Climate sensitivity

Your links were activist blogs hence propaganda so what did you expect. Your favourite one Skeptical Science is run by a cartoonist and you've used it many times here already . Post some actual science for discussion and you might get taken more seriously . Do you know the difference ... or more importantly still do you even want to ?

 

Why should any of the climate scientists waste their time? The claims of denialists usually end with them shooting themselves in the foot by misrepresenting facts and even outright lies.

Take the claim "1000+ papers peer reviewed papers supporting skeptic arguments against ACC/AGW alarm" It is carefully worded in what it does NOT say - that all these papers actually state that AGW is not happening. It gives the impression that is what the papers do but it is like advertising "a fast food meal - it might be satisfying in some degree but lacking in everything that is important.

Same with the claim about the "truth" about Skeptical Science which boils down to one persons obvious sour grapes blog

 

"Activist blogs" - gee what are those?

Considering there is precious little science supporting the denialist view and an awful lot of ignorant and biased blogs supporting denialism I would not throw stones if I were a denialist

- - - Updated - - -

That is rich considering the inclusion of papers published by "energy and environment" in the so called "Peer reviewed papers"

 

OK then . Given the entire burden of proof is on your defence of a scientifically unsustainable hypothesis I set you a challenge.

Link a single paper that provides empirical proof (hint that means not climate models) that human activity is responsible for the current warming phase. I'm not looking for lame appeals to authority or shonky opinion poll rehashes here . Just show me the hard science ?

 

Pretty broad brush you have handed me so do you want to narrow that a bit to aspects like signature of fossil fuels on CO2, actual measured rise of Co2, the effects of CO2 on temperature etc

And sorry but I am not playing unless we do it paper for paper. I provide you with proof of one aspect of this, you rebut it by providing opposing scientific papers

Let us start with

Co2 levels are rising

Here is a whole slew of them

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=anthropgenic+co2+levels+&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_vis=1

I am not going to go through them all because I have been played like this before - a DEMAND I provide proof for some straw man or other and then when I spend hours gathering said proof the rebuttal is along the lines of "you is a poopy head"

I would enjoy an honest debate and that means no straw men and no out of hand dismissals

 

No thats not what I asked you for

If the evidence of our culpability is supposed to be overwhelming . I want just ONE paper illustrating empirically that is indeed the case and we can check if the sums add up not a lame google scholar search of worthless climate modelled guesswork. Without such empirical evidence there can be no proof of hypothesis can there ?

Proceed ....

 

The fear and trembling of the denialists at actually reading anything off the Skeptical Science site on the absurd positions of Lindzen is palpable from their responses. So I decided to get some substance beyond the name calling by taking right off the top the first link from the site. Lindzen is taken down from top to bottom with all the included authoritative scientific links you could possibly hope for. You kind of end up wondering how a fellow with his kind of credentials could make so many rookie mistakes. Who wants to bet whether our gaggle of denialists will actually check the link and dispute any of its findings specifically rather than go back to their usual general ad hominems. I've got my bet down. LOL

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/02/richard-lindzens-hol-testimony/

 

Your link assumes a postive feedback with no evidence.

Postive feedbacks are pure supposition not supported in nature and being disproven by the earths actual temperature response.

 

There is nothing wrong with EE it published one of the most groundbreaking papers of the last decade. The on paper more responsible for dismantling your religion than any other.

Well that is a little much. It was the response of the faithful in defending Mann that dismantled your religion but it was the paper that set it in motion. Dr. Mann and his massive ego is more responsible for the death of AGW than any other single person.

 

As ever. Yet another alarmist propaganda blog

http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/07/truth-about-realclimateorg.html

 

CO2 added by humans causes warming which draws moisture from the ocean which is a greenhouse gas, which traps more heat. That's called a positive feedback which is absolutely elementary in discussing climate warming. Where you been?

 

With you I win. Windigo at least made a pathetic little stab at it.

 

Yuh think !

 

The existence of such feedbacks is so poorly understood they are not sure if their net effect is even positive or negative, so theres nothing 'elementary' whatsoever about our current understanding of them.

