It starts with a very simple question: Is global warming real and human caused? It ends with a very simple answer: Yes to both. But in the middle we have, like every other good story, sex, intrigue, and intriguing sex.

In the beginning, there was a strong theory that said, “If we add greenhouse gasses, such as CO2, the byproduct of burning fossil fuels, to the atmosphere, the planet will warm.” But direct observations of this warming actually happening were sketchy. Widespread systematically collected and curated temperature records only went back a few decades, and as we were to learn later, the warming that was indeed happening was undergoing a quiescence. Such slower periods are interspersed with periods of rapid warming as part of the natural variation in the Earth’s climate system. In short, there is a natural component to variation in the Earth’s surface temperature, and a human-caused component, and at the time the human component was not yet the dominating force it would soon become.

Eventually, the record of surface temperatures was pushed back decade by decade through the diligent collection, critical evaluation, and cleaning up of data that had been sitting around in hand written form in myriad locations. The direct measurements of surface temperatures was extended back over a century, and at the same time, because that took a while, a decade or two of actual time passed by, during which thermometer and satellite data were collected. Now, we can look back to 1850 or 1880 (depending on the database) up to the present, and we see a warming trend.

A lot of research was being done those days, in the 1970s and 1980s, in paleoclimate and climatology. In particular, proxyindicators were being developed and contributing significant data. I remember as a young pre-graduate student sitting in a class where the professor was carefully explaining what a “proxy” was, as though no one had ever heard of them before (and we hadn’t). A proxy is a signal obtained from some natural material such as glacial ice, the sediment at the bottom of a pond or an ocean, or the pattern of growth rings of trees. This signal is linked via a model of some sort to a desired measurement (such as sea level, or temperature, or something) to imitate an instrument over the time covered by the proxy.

Just two years later, I remember an impromptu conference organized by my advisor, with a half dozen of the key paleoclimatologists, in which they provided updates to current research coming out of oceanography, and it was pretty amazing. Suddenly, using ocean cores, Oxygen isotopes, and theory, it was possible to make a reliable and remarkably precise estimate of how much water was missing from the ocean at any given time. Since most of that missing water was trapped in glacial ice, this proxy became the first accurate tracking of the comings and goings, and patterns of, Pleistocene ice ages. At first the record only went back 500,000 years. Then 800,00 years. Now, it is being extended back further.

Roughly ten years or so later, by the time 1998 rolled around, the world of climate science was ready for one of those pivotal moments to come along, and it did. This was the publication by Michael E. Mann, Raymond S. Bradley, Malcolm K. Hughes, of research linking long term records of the Earth’s surface temperature with more recent data, showing a clear signal of recent human-caused warming. Subsequently, that result, sometimes referred to as the “Hockey Stick Graph” because it looks somewhat like a hockey stick, has been confirmed over and over again. The best place to get a review of that research and its subsequent verification is in a post by climate scientist Stefan Rahmstorf called “Most Comprehensive Paleoclimate Reconstruction Confirms Hockey Stick.

(Added: See also the reference to Jones et al in this blog post pertaining to the history of all of this, by John Mashey.)

There have always been science deniers. God was a denier (“…you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge…”). Galileo was harassed by deniers. I recently read a quote from a late 18th century, of a British soldier, referring with derision to the “bible-faced Americans” and, certainly, the American Christian churches have found anti-science activism and rhetoric to be excellent, um, fertilizer, to enhance their own growth.

The deniers of climate change didn’t just get the gas for their cars from Big Oil; Their entire movement was, and is, fueled by the likes of the Koch Brothers, deep pocketed one percenters and corporations harboring the unfortunate delusion that if we pretend climate change is not caused by the burning of fossil fuels, everything will be fine and they’ll keep getting rich.

The publication of the Hockey Stick research became a focusing point for these deniers, and Michael Man, the lead on that research, became a target on which they have fired continuously since then. No living scientist, no recent deceased scientists, and perhaps no scientist in history, has experienced such a sustained violation by so many deniers over such a period of time as Mike Mann. You can read all about the first phase of this relentless attack in this book by Mann himself.

You can disagree with a scientist. In fact, please do. Maybe the scientist is wrong about something. Chances are, if you are not a scientist and your disagreement is about something the scientist is an expert on and you are not, there is a different problem. Perhaps the science has not been explained clearly, and that is a problem, a reasonable thing to ask about. That can also be fixed. If, however, the science has been explained, and you maintain your disagreement not because the scientist is wrong, but because you want the scientist to be wrong, or because it is in your financial or political interest to disagree or cause confusion or sow doubt then … well, you can still do that because this is a free country.

In America, you can be an asshole.

