This is a seriously misleading piece with the claim: "Modelling suggests climate is considerably more sensitive to carbon emissions than thought". Let's check... (1/n)
theguardian.com/environment/20…
theguardian.com/environment/20…
Tim Palmer reports in a quite balanced way that one particular Hadley model with high climate sensitivity does better at 6h forecasts. That means that *this particular* model is doing *something* better than its previous version, but... (2/n)
nature.com/articles/d4158…
nature.com/articles/d4158…
...the same model shows strong cooling over land until about 1980. (3/n)
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.10…
agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.10…
We (and others) have shown that warming since 1981 is strongly related to future warming across models. This suggests CMIP6 is warming too much, not too little. And the Hadley models is one of the two that has the strongest warming bias since 1981. (4/n)
Climate change is serious but let's be honest. We cannot rule out a 5°C sensitivity, but both recent warming trends and paleodata suggest it is unlikely. There are hundreds of papers on ECS. Claiming that everything is worse based on one is cherry picking and misleading. (5/n)
As @ClimateOfGavin nicely discusses, it is not clear that better forecast skill only appears if the model sensitivity is high.
And if one line of evidence does not rule out a high value, that does not make it is likely. Other data may show it isn’t.
realclimate.org/index.php/arch… (6/6)
And if one line of evidence does not rule out a high value, that does not make it is likely. Other data may show it isn’t.
realclimate.org/index.php/arch… (6/6)
