I will go out on a limb and predict GISS will produce similar critiques of
other empirical estimates in the future.
Not exact matches
Our incorporation of the nominally religious with the secular camp does reduce the size of the major religious traditions, at least in comparison with
estimates by most
other scholars, but seems to us to have ample
empirical warrant.
Kenneth, I really think it is all about reducing the credibility of any
empirical estimate which yields
other than high sensitivity.
The model, which captures fuel use in the power, transport, and
other energy sectors out to 2030, with fuel responsiveness parameterized to
empirical literature,
estimates the impacts of mitigation policies on CO2 emissions, revenue, premature deaths from local air pollution, household and industry groups.
Note for Alarmists: there is no point saying the IAMs say so or SCC so
estimated $ 37 / t CO2 or whatever unless you can show the
empirical evidence to calibrate the damage functions used in the IAMs or
other models.
As Nic Lewis (and
others) have shown, the best
empirical estimate of sensitivity, based on all observed warming, is low enough that it is impossible to currently justify expensive mitigation policy.
The
other day, for example, Nic Lewis at Climate Dialogue (linked and praised here) pointed out how some of the TCS
estimates downweighted the
empirical evidence by having priors with non-negligible probability at high values, with no evidentiary support
other than expert opinion.
It seems to me that one use is to permit
empirical data on specific feedbacks (e.g., the water vapor response to the cooling induced by Mt. Pinatubo in 1991) to be combined with the Planck response as well as information about
other feedbacks to
estimate a total climate sensitivity response to a forcing.