- — Matt Ridley (@mattwridley)Sat, Dec 22 2012 10:13:52@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 09:07:01@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 15:10:57@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 15:57:44@mattwridley Aldrin agreed that apples to apples comparison with IPCC ECS estimates is 1.6K? Doubtful. Directly contradicts paper itself.
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
byThings Break193 Views