Her assessment of CMIP5 models held up poorly. They were more accurate than she was. https://t.co/vLT0CisH75 https://t.co/uiKja2GReI https://t.co/megzlJngbY https://t.co/6moBZmbz73 https://t.co/epp2SguaEi https://t.co/Z7aLJMCHMH https://t.co/vph0dRfFzB
... the projections are not as good a fit to the observations post 2005. There are (it turns out) three reasons why. First, some of the forcings the models all used were slightly biased (enough to make ~0.1ºC difference) https://t.co/nFcxSji0sV
@ClimateOfGavin @RogerPielkeJr @envMENTALsubstk @atrembath @MichaelEMann Gavin, did you not say this week that RCPs were used in models after 2005? https://t.co/6haegiCBkI https://t.co/GRAplSF6uB
@RogerPielkeJr @hausfath CMIP5 model simulations used RCPs from 2006? https://t.co/hdjIYwBXKL https://t.co/hukExBvA3f
@dodders75 @SenWhitehouse Gosh, it’s a mystery! Oh… wait… umm… no… we wrote a whole paper about it https://t.co/nFcxSji0sV
@BenjaminYumi8 @waxliberty @MatthewWielicki Here they blamed coincidence https://t.co/tx290czLsI Pine aerosols https://t.co/o8fZZdnyLe Here they stated pauses aren't unusual https://t.co/wfJBTxSsL6
Homework https://t.co/9VAqQkW1en
@ClimateLabBook @skdh Why would they build the model to assume no future 'large' volcanic activity? It links to this https://t.co/mAOxRm4LPs as a 'likely cause' for difference in warming trends. Wouldn't you want to 'bake in' parameters that prevented p
@Eaterofsun It's 'balanced' by decreases elsewhere (though ppl have speculated on the impact of distributional changes - including us in https://t.co/nFcxSji0sV)
@SanGasso One of the first, probably, but not the first one: https://t.co/Q2JejVnHVJ
“Mis-specifications”.
@maxim_k Sorry. Mis-specifications. See Schmidt et al (2014): https://t.co/nFcxSji0sV
@rsw16 @NoHolyScripture Here is one for you: https://t.co/lMJvGXMsjx
RT @BvvBvx: @hopfi80 @Luisamneubauer @ulfposh @welt https://t.co/Rg8hLfqe62 https://t.co/h6IKd7aj2G Gavin Schmidt, Leiter des Goddard Ins…
@hopfi80 @Luisamneubauer @ulfposh @welt https://t.co/Rg8hLfqe62 https://t.co/h6IKd7aj2G Gavin Schmidt, Leiter des Goddard Institute for Space Studies der NASA
@KRmgr1 noen kommentar til denne?
@RoHeAss Was die in ihrer Grafik dargestellten Abweichungen der Messungen von den CMIP5 Prognosen angeht: die scheinen mir recht solide erklärt. Beispielsweise hier: https://t.co/AATIEFVSAd https://t.co/EVmFxZHQR6
RT @FabiusMaximus01: @roland_japin @sandergeelen @mariannezw @marcelcrok For a better graph see 2017 update by @ClimateOfGavin of graph fro…
@roland_japin @sandergeelen @mariannezw @marcelcrok For a better graph see 2017 update by @ClimateOfGavin of graph from his 2014 paper in Nature Geoscience. Uses the more accurate surface temp, ensemble mean & 95% range, and distinguishes hindcast from
@RJinBaltimore @marcorubio @jaketapper No. MSU observations are different from the surface record and have larger structural errors. If you want more info on possible issues with the external forcings in CMIP5 see https://t.co/nFcxSji0sV
@aipartanen @MaKriKaLi @mustapipa https://t.co/psZw9I9bSf artikkeli avaa syitä miksi tuossa kuvassa havainnot ja mallien tulokset erkanevat. https://t.co/HP5KoLxLjt ja tuossa artikkeli havaintojen ja ilmastomallien vertailusta.
Reconciling warming trends https://t.co/OKKrj78dmJ Long-term response of forest productivity to climate change is mostly driven by change in tree species composition https://t.co/F7IWavlaP4 Climate-Driven Crop Yield and Yield Variability and Climate Change
@Bill_Capehart @joshypants @jerry_jtaylor @AscendingNode @NatureClimate You can also read it for free here: https://t.co/0FwZ5R8q9c (Any author or anyone with a sub can generate a free shareable link).
