Monckton Responds to Abraham: Part 7: Climate Sensitivity Reports

[7271950]

Abrahams didn't read what was written on the slide nor did he listen to what Monckton was actually saying. "Having ears, they hear not. Having eyes, they see not" People really do hear what they want to hear and they see what they want to see.

[robhoneycutt]

I've got more papers than you do...

Forest 2002 - 1.4C to 7.7C

Knutti 2005 - 1.5C to 6.5C

Hegerl 2006 - 1.5C to 6.2C

Annan 2006 - 2.5C to 3.5C

Royer 2007 - 2.8C

Lorius 1990 3C to 4C

Hoffert 1992 - 1.4C to 3.2C

Chylek 2007 - 1.3C to 2.3C

[shiftyd100]

@robhoneycutt All these papers give different results. Granted some are close but Chylek doesn't seem to agree with Forests maximum rise and I don't think a difference of 5.4C is nit picking. If all the important factors driving climate are known and can be modelled then why such a large range of predictions?

[robhoneycutt]

@shiftyd100 Each of these papers is applying a method for estimating climate sensitivity to CO2. You can also look at climate models and how they are playing out to estimate sensitivity. If you go back to Mann's 1988 models they are tracking a little high but they are based on, I think it is, 4.5C. Most people seem to think it's around 3C for best fit.

[robhoneycutt]

@robhoneycutt Just to clarify what I was trying to say there... The way science approaches a question like this is to take many different approaches to answer the question. It's a highly complex issue and the results vary. But what happens is science slowly homes in on the right answer. No one scientist has the magic bullet. It's each scientist taking their best aim. Through continual refinements science gets a clearer and clearer understanding of the right answer.

[shiftyd100]

@robhoneycutt Fair enough but surely this process of refinement will produce a large number of papers that calculate climate sensitivity incorrectly or have such a large margin of error as to be practically useless. At least early on. I only bring this up because it seems problematic to argue by number of supporting papers. A complex problem needs a lot of papers and experimentation but they won't all be correct in result or method.

[robhoneycutt]

@shiftyd100 Yes. There is a huge amount of research going on in this area in particular. But even if you look at the numbers I listed you can home in on an area where all the papers seem to agree. 2C to 3C. I would expect further refinements in the come year or two. Stay tuned.

[robhoneycutt]

"We" say? So now you're a scientist? Does the level of your self delusion know no bounds?

[shiftyd100]

@robhoneycutt O.k gotta give you this one. He calls himself a layman in the next vid to argue Abraham shouldn't have picked on him. He's a politician and he can be manipulative but this doesn't really get to the core of his argument. It's more a character flaw and doesn't really prove anything.