Discussion:
Does a new paper really reconcile instrumental and model-based climate sensitivity estimates?
(too old to reply)
Chom Noamsky
2017-07-08 17:14:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Another paper attempting to validate model-based climate sensitivity
estimates gets refuted.

***

Conclusions

When correctly calculated, median ICS estimate for CMIP5 GCMs, based on
the evolution of forcing over the historical period, is 3.0°C, not 2.5°C
as claimed in PH17. Although 3.0°C is below the median ECS estimate for
the GCMs of 3.4°C, it is well above a median estimate in the 1.6–2.0°C
range for good quality observationally-based climate sensitivity
estimates. PH17’s headline claim that it reconciles historical and
model-based estimates of climate sensitivity is wrong.

https://climateaudit.org/2017/07/08/does-a-new-paper-really-reconcile-instrumental-and-model-based-climate-sensitivity-estimates/
Ringer
2017-07-09 22:23:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chom Noamsky
Another paper attempting to validate model-based climate sensitivity
estimates gets refuted.
***
Conclusions
When correctly calculated, median ICS estimate for CMIP5 GCMs, based
on the evolution of forcing over the historical period, is 3.0°C, not
2.5°C as claimed in PH17. Although 3.0°C is below the median ECS
estimate for the GCMs of 3.4°C, it is well above a median estimate in
the 1.6-2.0°C range for good quality observationally-based climate
sensitivity estimates. PH17's headline claim that it reconciles
historical and model-based estimates of climate sensitivity is wrong.
https://climateaudit.org/2017/07/08/does-a-new-paper-really-reconcile-instrumental-and-model-based-climate-sensitivity-estimates/
Yes. Yes, it does.
Chom Noamsky
2017-07-09 22:26:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ringer
Post by Chom Noamsky
Another paper attempting to validate model-based climate sensitivity
estimates gets refuted.
***
Conclusions
When correctly calculated, median ICS estimate for CMIP5 GCMs, based
on the evolution of forcing over the historical period, is 3.0°C, not
2.5°C as claimed in PH17. Although 3.0°C is below the median ECS
estimate for the GCMs of 3.4°C, it is well above a median estimate in
the 1.6-2.0°C range for good quality observationally-based climate
sensitivity estimates. PH17's headline claim that it reconciles
historical and model-based estimates of climate sensitivity is wrong.
https://climateaudit.org/2017/07/08/does-a-new-paper-really-reconcile-instrumental-and-model-based-climate-sensitivity-estimates/
Yes. Yes, it does.
Can you be more specific?

