Fair enough, I was just looking at the named labels, I wonder what the dashed lined are indicating?There are actually twenty shown there, though best estimates are provided for only nineteen of them. The ten for which publication details are actually shown on the chart are the ones which were new since AR4: Out of those, 4 provide an ECS best estimate lower than 2.4 degrees and 5 provide a higher estimate (three of them above 3 degrees by the looks, though I'm just eyeballing it this time), while Scharwtz 2012 is the one for which no best estimate is provided.
Clearly, it is not the case that "most" studies support an estimate on the low end of the IPCC range. On the contrary, most studies support a 'best estimate' around the 3 degree mark +/-20% (with many of them suggesting 5-95% confidence ranges that extend above 4 degrees), and your decision to blindly dismiss this scientific research as "just based on speculation" purely because you have been proven wrong in your assertions is disappointing, to say the least.
As Poor Debater has suggested, even simply comparing ln(CO2) with recorded temperatures implies a climate sensitivity somewhere in the 2.2 to 3.8 degree range (if memory serves in the past he has pegged his personal estimate at 2.7 or 2.8 degrees).
Please explain why my graph is misleading, or withdraw your slanderous accusation.
This stupid graph again?
Remember the lagged solar graph I did, using your lagged methodology with a better fit? I had over 0.9!
Fair enough, I was just looking at the named labels, I wonder what the dashed lined are indicating?
As to most, the IPCC did not include all the studies, I was glad that they included Lindzen at below 1C, because
the climate is clearly more complex than the models show.
As to the ln(CO2), that only counts the one variable, there is more happening.
We know that CO2 has been one of (if not the) major drivers of temperature over the past century.
Of particular note, we know that its influence has been most pronounced in the past 50 years or so, since that's when concentrations have risen most rapidly, and that's exactly what we see in Poor Debater's graph - more noisiness at the lower CO2 concentrations and a better fit at the higher end:
This is pure nonsense...
When you're asserting falsehoods about water vapour's influence, posting a graph from Greenland as if it represented global temperatures, promoting one attribution of observed changes based on modeled responses to CO2 (global greening) whilst blindly denying others, spewing random nonsense about "wealth transference" and appealing to popular interest as a barometer for scientific truth, it's a pretty good bet that everyone will ignore your views regardless of where they stand on the issue :roll:
I don't. What did you use, some ridiculous 50 year lag?
Edit: Unlike CO2 forcing, solar influence regularly increases and decreases: The relatively small peak value we had in 2015 is not still influencing global temperatures, because the sun is now cooler. By contrast the CO2 levels from 2015 are still influencing the climate, because that CO2 is still in the atmosphere (plus some more on top) and there hasn't yet been enough time to reach equilibrium.
I got 0.514 correlation for the period 1880 to 2013 against an estimate of the varying solar influence on temperatures - an estimate which is pretty much identical to your own. So if you managed to produce a much higher level of correlation, it must be because you decided to abandon everything you've learned in favour of cheap deception.
It would be interesting to see the comparison if we had more reliable information about 18th and early 19th century temperatures though.
I used the same method he used. Not my graph. I did it just to prove the point of similar trends, and yes. I used a longer lag.
Why would 50 years be ridiculous? Just because you don't like it?
His 21 years for CO2 is a joke too.
Like I said, to prove a point, that two similar trends will have a close correlation, even if not actually related.
I told you why it's ridiculous: Solar activity from 1959 is not still contributing to warming 50 years later, or even one year later. On annual or decadal timeframes solar activity fluctuates, while CO2 accumulates. 21 years may or may not be too long, even for CO2, but as I showed the results are similar even at 2 years' lag (r^2=0.864 and implied climate sensitivity around 2.6 degrees).
As for solar values, even ignoring the absurdity of applying lag to its influence, I have serious, serious doubts about your claim to have found a >0.9 match-up in the first place, considering the r-squared value is only 0.25 even with 50 years' lag on solar values (0.271 with 30 years, 0.163 with 70 years).
How about reading my posts again, removing your confirmation bias, and keep in mind I was pointing out correlation does not indicate causation.
What, are you suggesting that there's no causation between CO2 concentrations and temperature? Or between solar activity and temperature?
You haven't shown a comparable level of correlation between solar activity and temperature to begin with - as I said, even with 30 or 50 or 70 years' lag r-squared remains well and truly below 0.3 - so as far as counterexamples go this one would have be considered pretty piss-poor, don't you think?
So all we've really seen is your ignorance of relatively basic scientific concepts. I'm sorry if you don't like that.
I am simply saying that using correlation doesn't prove squat. There are too many variables for one thing.
His graph is a joke, and that's why I don't flaunt such graphs as valid science.
No, you just flaunt different amateur guestimations as being better than real science :lol:
I believe I've finally got 'round to replicating your results:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ofbw72DDspPtzXIRoYhasqy6zF_u55NakdvKeI0qtw8/edit?usp=sharing
But assuming I've done it right, I'm not sure how useful this would be in estimating climate sensitivity, because the results seem to depend very heavily on both the temperature data used and the lag estimate applied.
Comparing ln(CO2) against HadCRUT temperatures lagged 2 years, climate sensitivity is estimated at around 2.2 degrees (r^2=0.845)
Comparing ln(CO2) against GISS temperatures lagged 2 years, climate sensitivity is estimated at around 2.6 degrees (r^2=0.886) (second sheet)
Comparing ln(CO2) against HadCRUT temperatures lagged 21 years, climate sensitivity is estimated at around 3.3 degrees (r^2=0.864) (first sheet)
Comparing ln(CO2) against GISS temperatures lagged 21 years, climate sensitivity is estimated at around 3.8 degrees (r^2=0.897)
For comparison - for any others interested - the r-squared value of a trendline from a regular temperature time series is about 0.76 (third sheet). Using a series starting at 290 (same as CO2) but varying randomly by values between -2 and 2, the average r-squared value was 0.307 (from twenty-five trials). Using a series starting at 290 but randomly increasing by 0 to 2 (hence on average ending up around 426 'ppm,' compared to the actual 404ppm), the average r-squared value was 0.8118 from twenty-five trials (the two highest values were 0.841 and 0.837). From a simple linear increase from 290 to 426ppm (+1 each year) the r-squared value would be 0.814. The actual observed CO2 concentrations provide a closer fit because they have increased more rapidly in recent decades (as temperatures in general have tended to).
View attachment 67214388
This stupid graph again?
Remember the lagged solar graph I did, using your lagged methodology with a better fit? I had over 0.9!
You didn't use my methodolgy. You cooked up your own methodology that you still have not explained to this day.
You didn't use my methodolgy. You cooked up your own methodology that you still have not explained to this day.
But if there is causality between data, datasets should have a similar trend. You're taking real-world evidence and hand-waving it away because you don't like the political implications.LOL...
Seriously?
I explained it long ago. You can take any two sets of data with a similar trend, and show a high correlation between them.
Seriously? Now you're saying CO2 has no effect on temperature? Is that how deep in denial your brain has to go to ignore evidence you find politically unpalatable?Even if they aren't related at all.
Are you being intellectually dishonest, or ignorant to the facts of science?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?