Climate sensitivity

No, YOU have to be willing to do a very simple action -- use google. You made the claim, battle, it's up to YOU to back it up, or be considered a pompous pile of prevarication. Which I suspect is true, but I'm willing to be proven wrong. If you can. Which I doubt.

Uh, read which papers again?

Oh, please, don't waste one second of your precious time trying to actually win any debate around here with actual evidence. We just loves denyin' losers!

 

They did? Here are a few. Please point out the climate model that has no natural variability. Or, you can just admit that you don't have the foggiest clue what you're talking about.

 

but here you are claiming to know the truth and when challenged to present it you come back with a "nah I can't be bothered" attitude ...don't let the doorknob hit you on the way out...

 

Wait a minute! After 6 years of "IPCC is corrupt and incompetent and they're a political organization" now the deniers are using them as the gold standard? Just to be clear: Are you now accepting their report, AR5, as an honest evaluation of the climate?

 

You guys aren't even consistent and ignore the IPCC which is the official political organization promoting CAGW. It points out that you guys can't even keep up with current events.

 

You didn't answer my question: Are you now accepting their report, AR5, as an honest evaluation of the climate?

 

With all that knowledge, I'm surprised you bother to post here, where you have no peers.

Maybe you'd like to discuss this with someone who's more in your league, because this what Hansen said about the non existent hiatus in 2012:

Call it whatever you like, but Glowbull warming isn't happening as fast as was predicted by the majority of climate scientists, or their GCMs.

 

Try this lot for size and tell me how many of the models were accurate?

 

Cherry picking!!

I note the combined datasets are not shown

 

Thank you.

1. I thought you didn't trust Hansen. When did he become a credible source for you?
2. Hansen was talking about five years, not fifteen. And he said what had happened over the previous five years was primarily natural variability. Which, if you check the thread is exactly what I've been saying.

Rather brilliant of you to quote someone who agrees with me, to prove that I'm wrong.

 

LOL, he just pointed out Hansen is not a credible source.

 

How many of the models use the correct RCP4.5 emissions scenario?

ZERO.

When you cherry-pick an emissions scenario that is higher than we've actually experienced, you get temperatures that are higher than we've actually experience. Which is why you should never trust non-peer-reviewed crap you get on denier blogs.

 

Because if it is not Peer Reviewed by warming alarmists, it is not Peer Reviewed.

 

Peer-review is a low bar. Even Anthony Watts got over it (once). Dr. Roy, whose graph you posted, gets over that low bar frequently. And yet this graph by Dr. Roy has never even gotten over that low bar of peer-review. How crappy does a graph have to be that Dr. Roy won't even allow his peers to review it?

Pretty crappy, I'd say.

 

They are the gold standard to show the deception of this subject YES.

Oh, by the way, they are a political organization, they pointedly say so themselves…

No, the very point that YOU along with many other faithful continue to return to the AR4 report rather than using the newer AR5 report is clear demonstration that you would rather deceive this issue. As so many are proclaiming the previous graphs support the 95% certainty (if you had any math capability, you would know that this certainty is actually mathematically wrong) of the IPCC as they clearly show that they are well above the actual observations shown in the AR5 report (which they admit) so again the IPCC re-evaluate their 95% certainly predations because they admit they overstated the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. BUT that does not support your faith, so you in true form of this subject you ignore that very point and return to the report that does...

 

Yes, cherry picking from the IPCC AR5 report.

 

You better read the actual report instead of repeating misinformation pseudo-scientists

Evaluation of Climate Models
3 possible sources of error, 1 of which may be the effects of co2!

Now what were you stating about reading the report?

 

Instead of clinging to one aspect of this issue and spreading it across the entire forum (which again is pseudo-science at its best) I believe the answer is in another thread.

The fact that you have posted an article on evaluation of climate models and which is NOT the AR5 report but justification of use of the models in the AR5 report one would have to ask what you consider is the evidence of what is contained in the AR5 report???

Since we are crossing over threads, what happened to when the leaked draft of the AR5 report showed the fact the AR4 report got their predictions wrong??? I know you admitted the fact your rebuttal of the thread was wrong until NOW. Is that because now the dust has settled you believe people have forgotten??? One thing I will give the AR5 report credit for is, that they did not OMIT that fact as many of us suspected they would. They simply admitted it and adjusted their predictions which NOW you are pretending was the original then moved on.

By the way, I note that while you say 'man IS causing climate change' and scientist are saying something different, suddenly when they put vague terms in there comment it no longer means IS but MAY... what helps the faithful is consistency, what hurts the faithful is inconsistency, So far the latter is apparent.

 

“Arctic temperature anomalies in the 1930s were apparently as large as those in the 1990s and 2000s. There is still considerable discussion of the ultimate causes of the warm temperature anomalies that occurred in the Arctic in the 1920s and 1930s.” - IPCC AR5 Chapter 10

 

Glad you agree that this is a poor representation of the true story - and the link is to woodfortress

 

I think you should ask Mannie about that graph. As you are trying to refute the graph, this graph is demonstration to that of the AR5 report and stated clearly the overestimation of the 95% certainty predictions... Again ignoring the fact that this graph shows similar is pointing to the deceptive nature of this debate…

 

Proof??

 

http://tamino.wordpress.com/2014/01/21/one-of-the-problems-with-judith-curry/
'nuff said

- - - Updated - - -

Oh! the graph IS accurate but it is also cherry picked because it does not contain all four data sets

 

Proof of what??? I answered the comment in another thread??? Maybe you want proof that in a previous thread the poster YOU are trying to defend did exactly what I stated??? Perhaps you want to question the validity of the fact the leaked AR5 draft clearly showed the IPCC got it wrong in the previous predictions of climate???

I think, you should really keep your questions to things addressed to YOU as Mannie is far better, more credible and well aware of past events than you appear to be...

 

So NOW the graph is accurate but cherry picks its data... Mmm those that would question this theory have been saying for some time. BUT in case you did not know, even though the poster is trying to demonstrate that ALL the models of the AR4 report got it wrong by creating such a graph, the graph itself shows the same as the AR5 report, if this is cherry picking As you so clearly state, then the IPCC are also cherry picking according to YOU. That would stand to say that your great authority of the IPCC is wrong by YOUR account. Thus the credibility of either the IPCC or yourself is in question here.

This issue has been discussed before, so talk to your supporter who attempted this very aspect of trying to discredit the fact the IPCC got it WRONG. Mannie, can point you in the right direction as I could not be bothered recounting the very same debate with YOU.

So tell us all, IS cherry picking by the IPCC right???