No – but, you should have a doctor take a look at your brain to see if it has been cut in half.
>>the best estimate of global warming sensitivity <<
WTF are you talking about?
There is no “best estimate of global warming sensitivity” - because there is no “estimate of global warming sensitivity” - because there is no such thing as “global warming sensitivity .”
“Climate sensitivity” (which the article you did not read – and, in any case, are too stupid to understand- is about) is not a projection of global warming. The reason is simple (because its value is time dependent); but, again, since you are too stupid to understand even that concept, there is no point wasting time trying to explain it.
======
edit --
Deniers rely on deliberately redefining concepts in order to change not only their meaning, but what they are. We can start with “science” – “scientific law” – “scientific theory” – and “scientific evidence – every one of which Deniers either do not understand (and do not care that they are ignorant) or intentionally misuse.
As long as the earth’s energy balance is not in equilibrium, “sensitivity” is short-term transient measure based on current conditions. It provides no information on long-term warming which, in addition to information from the IPCC reports, Curry’s paper accepts as valid.
You can look through my answers. I have always regarded sensitivity as a waste of time. Just because you can calculate some value does not mean it is important.
Deforestation, clearance or clearing is the removal of a forest or stand of trees where the land is thereafter converted to a non-forest use.Examples of deforestation include conversion of forestland to farms, ranches, or urban use.
The term deforestation is often misused to describe any activity where all trees in an area are removed.[not in citation given][neutrality is disputed However in temperate climates, the removal of all trees in an area[not in citation given in conformance with sustainable forestry practices is correctly described as regeneration harvest.In temperate mesic climates, natural regeneration of forest stands often will not occur in the absence of disturbance, whether natural or anthropogenic.Furthermore, biodiversity after regeneration harvest often mimics that found after natural disturbance, including biodiversity loss after naturally occurring rainforest destruction.
No. And the article in question does not appear to say any such absurdity. Although given the lack of scientific qualifications and track record of misleading denial of the authors, that possibility cannot be ruled out.
http://denierlist.wordpress.com/2012/12/...
http://www.desmogblog.com/judith-curry
I gather you do not read the ipcc report directly.
Making things up is dishonest
Nature stopped it 17 years ago .
nope
I swear to god, I asked my question before reading this one.
Latest paper shows that given the data presented in AR5, the best estimate of global warming sensitivity would be 1.64C, down from 3C given in AR4. No best estimate was given in the latest report.
http://niclewis.wordpress.com/the-implications-for-climate-sensitivity-of-ar5-forcing-and-heat-uptake-estimates/
