Moderated Global Warming Discussion

[Wangler]

If we can believe Dr. Spencer's blog post, apparently he and Dessler are discussing substantive technical aspects of Dessler's 2011 rebuttal paper:

UPDATE: I have been contacted by Andy Dessler, who is now examining my calculations, and we are working to resolve a remaining difference there. Also, apparently his paper has not been officially published, and so he says he will change the galley proofs as a result of my blog post; here is his message:


“I’m happy to change the introductory paragraph of my paper when I get the galley proofs to better represent your views. My apologies for any misunderstanding. Also, I’ll be changing the sentence “over the decades or centuries relevant for long-term climate change, on the other hand, clouds can indeed cause significant warming” to make it clear that I’m talking about cloud feedbacks doing the action here, not cloud forcing.”

Update #2 (Sept. 8, 2011): I have made several updates as a result of correspondence with Dessler, which will appear underlined, below. I will leave it to the reader to decide whether it was our Remote Sensing paper that should not have passed peer review (as Trenberth has alleged), or Dessler’s paper meant to refute our paper.

If you read the entire blog post, Dr. Spencer still seems a bit snarky towards Dessler, so I hope that doesn't dampen the rapproachment too much. I would assume that they are also discussing pertinent aspects of the SB11 paper, but he doesn't specifically say so.

While this may not be that unusual, the fact that they are talking about issues surrounding these powder keg 2011 papers gives me hope that the true science discourse is not a complete lost cause.

 

[Wangler]

I doubt Spencer will get peer-reviewed publication again (outside E&E)...

Would you care to wager on that?

 

[Trakar]

If we can believe Dr. Spencer's blog post, apparently he and Dessler are discussing substantive technical aspects of Dessler's 2011 rebuttal paper:



If you read the entire blog post, Dr. Spencer still seems a bit snarky towards Dessler, so I hope that doesn't dampen the rapproachment too much. I would assume that they are also discussing pertinent aspects of the SB11 paper, but he doesn't specifically say so.

While this may not be that unusual, the fact that they are talking about issues surrounding these powder keg 2011 papers gives me hope that the true science discourse is not a complete lost cause.

When Spencer chose to try an end-run around the peer review process by attempting publication outside of the actual journals of highest relevence, and then chose to misrepresent the actual supported findings and implications of the paper published,..."true science discourse" was subverted.

 

[Wangler]

When Spencer chose to try an end-run around the peer review process by attempting publication outside of the actual journals of highest relevence, and then chose to misrepresent the actual supported findings and implications of the paper published,..."true science discourse" was subverted.

Then I can't imagine Dessler wasting even one e-mail with that disingenuous crank Spencer.

 

[metamars]

If we can believe Dr. Spencer's blog post, apparently he and Dessler are discussing substantive technical aspects of Dessler's 2011 rebuttal paper:

Lubos Motl savaged the Dessler paper:

it seems to have a few problems

Let me summarize the basic errors in Dessler's crackpot rants:

* he incorrectly assumes that clouds have to trap; heat if they want to influence the temperature; in reality, it's important that they reflect sunlight while their own heat capacity is small
* he incorrectly assumes that the cloud cover at a given place isn't an independent degree of freedom; instead, it is a function of the carbon dioxide emissions; in reality, carbon dioxide is almost exactly irrelevant for the cloud cover at any place of the globe as well as the global average
* he incorrectly assumes that clouds may only be influenced by other things, but can't influence other things themselves; in reality, the influences obviously go in both/all directions and influences in both directions are comparably important
* he incorrectly assumes that it is illegitimate to test the predicted correlations of various physical models by comparing the simulations with the observations; instead, he thinks that it is legitimate to hide his head into the sand and claim that there is nothing to be seen here

You can get a preprint, here.

As for Wagner, either he lied about his reasons for resigning, or else Spencer has lied about Wagner's 'explanation', and in the process made false claims about his paper in Remote Sensing, which was downloaded over 56,000 times.

