Schmidt, Jones, and Kennedy’s (SJK) (2023, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL102530) critique of Scafetta (2022, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL097716) is flawed. Their assessment of the error of the ERA-T2m 2011–2021 mean (≈0.10°C) is 5–10 times overestimated and contradicts published literature. SJK confused natural variability with random noise and mistook the error of the mean of a temperature chronology for the stochastic error of the regression parameter M of a nonphysical isothermal climate model (T(t) = M). SJK's allegations regarding the internal variability of the models, the role of the global climate model ensemble members, and other issues were partially addressed in Scafetta (2022, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL097716) and, later, more extensively in Scafetta (2023a, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-022-06493-w) where Scafetta's (2022, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL097716) conclusions were confirmed.

Reply to “Comment on ‘Advanced Testing of Low, Medium, and High ECS CMIP6 GCM Simulations Versus ERA5‐T2m’ by N. Scafetta (2022)” by Schmidt et al. (2023) / Scafetta, Nicola. - In: GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS. - ISSN 0094-8276. - 50:18(2023), p. e2023GL104960. [10.1029/2023GL104960]

Reply to “Comment on ‘Advanced Testing of Low, Medium, and High ECS CMIP6 GCM Simulations Versus ERA5‐T2m’ by N. Scafetta (2022)” by Schmidt et al. (2023)

Scafetta, Nicola
Primo
2023

Abstract

Schmidt, Jones, and Kennedy’s (SJK) (2023, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL102530) critique of Scafetta (2022, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL097716) is flawed. Their assessment of the error of the ERA-T2m 2011–2021 mean (≈0.10°C) is 5–10 times overestimated and contradicts published literature. SJK confused natural variability with random noise and mistook the error of the mean of a temperature chronology for the stochastic error of the regression parameter M of a nonphysical isothermal climate model (T(t) = M). SJK's allegations regarding the internal variability of the models, the role of the global climate model ensemble members, and other issues were partially addressed in Scafetta (2022, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL097716) and, later, more extensively in Scafetta (2023a, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-022-06493-w) where Scafetta's (2022, https://doi.org/10.1029/2022GL097716) conclusions were confirmed.
2023
Reply to “Comment on ‘Advanced Testing of Low, Medium, and High ECS CMIP6 GCM Simulations Versus ERA5‐T2m’ by N. Scafetta (2022)” by Schmidt et al. (2023) / Scafetta, Nicola. - In: GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS. - ISSN 0094-8276. - 50:18(2023), p. e2023GL104960. [10.1029/2023GL104960]
File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.

I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.

Utilizza questo identificativo per citare o creare un link a questo documento: https://hdl.handle.net/11588/939603
Citazioni
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.pmc??? ND
  • Scopus 1
  • ???jsp.display-item.citation.isi??? 1
social impact