IPCC climate sensitivities called into question

[IanC]

last year I pointed out that the only quantification of climate sensitivity (feedback) that was based on data rather than computer models showed a value of close to one rather than the two, three or five that alarmists like to use. a statistician, Nik Lewis (who's rebuttal of Steig's antarctica was also an interesting foray into peer review) also pointed out to the IPCC the irregular methodologies used to calculate the values which led to a correction being published.

Lewis has now found serious apparent flaws in the supposed data used by Forest in two of the studies used, as well as follow on studies. after being rebuffed for the raw data and methodologies, he went to the publishing Journal, which asked Forest for the data. unfortunately the data is now 'lost'. how typical of climate science. deny, delay, destroy.

Throwing down the gauntlet on reproducibility in Climate Science – Forest et al. (2006) | Watts Up With That?

Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study | Climate Etc.

 

[IanC]

everybody likes the pretty graphs

 

[Old Rocks]

Climate sensativities.

Kind of like at what point do we see major fires from the drying and increase in temperatures and wind speed?

Like at what point do we see an effectively ice free Arctic?

At what point do we see the increase in atmospheric humidity resulting in major floods?

Seems the scientists have been a bit too conservative on the numbers, from what we are seeing in the real world.

 

[bobgnote]

It seems to me that hockey sticks have not only a blade, but the blade is CURVED.

Acceleration phenomena can be tricky to figure, but I believe this should be done, even if all we figure out is how DAMAGE FROM CLIMATE CHANGE IS ACCELERATING.

 

[flacaltenn]

last year I pointed out that the only quantification of climate sensitivity (feedback) that was based on data rather than computer models showed a value of close to one rather than the two, three or five that alarmists like to use. a statistician, Nik Lewis (who's rebuttal of Steig's antarctica was also an interesting foray into peer review) also pointed out to the IPCC the irregular methodologies used to calculate the values which led to a correction being published.

Lewis has now found serious apparent flaws in the supposed data used by Forest in two of the studies used, as well as follow on studies. after being rebuffed for the raw data and methodologies, he went to the publishing Journal, which asked Forest for the data. unfortunately the data is now 'lost'. how typical of climate science. deny, delay, destroy.

Throwing down the gauntlet on reproducibility in Climate Science – Forest et al. (2006) | Watts Up With That?

Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study | Climate Etc.

How do you "lose" stuff like that? It wasn't ORIGINAL DATA because he didn't travel the world collecting it.. And how do you publish a paper without giving a hint as to the methodologies? Losing the stuff kinda chills the possibilities of an open debate doesn't it?

Yeah -- I'd favor the ONE study that showed ZERO prob. for the area where all other studies peaked their prob. :eusa-sarcasm:

Then I'd just pull a 2.62 out of the magician's pouch.

 

[Oddball]

The dog ate Goebbels warming.

 

[Meister]

Garbage in, garbage out...or should I say it was thrown out?

 

[IanC]

I keep thinking the IPCC will have to acknowledge all of these problems with climate science methods and data but I suppose I am just fooling myself. but real science always wins in the end.

 

[bripat9643]

Climate sensativities.

Kind of like at what point do we see major fires from the drying and increase in temperatures and wind speed?

Like at what point do we see an effectively ice free Arctic?

At what point do we see the increase in atmospheric humidity resulting in major floods?

Seems the scientists have been a bit too conservative on the numbers, from what we are seeing in the real world.

Try posting some actual facts or logic instead of a series of non sequiturs and outright lies.

 

[Old Rocks]

What we are seeing in the mountain west is a lie?

What they just experianced in Florida, DC, and much of the rest of the Eastern seaboard is a lie?

What we are seeing in the Arctic right now is a lie?

Pattycake, you are just plain stupid.

 

[Meister]

What we are seeing in the mountain west is a lie?

What they just experianced in Florida, DC, and much of the rest of the Eastern seaboard is a lie?

What we are seeing in the Arctic right now is a lie?

Pattycake, you are just plain stupid.

