Two Blogs on Climate Sensitivity

Two interesting blog posts on climate sensitivity. Troy CA here and Paul_K at Lucia’s here. I haven’t parsed either post, but both are by thoughtful commenters and deserve a read.


  1. Posted Oct 22, 2012 at 12:45 PM | Permalink

    Straight to my wiki under the (somewhat ironic) title Sensitivity Training, which tries, it says, to track the untrackable. But this shows the climate blogosphere continuing to mature. Will that engineering level treatment emerge this way?

  2. Matt Skaggs
    Posted Oct 22, 2012 at 1:21 PM | Permalink

    The boulder of high climate sensitivity to 2XCO2 that has been pushed uphill by the climate mainstream shows some signs of starting to roll back. The two cited empirical studies showing lower sensitivity get some independent support from Esper el al 2012, which suggests that a solar insolation decrease of 6 W/m2 only produced approximately 1C of cooling in the last two millennia. While others are busily engaged elsewhere, there seems to be a gradually coalescing picture of a climate that is in a regime in which it is highly damped with respect to changes in forcing.

    • Posted Oct 24, 2012 at 3:41 PM | Permalink

      Not really…the Esper number is not a global radiative forcing, but a local and seasonal anomaly based on the precessional cycle (the wobble of Earth’s orbit)

  3. Posted Oct 22, 2012 at 2:00 PM | Permalink

    Troyca needs to read this article, which is based on satellite and ARGO observations

    • Steven Mosher
      Posted Oct 23, 2012 at 5:29 AM | Permalink

      sorry not in the same leaque as troy or paul K. not by a long shot

  4. Craig Loehle
    Posted Oct 22, 2012 at 5:18 PM | Permalink

    I highly recommend Paul_K’s article. It isn’t just about climate sensitivity–it is also an audit. He finds that the 2 studies that claim a high sensitivity neglect to compare to all the data available (radiation balance vs surface temperature vs ocean heat). It is classic cherry picking. Nicely done.

  5. pdtillman
    Posted Oct 22, 2012 at 9:30 PM | Permalink

    I second Dr. Loehle’s recommendation. This is a first-rate analysis, and I hope Paul K. polishes it up and publishes it. Very nice piece of work.

  6. Posted Oct 23, 2012 at 6:05 PM | Permalink

    Steve, I’m having problems working with this graph: On the face of it, it shows that renewable energy company shares are falling through the floor “heading” toward zero at the end of Kyoto on the 31st December.

    However, the graph shows a number of incompatible data-types as each is in a different currency … and even if they weren’t you can’t just compare share values. So, what we did was arbitrarily scaled up the shares until they seemed to be a best fit.

    My concern is that because we scaled them to make them “fit” … the predominant characteristic of “them all falling together”, might have much more than we think to do with how we treated the data rather any inherent characteristic of the data.

    • Chris
      Posted Oct 24, 2012 at 5:19 AM | Permalink

      Weeeellll… zero is still zero in my book, no matter if some of them might be falling from ten cents apiece, and others from 1,000 Euro!

      • stevefitzpatrick
        Posted Oct 24, 2012 at 6:00 PM | Permalink

        Paul_K is an OK fellow: experienced, knowledgeable, and civil. If you have substantive questions to raise, why don’t you visit Lucia’s blog and raise them? Be forewarned before you comment, Paul is no dummy, and he will tell you straight out when you are clearly mistaken.

  7. Samedi
    Posted Oct 26, 2012 at 5:31 AM | Permalink

    I found this one very interesting too (on Nir Shaviv’s blog):

%d bloggers like this: