As for ECS, Knutti et al. 2017 compiled over 200 ECS studies. The range of estimated warming from doubling CO₂ went from a low of 0°C to a high of 10°C. Carbonbrief came up with the same range in their compilation of 142 ECS studies. Of those 142 studies, 141 had different results.
No result refuted any other results, it's simply throwing darts at a wall and calling it a "scientific study"
Did you look at natural variability in the last 100,000 years - 23 abrupt climate changes with temperature variations of 10°C to 15°C (and more) many of which happened within a decade?
Rahmstorf, Severinghaus, Alley and numerous others concur. Abrupt changes can be far more extreme than what is seen today. IPCC reports also support abrupt climate change although the latest reports are less likely to acknowledge these abrupt changes.
I'm simply confused by why you're willing to take it as a given that the 1980(ish) data was wrong, but you're convinced that the modern temperature data series is correct.
The 2015 changes became known as the 'Pause Buster' so it was indeed very significant. One contributor to SKS was consolidating a list of 'hiatus' papers. The last I checked (couple of years ago) he was expecting to top 300 peer-reviewed papers.
If you read those papers, there's more than FIVE DOZEN varying opinions at to why the hiatus - Yet another indication of a very significant deviation from the models and the theory.
As for "waaaay overblown" Michael E Mann stated that it was very significant - he argued quite strongly that we "shouldn't sweep it under the rug"
I've yet to see evidence of CO₂ induced warming, I hope it will happen but I'm not not convinced it has. Are you aware of Dr Hansen's take on CO₂ correlation to temp, namely that the trends may appear similar but that doesn't mean CO₂ caused the changes (IIRC, it was Hansen et al. 1981)
So can you definitively identify the cause of the hiatus (aka warming slowdown)?
I understand a willingness to discount something out-of-hand that can't be explained as "waaay overblown"
When a person uses that rhetoric, they've identified a fault that they won't acknowledge.
But your continuous deflections & moving the goalposts is exactly would I would expect.
Now you're arguing that the people that wrote the paper and the article on Berkeley Earth have no idea how to write what they mean, they need to rely on your interpretation.
Stratosphere cooling. Ok. What about troposphere warming over the tropics? Does the model align with measurements there? Not so much I have heard.
As for ECS, Knutti et al. 2017 compiled over 200 ECS studies. The range of estimated warming from doubling CO₂ went from a low of 0°C to a high of 10°C. Carbonbrief came up with the same range in their compilation of 142 ECS studies. Of those 142 studies, 141 had different results.
No result refuted any other results, it's simply throwing darts at a wall and calling it a "scientific study"
Did you look at natural variability in the last 100,000 years - 23 abrupt climate changes with temperature variations of 10°C to 15°C (and more) many of which happened within a decade?
Rahmstorf, Severinghaus, Alley and numerous others concur. Abrupt changes can be far more extreme than what is seen today. IPCC reports also support abrupt climate change although the latest reports are less likely to acknowledge these abrupt changes.
I'm simply confused by why you're willing to take it as a given that the 1980(ish) data was wrong, but you're convinced that the modern temperature data series is correct.
The 2015 changes became known as the 'Pause Buster' so it was indeed very significant. One contributor to SKS was consolidating a list of 'hiatus' papers. The last I checked (couple of years ago) he was expecting to top 300 peer-reviewed papers.
If you read those papers, there's more than FIVE DOZEN varying opinions at to why the hiatus - Yet another indication of a very significant deviation from the models and the theory.
As for "waaaay overblown" Michael E Mann stated that it was very significant - he argued quite strongly that we "shouldn't sweep it under the rug"
I've yet to see evidence of CO₂ induced warming, I hope it will happen but I'm not not convinced it has. Are you aware of Dr Hansen's take on CO₂ correlation to temp, namely that the trends may appear similar but that doesn't mean CO₂ caused the changes (IIRC, it was Hansen et al. 1981)
So can you definitively identify the cause of the hiatus (aka warming slowdown)?
I understand a willingness to discount something out-of-hand that can't be explained as "waaay overblown"
When a person uses that rhetoric, they've identified a fault that they won't acknowledge.
Where is the hotspot for the CO2 theory. It hasn't been found.
Berkeley Earth link:
"As 𝙗𝙪𝙤𝙮 𝙢𝙚𝙖𝙨𝙪𝙧𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙨 have replaced ship measurements, this had hidden some of the real-world warming.
After correcting for this “𝙘𝙤𝙡𝙙 𝙗𝙞𝙖𝙨,”
You're not entitled to make up your own facts.
But your continuous deflections & moving the goalposts is exactly would I would expect.
Now you're arguing that the people that wrote the paper and the article on Berkeley Earth have no idea how to write what they mean, they need to rely on your interpretation.
😂
Agree. Failed modelling outputs that predicted a hotspot.