Well the Curry/Lewis paper seemed to suggest a most likely TCR value of 1.3, which is about 28% below the mean of the models used by IPCC.
This looks quite a bit lower to me.
Lenoil
So is the professor quoted accurately or not?
And in view of the good news from Curry/Lewis and many others, do you think the poor pussies will survive a little longer?
I have said it before and I will repeat it: deniers are liars and obfuscators. Note how their clarion cry now is "Pause!, pause!" when just a few years ago it was "There is no global warming! There is no global warming". That was followed by "It's due to the sun! It's due to the sun!". Now we are at a pause. Everything these idiots say is dishonest. They move their goalposts at will. Anything to deny. They are a vile lot.
HTFWIK after all that is between Asten and Lloyd and we all know that Lloyd has form for misrepresentation. Do you know any better?
Whatever, it has been said of the Curry and Lewis paper:
While of some scientific interest, the impact for real-world mitigation policy of the range of conceivable values for the TCR is small (see also this discussion in Sci. Am.). For targets like the 2 K guide-rail, a TCR on the lower end of the Lewis and Curry and IPCC ranges might just be the difference between a achievable rate of emissions reduction and an impossible one…
where much useful thinking crops up in comments where Nic Lewis steps in and gets his toes trod on by amongst others Robert Way (Cowtan & Way 2013 - linked in article) and DeepClimate (The Auditor's nemesis).
Nuff not said for I find Curry has an Op-Ed in the WSJ:
The Global Warming Statistical Meltdown Mounting evidence suggests that basic assumptions about climate change are mistaken: The numbers don’t add up.
By
Judith Curry
At the recent United Nations Climate Summit, Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned that “Without significant cuts in emissions by all countries, and in key sectors, the window of opportunity to stay within less than 2 degrees [of warming] will soon close forever." Actually, this window of opportunity may remain open for quite some time. A growing body of evidence suggests that the climate is less sensitive to increases in carbon-dioxide emissions than policy makers generally assume—and that the need for reductions in such...
Well the Curry/Lewis paper seemed to suggest a most likely TCR value of 1.3...
It suggested a range at 95% confidence (for both TCR and ECS), and for policy purposes we need to deal with the implications of those two ranges. The "most likely value" of either measure is almost entirely irrelevant for any policy that genuinely and rationally attempt to manage risks of highly undesirable outcomes, as such policies are almost entirely dominated by how bad the range suggests it might be.
Given that the top end of the Lewis and Curry ranges for ECS and TCR are pretty much right in the middle of the set of top ends of a whole bunch of existing studies, their results essentially change nothing and challenge nothing that affects rational policy decisions.
Now, if you want to argue that their results affect irrational policy decisions based on cherrypicking some other property of their results such as "most likely value of TCR", be my guest...
(All of this has been explained before...and all of this will need to be explained again.)
Fringe players advocating policy* in the right wing media (eg Curry's op-ed in the WSJ) can and should also be ignored.
* Fuckwits like Rednoise probably don't know that Curry is infamous for accusing other scientists of advocacy and then flagrantly advocating herself, as in the WSJ.
It ought to embarrass her, but she's apparently too far gone these days.
That seems rather likely, BBD, but only if you scientifically assess it in the light of the entire field. The denialists that are touting it aren't ever going to do that. Practically none of them could even if they wanted to, which they don't.
Given that, it's really useful to point out that even if we simply accept it at face value it does not support reducing the urgency or importance of policy tackling the problem of humans causing climate change.
In other words, touting it is more Sunspot-worthy clown-trolling: the reference they cite rebuts their own argument like a clown slapping a pie onto his own face.
(And then we will see the usual panoply of denialist tactics that are deployed when their clown-trolling is pointed out...)
No, Olaus, I meant "squirrels". I notice you still have not apologized for misrepresenting the number of casualties due to natural catastrophes. Your attempt to change the conversation is duly noted.
Given that, it’s really useful to point out that even if we simply accept it at face value it does not support reducing the urgency or importance of policy tackling the problem of humans causing climate change.
In other words, touting it is more Sunspot-worthy clown-trolling: the reference they cite rebuts their own argument like a clown slapping a pie onto his own face.
Yes, of course you are right. It's just a knee-jerk reaction I've developed every time some prat starts braying about L&C or any of those so-called "observational" estimates that inevitably produce lowball estimates for TCR and ECS.
Nor has the truth of what you say stopped Curry from donning the clownshoes...
At least you got my title correct. What's yours? Oh yes - dipstick tree pruner. .
Olaus is still pontificating about the Diptera. Glad he is also able to make fun of his own stupidity.
Just thought I'd let the deniers here know that I am winding up my course on science and advocacy for Masters students. It has been very well received - I had a guest over from the UK last week and he gave a great lecture on the climate denialati. I told him about some of the idiots I encounter on Deltoid - and how none of them have been anywhere near an environmental science or climate science course. Par for the course is what he told me. Amen.
