The previous set of wrongheaded climate models, CMIP5, generated too much warming over the sea and in the tropical troposphere (the lower, most dense, layer of the Earth's atmosphere). The current CMIPS6 models cause excessive warming all over the Earth in both the lower and the middle troposphere. It has long been recognized that too much warming in the tropical troposphere causes greater latitudinal temperature gradients that would cause too much warming worldwide. The errors of the CMIPS5 models were not addressed. Instead, the bias of the modelers in favor of exaggerated man-made global warming has led to their creation of a new generation of models that actually makes the errors of the previous models worse. Apparently, these "scientists" believe that when you are proven wrong, the job of science is to develop models and theories that are even more wrong. These CMIPS6 climate models are supposed to provide the basis for the next UN IPCC report on how man's use of hydrocarbon fuels will cause catastrophic global warming.
A new paper by Dann M. Mitchell et al., examines the temperature trends in the troposphere and stratosphere in the tropics for 48 of the CMIPS6 climate models, each of which is supposed to represent the well-understood consensus climate science, despite the differences in their predictions. The essence of the results of this analysis by Mitchell et al. is shown in this figure from their manuscript accepted for publication in Environmental Research Letters:
The overwrite on the right-most graph is part of the word manuscript on this pre-publication paper. The vertical atmosphere altitude is given in terms of the pressure in hPa, where an hPa is 100 Pa. The x-axis gives the change in temperature per decade in Kelvins (a change of 1 Kelvin equals a change of 1 degree Centigrade). There is warming in the troposphere and cooling in the stratosphere in the left-most graph, so you can tell the pressure at which the stratosphere begins by looking for the intersection with the zero trend line.
The left-most graph is the measured (black) and the model (red and blue) change in temperature/decade for the period 1979 to 2014. The black measurements are based on three sets of data: RICH1.5 radiosondes, RAOBCORE1.5 radiosondes, and the Reanalysis ERA5/5.1. The red horizontal lines indicate the so-called 95% uncertainty range of temperature rate change of the models which try to predict the ocean surface temperatures. The blue model results are for those models that assume the measured ocean temperatures, rather than trying to predict them. The red models that try to predict the ocean temperatures increase their errors with excessively high warming rates over the oceans at the surface. Then, on top of that, they predict increasingly larger warming trends as they climb upwards through the troposphere. The predictions for the cooling in the stratosphere seem to be much better for these models in the 1979-2014 period, but this is scientifically illusory.
The middle and the right graph separate out the 1979-1997 and the 1998-2014 periods of time. In the earlier period, the models gave too little cooling in the stratosphere, while in the later period they gave too much cooling. Putting these offsetting errors together, produced a seemingly good agreement in the stratosphere in the combined period from 1979 to 2014. However, it is clear from the shorter period results that the modelers did not really know what they were doing. The actual measured rates show little to no cooling in the stratosphere after 1997, while the models insist on cooling rates similar to those for the 1979-1997 period.
From 1998 to 2014, the CMIPS5 models excessively warmed at rates of 4 to 5 times faster than did the actual temperature measurements. The CMIPS6 models are not improved. They are especially in error in the upper troposphere at pressures of about 200 hPa. There is one especially wrongheaded model and it is the one the Canadian government relies upon for its policies on global warming. It yields a tropospheric warming rate about 7 times the observed warming rate. Those poor, poor Canadians! Governmental energy policies based on a seven-fold exaggeration of a "problem" sure does create real problems.
There is also an evaluation of the CMIPS6 models by McKitrick and Christy which has been accepted for publication by Earth and Space Science. These authors had found that there was a warming bias in the CMIPS5 models in the tropical mid-troposphere in earlier analyses. Their new work demonstrates that the CMIPS6 models are even more biased towards warming. This increased warming is seen in their predictions in both the lower and middle troposphere at all latitudes - the tropics and beyond. They found that the models using higher Equilibrium Climate Sensitivities (>3.4K) warmed faster than those using lower values of the ECS, but both sets of models all predicted faster than the observed rate of warming. The observed rate of warming in the lower troposphere is given as 0.15 K/decade, while the lower ECS value set of models with an average ECS of 2.7K gave a lower troposphere warming rate of 0.21K/decade. The observed middle troposphere warming rate is 0.09K/decade. To get the right rate of warming, the models would have to use ECS values in the 1 to 2 K range.
In conclusion, the climate modelers, whose models are the basis for man-made global warming, continue to show that they do not understand the science and that their degree of understanding is not improving. Yet, we can rest assured that many governmental bodies will continue to determine their energy-use policies based on their failed understanding of the science. There will continue to be claims that they represent the consensus on well-understood science. It is pretty much impossible to understand the stubborn persistence in the belief in the failed catastrophic man-made global warming hypothesis as a matter of science.
Their clinging to this erroneous belief is a matter of payoffs, environmental religion, and socialist politics lusting to wrest away more and more control of the management of our individual lives.