reply to post by 727Sky
So the WSJ finally acknowledges that man made global warming induced climate change is a reality? Thread worthy in it's own right (teehee).
I'm not sure where to begin with this so I'm going to start where you did.
Usually IMO anything that can push their agenda 21
I don't want to detract from the subject of your thread which is the WSJ's take on 1 item in the AR5 but, this is a significant portion of the CT'r
climate contrarian puzzle so I can't just let it hang there all willy-nilly. Maybe you could even do a thread and give your perspective on how
climate change is part of the agenda 21 conspiracy. I warn you though, I've dug into it and come away with the opinion that it is entirely baseless
and akin to Queen Elizabeth being reptilian. You're a nice guy so I don't mean to offend I just can't see it.
*Warning about the next link, I got the link from google scholar and I did get a pop up warning about it but proceeded anyway, nothing bad happened
to my pc but people with not so great virus and malware protection may want to think twice*
The 100% error in the models is something I posted in the Artic Ice sheet thread and is reposted or referenced in this new WSJ article.
the WSJ and iceagenow site
reference in no way states that there is 100% error in the models. Firstly they are saying the models need serious updating, which is true but they
are also critiquing what the models leave out like volcanic activity from the recent past and the cooling effect of such. What is critical to
understand here is that the authors of the paper are pointing out an error within the CMIP5 model which is specifically to do with climate
sensitivity... not the overall model. Updating models costs money and despite what you (plural) might think, money is not that easily available to
climate research or observation.
I suggest always reading a paper cited in an article or blog for yourself, don't trust anyone else to interpret it for you... it's rare that they
get it right.
Now to the WSJ article itself... it's more crap. There is only one tiny bit (below) from the actual AR5 in there and the entire rest of the article
is supposition, wishful thinking and intentional misleading.
"equilibrium climate sensitivity"
"extremely likely" to be above 1 degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit)
"likely" to be above 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.4 degrees Fahrenheit)
"very likely" to be below 6 degrees Celsius (10.8 Fahrenheit).
compared to 2007
"likely" to be above 2 degrees Celsius
"very likely" to be above 1.5 degrees
For context for anyone that doesn't understand... this has to do with the equation used to estimate how much warming we get from an atmospheric CO2
level of 560ppm, so the big dialing back on the alarm is this... at 560ppm instead of expecting a rise of 1.5 or 2 degree Celsius in global
temperature we can expect 1 to 1.5 degrees Celsius rise in global temperature.
WSJ gambled hard on this one and lost. They wagered being able to point out that the IPCC admits they overestimated ECS (a whole .5C) against
admitting AGW was legit.
Side note... this news (if proved to be true) is great, it means we have more time to stop this train.