A brainwashing course for masters students....well received by those already brainwashed. Nice.
And you went out of your way to discuss 2-3 people on a climate blog that has maybe a dozen followers and is still stuck in the September open thread - I have no doubt you imagined you impressed him...
Did you mention the climate change you saw first hand? You know, the frostbite and the spider...
A brainwashing course for masters students….well received by those already brainwashed. Nice.
And you went out of your way to discuss 2-3 people on a climate blog that has maybe a dozen followers and is still stuck in the September open thread – I have no doubt you imagined you impressed him…
Did you mention the climate change you saw first hand? You know, the frostbite and the spider…
A brainwashing course for masters students….well received by those already brainwashed.
Which is clearly a reasonable opinion because it is informed by having studied the material presented and made performed kind of defensible evidence-based analysis...
...oh, wait, silly me! It's a set of assumptions made without any contact with the relevant evidence and without even attempting to justify the argument which is precisely what people who try to brainwash other people do.
Funny how Betula, Olaus et al. keep arguing how dead Deltoid is yet they continually pop up in here. Clearly they cannot help it. Their comments are as inane as always.
As far as brainwashing goes, that's a laugh, coming from deluded people who suffer from serious Dunning-Kruger-type delusions and whose views run counter to the overwhelming empirical evidence as well as informed scientific opinion. I actually invited a person who I would call a climate change sceptic (being kind) but he did not respond. Given there are so few of these sceptics who are qualified, its small wonder that they are hard to find.
One of ours, Nigel Farage perhaps. Oh wait, the article expresses an opinion it could be a schoolboy, but then it could still be Nigel Farage. Was it seen with a pint in its hand?
Well the Curry/Lewis paper seemed to suggest a most likely TCR value of 1.3, which is about 28% below the mean of the models used by IPCC.
This looks quite a bit lower to me.
Lenoil
So is the professor quoted accurately or not?
And in view of the good news from Curry/Lewis and many others, do you think the poor pussies will survive a little longer?
I have said it before and I will repeat it: deniers are liars and obfuscators. Note how their clarion cry now is "Pause!, pause!" when just a few years ago it was "There is no global warming! There is no global warming". That was followed by "It's due to the sun! It's due to the sun!". Now we are at a pause. Everything these idiots say is dishonest. They move their goalposts at will. Anything to deny. They are a vile lot.
Fellas, my extinct tells me that the latest news on the instinct snail could be of interest. :-)
What's the house-maggotologist has to say on the matter? Anything he has experienced first hand?
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2014/10/20/the-snail-paper.html
Prof. Hardly - "I have said it before and I will repeat it"
You? Repeat yourself? Maybe you should take a "hiatus"....
Redshift
HTFWIK after all that is between Asten and Lloyd and we all know that Lloyd has form for misrepresentation. Do you know any better?
Whatever, it has been said of the Curry and Lewis paper:
Source:
Climate response estimates from Lewis & Curry
where much useful thinking crops up in comments where Nic Lewis steps in and gets his toes trod on by amongst others Robert Way (Cowtan & Way 2013 - linked in article) and DeepClimate (The Auditor's nemesis).
The Scientific American article is fun too:
Earth Will Cross the Climate Danger Threshold by 2036, where Hokey Schtik pokes pokes it s nose in and gets hit by a puck or three.
Also much fun at And Then There is Physics, HotWhopper
Warming pause or hiatus, better tell that to mother nature she ain't listening:
10 Warmest Years on Record Globally.
The only people pushing this pause/hiatus meme, without full context, are engaged in malfeasance, for money or kudos.
Oily prat, so the Sticky Bishop extends his slimy trail. Surprise, surprise. And your slick lengthens.
S**t, why do I bother answering such s***e?
And here the deniers indicate they don't know how a mean estimate is gathered.
Is *anyone* surprised?
But not happy with that, Gary here claims that the model averages are LOWER THAN THE MODEL AVERAGES!!!
Obviously high estimates don't exist to the denidiots.
I noticed earlier that Nic Lewis has made the Denier List, but was up against a link limit, so there it is.
You should note that Lewis has written for the GWPF,
upon the 'roaches of which the following article sheds light:
Lord Lawson climate sceptic thinktank's report rebuked by scientists
Nuff said.
Nuff not said for I find Curry has an Op-Ed in the WSJ:
Sorry, the rest is beyond another Murdoch paywall (fkuc him).
However David Appell has taken his scalpel to it., seeing as it is at Curry's blog in full.
Every time Redshi*t steps off the pavement he treads in it. Careful Red you keep stepping on these cloaks placed over pits of filth.
Shorter Olaus:
"Look! Squirrels!"
