IPCC climate sensitivities called into question

bump for abraham3.

you seem to think that I am totally unfounded in my concerns over the veracity of climate science papers, the adherence to principles by the journals publishing them, and the way the IPCC selects its references and deals with dissenting opinions.

this thread has it all. Lewis' voyage from finding errors in much cited data, being refused the data and code from the author, being refused by the journal to enforce their rules, to getting the IPPC to make a correction only to have the 'correction' be in error as well.

as a bonus for you there is also a history Mann's hockeystick graph as it wended its way through the third and fourth IPCC reports, and the NAS, Wegman and North investigations.

hahahaha, tell me again that I am just a denier conspiracy theorist! but dont forget to actually refute the information provided.

He won`t, that "conspiracy theory" spiel is mamooth`s standard last ditch defense. The rest of them, (like Abe the 3.rd etc.) seek shelter in their 97% "skepticalscience.org" consensus bunker....while we get nuked with 4 Hiroshima bombs per second
Our climate is absorbing a lot of heat. When scientists add up all of the heat warming the oceans, land, and atmosphere and melting the ice, they find our climate is accumulating 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs worth of heat every second.
This warming is due to more heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The burning of fossil fuels means we are emitting billions of tonnes of carbon dioxide every year. This is the main contributor to global warming.
To communicate the sheer amount of heat our planet is accumulating, we have created this widget, embeddable on blogs and also available as a Facebook app, an iPad app, and an iPhone app. To help get the word out on just how much global warming our planet is experiencing, add the widget to your own blog or use the widget on Facebook, like it and share it.
Gee it makes you wonder how the "average global temperature" stayed down all that time before we upped it by 0.8 deg with an extra 120 ppm CO2.
If it`s been "on average" staying at 287 K before we started burning oil then I wonder how the earth got rid of the 1000 watts "average solar" watts/m^2 in order to remain at an equilibrium.

Stefan Boltzmann says:
P (w/m^2) = σ * A * ε * T^4

Even though at the top of the atmosphere we get close to ε=1, P could have been no more than 385 watts/m^2 when we had 280 ppm CO2
So how did the earth radiate off the other 615 w/m^2 ?

It`s reflected without being converted into heat. There is something wrong with the "average albedo" these models use.
The average albedo of the Earth is about 0.3
And with that albedo we still come up short, by 315 watts.

Unless the overall albedo was ~ 0.6 it must have been hot enough for quite some time somewhere else where Mr.Mann could not find any hockey stick trees.
....Ice has an albedo high enough (.5 to .7) to reflect the other 615 w/m^2...but that would mean that we`ve been warming up from an ice age, like we "deniers" have been saying all along.
Or perhaps those 315 w/m^2 also went into hiding deep down in the oceans like it`s doing now?
 
Last edited:
I bet you a dime to a donut that the AVERAGE climate sensitivity for the planet is a GREAT deal more stable than the climate sensitivity for any particular region.

Show me some evidence that it is common in GCMs to assume regional sensitivity is more constant than it is. I thought you had just complained that they were treating it as constant across the entire globe.

OMG.. NOW you're fan of LARGER Averaging being "more stable".. Back 6 months ago, you told everyone that the SHORTER (or smaller) the integral of observation, the better an average got.... Or don't you remember calling me out on that?

Not interested in "more stable".. It is in conflict with understanding how the climate actually works.. Because lumping it all into a single CONSTANT number tosses out all of the info on where the heat goes and what the actual relationship of EACH forcing is to the output.. And how that CHANGES OVER TIME. Like in differential equations. The various sensitivities of each variable relationship are individually specified..

You're not seeing the INANE-NESS that does drive me CRAZY over the edge.. Causes me to call folks jerks and their work Sesame Street Science.. Just look at what GWarming has delivered to the public discussion..

1) Reducing the ENTIRE GW discussion to a SINGLE SCALAR VALUE.. As in the Mean Annual Surface Temperature.. No brains needed to do that.

2) Creating hockey sticks with little information content in 99% of the time record and then tacking on a sharp INSTRUMENTED reading at the ends. Makes some scary looking graphs.

3) The most controversial part of an IPCC report is their newest ESTIMATES of how the climate responds.. This has ALSO been reduced to a SINGLE SCARY SET of Climate Sensitivities. Ranging over 1.5 to 8.0... And THAT summarizes their predictions of doom... And then they all shake hands and shout CONSENSUS.. And the science is settled.

And you consume that excrement like so many jelly donuts...
Keep your dime, make mine a chocolate glazed with colored sprinkles..
 
I bet you a dime to a donut that the AVERAGE climate sensitivity for the planet is a GREAT deal more stable than the climate sensitivity for any particular region.

Show me some evidence that it is common in GCMs to assume regional sensitivity is more constant than it is. I thought you had just complained that they were treating it as constant across the entire globe.






Tell you what, you get us some source code and we'll be happy to oblige. Funny how the AGW fraudsters will never release ANYTHING.

Patience my bud... I'm scanning EBay daily because I'm in the market for a lightly used Climate model.. And I'm ALMOST CERTAIN --- they are gonna start showing up for auction any day now when the funding dries up...

Guy on campus at Baylor offered me a deal on one behind the Earth Sciences Bldg, but it was in Fortran...
 
I bet you a dime to a donut that the AVERAGE climate sensitivity for the planet is a GREAT deal more stable than the climate sensitivity for any particular region.

Show me some evidence that it is common in GCMs to assume regional sensitivity is more constant than it is. I thought you had just complained that they were treating it as constant across the entire globe.



Tell you what, you get us some source code and we'll be happy to oblige. Funny how the AGW fraudsters will never release ANYTHING.

Patience my bud... I'm scanning EBay daily because I'm in the market for a lightly used Climate model.. And I'm ALMOST CERTAIN --- they are gonna start showing up for auction any day now when the funding dries up...

Guy on campus at Baylor offered me a deal on one behind the Earth Sciences Bldg, but it was in Fortran...

I figured they were all still running on fortran....they certainly haven't improved any since those days....and fortran is probably to advanced for the hypothesis....basic could handle it.

IF <SOMETHING> IS HAPPENING IN THE CLIMATE THEN GOTO "BLAME CO2"
END.
 
Do you understand the reference to FORTRAN abe ?
 
Last edited:
Abe - any comment on the run-around Lewis got when he tried to investigate obvious inconsistencies? Do you agree with the journal's actions? Are you concerned that raw data 'disappeared'? How about the kneejerk IPCC correction that was still wrong?

Oh, and did you read the Holland paper? Any comment or are you in agreement with climate science that tough questions should be ignored or deflected until sufficient time has passed so that it can be claimed that they were answered in the past?
 
I bet you a dime to a donut that the AVERAGE climate sensitivity for the planet is a GREAT deal more stable than the climate sensitivity for any particular region.

Show me some evidence that it is common in GCMs to assume regional sensitivity is more constant than it is. I thought you had just complained that they were treating it as constant across the entire globe.






Tell you what, you get us some source code and we'll be happy to oblige. Funny how the AGW fraudsters will never release ANYTHING.

Patience my bud... I'm scanning EBay daily because I'm in the market for a lightly used Climate model.. And I'm ALMOST CERTAIN --- they are gonna start showing up for auction any day now when the funding dries up...

Guy on campus at Baylor offered me a deal on one behind the Earth Sciences Bldg, but it was in Fortran...





Fortran:lol::lmao:
 
I liked FORTRAN, till Kernigan & Richie met Ma Bell.

So, who is questioning the IPCC's latest sensitivity estimates that's not a dedicated denier lacking any qualifications?
 

Forum List

Back
Top