Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Is this the article to which you refer:
In January 2013 widespread publicity was given to work led by Terje Berntsen of the University of Oslo, Julia Hargreaves of the Research Institute for Global Change in Yokohama, and Nic Lewis, an independent climate scientist, which reportedly found lower climate sensitivities than IPCC estimates and the suggestion that there is a 90% probability that doubling CO
2 emissions will increase temperatures by lower values than those estimated by the climate models used by the IPCC was featured in news outlets including The Economist.[147][148] This premature announcement came from a preliminary news release about a study which had not yet been peer reviewed.[149] The Center for International Climate and Environmental Research, Oslo (CICERO) issued a statement that they were involved with the relevant research project, and the news story was based on a report submitted to the research council which included both published and unpublished material. The highly publicised figures came from work still undergoing peer review, and CICERO would wait until they had been published in a journal before disseminating the results.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy
Just out of curiosity, how do you read the phrase "independent climate scientist". As I've noted here before for other "independent climate scientists" that occasionally show up on the denier side of the argument, I read it as "unemployed".
4) Below are the results of numerous runs of CMIP-5 GCMs, of which sensitivity is an emergent parameter. At least as far as the results here go, would you agree that a value greater than 3 is more likely than a value less than 3?
I see you are not interested in discussing the faked experiment. that's fine and to be expected.
I told you I'd discuss whatever you wanted if you gave me some honest answer to those questions without quibbling. It seems you couldn't do it. If you've got something you want to discuss, why don't you give another shot at the questions YOU chose not to discuss.
I see you are not interested in discussing the faked experiment. that's fine and to be expected.
here is a Curry post from before AR5 and the IPCC deciding not to issue a central estimate for climate sensitivity but reverting to the old 1.5-4.5 range.
What climate sensitivity says about the IPCC assessment process | Climate Etc.
this quote is only a minor part of the article but is so funny, and so critical of M Mann that I couldnt resist.-
Quote:
The third was a response from Foster et al. (with Mann as senior author).[26] They plugged Schwarz’ observational findings into GCM GISS-ER, and reproduced his results! So they argued Schwartz’ data were wrong, because “this model is known to exhibit a true equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2.7 C under doubled CO2 conditions.” They then did a similar thing for his time scale parameter using a 14 GCM ensemble. They said, “the estimates of time scale produced by this method are generally unrealistically low in comparison to the known behavior of the models in response to changes in GHG forcing.” They in effect said twice in one comment that the GCM models are trustworthy, and evaluation of 125 years of actual climate observations isn’t. Schwartz’ reply says much: “It is questionable whether measurements should be rejected because they do not agree with models.”
and of course we could discuss the AR5 and Nic Lewis' contributions if you'd like.
The publisher of Environmental Research Letters today took the bizarre position that expecting consistency between models and observations is an “error”.
The publisher stated that the rejected Bengtsson manuscript (which, as I understand it) had discussed the important problem of the discrepancy between models and observations had “contained errors”.
But what were the supposed “errors”? Bengtsson’s “error” appears to be the idea that models should be consistent with observations, an idea that the reviewer disputed.
The reviewer stated that IPCC ranges in AR4 and AR5 are “not directly comparable to observation based intervals”:
One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals (as e.g. in Otto et al).
Later he re-iterated that “no consistency was to be expected in the first place”:
I have rated the potential impact in the field as high, but I have to emphasise that this would be a strongly negative impact, as it does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place.
The reviewer summarized his concern in terms of media issues:
Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of “errors” and worse from the climate sceptics media side
Thus, the “error” (according to the publisher) seems to be nothing more than Bengtsson’s expectation that models be consistent with observations. Surely, even in climate science, this expectation cannot be seriously described as an “error”.
We had all read the reasons given as the journal chose to publish and what you have posted here is NOT that material. It is simply more unsupported denier claims of persecution and publication bias. The actual response from ERL may be read here: Statement from IOP Publishing on story in The Times
We had all read the reasons given as the journal chose to publish and what you have posted here is NOT that material. It is simply more unsupported denier claims of persecution and publication bias. The actual response from ERL may be read here: Statement from IOP Publishing on story in The Times
We had all read the reasons given as the journal chose to publish and what you have posted here is NOT that material. It is simply more unsupported denier claims of persecution and publication bias. The actual response from ERL may be read here: Statement from IOP Publishing on story in The Times
Summarising, the simplistic comparison of ranges from AR4, AR5, and Otto et al, combined with the statement they they are inconsistent is less then helpful, actually it is harmful as it opens the door for oversimplified claims of "errors" and worse from the climate sceptics media side.
One cannot and should not simply interpret the IPCCs ranges for AR4 or 5 as confidence intervals or pdfs and hence they are not directly comparable to observation based intervals (as e.g. in Otto et al).
In the same way that one cannot expect a nice fit between observational studies and the CMIP5 models.
A careful, constructive, and comprehensive analysis of what these ranges mean, and how they come to be different, and what underlying problems these comparisons bring would indeed be a valuable contribution to the debate.
