Response to Plinius

[weatherdude88]

I think, weatherdude, you should stop bullshitting around about things that you do not understand. Climate models (CMIP5) with updated forcings (yes, unheard of, but somehow people failed to predict volcanic eruptions...) are fully in line with the observations (and do _NOT_ overpredict temperature rise), and they do have ECS between 2.1 and 4.5K.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL051607/full

I see I hit a nerve. Perhaps you are angry because you are biased? This paper is almost the equivalent of a "sectional". Even the IPCC reduced climate sensitivity after this paper was published.

Apart from that:
Combining this paper:
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n9/abs/ngeo2228.html

Here is a paper claiming half the warming in the arctic is from natural variation.
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v509/n7499/full/nature13260.html?WT.ec_id=NATURE-20140508

with this one:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL064888/abstract

Right from this link the paper claims to only be able to account for 38% . "Applying the methodology of the HadCRUT4 record to climate model temperature fields accounts for 38% of the discrepancy in trend between models and observations over the period 1975-2014."

I suppose that one can call your unfunded blunder about low climate sensitivity in the 1.5 region pretty optimistic, given that the transient response is already above 1.8K.
Maybe some divine intervention lowers the climate sensitivity below the transient response?

For example CERES suggest a climate sensitivity of 1.3 C. (All the recent data sets I have seen imply climate sensitivity below 1.5 C.
http://ceres-tool.larc.nasa.gov/ord-tool/jsp/EBAFSelection.jsp


   

[Neven]

Sorry, this won't do.

'Response to Plinius'? This is a forum, not your PM box.