Lewis and Ridley's claims about Aldrin et al. 2012
A discussion between Bishop Hill, Matt Ridley, and myself about Nic Lewis's and Matt Ridley's assertions about Aldrin et al. 2012
- — Matt Ridley (@mattwridley)Sat, Dec 22 2012 02:13:52@thingsbreak http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/12/19/why-doesnt-the-ar5-sods-climate-sensitivity-range-reflect-its-new-aerosol-estimates/ …at.com/2012/12/19/why-doesnt-the-ar5-sods-climate-sensitivity-range-reflect-its-new-aerosol-estimates/ Aldrin, M., et al., 2012. Bayesian estimation of climate sensitiv... Environmetrics, doi:10.1002/env.2140.
- — Bishop Hill (@aDissentient)Sat, Dec 22 2012 01:07:01@thingsbreak Most likely values still only 2 ish. If we are to include cloud lifetime effect shld we include other highly uncertain effects?
- — Things Break (@thingsbreak)Sat, Dec 22 2012 07:10:57@aDissentient If you're making a comparison to IPCC values, should use most apples-to-apples comparison, which Aldrin et al. discuss in 4.8.
- — Things Break (@thingsbreak)Sat, Dec 22 2012 07:57:44@mattwridley Aldrin agreed that apples to apples comparison with IPCC ECS estimates is 1.6K? Doubtful. Directly contradicts paper itself.
Did you find this story interesting? Be the first to like or comment.