If Spencer is so dumb as to have lied about a paper of his which has been downloaded over 56,000 times, then I have to agree with the statement that he won't be published, again.

According to Spencer

But let’s look at the core reason for the Editor-in-Chief’s resignation, in his own words, because I want to strenuously object to it:

…In other words, the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view (which was later unfortunately much exaggerated by the public media) but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal

But the paper WAS precisely addressing the scientific arguments made by our opponents, and showing why they are wrong! That was the paper’s starting point! We dealt with specifics, numbers, calculations…while our critics only use generalities and talking points. There is no contest, as far as I can see, in this debate. If you have some physics or radiative transfer background, read the evidence we present, the paper we were responding to, and decide for yourself.

(emphasis mine)

So, either Spencer has doubled down, and is now lying about what is in his paper (which has been downloaded over 56,000 times), or he's delusional, or it's the editor in chief who is lying or mistaken.

Well, there could be middling cases. E.g., Spencer might have gotten, e.g., 10 different arguments that his previous work was wrong, but only addressed 5 of them. However, as I read the following comment by 'Frank' at Spencer's blog, Wagner, the Editor in Chief, made no attempt to address any of the specifics of the SB paper:

Further proof of Dr. Wagner’s motivations can be found by examining the details of his editorial – nowhere does Dr. Wagner discuss the scientific errors he believes were made by SB11 and the media reports that followed from it. He claims that SB11 ignored Trenberth et al (2010), but he doesn’t explain exactly what information in that paper “to some extent” refutes SB11. (T10 was a rebuttal of Lindzen and Choi (2009), a paper that used vastly different analytical methods than SB11 to assess the consistency between GCMs and observations.) He doesn’t cite any source for the “open discussions” he asserts refute SB11. He doesn’t cite any scientific errors that were made in the UAH press release or the Forbes article. If Dr. Wagner were interested in advancing understanding of climate science, he would have taken the time to fully explain the key scientific issues to his readers.

I wrote a very recent diary on the pathological scientific culture working against honest scientists who don't believe the Catastrophic AGW theories: Ugly Scientific Tribalism of CO2 Global Warming Fetishists, and a Beautiful Film on Climate Realist Svensmark In the commentaries, I referenced an article by Nigel Calder who discussed various scientists efforts to falsify the work of Svensmark. Not all attempts at falsification amount to much.

 

[CapelDodger]

Lubos Motl savaged the Dessler paper:

Of coure he tried. Motl hates AGW, always has, and he has a penchant for savagery (of the potty-mouthed, not noble, variety).

it seems to have a few problems

Motl can easily make his audience think it's problematic. They're none too bright, after all. In his first point, the heat capacity of clouds is irrelevant and Dessler obviously isn't ignorant of cloud albedo. It flatlines from there.

As for Wagner, either he lied about his reasons for resigning, or else Spencer has lied about Wagner's 'explanation' ...

Nobody would be surprised at Spencer lying. He's in a corner; what else can he do?

and in the process made false claims about his paper in Remote Sensing ...

Of course he did. Spencer has a long track-record of such behaviour. He publishes a peer-reviewed paper which concludes that rain is wet and then launches onto the blogosphere (and Fox News) claiming that he's destroyed climate science once again, secure in the knowledge that his audience won't check and McIntyre won't audit.

... which was downloaded over 56,000 times.

Which you regard as significant why? It was gutted within hours of publication.

If Spencer is so dumb as to have lied about a paper of his which has been downloaded over 56,000 times, then I have to agree with the statement that he won't be published, again.

He can lie as much as he likes to his audience, who aren't going to check. His audience knows what it likes and Spencer gives it to them.

So, either Spencer has doubled down, and is now lying about what is in his paper (which has been downloaded over 56,000 times), or he's delusional, or it's the editor in chief who is lying or mistaken.

What's this thing you have about the number of downloads? He has doubled down, and Wagner is not lying. Wagner is an honourable man.

