The context was
global air temperature projections, Nick.
The analysis propagates climate model error through
global air temperature projections, using a formalized version of the «passive warming model» (PWM) GCM emulator reported in my 2008 Skeptic article.
Here's an illustration: the Figure below shows what happens when the average ± 4 Wm - 2 long - wave cloud forcing error of CMIP5 climate models [1], is propagated through a couple of Community Climate System Model 4 (CCSM4)
global air temperature projections.
I also show that
global air temperature projections are just linear extrapolations of GHG forcing (any forcing, really).
Not exact matches
included in the model
projections and is there a potential for a more rapid
global temperature increase after hypothetical stopping of
air pollution and subsequent cleaning of
air?
McIntyre has a new post where he tries to rescue the previous «
projections» — but he confuses the changes in HadSST (ocean
temperatures, which he is plotting) and the changes in HadCRUT3 (the
global surface
air temperature anomaly) which is what his
projection was for (as can be seen in the figures in the main post).
While he represents that this fault lies in inconsistency of the predictions of the models with a
global average surface
air temperature time serties, the fault truely lies in our inability to statistically test the
projections of these models.
``...
projections of future
global air temperatures make them predictively useless.
The question of how climate model
projections have tracked the actual evolution of
global mean surface
air temperature is important in establishing the credibility of their
projections.
Abstract: «The question of how climate model
projections have tracked the actual evolution of
global mean surface
air temperature is important in establishing the credibility of their
projections.