mjp2
The downwards adjustments to the models guiding research into the AGW hypothesis have so frequently occurred over the last 30 odd years that if I follow the timeline of these adjustments I have to wonder what does Carbon Dioxide have to do with the AGW consensus. I mean my first reference starts with this line about the IPCC: "A number of authors, including the IPCC, have argued that climate models have systematically overstated the rate of global warming in recent decades." Ouch - but I'm sure you will find a way to excuse their meaning. But models overstating the rate of global warming are simply why the models are bad.
To your first reference, I offer the summary from https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/09/27/are-climate-models-overstating-warming/
Summary
Millar et al. attracted controversy for stating that climate models have shown too much warming in recent decades, even though others (including the IPCC) have said the same thing. Zeke Hausfather disputed this using an adjustment to model outputs developed by Cowtan et al. The combination of the adjustment and the recent El Nino creates a visual impression of coherence. But other measures not affected by the issues raised in Cowtan et al. support the existence of a warm bias in models. Gridcell extreme frequencies in CMIP5 models do not overlap with observations. And satellite-measured temperature trends in the lower troposphere run below the CMIP5 rates in the same way that the HadCRUT4 surface data do, including in the tropics. The model-observational discrepancy is real, and needs to be taken into account especially when using models for policy guidance.
In 2015, with the pause starting to look bad for AGW models (and hence the need by IPCC to adjust temp rises from 2 Celsius to 1.5 Celsius) we have these two.
https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/working-paper-35_2.pdf
https://www.climatedepot.com/2015/12/29/analysis-climate-models-have-been-wrong-about-global-warming-for-six-decades/Now this pause was bad for AGW and so to return volley, more articles were written supporting the Climate models then arrived in 2017 as with your post.
The science is not fine. It seems that your AGW models are the failure.