Spencer's strategy is to whine about victimhood and the awesome power of the IPCC "Team" to silence heretics such as himself (just as Galileo had to suffer). It's pathetic, but all he's got left.

Well, there could be middling cases. E.g., Spencer might have gotten, e.g., 10 different arguments that his previous work was wrong, but only addressed 5 of them. However, as I read the following comment by 'Frank' at Spencer's blog, Wagner, the Editor in Chief, made no attempt to address any of the specifics of the SB paper:

It's not Wagner's job to do that. Wagner has recognised that the paper should not have passed basic peer-review because it fails certain established principles, such as addressing already published and relevant work and providing enough information as to methods for others to replicate the work.

I wrote a very recent diary on the pathological scientific culture working against honest scientists who don't believe the Catastrophic AGW theories ...

You don't surprise me in the slightest. You clearly know what you like, and you're going to stick to it. It's the tribalism which is at fault (Judith Curry would agree with you there), and the Spencer, Christy, Lindzen, Curry, McIntyre, Singer, Motl grouping is a choir of angels, not a tribe. Perish the thought. Irony

 

[BenBurch]

Downloaded 56,000 times...

According to AAAS, there were 5.8 million science and engineering researchers in 2006.

56,000 is a little under 1%.

Even assuming that the downloaders were all legitimate scientists and not (as we know to be the case) mostly internet dilettantes.

 

[Trakar]

I thought thouse with an inkling might appreciate a bit more about Dressler's paper, from Dressler himself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2ngavUkmis&feature=player_embedded

As mentioned previously, here is a pre-pub copy of the paper linked at Texas A&M U site, and a copy of the initial press release:

http://geotest.tamu.edu/userfiles/216/Dessler2011.pdf

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2011-09/tau-tap090611.php

 

[Furcifer]

What a nut.

Dessler adds, "Over a century, however, clouds can indeed play an important role amplifying climate change."
"I hope my analysis puts an end to this claim that clouds are causing climate change," he adds.

I've never heard anyone claim that clouds are causing climate change. I did a google search and aside from Dessler's paper the only hit for "clouds cause climate change" is this- "http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/"

I have to say building up a strawman like this doesn't do much to dispel the claims that climate change has become a pseudoscience.

 

[Furcifer]

Once again: And what has this got to do with a 20th century average?

It's been explained several times. At this point I really don't know how I can simplify it any further for you.

Quote where in the paper they calculate an average over a range of years that starts from before 1901 and goes beyond 2000 and calls this a "20th Century average".

In every paper cited the "20th Century analysis" actually includes years prior to 1901 or years after 2000 in their datasets. There's no set definition because the 20th Century isn't defined as the years 1901-2000, it's a colloquial term.

This isn't a particularly hard concept to grasp. I'm surprised at how much people are struggling with it.

 

[Furcifer]

No it does not according to all of the papers that you have cited. The only citations that I can find have nothing to do with the "20th century average":

• trends are not averages
• Monthly averages are not 20th century averages
• Annual and seasonal averages are not 20th century averages

To which we can add

• A monthly and latitudinally varying volcanic forcing dataset in simulations of 20th century climate.
  Monthly averages.
• And maybe the other 35000 results from an unspecified search in an unspecified seach engine.

But I think that your basic mistake is in this post:

You are correct but this has nothing to do with a "20th Century average". You can read the word average in the term?

Obviously you aren't getting the concept.

This started from a comment you made about a NOAA page which presented data from outside of the 20th century as anomalies from a "20 Century average" that explicitly included only the years 1901-2000 as NOAA themselves state.

Correct. And I read the paper where these averages were taken from a noted the "full period" was actually closer to 130 years. I didn't realize they had explicitly taken the dataset from the years 1901-2000 and used that average instead.

But here you are just looking up "20th Century" and ignoring the average bit. FYI, I can also ignore terms. There are 1,910,000 results returned for 'climate century' in Google Scholar !