Didn't think so.
Ringer
2017-07-10 15:49:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Ringer
Post by Chom Noamsky
Another paper attempting to validate model-based climate sensitivity
estimates gets refuted.
***
Conclusions
When correctly calculated, median ICS estimate for CMIP5 GCMs, based
on the evolution of forcing over the historical period, is 3.0°C,
not 2.5°C as claimed in PH17. Although 3.0°C is below the median ECS
estimate for the GCMs of 3.4°C, it is well above a median estimate
in the 1.6-2.0°C range for good quality observationally-based
climate sensitivity estimates. PH17's headline claim that it
reconciles historical and model-based estimates of climate
sensitivity is wrong.
https://climateaudit.org/2017/07/08/does-a-new-paper-really-reconcile-instrumental-and-model-based-climate-sensitivity-estimates/
Yes. Yes, it does.
Can you be more specific?
Didn't think so.
When have you ever been specific? The paper says it all. Lewis says
"correctly calculated"; how many times has he been shown to have incorrectly
calculated something? Posting criticism on a denier blog is only for
propaganda purposes. Can you explain why Lewis thinks ICM is 3 degrees?
I didn't think so.
Chom Noamsky
2017-07-10 17:03:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ringer
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Ringer
Post by Chom Noamsky
Another paper attempting to validate model-based climate sensitivity
estimates gets refuted.
***
Conclusions
When correctly calculated, median ICS estimate for CMIP5 GCMs, based
on the evolution of forcing over the historical period, is 3.0°C,
not 2.5°C as claimed in PH17. Although 3.0°C is below the median ECS
estimate for the GCMs of 3.4°C, it is well above a median estimate
in the 1.6-2.0°C range for good quality observationally-based
climate sensitivity estimates. PH17's headline claim that it
reconciles historical and model-based estimates of climate
sensitivity is wrong.
https://climateaudit.org/2017/07/08/does-a-new-paper-really-reconcile-instrumental-and-model-based-climate-sensitivity-estimates/
Yes. Yes, it does.
Can you be more specific?
Didn't think so.
When have you ever been specific? The paper says it all. Lewis says
"correctly calculated"; how many times has he been shown to have incorrectly
calculated something? Posting criticism on a denier blog is only for
propaganda purposes. Can you explain why Lewis thinks ICM is 3 degrees?
I didn't think so.
"Keep running, boy" -- gordo jr
Unum
2017-07-10 19:00:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Ringer
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Ringer
Post by Chom Noamsky
Another paper attempting to validate model-based climate sensitivity
estimates gets refuted.
***
Conclusions
When correctly calculated, median ICS estimate for CMIP5 GCMs, based
on the evolution of forcing over the historical period, is 3.0°C,
not 2.5°C as claimed in PH17. Although 3.0°C is below the median ECS
estimate for the GCMs of 3.4°C, it is well above a median estimate
in the 1.6-2.0°C range for good quality observationally-based
climate sensitivity estimates. PH17's headline claim that it
reconciles historical and model-based estimates of climate
sensitivity is wrong.
https://climateaudit.org/2017/07/08/does-a-new-paper-really-reconcile-instrumental-and-model-based-climate-sensitivity-estimates/
Yes. Yes, it does.
Can you be more specific?
Didn't think so.
When have you ever been specific? The paper says it all. Lewis says
"correctly calculated"; how many times has he been shown to have incorrectly
calculated something? Posting criticism on a denier blog is only for
propaganda purposes. Can you explain why Lewis thinks ICM is 3 degrees?
I didn't think so.
"Keep running, boy" -- gordo jr
Seemed like he was pretty specific, chumpsky full of shit yet again.
Chom Noamsky
2017-07-10 20:54:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Ringer
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Ringer
Post by Chom Noamsky
Another paper attempting to validate model-based climate sensitivity
estimates gets refuted.
***
Conclusions
When correctly calculated, median ICS estimate for CMIP5 GCMs, based
on the evolution of forcing over the historical period, is 3.0°C,
not 2.5°C as claimed in PH17. Although 3.0°C is below the median ECS
estimate for the GCMs of 3.4°C, it is well above a median estimate
in the 1.6-2.0°C range for good quality observationally-based
climate sensitivity estimates. PH17's headline claim that it
reconciles historical and model-based estimates of climate
sensitivity is wrong.
https://climateaudit.org/2017/07/08/does-a-new-paper-really-reconcile-instrumental-and-model-based-climate-sensitivity-estimates/
Yes. Yes, it does.
Can you be more specific?
Didn't think so.
When have you ever been specific? The paper says it all. Lewis says
"correctly calculated"; how many times has he been shown to have incorrectly
calculated something? Posting criticism on a denier blog is only for
propaganda purposes. Can you explain why Lewis thinks ICM is 3 degrees?
I didn't think so.
"Keep running, boy" -- gordo jr
Seemed like he was pretty specific, chumpsky full of shit yet again.
Still nothing, huh.
Unum
2017-07-10 22:20:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Ringer
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Ringer
Post by Chom Noamsky
Another paper attempting to validate model-based climate sensitivity
estimates gets refuted.
***
Conclusions
When correctly calculated, median ICS estimate for CMIP5 GCMs, based
on the evolution of forcing over the historical period, is 3.0°C,
not 2.5°C as claimed in PH17. Although 3.0°C is below the median ECS
estimate for the GCMs of 3.4°C, it is well above a median estimate
in the 1.6-2.0°C range for good quality observationally-based
climate sensitivity estimates. PH17's headline claim that it
reconciles historical and model-based estimates of climate
sensitivity is wrong.
https://climateaudit.org/2017/07/08/does-a-new-paper-really-reconcile-instrumental-and-model-based-climate-sensitivity-estimates/
Yes. Yes, it does.
Can you be more specific?
