• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Corrections to Marvel, et al 2015 (MEA15)

Jack Hays

Traveler
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 28, 2013
Messages
94,823
Reaction score
28,343
Location
Williamsburg, Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
It turns out that Marvel et al 2015 (MEA15) was riddled with errors that are now being corrected. The blogosphere strikes again.

[h=2]Marvel et al. – Gavin Schmidt admits key error but disputes everything else[/h] Feb 11, 2016 – 7:02 PM
A guest article by Nicholas Lewis
[h=3]Introduction[/h] Gavin Schmidt has finally provided, at the GISS website, the iRF and ERF forcing values for a doubling of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] (F[SUB]2xCO2[/SUB]) in GISS-E2-R, and related to this has made wholesale corrections to the results of Marvel et al. 2015 (MEA15). He has coupled this with a criticism at RealClimate of my appraisal of MEA15, writing about it “As is usual when people try too hard to delegitimise an approach or a paper, the criticisms tend to be a rag-bag of conceptual points, trivialities and, often, confused mis-readings – so it proves in this case”. Personally, I think this fits better as a description of Gavin Schmidt’s article. It contains multiple mistakes and misconceptions, which I think it worth setting the record straight on. Continue reading →
 
I thought this was going to be about comic books...
 
I suppose I could quip that, either way, this thread is about fiction....




HARDY HAR HAR!!!! That Kevin, funny clever GUY....
 
[h=2]Marvellous exchanges[/h] Feb 12, 2016

The latest exchanges over the Marvel et al paper make for fascinating reading. Over at RealClimate, Gavin Schmidt writes a rather thin response to Nic Lewis's critique. Lewis has responded at length at Climate Audit.
Gavin, as might be expected, has made heavy use of his standard, "paraphrase, don't quote" technique, creating a series of strawmen that he can knock down with ease. For instance, at one point Lewis set out a great deal of evidence that suggested that land-use changes may have been omitted from a calculation. He mused about whether there was a rational explanation. Gavin paraphrased this as [my emphasis]:
Lewis in subsequent comments has claimed without evidence that land use was not properly included in our historical runs, and that there must be an error in the model radiative transfer.
​
Click to read more ...


 
ecofarm said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_Audit


More copy/paste from blogs.

People should get paid for this.
Click to expand...

Do you dispute Lewis's corrections? Here's the first one.

Corrected values for the forcing from a doubling of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] concentration (F[SUB]2xCO2[/SUB])

". . . I will start with the one fundamental problem in MEA15 that I identified in my original article about which Gavin Schmidt admits I was right. All the efficacy, TCR and ECS results in MEA15 scale with value of F[SUB]2xCO2[/SUB] used. That value varies between the three measures of radiative forcing involved: instantaneous radiative forcing at the tropopause (iRF, or Fi per Hansen et al. 2005); stratospherically-adjusted forcing (Fa per Hansen, RF in IPCC AR5); and effective radiative forcing (Hansen’s Fs). For results involving efficacy to be valid, they must use the same forcing measure when comparing the response to CO[SUB]2[/SUB] forcing with that to other forcing agents. MEA15 did not do so. It used the RF value for F[SUB]2xCO2[/SUB], 4.1 W/m[SUP]2[/SUP], when calculating efficacies, TCR and ECS values for non-CO2 forcings measured in terms of iRF and ERF, the two alternative measures used in MEA15. As it was obvious to me that this was fundamentally wrong, around the turn of the year I emailed GISS asking for the iRF and ERF F[SUB]2xCO2 [/SUB]values. GISS have now finally revealed them, as 4.5 W/m[SUP]2[/SUP] for iRF and 4.35 W/m[SUP]2[/SUP] for ERF. Correcting the erroneous F[SUB]2xCO2[/SUB] values used in the originally-published version of the paper increases all the MEA15 efficacy, TCR and ECS estimates for non-CO2 forcings by 10% for iRF, and by 6% for ERF. Since the paper was all about the divergence of the calculated values of these estimates from those applying to CO[SUB]2[/SUB], changes of 10%, and even 6%, are quite significant.

The GISS website says: “There was an error in the Early-Online version of the paper (which will be fixed in the final version) in the definition of the F[SUB]2xCO2[/SUB] which was given as F[SUB]a[/SUB] (4.1 W/m[SUP]2[/SUP]) instead of F[SUB]i[/SUB] (4.5 W/m[SUP]2[/SUP]) and F[SUB]s[/SUB] (4.3 W/m[SUP]2[/SUP]).” It will be interesting to see whether Nature Climate Change takes the same stance as Nature Geoscience did with Otto et al. (2013), where as the incorrect Supplementary Information had already been published online (as here), it has been kept available alongside the corrected version. . . ."
 
Copy/paste wall. Big surprise.

Would you care to debate in your own words instead of spamming blogs? Of course, you can't because you don't actually understand a damn thing in your blog spam.
 
ecofarm said:
Copy/paste wall. Big surprise.

Would you care to debate in your own words instead of spamming blogs?
Click to expand...

I prefer to stick to the data. And there's no spamming here. In any case, you'll note that Real Climate has taken Lewis's critique quite seriously. Don't you?
 
Jack Hays said:
I prefer to stick to the data. And there's no spamming here. In any case, you'll note that Real Climate has taken Lewis's critique quite seriously. Don't you?
Click to expand...

Real Climate is a sister blog (Curry endorses Mcintyre) and represents nothing more than additional blog spam.

There's a reason their work is not peer reviewed and, instead, they merely endorse each other's blogs.
 
ecofarm said:
Real Climate is a sister blog (Curry endorses Mcintyre) and represents nothing more than additional blog spam.

There's a reason their work is not peer reviewed and, instead, they merely endorse each other's blogs.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but your ignorance is showing. Real Climate is run by Gavin Schmidt and set itself the mission to defend AGW believers from the skeptical blogosphere. Real Climate and Climate Audit are opponents.
 
Jack Hays said:
Sorry, but your ignorance is showing. Real Climate is run by Gavin Schmidt and set itself the mission to defend AGW believers from the skeptical blogosphere. Real Climate and Climate Audit are opponents.
Click to expand...

Not Curry? Still a blog.
 
Jack Hays said:
Real Climate is where Michael Mann and all the other believers post. You need to learn more about the topic.
Click to expand...

The topic of blogs? No thanks. Enjoy spamming them.
 
Jack Hays said:
Learn first. Then post.

[h=3]RealClimate[/h]www.realclimate.org/


RealClimate


Commentary on climate science news by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists.
Click to expand...

RealClimate is a commentary site (blog) on climatology.
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClimate


You don't have any formal education in environmental science or climatology, do you? You can't tell us anything, in your own words, can you? Enjoy your walls of copy/paste.
 
ecofarm said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RealClimate


You don't have any formal education in environmental science or climatology, do you? You can't tell us anything, in your own words, can you? Enjoy your walls of copy/paste.
Click to expand...

I know enough to know that Real Climate is the self-appointed guardian of AGW orthodoxy, and home to some of the biggest names in conventional climate science. I know Real Climate is an opponent of Climate Audit. And I know that Judith Curry's blog is Climate, Etc. That's at least three things I know that you don't.
 

I'll take that as a 'no'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…