Incorrect. I forget the exact search term, but I limited the search and used the word "dataset" as well.

None of your cited papers calculates a "20th Century average" that includes the years 1880-1901.

This is incorrect. Nor would all of them include the years 1880-1901. That particular dataset is specific to climate science.

But I may be wrong: All you have to do is quote where they do so.

Again, the concept seems to elude you. All of the papers reference the "20th Century", and all of the papers use datasets that include years prior to 1901 and after 2000.

Repeating unsupported assertions is not evidence. You claim to know something about science so you should know that.

This has nothing to do with science.

Still no answer to Furcifer: Provide your evidence for the cherry picking in Skeptical Science
(30 August 2011).
How about a list of 10 articles and the papers that they ignored in order to cherry pick their cited papers?

This is a lie, I answered your question several times now. There are literally millions of papers and studies in journals, realcrapclimatescience.com and socalledskepticalscience.com and the other pseudoscience websites frequently cited here cherry pick the papers they wish to present. That's a fact.

You seem to make the mistake of thinking they are cherry picking because they do not cite the thousands of climate papers that exist !

No, it's because they cherry pick the papers they wish to analyze in support of their biased position.

Thus you are giving the impression that you have no idea what cherry picking is being done you need to cite the papers that they missed out, i.e. evidence for "ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position".

I have cited papers "that they missed". In the future I'll make sure to note that if you'd like. It's hard because I don't read those pseudoscientific websites.

Therefore my question above (Furcifer: Provide your evidence for the cherry picking in Skeptical Science )

Like I said, you'll have to tell me. I will continue to read the journals and cite climate science papers and you will have to tell me if these pseudoscience websites actually mentioned them or not. As far as I know none of the scientific papers I've read have ever been discussed on these websites, and I highly doubt they will.

So there, I'll read and cite 10 papers on climate science, if they don't appear on the pages of the website you'll admit they are cherry picking their science in support of their biased opinion?

 

[Furcifer]

How about a list of 10 articles and the papers that they ignored in order to cherry pick their cited papers?

Was this paper discussed?

On the generation and interpretation of probabilistic estimates of climate sensitivity.

When this prior is updated with the analysis of Forster and Gregory (2006), the long fat tail that is characteristic of all recent estimates of climate sensitivity simply disappears, with an upper 95% probability limit for S easily shownto lie close to 4oC, and certainly well below 6oC.
Thus it might be reasonable for the IPCC to upgrade their confidence in S lying below 4.5oC to the “extremely likely” level, indicating95% probability of a lower value.

It's a criticism on the method used to determine the range and probability of climate sensitivities in AR4. It's actually a scientific way of coming to some determination, unlike that of the IPCC. Because acknowledging it would dampen their ability to hyperbolize it's not something I would expect to see taken seriously on any of the pseudoscience sites you frequent.

So do they acknowledge scientific discussion or do they simply maintain the IPCC mantra about sensitivity?

 

[Reality Check]

Furcifer: Is "Watts Up With That?" a pseudoscience, cherry picking website

Obviously you aren't getting the concept.

The concept is really simple. A "20th century average" is an average over the 20th century. It is a single number. It is not (as in the papers you have cited that that I list in Furcifer's cited papers do not calculate a "20th Century average" )

• a trend
• monthly averages
• annual averages
• seasonal averages

Correct. And I read the paper where these averages were taken from a noted the "full period" was actually closer to 130 years. I didn't realize they had explicitly taken the dataset from the years 1901-2000 and used that average instead.

The data in the paper extends over a 130 year period. That is not an "20th Century average".

Again, the concept seems to elude you. All of the papers reference the "20th Century", and all of the papers use datasets that include years prior to 1901 and after 2000.

Again, the concept seems to elude you. A "20th century average" is an average over the 20th century. It is a single number.

This has nothing to do with science.

That is correct: Your unsupported assertion has nothing to do with science. Science is about making assertions that are supported by evidence.



