Lewis and Crok

[IanC]

http://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/02/Oversensitive-How-The-IPCC-hid-the-Good-News-on-Global-Warming.pdf

Climate sensitivity is an estimate of howmuch globalwarmingwill result from
a doubling of carbon dioxide concentrations, and is a key measure in the climate
policy debate.
Previously scientists have estimated climate sensitivitymainly fromcomputer
model simulations of the climate system. For the last two generations ofmodels,
the value for long-termwarming has averaged 3.2◦C per doubling. Due to
the moderating effect of the ocean, such warming takes many centuries to
be fully realised. Over a seventy year period – relevant to warming in the second
half of this century – duringwhich carbon dioxide concentrations double,
computer climate models show an average temperature rise of around 2◦C.
With these values the totalwarmingwill cross the iconic two degrees limit later
this century – perhaps in only about thirty years under the highest emissions
scenario.
Only in recent years has it become possible tomake good empirical estimates
of climate sensitivity from observational data such as temperature and ocean
heat records. These estimates, published in leading scientific journals, point
to climate sensitivity per doubling most likely being under 2◦C for long-term
warming, and under 1.5◦C over a seventy-year period. This strongly suggests
that climate models display too much sensitivity to carbon dioxide concentrations
and in almost all cases exaggerate the likely path of global warming.
Although these new results are reported in the body of the recently-published
Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC), their impact is notmade clear and few readers of the report would learn
of them.

it has become more and more clear over the last decade that the high feedback/high sensitivity numbers being proclaimed by many climate scientists are out of alignment with reality. it is this exaggeration that changes the relatively benign warming that we have been experiencing into the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming boogieman that we have been bombarded with for more than 25 years.

last fall I stated that I thought the IPCC would just ignore the new data and stay the course. they actually were more clever than that. they just buried the evidence and pretended that it wasnt worth mentioning, and didnt bother to rework their 'projections' with best estimates. that gives them plausible deniability. plausible deniability is also the reason why the leadership of large scientific organizations come out so strongly in defence of CAGW even though their membership has decidedly less confidence in the 'concensus'. it is much easier to survive a pessimistic prediction that doesnt happen than an optimistic one that turns out badly. the risk has been massively overstated, and the insurance policy we are being asked to buy is monsterously more expensive than even the exaggerated outcomes would be.

 

[mamooth]

Greg Laden explains why it's such a shoddy piece of work. Lewis and Crok cherrypicked their little hearts out, a tried and true denialist tactic. By simply pretending all the higher estimates didn't exist, they could then claim their lower estimate had to be correct. They're saying the IPCC is wrong because the IPCC looked at all the data instead of cherrypicking like they did. That will be why nobody of note pays the paper any attention, and that will then feed the denialist paranoia about how there's a conspiracy against them.

A New Fake Report On Climate Change. ? Greg Laden's Blog

 

[ScienceRocks]

I thought we were having a pause 6-7 years ago....Now I feel that sensitivity maybe on the lower side of things as aerosols seem to be quite effective at canaling things out. I'll say 1.5-2c of total warming to get to equiliublum as 3-4c seems way to high based on what I am seeing occurring within the real world.

Once China and India clean up their mess we should see the same kind of warming again as we seen after the pause of the mid 20th century.

 

[IanC]

Greg Laden explains why it's such a shoddy piece of work. Lewis and Crok cherrypicked their little hearts out, a tried and true denialist tactic. By simply pretending all the higher estimates didn't exist, they could then claim their lower estimate had to be correct. They're saying the IPCC is wrong because the IPCC looked at all the data instead of cherrypicking like they did. That will be why nobody of note pays the paper any attention, and that will then feed the denialist paranoia about how there's a conspiracy against them.

A New Fake Report On Climate Change. ? Greg Laden's Blog

obviously you havent even skimmed the paper. hahaha, they didnt ignore any of the papers. but they may have shown some of them to be only good for wiping your ass.


and speaking of cherrypicking.....I dont see Laden's Roe and Baker mentioned in the IPCC graphs from AR4 or AR5. what's up with that?

and how about Laden's scaremongering?

hahahaha, what does that have to do with discussing Nic's paper? Laden should take some adderol.

 

[flacaltenn]

Greg Laden explains why it's such a shoddy piece of work. Lewis and Crok cherrypicked their little hearts out, a tried and true denialist tactic. By simply pretending all the higher estimates didn't exist, they could then claim their lower estimate had to be correct. They're saying the IPCC is wrong because the IPCC looked at all the data instead of cherrypicking like they did. That will be why nobody of note pays the paper any attention, and that will then feed the denialist paranoia about how there's a conspiracy against them.

A New Fake Report On Climate Change. ? Greg Laden's Blog

Imagine that -- an irate blogger..

Lewis and Crok put a lot of weight on what they term the observational record, which as you might guess if you have been following the denialist’s literature is one of the best places to pick cherries. Also, astonishingly and, really, laughably, they rely on Lewis’ prior publications suggesting low ball estimates of climate sensitivity. Yes, some guys have been pushing a particular scientifically difficult to support position; the world’s scientists in a major international effort produced a summary of countless hours of research and dozens of peer reviewed papers that disagree with those guys; those guys write a report about how what they’ve been saying all along, which differs with the established science, must be right because they’ve been saying it all along!

Yeah --- Let us DISCOUNT the ACTUAL OBSERVATIONAL RECORD.. Let us do that for the sake of pure and unadulterated science.. And let us CONTINUE to do averages and distributions of ALL models -- weak and strong and ignore our instruments and satellites.

Good Plan there Mammy.. BTW -- the OBSERVED climate sensitivity over the past 100 years is FAR closer to 1.5 than it ever will be to 3.5 or 8.0... These idiots aren't even considering that Climate Sensitivity isn't GLOBAL or more importantly that it's likely not TEMPORALLY STATIC. Because they don't have the tools or talent to figure out all the dependencies that WILL vary geographically and over time... Clowns..

$500 says that research will come out CONFIRMING both my points above in the next decade.. Any takers?? I've got to make money at this somehow. Might as well fleece the zealots..

BTW -- You wouldn't know it from the literature and the modeling, but climate sensitivity applies to ANY and ALL forcings --- not just CO2 and these idiots only care to differentiate CS with respect to CO2 doubling.. They have permanent blinders on when it comes to advancing climate knowledge..

 

[Abraham3]

Show us some professional climate scientists that say such things.

 

[mamooth]

I really have no idea what the CultOfMcIntyre is trying to say here. It appears to be sort kind of cultspeak which only those who are OfTheBody can understand.

And no, it's not possible to fake being OfTheBody. They can always tell.