Back around 1910 they were experiencing the same type of heat wave in the same area, Rocks. Which helped bring on the Dust Bowl in the 30's. Record temps...maybe, but they might be a degree higher than the last record temp.
I do know we're comfortable with temps in my area, below normal for the most part.

 

[Meister]

Climate sensativities.

Kind of like at what point do we see major fires from the drying and increase in temperatures and wind speed?

Like at what point do we see an effectively ice free Arctic?

At what point do we see the increase in atmospheric humidity resulting in major floods?

Seems the scientists have been a bit too conservative on the numbers, from what we are seeing in the real world.

Try posting some actual facts or logic instead of a series of non sequiturs and outright lies.

The Artic gained ice mass....well it did until you use the tainted science that Rocks uses as a religion.

 

[Old Rocks]

Climate sensativities.

Kind of like at what point do we see major fires from the drying and increase in temperatures and wind speed?

Like at what point do we see an effectively ice free Arctic?

At what point do we see the increase in atmospheric humidity resulting in major floods?

Seems the scientists have been a bit too conservative on the numbers, from what we are seeing in the real world.

Try posting some actual facts or logic instead of a series of non sequiturs and outright lies.

The Artic gained ice mass....well it did until you use the tainted science that Rocks uses as a religion.

LOL. How about a link to show where the Arctic ice has gained mass?

http://psc.apl.washington.edu/wordp...ce_volume/BPIOMASIceVolumeAnomalyCurrentV2.pn

http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_stddev_timeseries.png

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area

My, really looks like the Arctic ice is gaining mass hand over fist. Meister, how did you get so full of shit?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

last year I pointed out that the only quantification of climate sensitivity (feedback) that was based on data rather than computer models showed a value of close to one rather than the two, three or five that alarmists like to use. a statistician, Nik Lewis (who's rebuttal of Steig's antarctica was also an interesting foray into peer review) also pointed out to the IPCC the irregular methodologies used to calculate the values which led to a correction being published.

Lewis has now found serious apparent flaws in the supposed data used by Forest in two of the studies used, as well as follow on studies. after being rebuffed for the raw data and methodologies, he went to the publishing Journal, which asked Forest for the data. unfortunately the data is now 'lost'. how typical of climate science. deny, delay, destroy.

Throwing down the gauntlet on reproducibility in Climate Science – Forest et al. (2006) | Watts Up With That?

Questioning the Forest et al. (2006) sensitivity study | Climate Etc.

This is why AGW will one day have its own wing in the Museum of Scientific Fakes, Frauds and Hoaxes

It's anti-science

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Climate sensativities.

Kind of like at what point do we see major fires from the drying and increase in temperatures and wind speed?

Like at what point do we see an effectively ice free Arctic?

At what point do we see the increase in atmospheric humidity resulting in major floods?

Seems the scientists have been a bit too conservative on the numbers, from what we are seeing in the real world.

And you have no real evidence that any of that is caused by a wisp of CO2

 

[bobgnote]

CrosstardPunk!

Climate sensativities.

Kind of like at what point do we see major fires from the drying and increase in temperatures and wind speed?

Like at what point do we see an effectively ice free Arctic?

At what point do we see the increase in atmospheric humidity resulting in major floods?

Seems the scientists have been a bit too conservative on the numbers, from what we are seeing in the real world.

And you have no real evidence that any of that is caused by a wisp of CO2

Crosstard, you piece of shit-trash, CO2 is like H2O, in that it is a molecule, with three atoms, and in the atmosphere, it traps IR, near the surface of the Earth.

Since CO2 is the main, three-atom molecule, in the atmosphere, it is the main greenhouse effect FORCER. If humans fuck up, and send CO2 levels up to 400 ppm, CO2 becomes the main climate warming forcer, to then trigger release, of loads of CH4, which can take over, under the circumstances stupid people are trying to line right up.

Otherwise, no problem! The sun would be the main climate forcer, like it usually is.

CO2 would be relegated, to forcing temperature, up and down, within the usual ranges, of the last 650,000 years, characterized by relatively steady CO2 plots, between 180 ppm and 280 ppm, every 100,000 years or so.