You made the assertion that a "20th Century average" on a NOAA web page was calculated by taking the average over years outside of the 20th century.

• NOAA said that you are wrong.
• You have provided no evidence that any climate science paper does this: Furcifer's cited papers do not calculate a "20th Century average"

This is a lie, I answered your question several times now.

Wrong. You have never answered:

Originally Posted by Reality Check
Still no answer to Furcifer: Provide your evidence for the cherry picking in Skeptical Science
(30 August 2011).
How about a list of 10 articles and the papers that they ignored in order to cherry pick their cited papers?

with your analysis of any articles that have cherry picked their papers.

Like I said, you'll have to tell me. I will continue to read the journals and cite climate science papers and you will have to tell me if these pseudoscience websites actually mentioned them or not. As far as I know none of the scientific papers I've read have ever been discussed on these websites, and I highly doubt they will.

It is quite strange of you to expect any climate science web site to discuss every paper that you read. Can they read your mind ?

So now according to you, every web site about climate science is a pseudoscience, cherry picking website because they do not cite every climate science paper that you read !

So there, I'll read and cite 10 papers on climate science, if they don't appear on the pages of the website you'll admit they are cherry picking their science in support of their biased opinion?

Wrong: I would admit that just like every other climate science website in existence, they have not cited every climate science paper that exists.
That is not cherry picking. Cherry picking is not neglecting to cite every paper about a subject that exists.

You need to read 10 articles on the Skeptical Science web site and list the papers that they missed out in their cherry picking. These papers need to disprove their conclusions.

This should be very easy since you will have already done this for the articles in order to collect the evidence for your assertion.
However there is no evidence that you have done this before making your assertion. Thus we could conclude that this is some irrational prejudice against all climate science web sites that exist.
Or maybe an even more irrational prejudice against the Skeptical Science and RealClimate web sites since they are the 2 you mention most.

This leads to the question: Is "Watts Up With That?" a pseudoscience, cherry picking website?
It seems to meet your criteria:

• Is about climate science.
• Does not cite every climate science paper that exists.
• (cannot read your mind and cite every paper that you read ).

 

[Reality Check]

Was this paper discussed?

You are the one with the assertion. You must have done the analysis. So you can tell us whether the paper was discussed or not in the article that I have linked to so often.

P.S. I know the answer. You would too if you had the courage to actually read the article instead of taking the ignorant stance of labeling it as cherry picking without even reading it.

On the generation and interpretation of probabilistic estimates of climate sensitivity.
...
So do they acknowledge scientific discussion or do they simply maintain the IPCC mantra about sensitivity?

The paper does "acknowledge scientific discussion" because it is a part of scientific discussion! That is what a scientific paper is.

They mention the IPCC AR4 evaluation of the climate sensitivity​

The IPCC 4th Assessment report (Solomon et al., 2007) remains somewhat vague about climate sensitivity, only making the comment that S is likely (> 66%) to lie in the range 2–4.5oC and very unlikely (< 10%) to lie below 1.5oC (a marginal change from previous assessments) but with no further detailed quantitative assessment.

Their conclusion is

When instead reasonable assumptions are made, much greater confidence in a moderate value for S is easily justified, with an upper 95% probability limit for S easily shown to lie close to 4oC, and certainly well below 6oC.

So they do not get exactly the IPCC evaluation which is not surprising since this is science not religion. Their result is within the IPCC assessment range but the IPCC has a 'best estimate" of about 3 C, this paper puts it at closer to 4 C.
This is a real blow to global warming deniers since they really want climate sensitivity to be low (nearer to 1 C).
The global warming deniers alarmists will be tickled pink since their prejudices make them want a high climate sensitivity (as high as possible to really cause chaos).​

 

[Reality Check]

On the generation and interpretation of probabilistic estimates of climate sensitivity.

