Bishop Hill writes:
Over at Climate Audit, Nic Lewis has outlined the latest developments in the saga of the Marvel et al paper, which claimed to have demonstrated that climate sensitivity is low, but appeared to have a whole series of problems, not least of which that it had got its forcing data mucked up, leaving out land-use changes entirely.
In a typically erm…robust article at RealClimate, Gavin Schmidt ignored all the evidence Lewis had presented showing that land-use change had been overlooked, and said that Lewis’s critique was made…without evidence. However, it now seems that he has decided that this position is not tenable, at the journal at least,and a correction has been issued admitting that land-use was indeed missing.
The historical instantaneous radiative forcing time series was also updated to reflect land use change, which was inadvertently excluded from the forcing originally calculated from ref. 22.
Gavin has thanked Nic Lewis for pointing out the error. Unfortunately, he has chosen to ignore four other problems that Lewis has has pointed out.
But hey, one out of five ain’t bad.
Here’s the list of problems:
Lewis enumerates 6 supposedly fundamental problems in the paper. To paraphrase, they are as follows:
- MEA15 is working with the wrong definition of climate sensitivity.
- All previous papers using the historical records to constrain ECS are only constraining ‘effective’ climate sensitivity which is smaller than ECS.
- MEA15 used the wrong iRF and ERF values for F2xCO2.
- MEA15 shouldn’t have used ocean heat content data (or should have done so differently).
- The regressions in MEA15 in the iRF case should have been forced to go through zero.
- The linearity of the different forcings is only approximate.
It’s quite something, really, that time and again climate skeptics are the ones who find the problems at NASA GISS and the “experts” don’t. Maybe Gavin should spend less time bloviating about his background, doing PR outreach, or running from debate, and more time being a real climate scientist.
“…the Marvel et al paper, which claimed to have demonstrated that climate sensitivity is low, …”
Shouldn’t this read ‘…the Marvel et al paper, which claimed to have demonstrated that climate sensitivity is high, …’?
“Wow”, they say over there at Real Climate, about the latest El Nino temperature spike, where I linked to from this article, and for the first time too.
The glorification of Schmidt and Mann right out in the open in the comments section, as was the holy concern about the creeping rise in CO2, with frightened reports of the recent change in numbers, the irrational fear of a slightly higher temperature if it happens, I mean, it’s sickening, really – those idiots actually believe their own BS!
yo, ‘Real Climate’ – here’s a reality check, and don’t panic either, cause facts can hurt the uninformed-
it’s already cooling…….
HadSST3 Global
2015/12 0.717
2016/01 0.732
2016/02 0.604
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadsst3/data/HadSST.3.1.1.0/diagnostics/HadSST.3.1.1.0_monthly_globe_ts.txt
http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2016/anomnight.3.14.2016.gif
Equatorial Ocean Heat Content is back to pre-2015 ESNO levels:
2014 12 0.50 0.48 0.54
2015 1 0.28 0.22 0.15
2015 2 0.54 0.65 0.83
2015 3 0.85 1.17 1.52
2015 4 1.05 1.42 1.74
2015 5 1.03 1.42 1.53
2015 6 0.87 1.27 1.51
2015 7 0.92 1.36 1.69
2015 8 0.99 1.43 1.97
2015 9 1.04 1.48 1.80
2015 10 1.04 1.51 1.91
2015 11 0.92 1.41 1.78
2015 12 0.58 1.04 1.20
2016 1 0.44 0.88 1.25
2016 2 -0.03 0.32 0.58
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ocean/index/heat_content_index.txt
Mother Nature is just starting to put her chill on Schmidt’s and Mann’s phony-baloney ‘glory’ days.
They don’t believe it either. The first thing the prophet Al did was buy a beach house in an area than that he knew was suppose to be under 4 feet of water by now.
I wonder who is buying up the coal stocks. Somebody is going to make a fortune on this.
Soros, etal
“Marvelous!” Should a change be made to turn the exclamation mark into a ‘Y’ ?
I don’t believe a word they say any more. I don’t deny climate changes, but I do deny they know anything about why it does so. There are too many variables. Anyone’s guess is as good as or better than a climate model. Based on my last 60 years or so of observations along with the historical climate record (not weather), I predict we will have more of the same (and that of course is qualified with “unless something drastic happens – like the planet going off course or being struck by a meteor, or global thermonuclear war, etc.)
If climate is current weather, it changes. If it’s the pattern of weather behaviour, it does so only rarely, if ever.