@BogyB79 @mrbootherovski @CAS6362 @FoxNews @ShepNewsTeam Mate, how about you read the full paper (not that you'd understand it) https://t.co/xiXP7gNtzc
RT @ClimateOfGavin: @BvvBvx @FabiusMaximus01 @mattwridley @gstringermp @thegwpfcom As discussed here: https://t.co/0d0mcgPq0G (Mostly missp…
@BvvBvx @FabiusMaximus01 @mattwridley @gstringermp @thegwpfcom As discussed here: https://t.co/0d0mcgPq0G (Mostly misspecification of post-2000 solar and volcanoes)
@manuzb32 @SimonVanDeBeek Wat leesvoer daarover: https://t.co/BzfmNC5cbG https://t.co/8Jg7lrVewq + T stijgt sinds 2000, bijv. GISTEMP = 0,2 ± 0.1 °C/dec. JH
@Ceist8 @DomhnallAllen citations for model-obs comparisons: https://t.co/2ZvzU7iOtp https://t.co/Z2I8ysJBis https://t.co/XctKWFalr4
@dougmcneall @ClimateOfGavin Nope - this one: https://t.co/BESftRI2hH @DrKateMarvel
7 Pådrivene som avvek, i virkeligheten, fra de brukt i CMIP5 er oppsummert i https://t.co/1O8o6Pd8fh https://t.co/4kpviGoW5c
@Bheldaas jeg har en artikkel til deg https://t.co/1O8o6Pd8fh @SVHeikki @Partiet @Rotevatn
@willemjoustra @Klimaatzuster Global T obs liggen dus binnen de modelrange van RCP8.5 scenario, maar lees ook: https://t.co/BzfmNC5cbG - JH
@rdrimmel @Wikisteff This is the ref for the second plot (paywall, sorry) https://t.co/iTeWo6Yk2Y
@RogerAPielkeSr @FabiusMaximus01 the analysis of why is more nuanced than you think: https://t.co/7NVUZ1rnM0
@RogerAPielkeSr Yes, slightly, but likely a function of mis-specified forcings. https://t.co/7NVUZ1rnM0 @Tucano238 @DrShepherd2013
@grant_mcdermott Doesn't exist. ;-) I made an estimate of what it might be in https://t.co/7NVUZ1rnM0 Email if you want that.
@mkeulemans @PaulEMetz Zie bv http://t.co/BzfmNC5cbG, http://t.co/GALNzIu0Rn. Observ. vallen in modelrange AR4 -JH2 http://t.co/uBOfcGQDU1
@aDissentient You should aim to use the active rather than the passive voice. Oh, and read the references: http://t.co/7NVUZ1rnM0
@DavidLHagen There is far more noise in shorter term trends. But see http://t.co/7NVUZ1rnM0 for reconciliation @flimsin @RoyWSpencer
@DavidLHagen Not really. CMIP5: 0.23 [0.14,0.33]ºC/dec. Obs:0.16±0.02. http://t.co/7NVUZ1rnM0 @flimsin @DrKateMarvel http://t.co/604RPtpxSo
@alexharv074 see our paper from last year: http://t.co/gOP0RHV9fQ @1petermartin
@GalileoMovement @nick88888 @AyesHavit @jeffsyg @peterclark01 This is MUCH more accurate: http://t.co/eWXqHsG37G http://t.co/AQdufpx2FO
@GalileoMovement @radguy1 @EcoSenseNow This is MUCH more accurate: http://t.co/eWXqHsG37G http://t.co/AQdufpx2FO
@GalileoMovement @radguy1 @EcoSenseNow This is MUCH more accurate: http://t.co/eWXqHsG37G http://t.co/AQdufpx2FO
@GalileoMovement @Thenativecat This is MUCH more accurate: http://t.co/eWXqHsG37G http://t.co/AQdufpx2FO
@GalileoMovement @Lee_Tennant @alias_steven @bennydiego This is MUCH more accurate: http://t.co/eWXqHsG37G http://t.co/AQdufpx2FO
@GalileoMovement @GalacticWomanAu @HeraldofWar @PlagueofProgs This is MUCH more accurate: (http://t.co/eWXqHsG37G) http://t.co/AQdufpx2FO
@GalileoMovement @GalacticWomanAu @HeraldofWar @PlagueofProgs This is MUCH more accurate: (http://t.co/eWXqHsG37G) http://t.co/AQdufpx2FO
@GalileoMovement @ClimateRealists @GreenpeaceUK @LordsArcticCom This is MUCH more accurate: http://t.co/eWXqHsG37G http://t.co/AQdufpx2FO
@GalileoMovement @AlphaKruse @RitchieJay604 @Steerpike1 This is MUCH more accurate: http://t.co/eWXqHsG37G http://t.co/AQdufpx2FO
@GalileoMovement @wulfkhan @alphakruse This is MUCH more accurate: http://t.co/eWXqHsG37G http://t.co/AQdufpx2FO
@GalileoMovement @julestw9 This is MUCH more accurate: http://t.co/eWXqHsG37G http://t.co/AQdufpx2FO
@GalileoMovement @julestw9 This is MUCH more accurate: http://t.co/eWXqHsG37G http://t.co/AQdufpx2FO
@GalileoMovement @seonf @climatecouncil This is MUCH more accurate: http://t.co/eWXqHsG37G http://t.co/AQdufpx2FO
@GalileoMovement @boydo43 @mkh2076 This is MUCH more accurate: http://t.co/eWXqHsG37G http://t.co/AQdufpx2FO
@GalileoMovement @CSIROnews @JamesHeff80 #auspol This is MUCH more accurate: http://t.co/eWXqHsG37G http://t.co/AQdufpx2FO
@bowshock I mean read the paper first http://t.co/TnvvyL3lBi there's skepticism and then there's just dishonesty.