 

And that is why I did not waste too much of my time - you are ready to reject any and all evidence without consideration while building straw men. The atmosphere is complex so there are multiple papers dealing with each aspect - you have to take them as a whole

This is why there has been meta analysis of the information - that meta-analysis is called the IPCC report


But I don't expect you to accept that

- - - Updated - - -

Prove it -

Prove that they are "poorly understood"

 

They won't because they never do. They never read the links posted or the research papers

 

Tell me - what process does EE use to "peer review" the papers???

To be honest it could publish a seminal paper on warp drive but that still does not make it a journal equivalent to "nature"

 

A simple 'no I cant find even one' would have sufficed.

There never has been any empirical evdence whatsoever within any published literature to date that human activity is responsible for the current warming. Its all entirely based on climate modelled speculation

Im saying those feedbacks are poorly understood and you are the one defending the hypothesis . Please prove me wrong

For your immediate dismissal here are the other major factors that are also poorly understood

http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c0120a5c9415b970b-pi

So much for all that 'settled science' then

 

We are not interested in you gish-gallop of non-peer-reviewed links regarding Dr. Lindzen or your dishonest ad hominems. Now,

Please the peer-reviewed criticism of Dr. Lindzen that he has not rebutted.

 

I have no idea what a "denialist" is.

No, it is worded to actual skeptic arguments not your strawman. Most skeptics support the possible contribution of man to climate change in some way (even insignificant). Arguing against alarmists conclusions is what skeptics do all the time so they consider science of this nature very important.

Which statement is factually inaccurate or not sourced?

 

Skeptical Science, RealClimate, Deep Climate ect...

I have no idea who a "denialist' is. So why would their be science supporting your strawman argument?

It is very important you learn to read the "Rebuttals to Criticisms" section,

Criticism: Most of the papers come from Energy & Environment.
Rebuttal: The scholarly peer-reviewed journal Energy & Environment only represents 10% of the list. There are still over 1000 papers from over 300 other journals on the list.

Also,

Energy & Environment is a peer-reviewed interdisciplinary scholarly journal (ISSN: 0958-305X)
- The IPCC cites Energy & Environment 22 times
- Indexed in Compendex, EBSCO, Environment Abstracts, Google Scholar, JournalSeek, Scopus and Thompson Reuters (ISI)
- Found at hundreds of libraries and universities worldwide in print and electronic form. These include; Cornell University, Dartmouth College, Library of Congress, McGill University, Monash University, National Library of Australia, Stanford University, The British Library, University of British Columbia, University of Cambridge, University of Oxford, University of Queensland and MIT.
- Thompson Reuters (ISI) Social Sciences Citation Index lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- EBSCO lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal (PDF)
- Scopus lists Energy & Environment as a peer-reviewed scholarly journal
- Elsevier lists Energy & Environment as a scholarly peer-reviewed journal on their internal master list. (Source: Email Correspondence)
- "E&E, by the way, is peer reviewed" - Tom Wigley, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS)
- "I have published a few papers in E&E. All were peer-reviewed as usual. I have reviewed a few more for the journal." - Richard Tol Ph.D. Professor of the Economics of Climate Change, Vrije Universiteit, Netherlands
- "All Multi-Sciences primary journals are fully refereed" - Multi-Science Publishing
- "Regular issues include submitted and invited papers that are rigorously peer reviewed" - E&E Mission Statement

Name the counted paper on the list that was not peer-reviewed.

 

Thank you for providing all these skeptic papers,

Climate Science: Is it currently designed to answer questions?

The Stern review: a dual critique

Taking greenhouse warming seriously

Modeling climatic effects of anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions: unknowns and uncertainties

Environmental effects of increased atmospheric carbon dioxide

 

The standard scholarly peer-review process.

1. The editor with assistance from the editorial board selects relevant, credentialed reviewers for a paper
2. The selected reviewers, review the paper and write a critique,
3. Based on the reviews: (A) the paper may pass the first time without revision (unlikely), (B) the paper's author(s) may be asked to make revisions and a second round of review is done, or (C) the paper is rejected.
4. If the paper passes peer-review, it is published as a peer-reviewed paper in E&E.

 

This is why skeptics wrote the 2013 NIPCC Report,

Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science (NIPCC) (993 pgs)

 

I usually come into these mid conversation but this is directly to this post's topic.

