Sunday, September 15, 2013

A softer brand of warmism from Gavin Schmidt?: Climate policies are being made on the premise "that climate sensitivity is non-negligible"; he claims to have "no idea" what "high confidence in catastrophic anthropogenic global warming" means

RealClimate: On mismatches between models and observations
[Schmidt comments] If you think that policies are being made based on exact numbers coming from a climate model, I'd have to ask for some evidence. Polices are being made (or at least considered) on the strongly evidence based premise that climate sensitivity is non-negligible, but that conclusion doesn't depend on models as much as paleo-climate and so is unlikely to change. PS. I have no idea what you mean by "high confidence" in "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming".
...I have high confidence that anthropogenic effects are dominating current climate change and will increasingly do so in the decades to come
...True predictions - for instance of the consequences Pinatubo prior to impacts happening, longer term trends (i.e. post 1980s) have all proven skillful

1 comment:

chris y said...

Tom Wigley slams unfounded faith in paleo climate sensitivity, in Climategate email, Fri, 30 Jun 2000

“Quantifying climate sensitivity from real world data cannot even be done using present-day data, including satellite data. If you think that one could do better with paleo data, then you're fooling yourself. This is fine, but there is no need to try to fool others by making extravagant claims."