Marco, you mean "Look! Extinct snai!l"? ;-)
It suggested a range at 95% confidence (for both TCR and ECS), and for policy purposes we need to deal with the implications of those two ranges. The "most likely value" of either measure is almost entirely irrelevant for any policy that genuinely and rationally attempt to manage risks of highly undesirable outcomes, as such policies are almost entirely dominated by how bad the range suggests it might be.
Given that the top end of the Lewis and Curry ranges for ECS and TCR are pretty much right in the middle of the set of top ends of a whole bunch of existing studies, their results essentially change nothing and challenge nothing that affects rational policy decisions.
Now, if you want to argue that their results affect irrational policy decisions based on cherrypicking some other property of their results such as "most likely value of TCR", be my guest...
(All of this has been explained before...and all of this will need to be explained again.)
The Lewis & Curry best estimate is demonstrably an under-estimate. It can be ignored.
Fringe players advocating policy* in the right wing media (eg Curry's op-ed in the WSJ) can and should also be ignored.
* Fuckwits like Rednoise probably don't know that Curry is infamous for accusing other scientists of advocacy and then flagrantly advocating herself, as in the WSJ.
It ought to embarrass her, but she's apparently too far gone these days.
That seems rather likely, BBD, but only if you scientifically assess it in the light of the entire field. The denialists that are touting it aren't ever going to do that. Practically none of them could even if they wanted to, which they don't.
Given that, it's really useful to point out that even if we simply accept it at face value it does not support reducing the urgency or importance of policy tackling the problem of humans causing climate change.
In other words, touting it is more Sunspot-worthy clown-trolling: the reference they cite rebuts their own argument like a clown slapping a pie onto his own face.
(And then we will see the usual panoply of denialist tactics that are deployed when their clown-trolling is pointed out...)
No, Olaus, I meant "squirrels". I notice you still have not apologized for misrepresenting the number of casualties due to natural catastrophes. Your attempt to change the conversation is duly noted.
This is the most active non-blog I know of. :) Anyone know what Tim Lambert is up to these days?
All together now:
It's always projection.
Marion, Tim's no longer at UNSW - but has become part of the axis of evil (don't google him - hint hint).
Dunno Marion, haven’t seen chek around for awhile either.
# 16 Lotharsson
Yes, of course you are right. It's just a knee-jerk reaction I've developed every time some prat starts braying about L&C or any of those so-called "observational" estimates that inevitably produce lowball estimates for TCR and ECS.
Nor has the truth of what you say stopped Curry from donning the clownshoes...
# 21 I was wondering about chek too. Hope he's okay.
Betula,
At least you got my title correct. What's yours? Oh yes - dipstick tree pruner. .
Olaus is still pontificating about the Diptera. Glad he is also able to make fun of his own stupidity.
Just thought I'd let the deniers here know that I am winding up my course on science and advocacy for Masters students. It has been very well received - I had a guest over from the UK last week and he gave a great lecture on the climate denialati. I told him about some of the idiots I encounter on Deltoid - and how none of them have been anywhere near an environmental science or climate science course. Par for the course is what he told me. Amen.
A brainwashing course for masters students....well received by those already brainwashed. Nice.
And you went out of your way to discuss 2-3 people on a climate blog that has maybe a dozen followers and is still stuck in the September open thread - I have no doubt you imagined you impressed him...
Did you mention the climate change you saw first hand? You know, the frostbite and the spider...
Betty
Say something interesting and new, or go away.
A brainwashing course for masters students….well received by those already brainwashed. Nice.
And you went out of your way to discuss 2-3 people on a climate blog that has maybe a dozen followers and is still stuck in the September open thread – I have no doubt you imagined you impressed him…
Did you mention the climate change you saw first hand? You know, the frostbite and the spider…
Which is clearly a reasonable opinion because it is informed by having studied the material presented and made performed kind of defensible evidence-based analysis...
...oh, wait, silly me! It's a set of assumptions made without any contact with the relevant evidence and without even attempting to justify the argument which is precisely what people who try to brainwash other people do.
Once more with feeling: it's always projection.
Funny how Betula, Olaus et al. keep arguing how dead Deltoid is yet they continually pop up in here. Clearly they cannot help it. Their comments are as inane as always.
As far as brainwashing goes, that's a laugh, coming from deluded people who suffer from serious Dunning-Kruger-type delusions and whose views run counter to the overwhelming empirical evidence as well as informed scientific opinion. I actually invited a person who I would call a climate change sceptic (being kind) but he did not respond. Given there are so few of these sceptics who are qualified, its small wonder that they are hard to find.
Could this be one of ours?
:-)
One of ours, Nigel Farage perhaps. Oh wait, the article expresses an opinion it could be a schoolboy, but then it could still be Nigel Farage. Was it seen with a pint in its hand?
Dressing as a clown would only be fun in the olden days, when I knew how to get my hands on that Lysurgic acid stuff.