Consensus? What Consensus? You’d think they’d be able to agree on this most important number. They did for AR4.
![nobest-estimate-sensitivity[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/nobest-estimate-sensitivity1.jpg?quality=83)
That footnote is on page 11 – h/t to Barry Woods. Directly above it is the statement on climate sensitivity
Yet, they are 95% certain.
Read it here: Summary for Policymakers (PDF)
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I love your site and how you challenge
The climate change “consensus” crowd
I was diagnosed with cancer and have also now become disillusioned with
Conventional chemotherapy..here too
We have oncologists all subscribing to
Traditional dogma that chemotherapy
Is the preferred treatment for cancer
But I am a skeptic..I did an Internet search and found that chelation therapy
With vitamins could actually cure cancer: that’s something that modern so called medicine doesn’t want you to know
“Peer reviewed scientific literature” is really nothing but a conspiracy to protect those in power…keep up the good posts!
Presumably we can expect renewed attempts by the IPCC to try and get full UN syle immunity from prosecution for themselves as their edifice continues to crumble in the face of nature not doing what they project/predict. Reality certainly sucks for them ; )
@Rich. Thanks. I guess I owe you.
CRS, DrPH says:
September 27, 2013 at 7:22 pm
…I just had a thought…as Anthony has shown, temperature readings are likely over-estimated due to urban heat island (UHI) effects, and poorly sited weather stations (near airport runways, air conditioning vents, cinderblock building etc.)
http://surfacestations.org/
…so, isn’t it likely that the pause in warming is actually a decline? To paraphrase Dr. Trenberth…our observing system is inadequate (to measure the decline).
I think the divergence between land based data sets like GISS and satellites is due to the continuing problem of UHI, etc. that is one reason that satellite data is the only reasonable data. Naturally, the IPCC used only the surface data because, without this contamination, there would be no warming at all..
The lack of consensus on equilibrium climate sensitivity reflects an improved understanding??? Is that the same as saying “we agree we don’t have a clue what is happening”?
Dear Pippen Kool,
If everyone here at WUWT was 15 years behind the times (as you claim), then none of us would be aware of the 15 years long hiatus in warming.
However, ALL of us are aware of the flat-lined temps, so I’d say we’re all bang up to date knowledge-wise.
Are you aware of the rather inconvenient (for alarmists) lack of warming? Because if you’re not, then you really are 15 years behind the times.
I have extremely high confidence they don’t know what they’re talking about.
Last night I saw upon the stair
Some global warming that wasn’t there
It wasn’t there again today
Oh, how I wish it’d go away