Whoops!
Made a mistake in my response abut this paper. It is the upper limit of the 95% confidence which is at 4C.
The paper is basically about what happens with better prior assumations for the Bayesian analysis of climate sensitivity estimates. They find that the pdf is narrower then previously found and values over 6 C are unlikely.
They still get a likely value of 3C (as in the IPCC AR4). The first author (James Annan) has a blog post about this: Climate sensitivity is 3C

Plus or minus a little bit, of course. But not plus or minus as much as some people have been claiming in recent years

 

[CapelDodger]

What a nut.

Dessler adds, "Over a century, however, clouds can indeed play an important role amplifying climate change."
"I hope my analysis puts an end to this claim that clouds are causing climate change," he adds.

I've never heard anyone claim that clouds are causing climate change.

See http://www.amazon.com/Great-Global-...=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1271759263&sr=1-4

Or search FoxNews if you have the stomach for it.

I did a google search and aside from Dessler's paper the only hit for "clouds cause climate change" is this- "http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/"

My version of Google throws up http://www.global-warming-and-the-climate.com/ on the first page. Are you sure you don't have a filter running?

I have to say building up a strawman like this doesn't do much to dispel the claims that climate change has become a pseudoscience.

Spencer and Lindzen have been leading the tribe in arguing that clouds hold the solution for decades. Firstly, that cloud feedback would prevent the warming that's occurred, and more recently that cloud behaviour explains it. Check out their blogs, or WattsUpMyButt (which you've previously praised as a source of sound science, as contrasted with RealClimate).

Don't get confused by the CLOUD issue, where Svensmark leads the tribe; that blames cosmic rays for global warming, at one remove. I'm not aware that Spencer has got involved there.

Watts leads the tribe on the UHI (but no longer from the front), Munchkin leads on the One World Gumment Conspiracy, and McIntyre is the hockey-team coach. Singer doesn't really seem to be trying any more, and Soon tries too hard. New blood is sorely lacking; Rick Perry says they're out there, but even he can't put a name to any of them.

 

[Mikemcc]

Was this paper discussed?

On the generation and interpretation of probabilistic estimates of climate sensitivity.

When this prior is updated with the analysis of Forster and Gregory (2006), the long fat tail that is characteristic of all recent estimates of climate sensitivity simply disappears, with an upper 95% probability limit for S easily shownto lie close to 4oC, and certainly well below 6oC.
Thus it might be reasonable for the IPCC to upgrade their confidence in S lying below 4.5oC to the “extremely likely” level, indicating95% probability of a lower value.

It's a criticism on the method used to determine the range and probability of climate sensitivities in AR4. It's actually a scientific way of coming to some determination, unlike that of the IPCC. Because acknowledging it would dampen their ability to hyperbolize it's not something I would expect to see taken seriously on any of the pseudoscience sites you frequent.

So do they acknowledge scientific discussion or do they simply maintain the IPCC mantra about sensitivity?

Please state where AR4, RealClimate or SkepticalScience quote a climate sensitivity of >4.5 deg C per doubling of CO2. So far I'm only seening one person 'hyperbolizing' on this thread, and that's you.

 

[Furcifer]

The concept is really simple. A "20th century average" is an average over the 20th century. It is a single number.

No it isn't, you're wrong. That's been demonstrated numerous times now.

It is not (as in the papers you have cited that that I list in Furcifer's cited papers do not calculate a "20th Century average" )

• a trend
• monthly averages
• annual averages
• seasonal averages

The data in the paper extends over a 130 year period. That is not an "20th Century average".

You're either moving the goal posts or you don't understand. I can't explain this any better, it's obviously beyond your current level of understanding.

Again, the concept seems to elude you. A "20th century average" is an average over the 20th century. It is a single number.

Nonsense, it's numerous numbers. In the paper cited there's 12 different distinct numbers, not one. You're wrong.

That is correct: Your unsupported assertion has nothing to do with science. Science is about making assertions that are supported by evidence.

The evidence is plentiful, processing it is proving difficult for some people. Obviously concepts are much harder to understand than definitions.

You made the assertion that a "20th Century average" on a NOAA web page was calculated by taking the average over years outside of the 20th century.

