Oh, is it time for your daily misinformation and foolishness OP. I see it is.
Glad to see you're keeping an open mind. :toilet:
Open mind? Why? You've never posted anything worthwhile to date in this subforum and you post everyday the same tripe.
Well then, I suppose you should pass your insight on to Dr. Judith Curry, who thought the paper worthwhile enough to contribute the Foreword.eace
Judith Curry is Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sci-
ences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. She is a fellow of the American Mete-
orological Society, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and
the American Geophysical Union.
I have no doubt that Dr. Curry has no interest in you or my opinion of your posts.
But I suspect she might be interested in your view of her scientific judgment, which is the point at issue.:toilet:
I'm not going to read your tripe, sorry I have better things to do with my time like trim my toenails.
Oh that's just so great. Thanks for the belly laugh. A Climate Change denier worrying about me denying to read the hundredth replay of his denial.Keep up the denial.:lamo
Oh that's just so great. Thanks for the belly laugh. A Climate Change denier worrying about me denying to read the hundredth replay of his denial.
I'm not going to read your tripe, sorry I have better things to do with my time like trim my toenails.
Yep, I've done that twice lately. Usually I'm pretty good at sticky to it.And yet here you are responding to his posts.
Yep, I've done that twice lately. Usually I'm pretty good at sticky to it.
One of this report’s authors (Lewis) worked his way through the Gregory et
al. method. He discovered that Gregory’s data for heat uptake in the oceans
over 1957–1994 came froman erroneous dataset 33 that was corrected downwards
in 2005, and that the total forcing change estimate Gregory had used
was only half that used by NASA in their well-known GISS climate model. The
combination of a low forcing change and a high ocean heat uptake change
led to a high ECS estimate, with a very long upper tail. Use of the corrected
ocean heat content (OHC) dataset and GISS model forcings reduced the ECS
best estimate from6.1◦C to 1.8◦C and gave a distribution thatwasmuch better
constrained.34
Table 2: Comparison of estimates for ECS from recent empirical studies
that incorporate observationally-based aerosol forcing estimates, from
models and from the IPCC reports
Study Best estimate Likely range
From To
◦C ◦C ◦C
Ring et al. 2012 (using 4 surface temperature
datasets)
1.80 1.4 2.0a
Aldrin et al. 2012 (main results) 1.76b 1.3 2.5
Lewis 2013 (preferred main resultsc) 1.64 1.3 2.2
Otto et al. 2013 (2000s data) 2.00 1.5 2.8
Otto et al. 2013 (1970–2009 data) 1.91 1.3 3.0
Average of the aboved 1.79e 1.3 2.4f
CMIP3 models (per AR4 Table 8.2) 3.20 2.1 4.4g
CMIP5 models (per AR5 Table 9.5) 2.89h 1.9 4.5i
IPCC AR4 3.00 2.0 4.5
IPCC AR5 None given 1.5 4.5
This is from page 19. The figures are for a doubling of CO2 I think. If it's 1.8 degrees and that's from the start of the industrial age then we have absolutely nothing to worry about at all, not even if you own a ski chalet.One of this report’s authors (Lewis) worked his way through the Gregory et
al. method. He discovered that Gregory’s data for heat uptake in the oceans
over 1957–1994 came froman erroneous dataset 33 that was corrected downwards
in 2005, and that the total forcing change estimate Gregory had used
was only half that used by NASA in their well-known GISS climate model. The
combination of a low forcing change and a high ocean heat uptake change
led to a high ECS estimate, with a very long upper tail. Use of the corrected
ocean heat content (OHC) dataset and GISS model forcings reduced the ECS
best estimate from6.1◦C to 1.8◦C and gave a distribution thatwasmuch better
constrained.34
Table 2: Comparison of estimates for ECS from recent empirical studies
that incorporate observationally-based aerosol forcing estimates, from
models and from the IPCC reports
Study Best estimate Likely range
From To
◦C ◦C ◦C
Ring et al. 2012 (using 4 surface temperature
datasets)
1.80 1.4 2.0a
Aldrin et al. 2012 (main results) 1.76b 1.3 2.5
Lewis 2013 (preferred main resultsc) 1.64 1.3 2.2
Otto et al. 2013 (2000s data) 2.00 1.5 2.8
Otto et al. 2013 (1970–2009 data) 1.91 1.3 3.0
Average of the aboved 1.79e 1.3 2.4f
CMIP3 models (per AR4 Table 8.2) 3.20 2.1 4.4g
CMIP5 models (per AR5 Table 9.5) 2.89h 1.9 4.5i
IPCC AR4 3.00 2.0 4.5
IPCC AR5 None given 1.5 4.5
The table has not copied very well, it's on page 27. Perhaps somebody with better computer skills can sort it out.
I'm impressed that in about 1 hour you were able to go through it so thoroughly. Checking the source papers etc..
