Not exact matches
However, the
climate models used in the
IPCC forecasts are not statistical, but are
physical in nature.
Let's add that the entire NASA case, like that of the
IPCC, rests solely upon the
physical reliability of
climate models; a position that lacks any scientifically valid foundation.
MOM3, MOM4, and MOM5 are used as a code base for the ocean component of the GFDL coupled
models used in the
IPCC assessment reports, including the GFDL CM2.X
physical climate model series and the ESM2M Earth System M
model series and the ESM2M Earth System
ModelModel.
As in the previous report, Collins worked with an international team of
climate scientists tasked with evaluating the
physical fidelity of the
climate models used in the
IPCC's assessment.
The fact that England, et al., can claim the «robust nature of twenty - first century warming projections» and «increased confidence «in
IPCC projections, when their
models are obviously incapable of resolving the
climate energy state, merely shows that they can have no understanding whatever of the source of
physical meaning.
Mark Siddall and his co-authors (including Thomas Stocker, co-chair of the
IPCC's working group on the
physical basis of
climate change) had used an empirical
model linking sea - level rise to changes in global mean temperature.
The 0C - 10C range for 2xCO2
climate sensitivity encompasses ALL the published estimates I have seen, from the Spencer and Lindzen lower end of 0.6 C (from CERES and ERBE satellite observations) and the Forster and Gregory range of 0.9 C to 3.7 C (based on «purely observational evidence» — see earlier thread) to
IPCC's range of 2.0 C to 4.5 C (from
model simulations based largely on theoretical deliberations rather than
physical observations).