oh dear angech2014 | December 18, 2014 at 10:35 pm | R. Gates | December 18, 2014 helps you Michael “I can only accept that theory as provisionally true until such time as enough new data would cause me to abandon or alter that stance. Even more so, rather than focus on data that supports your “truth”, you should focus on finding the exceptions or the data that does not.” Increased precipitation is expected with rising temps. Decreasing snow is expected with rising temps. angech December 22, 2014 Rob Honeycutt December 21, 2014 ” The reliability of tree rings as temperature indicators is clearly in question” “Can you please provide us the published research that makes such a claim? Or is this something you’re just making up?” Is this good enough Rob? Greg Laden December 21, 2014 “The vast, vast majority of tree ring data can not be used to reconstruct temperature. Most of it simply does not carry that signal. It wasn’t collected to look at temperature, it has other uses, etc. Also, many tree ring sequences look at climate related data other than temperature, and carry virtually no temperature signal as well” Clearly not made up angech December 22, 2014 Greg “The vast, vast majority of tree ring data can not be used to reconstruct temperature. Most of it simply does not carry that signal. I think you mean that the carried data is too hard to dissect out from the other conflating values in most trees. “There is evidence for a climate-response threshold between approximately 60–80 vertical m below treeline, above which trees have shown a positive growth-response to temperature and below which they do not ” So fortunately a small group of tree rings in an extremely specific location behaved in accordance with other proxies over an extremely specific time interval and though they have not shown this behavior since, in fact behaving as the vast, vast majority of trees have done over time, we can use them as a proxy for temperature. OK, It is Christmas . And they are bristle-cones. ” Between the science and a hard place Sunday, September 19, 2010 Probably the most famous “lukewarmer” is Lucia Liljegren, a mechanical engineer (surprise!) whose blog, The Blackboard, can be found on the blogroll here. The Blackboard entertains many lukewarmers, along with a bunch of deniers and a smattering of pro-consensus folks, including myself”. ?? Stewie Griffen at the idiot tracker. Interesting post on Climate Sensitivity in the past. From the link by Eli he must like you after all. Eli Rabett #134034) The central estimate by itself is of minor interest for policy. “Better estimates for climate sensitivity are not necessarily all that relevant”. ATTP. And here I was being told Climate Sensitivity was an emergent property of models. Lucia “Of course the central estimate is important. Ideally the central estimate should be unbiased based on information we have, we should know what it is ” This information is already known. Mosher said anyone can calculate the Climate sensitivity at the moment based on the data we have, but the different data streams available give a range of choices.He said if the pause continues Climate Sensitivity intrinsically becomes lower. There are different ways of estimating it. The generally accepted radiative forcing (RF) is 3.7 W/M2. One simply needs linear changes in global surface temperature change (?Ts) which can be estimated or measured in many ways. -Consensus estimates by committee 1979 Only two sets of models were available! 2 degrees and 4 degrees! – IPCC models which ignore observed climate change and use the known “feedbacks” simulated in general circulation models to calculate grossly inflated temperatures. -Calculations of CO2 sensitivity from observational data eg industrial-age data a value of the sensitivity to CO2 doubling of approximately 3 °C giving a value of ? of 0.8 K/(W/m2) since 1750 Rahmstorf (2008 or Lewis and Curry (2014) equilibrium climate sensitivity was 1.64 °C, based on the 1750-2011 time series – Other experimental estimates include Idso (1998) ] calculated a ? of 0.1 °C/(Wm?2) resulting in a climate sensitivity of only 0.4 °C for a doubling of the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. but his work is ignored as he only used 8 different methods to get this average. The same question in a different way Lucia. Given the emergent CS range on the climate models makes them so wrong on the observed temperatures can the “true climate sensitivity for each model be derived by putting in the temperature difference and backworking the emerged CS to give the one that was needd for that model to give the lower observed temperature. Finally the problem is that there is no one true climate sensitivity possible due to forcing changes like contributions due to solar activity, aerosols, ozone, and numerous other influences. But an estimate can be made by using simple measures of change in temp over time with the radiative forcing of increasing CO2. Note this means that when we have a pause in global temperature rise this means the Climate sensitivity for that period is actually zero by definition, [sorry Lucia]. If the temperature fell by definition the Climate sensitivity would be negative. While this is in essence a nonsense result as the fact is this would be due in the short run purely to natural variation the implication of a decade or 3 decades of paused or dropping temperature without other cause would alarm most scientists. It would say that the negative feedbacks are much greater than anticipated. It would say that the modellers have been very crass in their modelling for the consensus and it may be that a new much lower CS would be emergent, if not as the models failure shows, already emerged. angech2014 | January 7, 2015 at 3:21 am | Reply the paper by Lewandowsky, Gignac, and Oberauer that was published in PLOS ONE in 2013, entitled The Role of Conspiracist Ideation and Worldviews in Predicting Rejection of Science Can be referenced from a link at Bishop Hill’s. It contains a large section on moderation polices which Judith and others would find interesting, including No ad hominem attacks. Attacking other users or anyone holding a different opinion to you is common in debates but gets us no closer to understanding the science. For example, comments containing the words ‘religion’ and ‘conspiracy’ tend to get deleted. Comments using labels like ‘alarmist’ and ‘denier’ are usually skating on thin ice. One wonders how a paper on Conspiracist Ideation could ever be discussed when the comments containing the word ‘conspiracy’ tend to get deleted Another beauty is ” The public has a right to be informed about the risks societies are facing, from issues such as climate change or the introduction of GM foods to often-fatal diseases that are preventable by childhood vaccinations. Sadly, the public is currently prevented from exercising that right,” Yet ” Science is debate, but that debate takes place in the scientific literature and at scientific conferences. In the history of science, we are not aware of a case in which a serious scientific issue was adjudicated by tabloid journalists or their modern-day equivalents such as blog commenters.” In other words the public has a right to know but no right to debate issues I love Lewindowsky. Could you discuss these attitudes Judith?