New Climate Paper Gives Global Warming Alarmists ‘One Helluva Beating’

[IanC]

The charge here is that aerosols do not have as great a COOLING effect as previously held and thus an increase in aerosol cooling cannot have a role or as large a role in creating the current hiatus in surface warming.

Unfortunately for you and Fox and WUWT and Breitbard, aerosols are not the current theorized cause of the hiatus in surface warming.

incorrect. the point here is that CGMs use various values for aerosols, all of which cause more offset cooling than this new paper suggests. as always, if you change one side of the equilibrium then the other side is also affected. less aerosol cooling means less CO2 warming.

 

[Politico]

I don't think we will see more then 1c of warming 2100 tops. Maybe 1.5c by 2200 at max.

I don't believe this 3c idea.

Yet you think everyone (but you of course) should be buying electric cars.

 

[Crick]

What do you think is wrong with such an opinion?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Climate Scientist No My Study Is Not A Death Blow To Global Warming Hysteria Blog Media Matters for America

Media Splatters... OMG another left wing blog with no credibility..

 

[Crick]

What makes you think they have no credibility?

 

[Billy_Bob]

What makes you think they have no credibility?

Media Splatters is pure left wing/socialist/communist propagandist bull shit..

 

[Crick]

So that's simply your opinion. I see.

 

[ralfy]

Climate Scientist No My Study Is Not A Death Blow To Global Warming Hysteria Blog Media Matters for America

what do you think he said in that interview? did he take back his claim that aerosols were less of a forcing than previously thought? no he didnt. he basically pleaded not to be ostracized for publishing bad news. he swore fealty to AGW dogma, even though his work nudged down the climate sensitivity for 2xCO2 even further. the climate models are hanging on by a thread, the IPCC estimate range for climate sensitivity still encloses the last five years of papers but only just (AR4 wouldnt). there is a lot of praying for a big El Nino or something to happen, and soon, otherwise the whole thing will come tumbling down.

Check the article. There is a link to the scientist's website and his statement.

 

[IanC]

Climate Scientist No My Study Is Not A Death Blow To Global Warming Hysteria Blog Media Matters for America

what do you think he said in that interview? did he take back his claim that aerosols were less of a forcing than previously thought? no he didnt. he basically pleaded not to be ostracized for publishing bad news. he swore fealty to AGW dogma, even though his work nudged down the climate sensitivity for 2xCO2 even further. the climate models are hanging on by a thread, the IPCC estimate range for climate sensitivity still encloses the last five years of papers but only just (AR4 wouldnt). there is a lot of praying for a big El Nino or something to happen, and soon, otherwise the whole thing will come tumbling down.

Check the article. There is a link to the scientist's website and his statement.

damn, I dont know where my comment went.

short version- yes I read your article, and others.

how do you rationalize lower aerosol forcing not indicating lower CO2 forcing. climate models only made quasi-realistic hindcasts by counterbalancing high CO2 sensitivity with high aerosols. its like using a two plate scale. if you remove something from one side (aerosol forcing), then you need to remove something from the other side (CO2 sensitivity).

 

[Crick]

Were you aware that aerosol forcing estimates were reduced between AR4 and AR5?

 

[IanC]

Were you aware that aerosol forcing estimates were reduced between AR4 and AR5?

and the IPCC dropped its climate sensitivity range from 2.0-4.5C back down to 1.5-4.5C. and refused to give a central best estimate because even with the studies they presented the pdf was down around 2C. I talked about it at the time. if you werent around abraham3 certainly was. there was also the issue of which priors they were using. and the insanely inflated methane predictions they were using. and......

 

[Crick]

If you're trying to make an issue of my name change from Abraham3 to Crick, you'll have to talk to management here. They forced me to change. If I had my druthers, I'd still be Abraham. It's my name. Crick is not.

I'm surprised you haven't noticed how often the authors of studies that deniers claim to overturn AGW turn around and explain that you folks don't understand their work, unintentionally or otherwise.

 

[IanC]

If you're trying to make an issue of my name change from Abraham3 to Crick, you'll have to talk to management here. They forced me to change. If I had my druthers, I'd still be Abraham. It's my name. Crick is not.

I'm surprised you haven't noticed how often the authors of studies that deniers claim to overturn AGW turn around and explain that you folks don't understand their work, unintentionally or otherwise.

I bring up your name change only in the context that discussions I had with you under that name still apply. I don't wish to rehash the same topics over and over again.

Is there a particular paper you were referring to?

 

[Crick]

So you're actually dumb enough to believe that 97% of those climate scientists and the vast majority of the peer reviewed articles FROM AROUND THE WORLD supporting the human caused climate change fact are just in the pockets of democrats? That's your grand conclusion is it?

Let's face it. You found out just now what peer-reviewed means.

Out comes the John Cook Et Al lie, that was placed in peer reviewed paper, that was found to be a total fabrication, yet passed PAL REVIEW..

Liberals and their math... Go figure..

Conservative... and THEIR logic. 99.5% of those papers didn't say they believed the laws of thermodynamics either. Go for it Billy Boy.

