Friday, December 20, 2013

More on climate sensitivity

Since starting the blog we have run a few articles covering ABC's reluctance to cover any stories that run against the CAGW meme. The C being for Catastrophic. The notion of "Luke"warming just as distasteful to ABC's activist ashen cloth reporters as the notion of no warming or even cooling. It's a weird form of doomsday syndrome funded by the Australia taxpayer.

Judy Curry, a climate expert that the ABC has so far avoided speaking with, provides a link and commentary to a series of submissions to the UK Parliament's review of the IPCC 5th assessment report. Amongst the submissions and definitely newsworthy is a piece by Nic Lewis.

On this Curry states:
A number of submissions make scientific arguments that they believe refute the IPCC’s conclusions.  Of these, Nic Lewis‘ submission is a tour de force.  Not surprisingly, his submission is on the topic of climate sensitivity. This is the clearest explanation I’ve seen of the problems with the IPCC’s arguments regarding climate sensitivity.

The intro and summary to Lewis'submission reads as follows:
Introduction and summary
1. The terms of reference for this inquiry ask various questions. I address the following 
questions; my related conclusions are italicised.

  •  How robust are the conclusions in the AR5 Physical Science Basis report (AR5-WG1)? 

In the central area of climate sensitivity, they are misleading. The substantial divergence 
between sensitivity estimates from, on the one hand, satisfactory studies based on 
instrumental observations over an extended period and, on the other hand, from flawed 
studies and from computer models was not brought out.

  • Does the AR5 address the reliability of climate models? 

Not adequately. Shorter-term warming projections by climate models have been scaled 
down by 40% in AR5, recognising that they are unrealistically high. But, inconsistently, no 
reduction has been made in longer term projections.

  • Do the AR5 Physical Science Basis report’s conclusions strengthen or weaken the economic case for action to prevent dangerous climate change? 
Although the conclusions fail to say so, the evidence in AR5-WG1 weakens the case since it 
indicates the climate system is less sensitive to greenhouse gases than previously thought.


  1. Many scientifically-qualified/experienced and very interested CAGW agnostics like me have been pigeon-holed into a "climate change denier" box by the ABC.

    Why doesn't ABC provide any forums of substance that allow free debate of the models-based hypotheses on which the CAGW belief is founded?

    Real and actual data of the earth's temperature and climate don't fit the model projections over the last 20 years. Yet, ABC carries on with its "science is settled" mantra regardless, with fingers stuck in ears. In doing so, ABC further distances itself from reality and credibility in the estimation of increasing numbers of questioning intelligent Australians.

  2. Agree. For sometime ABC has just promoted the higher end model projections and the dire consequences they entail without also reporting on studies that show the lower end outcomes that are a more realistic and credible. With the "pause" continuing there will be a lot of egg on a lot of faces in Ultimo.


Please keep to the topic. Abusive comments and bad language are simply not tolerated. Note that your comment may take a little while to appear.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.