@JeanSbls Systematic errs in obs or model physics or forcings can't be assessed by looking at model histograms. More http://t.co/dC143qRhq8
@khaustein Thanks-complements studies by @rahmstorf & @ClimateOfGavin then: http://t.co/U8HZQ7C0we http://t.co/uQz7jAjjL2
@ReneDercksen @jeroenjansenASN Analyse opwarming vs modellen: http://t.co/tBJgQvt9iv Maar ik begrijp dat klimaatbeleid 't pijnpunt is?
@EvensonMel @TheWatchman5 17 years is not 50 years. Many other issues on short timescales: http://t.co/dC143qRhq8
@bfolson18 Here's a study I promised from this weekend. Behind a pay wall. Use google for reporting on it http://t.co/HSY8pIsVyn
Reconciling warming trends - Nat. Geoscience (OA): http://t.co/dC143qRhq8 http://t.co/d5P6MGfh4Y
Reconciling warming trends - Nat. Geoscience (OA): http://t.co/dC143qRhq8 http://t.co/d5P6MGfh4Y
Reconciling warming trends - Nat. Geoscience (OA): http://t.co/dC143qRhq8 http://t.co/d5P6MGfh4Y
Reconciling warming trends - Nat. Geoscience (OA): http://t.co/dC143qRhq8 http://t.co/d5P6MGfh4Y
@latimeralder which is an issue that Gavin Schmidt has addressed in his recent Nature Geo paper. http://t.co/DwMVwyShRe
@JuiceCs4 nope. http://t.co/d8j7RBBXJD also http://t.co/ecKLUde5a8 @flakes111 @firmuspiett @jakmarcin
@marcelcrok @nef You know better than that: http://t.co/nIynBhLl9j
.@remcovvd @janpaulvansoest @wykegroene11 @onzekamer Incl recente info komen modellen & observaties goed overeen: http://t.co/BzfmNCnlpO -BV
MT @nasagiss: New research in Nature Geosci paper "Reconciling warming trends" by Schmidt/Shindell/Tsigaridis http://t.co/cdgGjPE1F9
MT @nasagiss: New research in Nature Geosci paper "Reconciling warming trends" by Schmidt/Shindell/Tsigaridis http://t.co/cdgGjPE1F9
Reconciling warming trends - Nat. Geoscience (OA): http://t.co/dC143qRhq8 http://t.co/d5P6MGfh4Y
Reconciling warming trends http://t.co/pbFMf3Ypvy "our analysis implies that significant warming trends are likely to resume" #climate
Not really ;) *This* http://t.co/lzJdtruGNm by @ClimateOfGavin @NatureGeosci @ed_hawkins: "better hiatus articles at @NatureClimate"
Reconciling warming trends - Nat. Geoscience (OA): http://t.co/dC143qRhq8 http://t.co/d5P6MGfh4Y
Reconciling warming trends - Nat. Geoscience (OA): http://t.co/dC143qRhq8 http://t.co/d5P6MGfh4Y
Important new GISS research in Nature Geosci paper "Reconciling warming trends" by Schmidt/Shindell/Tsigaridis http://t.co/50DLQtudx9
Reconciling warming trends http://t.co/Q3yG9dveRE via @feedly
New paper examines factors that led to models projecting stronger warming than we've seen over the last 15 years http://t.co/haitVgt76O
Interesting set of @NatureGeosci papers on decadal climate variability http://t.co/cl8v8Eq6am http://t.co/vCgwHx2BGn http://t.co/SgLLVrB9DV
#exClimate Reconciling warming trends http://t.co/kQYhF30ex9
_Nature_ says a coincidence of volcanic activity, aerosols, La Nina has caused less warming than expected since 1992 http://t.co/uvR3RGb2N7
Nice discussion by @ClimateOfGavin et al. of the role of updated radiative forcings in reconciling warming trends | http://t.co/NcpAnOWRGH
Reconciling warming trends - Nat. Geoscience (OA): http://t.co/dC143qRhq8 http://t.co/d5P6MGfh4Y
Important new GISS research in Nature Geosci paper "Reconciling warming trends" by Schmidt/Shindell/Tsigaridis http://t.co/50DLQtudx9
interesting, important article on warming slowdown in @NatureGeosci by colleagues at GISS http://t.co/fCUgb8ZBFw @tsigarid @ClimateOfGavin
Reconciling warming trends - Nat. Geoscience (OA): http://t.co/dC143qRhq8 http://t.co/d5P6MGfh4Y
Gavin Schmidt's conspiracy theory: "a combination of factors, by coincidence, conspired ..." http://t.co/BBpwN9CSRy http://t.co/8hMkF4kQZW
Thorough look at why current warming is at the low end of existing models http://t.co/H3LVCFxq8J