Originally posted by mjp2
I think it is incongruous when a guy comes on a thread supposedly disagreeing with the science and for his opening argument spouts imaginations of who the person is that he chooses to argue with, and rebutting them on the basis of that imaginary personality.
The science is robust. And that science includes the given uncertainty regarding sensitivity. That range of uncertainty hasn't been significantly challenged by any studies over the thirty years or so we've been looking at this very closely - under international agreement that the issue warrants that close examination and reporting to international governments via the UN.
And the science keeps reaffirming the likelihood of sensitivity being somewhere near the middle of that range. That's what I define as robust. If you differ by that definition that's fine.
But I've not seen any robust argument that sensitivity is outside that range; nor have I seen any argument that sensitivities in that range would allow us to ignore the greenhouse affect and allow us to continue using fossil fuels much beyond 2050. The best you get is that we may have some more time to address the issue. The worst case is we may have a lot less.
Call me an acolyte, or whatever ad hominem you want. That doesn't change any of the science. But it does re-affirm my view of the denial camp and the quality of their argument.
Your own actions define you, my speculation is just that and is clearly stated to be guesswork i.e I'm not claiming guesswork as fact. There is a lesson there if you have an open mind.
Just for some clarity the IPCC have made this estimate for ECS not me - the science is the science and I advise you to take note of what it says.
The range of medium confidence ECS values from AR5 is at present too wide which indicates some uncertainty.
The range would be narrow with high confidence if the science was robust.
You are the person that claims that this vague and large range for sensitivity qualifies as "robust science". Your action to declare the science as robust shows you are not looking at the science - you failed to notice the IPCC AR5 lack of certainty when it comes to understanding the role of various climate forcings and acknowledging that we have a long way to get to the robust science land of tomorrow. A lot more science to be done to get there.
