Comment on “Advanced Testing of Low, Medium, and High ECS CMIP6 GCM Simulations Versus ERA5-T2m” by N. Scafetta (2022)

4Citations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Scafetta (2022, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022gl097716) purports to test Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 6 (CMIP6) climate models through a comparison of temperature changes over three decades. Unfortunately, the paper contains numerous conceptual and statistical errors that undermine all of the conclusions. First, no uncertainty is given for the observational temperature difference, making it impossible to assess compatibility with any model result. Second, the CMIP6 data are the ensemble means for each model, but the metric being tested is sensitive to the internal variability and so the full ensemble for each model must be used. When this is corrected, the conclusion that “all models with ECS > 3.0°C overestimate the observed global surface warming” is not sustained. Third, the statistical test in Section 2 would reject all models even in a perfect model setup given sufficient ensemble members, thus the second conclusion “that spatial t-statistics rejects the data-model agreement” is also not sustainable.

Author supplied keywords

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Schmidt, G. A., Jones, G. S., & Kennedy, J. J. (2023, September 28). Comment on “Advanced Testing of Low, Medium, and High ECS CMIP6 GCM Simulations Versus ERA5-T2m” by N. Scafetta (2022). Geophysical Research Letters. John Wiley and Sons Inc. https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL102530

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free