I have rated the potential impact in the field as high, but I have to emphasise that this would be a strongly negative impact, as it does not clarify anything but puts up the (false) claim of some big inconsistency, where no consistency was to be expected in the first place.
And I can't see an honest attempt of constructive explanation in the manuscript.
Thus I would strongly advise rejecting the manuscript in its current form.
I would be interested in learning whether or not there are internal inconsistencies in estimates of climate sensitivity and forcing in individual studies and in learning if there are substantial differences among the studies. I would be even more interested in understanding why any apparent inconsistencies and differences might exist. On this second point, the manuscript has little to offer (other than some speculation that aerosol forcing estimates have changed). And unfortunately on the first point, the authors have only superficially demonstrated possible inconsistencies. Moreover, in addressing the question of committed warming, the authors have inexplicably used the wrong equation. For all these reasons, I recommend the paper be rejected.
can you figure out who said that? does it fit your worldview of how arch-deniers think? skepticism by informed people is reserved for faulty logic and methods, and exaggerated and hysterical conclusions that are not supported by the data.
You're actually quoting _Watts_? Wow. The sheer chutzpah of it.
Given how Watts is one of the slimiest pathological liars on planet earth, you annihilate your own credibility by putting him on a pedestal. If you proudly and loudly smooch the ass of an serial liar like Watts, you simply can't credibly claim to be interested in truth.
Compared to Watts, Gore and Nye are boy scouts. A saying about motes and beams comes to mind. Watts is just the start. All the denier leaders lie big. Watts, Goddard, McIntyre, Monckton, just an endless list of pathological dishonesty. If you refuse to clean up the reeking filth in your own house, or even acknowledge it exists, you have no standing to criticize anyone else's house.
And ... Rud Istvan? Seriously? That's your trusted source? One of the WUWT crowd who like to ramble about "CAGW"? He just dumps out vast quantities of ... something. Nobody can really tell what it is, but all the pretty pictures sure look impressive.
Got anything to back up that statement? So far your contribution is "I can't refute anything they say so I'll call them liars instead and walk out of the room so I can't hear them laugh at me!"
The point of publishing the reviewers comments was not to argue all of AGW vs the Deniers again. It was to demonstrate that Bengtsson's persecution claims were complete crap.
I have never - ever - claimed that GCMs would produce data with a "realistic fit" with observations. The IPCC has never claimed that the "likely ranges" for CS it has assembled were probability distribution functions.
You did not answer all my questions. Despite that, you've gotten more discussion from me than you deserve. Nic Lewis's CS estimates are lowballs.
Depends entirely what you or anyone else might mean by "realistic fit".
Yes, Lewis's values are the lowest of the low (pronounced with a descending contrabasso)
Can I ask you where you got your graphic (as it's sitting right next to your statement that you can't get that sort of data)?
I'd like to also ask you if you have any response to Dr Forster's comments about Lewis and Crok's use of Forster's methodology.
Lewis and Crok use methods developed by Jonathan Gregory and myself to infer a lower climate sensitivity than that quoted in IPCC AR5. Whilst our techniques are powerful they have uncertainties and do not necessarily produce more robust estimates of climate sensitivity than other methods, as they make crude assumptions and suffer from data quality issues. Climate sensitivity remains an uncertain quantity. Nevertheless, even employing the lowest estimates suggested by Lewis and Crok, we expect continued and significant warming out to 2100 of around 3C above preindustrial if we continue to emit CO2 at current levels.
For instance, did you wish to suggest that Lewis's CS values would allow no future warming?
The IPCC has never claimed that the "likely ranges" for CS it has assembled were probability distribution functions.
I'd like to also ask you if you have any response to Dr Forster's comments about Lewis and Crok's use of Forster's methodology.
Lewis and Crok use methods developed by Jonathan Gregory and myself to infer a lower climate sensitivity than that quoted in IPCC AR5. Whilst our techniques are powerful they have uncertainties and do not necessarily produce more robust estimates of climate sensitivity than other methods, as they make crude assumptions and suffer from data quality issues. Climate sensitivity remains an uncertain quantity. Nevertheless, even employing the lowest estimates suggested by Lewis and Crok, we expect continued and significant warming out to 2100 of around 3C above preindustrial if we continue to emit CO2 at current levels.
For instance, did you wish to suggest that Lewis's CS values would allow no future warming?
Then I stand corrected.
However, this is not some probability distribution that the IPCC has concluded is the best, this is simply a collection of PDFs from the literature. Its function is informative, not proclamatory.
The point of publishing the reviewers comments was not to argue all of AGW vs the Deniers again. It was to demonstrate that Bengtsson's persecution claims were complete crap.
I have never - ever - claimed that GCMs would produce data with a "realistic fit" with observations. The IPCC has never claimed that the "likely ranges" for CS it has assembled were probability distribution functions.
You did not answer all my questions. Despite that, you've gotten more discussion from me than you deserve. Nic Lewis's CS estimates are lowballs.
Lewis correcting some of their errors in previous included literature, the IPCC (edit- in AR5) changed the range to 1.5-4.5C
and refused to give a best central estimate because it would be significantly lower than 3C.