Not thoroughly at all: I glanced at the original reference for your first quote, and one of the studies from your second quote. Both showed obvious deficiencies (ie. citing the authors' own unverified claims and apparent misrepresentation or dishonesty regarding others' work), so odds are there wouldn't be much point in delving any deeper. [Edit - without intending any disrespect to you there; no-one can search out everything, but unlike Jack you at least show some evidence of having read the report :lol: ]
This, of course, is why Jack himself rarely if ever posts anything of substance. It's always links, C&Ps and - whenever called out on their obvious deficiencies - the weasel's retreating whine that "I ask only that you examine the data."
Odds are that Summerwind has the correct approach of dismissing Jack's crap as a ream of cherry-picked half-truths, uncritical C&P drive-bys, propagandistic misinformation and sometimes obvious outright lies.
(For example his thread claiming that the IPCC discards its models)
[Edit - without intending any disrespect to you there; no-one can search out everything, but unlike Jack you at least show some evidence of having read the report :lol: ]
[/I]
This, of course, is why Jack himself rarely if ever posts anything of substance. It's always links, C&Ps and - whenever called out on their obvious deficiencies - the weasel's retreating whine that "I ask only that you examine the data."
Why is it so vital for you to believe that the sky must be falling and that you must instantly dismiss anything that might cast doubt upon that however well qualified that doubt might be ?
The IPCC's objectivity is extremely questionable as has been illustrated for you by statements from its own senior representatives. There is plenty more supporting that here
UN IPCC Report Exposed By Its Own Members as ‘a pure political process’ — ‘Scientific truth isn
I must be doing something right. I'm causing you to resort to baseless ad hominems. That's generally what warmists do when they can't refute the data.eace
Well see...she has to. She stepped hip deep in a mound of **** and is trying to wade out of it. She jumped in to offer a snarky comment about the OP (not the article...person posting it). Then, it was revealed that the person that actually wrote the foreward to the article critical of the IPCC (and her beloved cause) is actually a scientist. So...she really had no choice but to double down on the personal attacks explaining why it just wasnt worth her time to read the actual article.And yet here you are responding to his posts.
You think that a three or four degree climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling would be a major catastrophe - figuratively, that in such a scenario the sky would be falling. That's interesting. What led you to that conclusion?
I myself have merely pointed out that in the two snippets from the GWPF-published report which Tim the Plumber quoted, the authors are
A) using as a source their own unverified claims as posted on an associate's personal website and
B) apparently misrepresenting the results of actual peer-reviewed papers.
I have previously asked you to highlight one or two points from that page which you consider to be particularly compelling, but you were either unwilling or unable to provide any. You're not usually as bad as Jack of course, but that approach of merely linking or C&Ping absurd quantities of material without having the chutzpah to personally research and stand by the claims which you're spreading is very familiar. This of course was shortly after you attempted to portray the personal opinions which of one of three co-chairs of one of three IPCC working groups expressed in an interview as being representative of the whole organisation :lol:
You, apparently, see nothing questionable about your notion that it is pushing an agenda directly against the economic interests of its biggest funders, and you'll grasp at even the tiniest of straws in your attempts to persuade yourself. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand, however.
####################
####################
Only two people in the thread have given any indication at all of having glanced, however briefly, at the content of the report. You are not one of them. However you have carefully snipped out and avoided responding to everything that I said about it. :doh
By the way, ad hominem is a logical fallacy when personal attacks are used in place of argument; not when conclusions are drawn from observations which you happen to find unpleasantAs I've suggested to you before, if you think these are undesirable characteristics for me to point out, it might be worthwhile changing your approach a little.
(That advice was in an earlier thread of obviously false claims against the IPCC.)
You think that a three or four degree climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling would be a major catastrophe - figuratively, that in such a scenario the sky would be falling. That's interesting. What led you to that conclusion?
I myself have merely pointed out that in the two snippets from the GWPF-published report which Tim the Plumber quoted, the authors are
A) using as a source their own unverified claims as posted on an associate's personal website and
B) apparently misrepresenting the results of actual peer-reviewed papers
I have previously asked you to highlight one or two points from that page which you consider to be particularly compelling, but you were either unwilling or unable to provide any.
You're not usually as bad as Jack of course, but that approach of merely linking or C&Ping absurd quantities of material without having the chutzpah to personally research and stand by the claims which you're spreading is very familiar.
I presented what he said providing you with the original source for it. You dismissed it like you do with everything you dont want to see. You are desperate to bury this given the seniority of this individual within the IPCC. Hardly surprising I supposeThis of course was shortly after you attempted to portray the personal opinions which of one of three co-chairs of one of three IPCC working groups expressed in an interview as being representative of the whole organisation :lol:
You, apparently, see nothing questionable about your notion that it is pushing an agenda directly against the economic interests of its biggest funders, and you'll grasp at even the tiniest of straws in your attempts to persuade yourself. That has nothing to do with the topic at hand, however.
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?