Climate Change - Page 121 - Politics and Economics

It's a fact that the best estimates of sensitivity are lower now than they used to be. The "consensus" on the most probable CO2 doubling sensitivity used to be ~3C. Many peer-reviews papers in the past couple years are putting it <2C, and some say <1C.

ECS estimates in particular are way down. And TCR estimates, which have always been lower, are also going down.

Last edited by NewOldGuy; 02-29-2016 at 04:31 PM.

03-03-2016 , 11:50 AM

#3002

13ball

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 12,912

Looks like the "no warming in 18 years" meme is dead:

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/...-0744.1?af=R&&

RSS, the one satellite dataset that Ted Cruz and others cited as showing no warming for 18 years looks like it has been underestimating warming due to a bad diurnal adjustment:

Quote:

...[the] new dataset shows substantially increased global-scale warming relative to the previous version of the dataset, particularly after 1998. The new dataset shows more warming than most other middle tropospheric data records constructed from the same set of satellites. We also show that the new dataset is consistent with long-term changes in total column water vapor over the tropical oceans, lending support to its long-term accuracy.

This wasn't really a surprise since RSS was the outlier and had diverged from weather balloon data as well.

03-03-2016 , 11:58 AM

#3003

13ball

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 12,912

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewOldGuy

I don't know any recent paper that puts ECS below 1C. Most of the new analyses rely heavily on recent temp data, so it will be interesting to see how they change given the current upswing in temperature.

The consensus of ~3C hasn't really changed, although lower values (1.5C-2C) are considered more plausible.

03-03-2016 , 11:59 AM

#3004

NewOldGuy

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,935

Quote:

Originally Posted by 13ball

The "adjustments" Mears made were debunked (or at least seriously questioned and criticized) almost as soon as the paper came out.

The paper was already rejected by another journal first (Journal of Geophysical Research).

Last edited by NewOldGuy; 03-03-2016 at 12:12 PM.

03-03-2016 , 12:02 PM

#3005

Money2Burn

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 12,628

Quote:

Originally Posted by 13ball

Lol @ you thinking this will kill the meme. This is just another layer of the conspiracy of Al Gore and Michael Mann to keep the flow of cash coming.

03-03-2016 , 12:15 PM

#3006

13ball

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 12,912

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewOldGuy

The "adjustments" Mears made were debunked almost as soon as the paper came out.

The paper was already rejected by another journal first (Journal of Geophysical Research).

I'm sure some people "debunked" it right away.

Mears is in charge of RSS, so I don't see how anyone could seriously argue that he is incompetent, therefore we should use the previous work he did. Perhaps these adjustments are in error. We shall see how he responds to whatever criticism you say exists.

03-03-2016 , 12:23 PM

#3007

NewOldGuy

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,935

Quote:

Originally Posted by 13ball

Mears is in charge of RSS, so I don't see how anyone could seriously argue that he is incompetent, therefore we should use the previous work he did. Perhaps these adjustments are in error. We shall see how he responds to whatever criticism you say exists.

Not incompetent, just not impartial. He has publicly commented that he didn't like it that his data was being used to show a pause in warming by the "denialists". I agree we'll see how well it stands up.

03-03-2016 , 12:35 PM

#3008

13ball

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 12,912

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewOldGuy

I assume Spencer or Christy was the person who "debunked" Mears. They are far less impartial.

03-03-2016 , 01:02 PM

#3009

Trolly McTrollson

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 36,791

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewOldGuy

The paper was already rejected by another journal first (Journal of Geophysical Research).

This happens all the time for reasons other than scientific validity. Could be they thought the results weren't interesting enough, or their readers aren't the best target audience.

03-03-2016 , 01:15 PM

#3010

NewOldGuy

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Mar 2009 Posts: 5,935

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson

This happens all the time for reasons other than scientific validity. Could be they thought the results weren't interesting enough, or their readers aren't the best target audience.

Climate Change is one of their primary topics, right up there with the "Nature Climate Change" journal. Mears and Wentz have numerous papers published in JGR, as do the rest of the usual suspects.

03-03-2016 , 01:23 PM

#3011

Trolly McTrollson

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 36,791

Quote:

Originally Posted by NewOldGuy

Climate Change is one of their primary topics, right up there with the "Nature Climate Change" journal. Mears and Wentz have numerous papers published in JGR, as do the rest of the usual suspects.

Yeah, it's not quite as simplistic as this. There are any number of reasons that the editors of JGS might think the paper might be more appropriate in another journal. Plus, I'd expect Nature's peer review to be more rigorous than JGS.

Page 121 of 121

First

21 71 101 111 116 117 118 119 120 121

Last

...

Page 121 of 121

First

21 71 101 111 116 117 118 119 120 121

Last