• NOAA said that you are wrong.

• 
  
  Correct.
  
  
  

  [*]You have provided no evidence that any climate science paper does this: Furcifer's cited papers do not calculate a "20th Century average"

Incorrect. You simply don't have a grasp of the concept. I've cited numerous papers with datasets that clearly don't use the years 1901-2000 as their "20th Century". It's a colloquial term and I don't believe you understand this.

It is quite strange of you to expect any climate science web site to discuss every paper that you read. Can they read your mind ?

I don't expect them to, especially not those pseudoscience websites that only cater their readers biases.

So now according to you, every web site about climate science is a pseudoscience, cherry picking website because they do not cite every climate science paper that you read !

Strawman.

Wrong: I would admit that just like every other climate science website in existence, they have not cited every climate science paper that exists.
That is not cherry picking. Cherry picking is not neglecting to cite every paper about a subject that exists.

Strawman.

You need to read 10 articles on the Skeptical Science web site and list the papers that they missed out in their cherry picking. These papers need to disprove their conclusions.

I don't read pseudoscience websites.

Or maybe an even more irrational prejudice against the Skeptical Science and RealClimate web sites since they are the 2 you mention most.

I never mention them. I don't read them, I'm capable of reading and understanding the journals. If I weren't inclined to do so I might frequent them.

This leads to the question: Is "Watts Up With That?" a pseudoscience, cherry picking website?
It seems to meet your criteria:

• Is about climate science.
• Does not cite every climate science paper that exists.
• (cannot read your mind and cite every paper that you read ).

Yes, I believe it is pseudoscience. Yes the articles are cherry picked or in response to cherry picked articles from the other peudoscientific sites. Yes it's biased, and yes it has an agenda.

Of course it is. It's trying to use science to prove a point. It's as much a cargo cult as any.

 

[Furcifer]

Stick with one definition of "sensitivity"

(Please. You seem to be jumping from a "result of" to a "cause of" definition and it's confusing)

You are the one with the assertion. You must have done the analysis. So you can tell us whether the paper was discussed or not in the article that I have linked to so often.

I haven't.

P.S. I know the answer. You would too if you had the courage to actually read the article instead of taking the ignorant stance of labeling it as cherry picking without even reading it.

I don't. I really don't need to read those websites, all you have to do is pick up a journal and read a paper and the references.

The paper does "acknowledge scientific discussion" because it is a part of scientific discussion! That is what a scientific paper is.

So it does?

This is a real blow to global warming deniers since they really want climate sensitivity to be low (nearer to 1 C).
The global warming deniers alarmists will be tickled pink since their prejudices make them want a high climate sensitivity (as high as possible to really cause chaos).

That's your opinion. I don't see it that way. I see a probability and another probability. There's a reasonable certainty given what we know, unfortunately we really don't know that much.

 

[Trakar]

Please state where AR4, RealClimate or SkepticalScience quote a climate sensitivity of >4.5 deg C per doubling of CO2. So far I'm only seening one person 'hyperbolizing' on this thread, and that's you.

Short term, or full equilibration?

In Hansen's "Earth's Energy Imbalance and Implications" - http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2011/20110415_EnergyImbalancePaper.pdf

We see fast-feedback sensitivity at around 3° per CO2 doubling, but long-term, full-equilibration ranges significantly higher over a period of centuries to millenia, at least in accordance with what the paleoclimate record indicates has occurred (repeatedly) in somewhat similar previous climate change episodes. With all the most likely occurences considered and all the proper qualifications made, 4.5°C per doubling of CO2 in the short-term is more than enough to put us in a 6-8°C warmer world in the early part of the next century and a 10-12°C warmer world within the next couple of centuries, and this doesn't stop anytime soon if the longer term full equilibration issues are examined carefully and honestly.

I guess we are giving our species a crash course in terraforming. Nothing like a trial by fire to test our mettle. Should prove an interesting case-study.