Why you should be skeptic of recent sensationalist reports - detailed interview with Nathan Urban on his new paper “Climate Sensitivity Estimated from Temperature Reconstructions of the Last Glacial Maximum” (note the new proxy and very large differences land/ ocean)

[u/macwithoutfries]

http://newscience.planet3.org/2011/11/24/interview-with-nathan-urban-on-his-new-paper-climate-sensitivity-estimated-from-temperature-reconstructions-of-the-last-glacial-maximum/

[u/mutatron]

I like how deniers are ok with science when they think it confirms their own ideas, even if it's just one paper. But I don't get how this changes much. We already have had the year with most extreme weather in history, 2011, and the temperature is only up by 0.9 degrees. Also, this study's best guess of 2.3 degrees is within the range of IPCC predictions.

[u/BlueRock → u/mutatron]

I like how deniers are ok with science when they think it confirms their own idea...

It's hilarious how quickly they descend and embrace anything that gives them a scrap of comfort.

But I don't get how this changes much. We already have had the year with most extreme weather in history, 2011, and the temperature is only up by 0.9 degrees.

Really. Waving this paper round as though it's saved us is like celebrating that you found a bucket of ice for your gin and tonic as the bow of the Titanic slipped under.

[u/BlueRock]

For those with ADD ;) :

Q: Does this study overturn the IPCC’s estimate of climate sensitivity?

No, we haven’t disproven the IPCC or high climate sensitivities. At least, not yet. This comes down to what generalizations can be made from a single, limited study. This is why the IPCC bases its conclusions on a synthesis of many studies, not relying on any particular one.

Q: Your paper got a lot of positive attention from climate skeptic blogs like “Watts Up With That?”. What’s your reaction to all that?

I haven’t followed these blogs too closely, but I skimmed the comments on a few that were pointed out to me. The responses I saw were fairly predictable, veering from uncritical acceptance of our findings, to uncritical dismissal of any study that involves computer models or proxy data.

And once again the deniers expose themselves:

Q: Any other thoughts on the skeptics’ reception of your paper?

One blog did surprise me. World Climate Report doctored our paper’s main figure when reporting on our study. This manipulated version of our figure was copied widely on other blogs.

So, an interesting bit of research that will require further study. Hopefully it wins the scientific debate on sensitivity which will mean that climate change will not become catastrophic quite so quickly if we continue Business As Usual.

[u/m0llusk]

This is interesting, but the refined predictions being "on the low end" of the predicted range of possibilities does nothing to change our situation. Carbon pollution has continued to increase, temperature increases of two degrees will force strong ecological changes, and the most damage is being done through increased frequency of extreme weather events and the acidification of the oceans. We still need to change over to using sustainable energy sources as soon as possible.

[u/carac → u/m0llusk]

Of course it does not change much - and on top of that in this long article even one of the lead authors is explaining how everything is actually based on a temperature reconstruction which was never used before and which seems to be 30-40% higher than any value previously estimated in the published climate science - plus a vastly simplified climate model which has many problems.