Didn't think so.
When have you ever been specific? The paper says it all. Lewis says
"correctly calculated"; how many times has he been shown to have incorrectly
calculated something? Posting criticism on a denier blog is only for
propaganda purposes. Can you explain why Lewis thinks ICM is 3 degrees?
I didn't think so.
"Keep running, boy" -- gordo jr
Seemed like he was pretty specific, chumpsky full of shit yet again.
Still nothing, huh.
Its a few lines up.
Chom Noamsky
2017-07-11 00:22:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Ringer
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Ringer
Post by Chom Noamsky
Another paper attempting to validate model-based climate sensitivity
estimates gets refuted.
***
Conclusions
When correctly calculated, median ICS estimate for CMIP5 GCMs, based
on the evolution of forcing over the historical period, is 3.0°C,
not 2.5°C as claimed in PH17. Although 3.0°C is below the median ECS
estimate for the GCMs of 3.4°C, it is well above a median estimate
in the 1.6-2.0°C range for good quality observationally-based
climate sensitivity estimates. PH17's headline claim that it
reconciles historical and model-based estimates of climate
sensitivity is wrong.
https://climateaudit.org/2017/07/08/does-a-new-paper-really-reconcile-instrumental-and-model-based-climate-sensitivity-estimates/
Yes. Yes, it does.
Can you be more specific?
Didn't think so.
When have you ever been specific? The paper says it all. Lewis says
"correctly calculated"; how many times has he been shown to have incorrectly
calculated something? Posting criticism on a denier blog is only for
propaganda purposes. Can you explain why Lewis thinks ICM is 3 degrees?
I didn't think so.
"Keep running, boy" -- gordo jr
Seemed like he was pretty specific, chumpsky full of shit yet again.
Still nothing, huh.
Its a few lines up.
"No cite means you're lying"
Unum
2017-07-11 02:50:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Ringer
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Ringer
Post by Chom Noamsky
Another paper attempting to validate model-based climate sensitivity
estimates gets refuted.
***
Conclusions
When correctly calculated, median ICS estimate for CMIP5 GCMs, based
on the evolution of forcing over the historical period, is 3.0°C,
not 2.5°C as claimed in PH17. Although 3.0°C is below the median ECS
estimate for the GCMs of 3.4°C, it is well above a median estimate
in the 1.6-2.0°C range for good quality observationally-based
climate sensitivity estimates. PH17's headline claim that it
reconciles historical and model-based estimates of climate
sensitivity is wrong.
https://climateaudit.org/2017/07/08/does-a-new-paper-really-reconcile-instrumental-and-model-based-climate-sensitivity-estimates/
Yes. Yes, it does.
Can you be more specific?
Didn't think so.
When have you ever been specific? The paper says it all. Lewis says
"correctly calculated"; how many times has he been shown to have incorrectly
calculated something? Posting criticism on a denier blog is only for
propaganda purposes. Can you explain why Lewis thinks ICM is 3 degrees?
I didn't think so.
"Keep running, boy" -- gordo jr
Seemed like he was pretty specific, chumpsky full of shit yet again.
Still nothing, huh.
Its a few lines up.
"No cite means you're lying"
But what does wally say? I'll look for your report.
Chom Noamsky
2017-07-11 06:50:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Unum
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Ringer
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Ringer
Post by Chom Noamsky
Another paper attempting to validate model-based climate sensitivity
estimates gets refuted.
***
Conclusions
When correctly calculated, median ICS estimate for CMIP5 GCMs, based
on the evolution of forcing over the historical period, is 3.0°C,
not 2.5°C as claimed in PH17. Although 3.0°C is below the median ECS
estimate for the GCMs of 3.4°C, it is well above a median estimate
in the 1.6-2.0°C range for good quality observationally-based
climate sensitivity estimates. PH17's headline claim that it
reconciles historical and model-based estimates of climate
sensitivity is wrong.
https://climateaudit.org/2017/07/08/does-a-new-paper-really-reconcile-instrumental-and-model-based-climate-sensitivity-estimates/
Yes. Yes, it does.
Can you be more specific?
Didn't think so.
When have you ever been specific? The paper says it all. Lewis says
"correctly calculated"; how many times has he been shown to have incorrectly
calculated something? Posting criticism on a denier blog is only for
propaganda purposes. Can you explain why Lewis thinks ICM is 3 degrees?
I didn't think so.
"Keep running, boy" -- gordo jr
Seemed like he was pretty specific, chumpsky full of shit yet again.
Still nothing, huh.
Its a few lines up.
"No cite means you're lying"
But what does wally say? I'll look for your report.
So, still nothing.

I thought so.
Ringer
2017-07-15 21:31:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Chom Noamsky
Post by Ringer
Post by Chom Noamsky
Another paper attempting to validate model-based climate sensitivity
estimates gets refuted.
***
Conclusions
When correctly calculated, median ICS estimate for CMIP5 GCMs, based
on the evolution of forcing over the historical period, is 3.0°C,
not 2.5°C as claimed in PH17. Although 3.0°C is below the median ECS
estimate for the GCMs of 3.4°C, it is well above a median estimate
in the 1.6-2.0°C range for good quality observationally-based
climate sensitivity estimates. PH17's headline claim that it
reconciles historical and model-based estimates of climate
sensitivity is wrong.
https://climateaudit.org/2017/07/08/does-a-new-paper-really-reconcile-instrumental-and-model-based-climate-sensitivity-estimates/
Yes. Yes, it does.
Can you be more specific?
Didn't think so.
When have you ever been specific? The paper says it all. Lewis says
"correctly calculated"; how many times has he been shown to have incorrectly
calculated something? Posting criticism on a denier blog is only for
propaganda purposes. Can you explain why Lewis thinks ICM is 3 degrees?
I didn't think so.

Loading...