that in particular the warming since 1975 – i.e. most of the modern global warming – is clearly too strong in the sensitive models. More recent analyses by ETH Zurich, for which more models have already been evaluated, confirm this conclusion. This is a reason to breathe a sigh of relief: there is currently some evidence that these models are not better than the old ones, but are simply too sensitive.“

So you've read Rahmstorf's article (or more likely, didn't) and you still think he was referring to models submitted to CMIP5. Grin

You're so desperate to find problems. Grin

lee wrote on May 20^th, 2020 at 9:51pm:

I never quoted Tosarka et al, I quoted MR Grose et al. Wink

You're a bit slow to catch on. Tosarka et al are from ETH Zurich. Even your wacky blogger included a link for you. Grin

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 20^th, 2020 at 10:07pm by Robot »

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16400
Gender: male

Re: Isights for CMIP6 models for Australia
Reply #4 - May 20^th, 2020 at 10:07pm

Robot wrote on May 20^th, 2020 at 10:01pm:

Did you explain where you got a climate sensitivity of 1.2 K?

Is it somewhere midpoint? Grin

Robot wrote on May 20^th, 2020 at 10:01pm:

So you've read Rahmstorf's article (or more likely, didn't) and you still think he was referring to models submitted to CMIP5.

Yes petal. You? Grin

So you think CMIP6 goes back to 1975? Wink

Robot wrote on May 20^th, 2020 at 10:01pm:

You're so desperate to find problems.

You are so desperately trying to deflect. Even referencing a study I didn't. Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

Robot

Senior Member

Offline

Conspirator

Posts: 441
Engadine Maccas

Re: Isights for CMIP6 models for Australia
Reply #5 - May 20^th, 2020 at 10:15pm

lee wrote on May 20^th, 2020 at 10:07pm:

Robot wrote on May 20^th, 2020 at 10:01pm:

Did you explain where you got a climate sensitivity of 1.2 K?

Is it somewhere midpoint? Grin

So this characterisation was spot-on:

Robot wrote on May 18^th, 2020 at 12:00pm:

"New research suggests" meaning "I split the difference between two numbers I cherry-picked".

lee wrote on May 20^th, 2020 at 10:07pm:

Robot wrote on May 20^th, 2020 at 10:01pm:

So you've read Rahmstorf's article (or more likely, didn't) and you still think he was referring to models submitted to CMIP5.

Yes petal. You? Grin

lee wrote on May 20^th, 2020 at 10:07pm:

[quote author=Robot link=1589965038/3#3 date=1589976114]You're so desperate to find problems.

You are so desperately trying to deflect. Even referencing a study I didn't. Grin

Rahmstorf referenced it, not you. Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16400
Gender: male

Re: Insights for CMIP6 models for Australia
Reply #6 - May 21^st, 2020 at 5:25pm

Robot wrote on May 20^th, 2020 at 10:15pm:

So this characterisation was spot-on:

Robot wrote on May 18th, 2020 at 10:00am:
"New research suggests" meaning "I split the difference between two numbers I cherry-picked".

Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin

No petal. I didn't choose the mid point it chose itself. Maybe you can come up with a better figure. you haven't come up with one yet; despite many requests. That seems to suggest you have nothing but bluster.

Robot wrote on May 20^th, 2020 at 10:15pm:

Rahmstorf referenced it, not you.

So not a reference I provided. Thank you. Grin

And you still haven't rebutted what Rahmstorf said. Grin

lee wrote on May 20^th, 2020 at 10:07pm:

So you think CMIP6 goes back to 1975?

And you didn't respond to this either. Wink

Back to top

« Last Edit: May 21^st, 2020 at 5:30pm by lee »

IP Logged

Robot Senior Member Offline Conspirator Posts: 441 Engadine Maccas	Re: Insights for CMIP6 models for Australia Reply #7 - May 21^st, 2020 at 7:25pm lee wrote on May 21^st, 2020 at 5:25pm: No petal. I didn't choose the mid point it chose itself. lee's bullshit writes itself?
Back to top	IP Logged

lee Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 16400 Gender:	Re: Insights for CMIP6 models for Australia Reply #8 - May 21^st, 2020 at 7:54pm Robot wrote on May 21^st, 2020 at 7:25pm: lee's bullshit writes itself? You are asking yourself a question petal. And you have still done nothing to rebut anything.
Back to top	IP Logged

Robot Senior Member Offline Conspirator Posts: 441 Engadine Maccas	Re: Insights for CMIP6 models for Australia Reply #9 - May 21^st, 2020 at 11:16pm lee wrote on May 21^st, 2020 at 5:25pm: And you still haven't rebutted what Rahmstorf said. I agree with what Rahmstorf said! You're so desperate to put words into his mouth.
Back to top	IP Logged

lee

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 16400
Gender: male

Re: Insights for CMIP6 models for Australia
Reply #10 - May 22^nd, 2020 at 8:09pm

Robot wrote on May 21^st, 2020 at 11:16pm:

I agree with what Rahmstorf said!

So you agree the models are overly sensitive, that they are running hot. I am glad we got that straight. Grin

Robot wrote on May 21^st, 2020 at 11:16pm:

You're so desperate to put words into his mouth.

No petal. He said they were too sensitive. They were running too hot

lee wrote on May 20^th, 2020 at 9:51pm:

most of the modern global warming – is clearly too strong in the sensitive models. More recent analyses by ETH Zurich, for which more models have already been evaluated, confirm this conclusion. This is a reason to breathe a sigh of relief: there is currently some evidence that these models are not better than the old ones, but are simply too sensitive

But perhaps you can parse what he said differently? Wink

Back to top

IP Logged