2010-09-05 08:31:34ADVANCED 30: Climate sensitivity is low
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.3.99

Okay, I put together a draft which combined my climate sensitivity wiki and your climate sensitivity blog post, John.  I'm scared to touch it again because I just spent about a half hour deleting those damn "em"s.  Take a look let me know what you think.

Advanced rebuttal to climate sensitivity is low

2010-09-05 13:25:09Feedback
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.93.62

Dana, another great post, loving your advanced rebuttals. Couple of comments:

  1. Might be good to define 'radiative forcing' early in the piece
  2. While Antarctic temperatures changed 10C between ice age to interglacial, the global temperature changed about 5 to 6C (sorry, don't have a source for this, I just asked it to a bunch of climate boffins once before I had to do a talk)
2010-09-05 16:05:28huh
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.3.99
Really, just 5-6°C?  Huh, well I just learned something new.  I'll make those changes, then if you can make it live, tomorrow I'll ask for some feedback on it again.
2010-09-05 17:51:49It's live
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.93.62
I really should source that 5-6C temperature change (or if anyone else can throw some references our way, even better :-) Let me know when you're happy to blog post it.
2010-09-06 09:35:03the skeptic argument
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.3.99

Somebody made the point that 'the skeptic argument' to this one could use some updating.  For one, rather than reference Schwartz's work directly, it references Planet Gore.  Also I believe Schwartz has revised or updated his work to a higher climate sensitivity value.

But I never see deniers reference Schwartz anymore anyway.  More often they'll reference work by Spencer or Lindzen.  Most frequently they reference Lindzen and Choi (2009), which claimed a sensitivity of about 0.5°C for a doubling of CO2.   Can you update the skeptic argument to reference that study instead, John?

2010-09-06 15:57:00
Ari Jokimäki

arijmaki@yahoo...
192.100.112.202

Thumbs up #003.

2010-09-06 16:58:28Revise my intermediate rebuttal
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.93.62
I'm going to give the whole intermediate rebuttal a birthday sometime soon, it's very out of date
2010-09-06 18:07:15Re-birthing
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.100.6

There has been a disagreement concerning the rebuttal on "IPCC doesn't represent the scientific consensus":

- My contention is that the Basic rebuttal really deals with the issue, "IPCC makes alarmist/extreme projections".

- The author takes the view that this is the same tack as is taken on the Intermediate write-up.

 

Would you consider re-titling the Intermediate write-up, in light of the discrepancy?

 

Neal

2010-09-07 09:19:54all set
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.140.3.99
Okay, I got some good feedback and made a few changes to this rebuttal.  I'm happy with it now, so feel free to do a blog post whenever you'd like, John.
2010-09-07 17:19:45OK
nealjking

nealjking@gmail...
91.33.122.182
Go for it.
2010-09-08 10:42:40Published
John Cook

john@skepticalscience...
121.222.93.62
Will follow-up with the basic one in a few days, give this one room to breath :-)
2010-09-20 07:23:57Climate Progess
Riccardo

riccardoreitano@tiscali...
93.147.82.75
ClimateProgress reproduce this post in full  ;)
2010-09-20 07:48:44cool stuff
dana1981
Dana Nuccitelli
dana1981@yahoo...
71.137.148.215
Yeah, pretty cool!