The third was a response from Foster et al. (with Mann as senior author). They plugged Schwarz’ observational findings into GCM GISS-ER, and reproduced his results! So they argued Schwartz’ data were wrong, because “this model is known to exhibit a true equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2.7 C under doubled CO2 conditions.” They then did a similar thing for his time scale parameter using a 14 GCM ensemble. They said, “the estimates of time scale produced by this method are generally unrealistically low in comparison to the known behavior of the models in response to changes in GHG forcing.” They in effect said twice in one comment that the GCM models are trustworthy, and evaluation of 125 years of actual climate observations isn’t. Schwartz’ reply says much: “It is questionable whether measurements should be rejected because they do not agree with models.”But the models tell the story they want to tell. They don't need no stinkin' facts.
Monday, July 23, 2012
If facts disagree with theory, facts are wrong
Climate sensitivity is the important unknown upon which global warming theory founders most often. IPCC efforts to buttress the scare have run into serious difficulty. Facts can be very inconvenient. One of the establishment's efforts to support the consensus fantasy made me laugh:
Posted by stan at 9:23 AM