How bad will things get? The CO2 is coming out, 10x as bad, as before the PETM Extinction.

But the CH4 is coming out, faster, than during the split-up, of Pangea, 251 million years ago. That means we will see a killer planet, soon, and we won't be losing the CO2 or the CH4, which we need to do, to force temperatures back down. Any survivors of the cut-down, of the human population will be good, at living in a hot world, with big storms, and less land area, than we used to have, with either too much fresh water, or not enough.

The planet will be hotter, about every other year, maybe even two years, out of three, until YOU DIE, maybe from warming-related phenomena. Shit, you have a cross-up, going on, already. And you are a dead-head. You don't learn. DDD will DDDie. And somebody will take out the trash, and that will be that, Crosstard.

 

[IanC]

for the doomsday CAGW's predictions to come true the climate sensitivity must remain high but the estimates for it keep coming down. if we double the present 400 ppmCO2 to 800 ppm and only go up 1-2C, or less, I cant see why anyone should get freaked out.

here is another discussion about the sensitivity, IPCC, and the gross overestimate of climate computer models.
What climate sensitivity says about the IPCC assessment process | Climate Etc.

for those of you that dont read climate blogs, please dont click the link. you wouldnt want to get tainted with actual ideas, especially because they arent in lockstep with the 'concensus'.

 

[Old Rocks]

Good article. So, if Rud Istvan is correct, rather than than an increase of 3.4 C, we get an increase of 2.5 C. That is still far too much.

 

[Old Rocks]

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...ng-limit-is-called-a-prescription-for-disaste

New, extensive study of the paleoclimate record going back 50 million years by Hansen and others now shows that the two-degree target for global temperature rise “is a prescription for disaster,” Hansen said here at a news conference during the American Geophysical Union meeting.

Hansen came to that conclusion after reviewing average and extreme perturbations in the paleoclimate record that have been more thoroughly documented in the past few years. The record shows that 50 million years ago, Earth was free of ice, and sea level was 70 meters higher on average than it is today. Both phenomena resulted from natural variations in mean temperatures due to slight changes in the sun’s output and Earth’s orbit over geological time scales. Rising temperatures today, over far shorter time scales in which neither the sun nor the orbit are factors, are caused primarily by higher levels of CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

 

[bobgnote]

If you happen to be flying a vintage prop airplane, to shoot, at some other flying target, you want to AIM HIGH, since nosing over, to hit your target is slightly more controllable, than is pulling up.

Also, if your target pulls up and loops, he can end up right on your 6, and then, you are DEAD.

If you happen to be figuring out increase in average global temperatures, you need to aim a LOT LOWER, when you are trying to figure out a pathway, to survival, for humans and some of the animals, or you will fuck things all up.

The melting northern ice and out-gassing of methane are really critical tipping points, relating to how much heat causes droughts and floods, to get into the climate outcome, and how fast this affects forests and crops, and how well forests are able to resist beetles and fires. The average global temperature outcomes are not what we need to mince around.

We need to re-green, to ATTACK, ATTACK, ATTACK global warming. Any other course will involve a lot of casualties, so many, in fact, human culture will need electronic media, to save record, of what we were, since that won't be what we become.

If we don't get trees up and keep them up, we are going to eat a heap of shit and die, in droves, no matter if temperatures go up a mere couple of degrees or four, or six, by 2100. All that average temperature rise stuff is happening, despite melting ice AND mild solar cycles, so no big whoop, to hold temperatures down, to + 2.5 C, from + 3.4 C, when we could as easily jump, to + 4 C or even higher, depending on how heat exchange works, as the ice melts.

Hey, one hot solar cycle, given rampant GHG out-gassing, and humans will burn, sorry about our luck, for not having enough smarties, in with the idiot-stampede.

Humans will die, and we will lose large areas, as habitat, if we shoot too high. We need to aim for some sort of radical re-greening, or we will only prove naked apes were too stupid, by the time some of them cooked up a drug war, which kept hemp out of crop rotation and resources.