Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I was rather nonplussed at this point in my reading of the Cawley paper. Its main thesis was that Loehle had underestimated transient climate response (TCR) and hence equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). But Loehle derived TCR by dividing the estimated anthropogenic warming by the estimated change in anthropogenic forcing (relative to that from a doubling of CO2 concentration) over 1959–2013, which is broadly consistent with the generic definition of TCR given in AR5 (10.8.1). Obviously, if the change in forcing were greater than Loehle had assumed, that would imply an overestimate of TCR and thereby of ECS, not an underestimate. Very odd. But then I read on:
As a result of this assumption, the method of LS14 underestimates climate sensitivity by about 13%…
Unbelievable! Instead of adjusting the Loehle TCR estimate by dividing it by1.145, to reflect Loehle’s underestimate of forcing by that ratio, Cawley et al. havemultiplied the sensitivity estimate (which is for TCR here, not ECS) by 1.145. On that incorrect arithmetical basis, Loehle’s method of working from just the increase in CO2 forcing would indeed have underestimated TCR by 13%. But the correct conclusion should be that Loehle’s method overestimates TCR by 24.5% (rather than 14.5%) based on the RCP8.5 forcing data – or by 36.1% based on the more up to date AR5 forcing estimates.
Of course, although they are academics none of Cawley, Cowtan, Way or Jacobs is a physicist (and Jokimäki gives his affiliation only as Skeptical Science). But it nevertheless seems very surprising that none of them realised that since their adjustment increased the denominator in Loehle’s TCR formula, the TCR estimate should go down, not up.
“Lewandowsky, Gignac and Oberauer put out a paper in 2013 which was used to generate headlines like ‘Climate sceptics more likely to be conspiracy theorists’. The data sample is not large, but despite that, it includes the potential Neanderthal, as well as a precocious five year old and some underage teenagers too. The error was reported on Lewandowsky’s blog over a year ago by Brandon Shollenberger, then again by Jose Duarte in August 2014. Nothing has been corrected. The ages are not just typos, they were used in the calculations, correlations and conclusions. The median age was 43 but the mean age was a flaming neon 76. One wildly old person in the data skewed the correlation for age with nearly everything:
That one data point – the paleo-participant – is almost single-handedly responsible for knocking out all the correlations between age and so many other variables. If you just remove the paleo-participant, leaving the minors in the data, age lights up as a correlate across the board. Further removing the kids will strengthen the correlations.”
apparently a rebuttal paper to Loehle 2014 was written by five of the SkepticalScience secret forum elite; Gavin Cawley, Kevin Cowtan, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Ari Jokimäki, which in typical climate science form Loehle was not allowed to respond to. also not unusual for climate science, it contains a simple glaring error that passed right through peer review.
Nic Lewis' comment over at Lucia's- http://rankexploits.com/musings/2015/yes-some-things-are-obvious/#comment-134430
I was rather nonplussed at this point in my reading of the Cawley paper. Its main thesis was that Loehle had underestimated transient climate response (TCR) and hence equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS). But Loehle derived TCR by dividing the estimated anthropogenic warming by the estimated change in anthropogenic forcing (relative to that from a doubling of CO2 concentration) over 1959–2013, which is broadly consistent with the generic definition of TCR given in AR5 (10.8.1). Obviously, if the change in forcing were greater than Loehle had assumed, that would imply an overestimate of TCR and thereby of ECS, not an underestimate. Very odd. But then I read on:
As a result of this assumption, the method of LS14 underestimates climate sensitivity by about 13%…
Unbelievable! Instead of adjusting the Loehle TCR estimate by dividing it by1.145, to reflect Loehle’s underestimate of forcing by that ratio, Cawley et al. havemultiplied the sensitivity estimate (which is for TCR here, not ECS) by 1.145. On that incorrect arithmetical basis, Loehle’s method of working from just the increase in CO2 forcing would indeed have underestimated TCR by 13%. But the correct conclusion should be that Loehle’s method overestimates TCR by 24.5% (rather than 14.5%) based on the RCP8.5 forcing data – or by 36.1% based on the more up to date AR5 forcing estimates.
Of course, although they are academics none of Cawley, Cowtan, Way or Jacobs is a physicist (and Jokimäki gives his affiliation only as Skeptical Science). But it nevertheless seems very surprising that none of them realised that since their adjustment increased the denominator in Loehle’s TCR formula, the TCR estimate should go down, not up.
Ian, you display conspiracist ideation, and you reject science, thus you're a fine data point to confirm Lewandowsky.
Your Cook Derangement Syndrome has made you loopy. You spend your days poring over denier blogs and trumpeting every rumor as proof of the fraud. Then you'll claim you're not accusing anyone of fraud, until you accuse everyone of fraud again.
The correct response to The Unibomber or Deniers is the same. "You're a kook" is all the refutation needed when someone is parroting kookery.
Nobody outside of Denierstan will pay any attention to any of your conspiracy theories.The media has been burned before by falling for denier lies. Even FOX doesn't want to touch them any more. Deniers are now considered toxic by everyone.
So, how do you plan to change that? By getting even more crazy with the conspiracy theories?
and full of stupid!The correct response to The Unibomber or Deniers is the same. "You're a kook" is all the refutation needed when someone is parroting kookery.
Nobody outside of Denierstan will pay any attention to any of your conspiracy theories.The media has been burned before by falling for denier lies. Even FOX doesn't want to touch them any more. Deniers are now considered toxic by everyone.
So, how do you plan to change that? By getting even more crazy with the conspiracy theories?
Hmmmm, the response to a person pointing out that a scientist has made a critical error would be "damn! I didn't catch that. Thank you!" But no, as usual you resort to simple name calling and accept faulty information because....well the scriptures are infallible!
Typical ignorant twerp.
