Dan Neuman on Nostr: I don't think Mann says we can limit to 1.5℃. Or at least that it would take an ...
I don't think Mann says we can limit to 1.5℃. Or at least that it would take an inplausible amount of effort.
Hanson makes some assumptions and then doesn't carry them to their conclusions for aerosols. We always knew about aerosols, but their impact goes to zero when aerosols hit zero, so using them to claim an intrinsic change in slope is misleading. And he focuses on changes over ocean, which has a far slower impact than over land.
His analysis of rate makes no allowance for the influence of ENSO nor the autocorrelation of monthly temperatures.
Just as you can pick a start point to claim a low temperature trend, you can pick a point for high temperature trend. He picks 2010, just 13 years ago, with far too little data to make a good rate estimate without correcting for autocorrelation. And with a super El Niño at the end of the trend, that puts undue influence on the calculation. A more robust method should be used, such as the Theil-Sen estimator.
You have to wonder if it is Hanson defending his ego.
Hanson makes some assumptions and then doesn't carry them to their conclusions for aerosols. We always knew about aerosols, but their impact goes to zero when aerosols hit zero, so using them to claim an intrinsic change in slope is misleading. And he focuses on changes over ocean, which has a far slower impact than over land.
His analysis of rate makes no allowance for the influence of ENSO nor the autocorrelation of monthly temperatures.
Just as you can pick a start point to claim a low temperature trend, you can pick a point for high temperature trend. He picks 2010, just 13 years ago, with far too little data to make a good rate estimate without correcting for autocorrelation. And with a super El Niño at the end of the trend, that puts undue influence on the calculation. A more robust method should be used, such as the Theil-Sen estimator.
You have to wonder if it is Hanson defending his ego.