 

[Crick]

If you're trying to make an issue of my name change from Abraham3 to Crick, you'll have to talk to management here. They forced me to change. If I had my druthers, I'd still be Abraham. It's my name. Crick is not.

I'm surprised you haven't noticed how often the authors of studies that deniers claim to overturn AGW turn around and explain that you folks don't understand their work, unintentionally or otherwise.

I bring up your name change only in the context that discussions I had with you under that name still apply. I don't wish to rehash the same topics over and over again.

Is there a particular paper you were referring to?

Referring to where? Where an author informed folks on your side of this argument that you were misinterpreting their work? I believe its been the primary topic of discussion in this thread or the last three pages.

 

[IanC]

If you're trying to make an issue of my name change from Abraham3 to Crick, you'll have to talk to management here. They forced me to change. If I had my druthers, I'd still be Abraham. It's my name. Crick is not.

I'm surprised you haven't noticed how often the authors of studies that deniers claim to overturn AGW turn around and explain that you folks don't understand their work, unintentionally or otherwise.

I bring up your name change only in the context that discussions I had with you under that name still apply. I don't wish to rehash the same topics over and over again.

Is there a particular paper you were referring to?

Referring to where? Where an author informed folks on your side of this argument that you were misinterpreting their work? I believe its been the primary topic of discussion in this thread or the last three pages.

Stevens? whatever. if you think lower aerosols dont mean lower climate sensitivity that's your business. just because he pleaded fealty to the 'Cause' and vowed that he believed the sensitivity was still just barely within the 5-95% bounds even with his new figures, that doesnt mean he proved that skeptics misunderstood his work. the media may have been hyperbolic, but then they always are. usually for the warmists or against the skeptics.

 

[skookerasbil]

Lets face it....the only people impressed by 0.3 - 0.4 degree's of warming are the handful of climate scientists and the religion. That's it. Nobody else is caring and THIS thread >>>

More Proof the skeptics are WINNING US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

.........contains volumes of links ( rarely used by the AGW climate crusaders in here ) displaying quite vividly that the science isn't mattering in the real world.


Its an awesome internet hobby to discuss this shit...........but little more.

 

[ralfy]

Climate Scientist No My Study Is Not A Death Blow To Global Warming Hysteria Blog Media Matters for America

what do you think he said in that interview? did he take back his claim that aerosols were less of a forcing than previously thought? no he didnt. he basically pleaded not to be ostracized for publishing bad news. he swore fealty to AGW dogma, even though his work nudged down the climate sensitivity for 2xCO2 even further. the climate models are hanging on by a thread, the IPCC estimate range for climate sensitivity still encloses the last five years of papers but only just (AR4 wouldnt). there is a lot of praying for a big El Nino or something to happen, and soon, otherwise the whole thing will come tumbling down.

Check the article. There is a link to the scientist's website and his statement.

damn, I dont know where my comment went.

short version- yes I read your article, and others.

how do you rationalize lower aerosol forcing not indicating lower CO2 forcing. climate models only made quasi-realistic hindcasts by counterbalancing high CO2 sensitivity with high aerosols. its like using a two plate scale. if you remove something from one side (aerosol forcing), then you need to remove something from the other side (CO2 sensitivity).

Read the scientist's statement, which is linked in the article.

For your question, consider reading the study and asking in the Real Climate link mentioned in the statement.

 

[IanC]

Climate Scientist No My Study Is Not A Death Blow To Global Warming Hysteria Blog Media Matters for America

what do you think he said in that interview? did he take back his claim that aerosols were less of a forcing than previously thought? no he didnt. he basically pleaded not to be ostracized for publishing bad news. he swore fealty to AGW dogma, even though his work nudged down the climate sensitivity for 2xCO2 even further. the climate models are hanging on by a thread, the IPCC estimate range for climate sensitivity still encloses the last five years of papers but only just (AR4 wouldnt). there is a lot of praying for a big El Nino or something to happen, and soon, otherwise the whole thing will come tumbling down.

Check the article. There is a link to the scientist's website and his statement.

damn, I dont know where my comment went.

short version- yes I read your article, and others.

how do you rationalize lower aerosol forcing not indicating lower CO2 forcing. climate models only made quasi-realistic hindcasts by counterbalancing high CO2 sensitivity with high aerosols. its like using a two plate scale. if you remove something from one side (aerosol forcing), then you need to remove something from the other side (CO2 sensitivity).

Read the scientist's statement, which is linked in the article.

For your question, consider reading the study and asking in the Real Climate link mentioned in the statement.

Ralfy- people have to think for themselves. A year ago the models said CO2 forcing less aerosol forcing led to a climate sensitivity of xxx. More precise measurements of aerosols now have a lower value. That can only mean that climate sensitivity is lower using using the same methodology.

Pull out some quotes that have led you to believe that simple statement is wrong and we can discuss this further.

 

[Crick]

Perhaps, but it is not going to bring sensitivity down where you - with no particular evidence to quote - believe it lies.