Except maybe so,

The short-term influence of various concentrations of atmospheric carbon dioxide on the temperature profile in the boundary layer
(Pure and Applied Geophysics, Volume 113, Issue 1, pp 331-353, 1975)
- Wilford G. Zdunkowski, Jan Paegle, Falko K. Fye

+0.5 C

Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature
(Journal of Applied Meteorology, Volume 18, Issue 6, pp. 822-825, June 1979)
- Reginald E. Newell, Thomas G. Dopplick

* Reply to Robert G. Watts' "Discussion of 'Questions Concerning the Possible Influence of Anthropogenic CO2 on Atmospheric Temperature'"
(Journal of Applied Meteorology, Volume 20, Issue 1, pp. 114–117, January 1981)
- Reginald E. Newell, Thomas G. Dopplick

+0.3 C

CO2-induced global warming: a skeptic's view of potential climate change (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 10, Number 1, pp. 69–82, April 1998 )
- Sherwood B. Idso

+0.4 C

Revised 21st century temperature projections (PDF)
(Climate Research, Volume 23, Number 1, pp. 1–9, December 2002)
- Patrick J. Michaels, Paul C. Knappenberger, Oliver W. Frauenfeld, Robert E. Davis

+1.9 C

Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 112, Issue D24, November 2007)
- Stephen E. Schwartz

* Reply to comments by G. Foster et al., R. Knutti et al., and N. Scafetta on "Heat capacity, time constant, and sensitivity of Earth's climate system" (PDF)
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 113, Issue D15, August 2008 )
- Stephen E. Schwartz

+1.9 C

Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 35, Issue 4, February 2008 )
- Petr Chylek, Ulrike Lohmann

* Reply to comment by Andrey Ganopolski and Thomas Schneider von Deimling on “Aerosol radiative forcing and climate sensitivity deduced from the Last Glacial Maximum to Holocene transition” (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 35, Issue 23, December 2008 )
- Petr Chylek, Ulrike Lohmann

+1.3-2.3 C

Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth (PDF)
(Energy & Environment, Volume 20, Numbers 1-2, pp. 177-189, January 2009)
- David H. Douglass, John R. Christy

+1.1 C

On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications (PDF)
(Asia-Pacific Journal of Atmospheric Sciences, Volume 47, Number 4, pp. 377-390, August 2011)
- Richard S. Lindzen, Yong-Sang Choi

+0.7 C

Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum (PDF)
(Science, Volume 334, Number 6061, pp. 1385-1388, November 2011)
- Andreas Schmittner et al.

+1.7-2.6 C

Probabilistic Estimates of Transient Climate Sensitivity Subject to Uncertainty in Forcing and Natural Variability (PDF)
(Journal of Climate, Volume 24, Issue 21, pp. 5521-5537, Novmeber 2011)
- Lauren E. Padilla, Geoffrey K. Vallis, Clarence W. Rowley

+1.6 C

Improved constraints on 21st-century warming derived using 160 years of temperature observations (PDF)
(Geophysical Research Letters, Volume 39, Number 1, January 2012)
- N. P. Gillett et al.

+1.3-1.8 C

Causes of the Global Warming Observed since the 19th Century
(Atmospheric and Climate Sciences, Volume 2, Number 4, pp. 401-415, October 2012)
- Michael J. Ring, Daniela Lindner, Emily F. Cross, Michael E. Schlesinger

+1.5-2.0 C

Bayesian estimation of climate sensitivity based on a simple climate model fitted to observations of hemispheric temperatures and global ocean heat content (PDF)
(Environmetrics, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp. 253–271, May 2012)
- Magne Aldrin et. al.

+1.9 C

An objective Bayesian, improved approach for applying optimal fingerprint techniques to estimate climate sensitivity
(Journal of Climate, 2013)
- Nicholas Lewis

+1.6 C

Observational estimate of climate sensitivity from changes in the rate of ocean heat uptake and comparison to CMIP5 models
(Climate Dynamics, April 2013)
- Troy Masters

+1.98 C

A fractal climate response function can simulate global average temperature trends of the modern era and the past millennium
(Climate Dynamics, Volume 40, Issue 11-12,pp. 2651-2670, June 2013)
- J. H. van Hateren

+1.7-2.3 C

* A lower and more constrained estimate of climate sensitivity using updated observations and detailed radiative forcing time series
(Earth System Dynamics, 2013)
- R. B. Skeie et al.

+1.8C