Bishop Hill Mann on climate sensitivity and counting
Mar 19, 2014 Climate: Mann Climate: sensitivity Michael Mann, a man who never saw a fray he didn't want to enter, has decided to enter the climate sensitivity fray, with an article published simultaneously in the Huffington Post and Scientific American. Some of it is a bit odd to tell the truth.
For example, take this bit about the IPCC's decision to reduce the lower bound on its estimate of climate sensitivity down to 1.5°C.
The IPCC had lowered the bottom end of the range, down from the two degrees C it had set in its Fourth Assessment Report, issued in 2007. The IPCC based the lowered bound on one narrow line of evidence: the slowing of surface warming during the past decade—yes, the faux pause.
However, those who have read the relevant parts of the Fifth Assessment and indeed those who are familiar with the recent Lewis/Crok report on climate sensitivity will be aware that the IPCC actually gave a completely different explanation for their decision to reduce the lower bound.
The lower temperature limit of the assessed likely range is thus less than the 2°C in the AR4, but the upper limit is the same. This assessment reflects improved understanding, the extended temperature record in the atmosphere and ocean, and new estimates of radiative forcing.
I don't know about you, but I count that as three lines of evidence not one.
Reader Comments (28)
Mann on sensitivity.
Chuckle.
As for the IPCC,
In any other field, that might be met with the rejoinder "So the spread of your models has actually got worse?".
Only on planet-IPCC would this reflect "improved understanding."
"Faux pause."
Do I understand that the global temperature record is now no longer seen to be the accurate metric of catastrophism and MM has wasted a career in pursuing it?
Speaking of Mann, for some reason I thought of him while I was reading this Nature editorial.
http://www.nature.com/news/wanted-fraud-buster-with-political-antennae-1.14893
In particular, when I read this section:
"...unlikely to put up with dodgy academics whimpering about their “creativity”."
Mann should be restrained for his own protection ... 'Penn State' ... ;)
"Huffington Post" .........the plagiarist portal
If Michael Mann is alone in a room will he pick a fight with himself?
So the IPCC are 'deniers' now, Michael?
I don't know about climate, but mann is certainly sensitive.
If the pause is faux, then Hockey Stick is doubly so.
If the pause is real, the HS iwrong.
If statistics are applied in a normalized, non-hide the decline manner, the HS fails.
If Dr. Mann trash talks in the woods, and no one else is there to listen, does he actually make a sound?
Heh! Good one.
Now if Manniacal was to comment on paranoiac hypersensitive egotism; then he'd be on solid ground.
Heh! Good one.
Now if Manniacal was to comment on paranoiac hypersensitive egotism; then he'd be on solid ground.
In Mann math, three lines of evidence are kludged into one, and the decline of extremist credibility is hidden by a neat trick to permit the ego-in-chief to bloviate more loudly.
One of the three lines of evidence got a weight of 300, so it's effectively just one line of evidence.
Michael Mann can't even properly interpret his own writings, much less that of anyone else.
A legend in his own mind.
Mann is "denying" "the consensus" now then?
“Heyzar waitza secaroony, howzacomma deezuh quasiony no-no worken lastof seveen decadal yearsah?! Weezah beesoo hotsah NOWZA, itsa saysza?!”
http://logankrum.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/stupid-jar-jar.jpg
Mann is a tree-ring counter, he is not a "climate scientist".
One thing that marks Mann out is that his view of his own side are often as bad as his views of the other, you only have to stray form the path of true mannism by the tiniest amount for him to come down on you like a ton of bricks , which is ironic has he weighs and looks a bit like a ton of bricks .
.... he weighs and looks a bit like a ton of bricks .
I'd suggest following the suggestions made by others on BH and not mocking people for their appearance or physical attributes.
So Mann is a denier of the reality of the pause in warming then.
Philip
'Mann is a tree-ring counter, he is not a "climate scientist".'
My understanding was that he isn't even that, and that his work is almost entirely statistical analysis of data obtained by others. His recent spat with Rob Wilson (particularly over the absence of tree rings because of volcanic activity) suggests that his knowledge of the 'dendro' part of 'dendroclamatology' is weaker than his mathematical skills.
Oops - obviously should say dendroclimatology...
Dendroclamatology? Presumably that's using bivalves as climate proxies*
*Actually, a PhD colleague of mine was attempting something along those lines, iirc using Ca/Mg and Ca/Sr ratios in ostracod shells in an attempt to determine environmental conditions.
"If Dr. Mann trash talks in the woods, and no one else is there to listen, does he actually make a sound?"
Yes, when the bear uses him as toilet paper.
Only taking account of one factor instead of three?
Is this a case of 'hiding the incline'?
Ian B,
Your use of the word 'analysis' implies a search. Omniscient Mann has no need of searching for anything since truth is revealed through him. Thus 17 years of instrumental data gathered across the globe is dismissed as incorrect, misleading, 'faux'.
The very essence of anti-science.
An Open letter to the chairman and panel of the IPCC…..
:-)
The pause should have been evidence for lowering the upper bound.