But, if you publicly claim of anyone, in this country, that they have committed a crime, and they didn’t, especially if you make this claim with nefarious intent, then it is you who have potentially committed an offense, perhaps a civil offense, perhaps libel. In Canada they have similar rules. Lots of countries have that rule.

As the number one target of climate deniers world wide and for decades, Michael Mann has been defamed a number of times. On a couple of those occasions, with the support of various groups, Mann has pursued his legal and ethical right to fight back, and has filed suit.

I know Michael Mann well enough to know that this is not libel tourism. This is not Mann trying to make a fast buck. Mann would probably be fine in each case if the defendants had simply withdrawn the libel. (Given the nature of court costs and such, and the tenacious and obnoxious nature of the defense pretty much universally as I’ve seen it, I have no idea what the status of possible settlement is at this time and I’m sure everyone involved is under legal recommendation to not speak of such things at this time.)

One of these cases is against Tim Ball. Who is Tim Ball?

Ball has a PhD from the University of London (1982). According to the DeSmogBlog database on climate deniers,

Tim Ball was a professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1988 to 1996. He is a prolific speaker and writer in the skeptical science community.

He has been Chairman to the now-defunct Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP), “Consultant” to the Exxon-funded Friends of Science (FoS), senior fellow at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy (FCPP), and has connections to numerous other think tanks and right-wing organizations.

Tim Ball is member of Climate Exit (Clexit), a climate change denial group formed shortly after the UK’s decision to leave the EU. According to Clexit’s founding statement (PDF), “The world must abandon this suicidal Global Warming crusade. Man does not and cannot control the climate.”

Ball and the organizations he is affiliated with have repeatedly made the claim that he is the “first Canadian PhD in climatology.” Ball himself claimed he was “one of the first climatology PhD’s in the world.”

Many have pointed out that there have been numerous PhD’s in the field prior to Ball.

Ball was a former professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg from 1988 to 1996. The University of Winnipeg never had an office of Climatology. His degree was in historical geography and not climatology. [12]

A search of 22,000 academic journals shows that over the course of his career Ball published four pieces of original research in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of climate change.

According to Google Scholar, his most recent peer-reviewed article on climate change was published in 1986, titled “Historical evidence and climatic implications of a shift in the boreal forest tundra transition in central Canada.”

Tim Ball is a prolific writer of newspaper articles, opinion pieces, and letters to the editor questioning the existence of climate change. [51]

Ball is also a lead author of Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory, a book published in 2011.

In 2011, Michael Mann filed suit against Ball and a Canadian think tank for claiming that Mann carried out criminal fraud. The nature of the fraud claim is a little complex and muddled, but it was part of the ongoing attack on Mann discussed in the above mentioned book. Ultimately this has to do with a bunch of innocuous private emails that had been exchanged among colleagues, then stolen by nefarious actors, cherry picked to make it look like bad things had happened, and widely publicized. In relation to this alt-news now known as “climategate” Ball said, “Michael Mann at Penn State should be in the State Pen, not Penn State.”

This is not the only law suit against Tim Ball. He has made similar accusations against others as well.

Now, that is all very interesting. But here is where it starts to get strange.

Not this Starchild. The other Starchild.

Libertarian Bisexual Prostitutes In My Blog

I am happy to have a wide range of commenters on my blog, and I trust my regular readers to handle those with racist, sexist, or anti-science tendencies. But I was a little shocked the other day to get a comment by someone I had never heard of before, ranting about Michael Mann and making claims about the Mann vs. Ball lawsuit that I knew were false.

The commenter used the name “Starchild.” I’d heard of Starchild, but I was suspicious that an alien hoax was commenting on my blog. So, I contacted this Starchild chap and asked if he was for real. Turns out, his real life name is none other than Starchild, and he is a famous San Francisco based bi-sexual sex worker Libertarian. Like this:

Starchild, in his comments, was essentially parroting a guy named John O’Sullivan. O’Sullivan runs a really nasty anti-science blog, and is well known for a wide range of shenanigans.

Sullivan was making legal claims about the Mann vs. Ball law suit, and I’ll get to that in a moment. But first, who is John O’Sullivan?

John O’Sullivan: Not a lawer

Sometimes John O’Sullivan claims to be a lawyer, but sometimes he backs off that claim.

According to himself, John O’Sullivan is not lawyer, but “… just some Brit with a brain who can go live with his American wife in her country and kick ass big time around a courtroom.”

He is the author of “Vanilla Girl: a Fact-Based Crime Story of a Teacher’s Struggle to Control His Erotic Obsession with a Schoolgirl.” This is an online book of some kind (I looked, it is not on Amazon).

O’Sullivan was successful in winning an acquittal when he was personally charged in England as a high school teacher accused of sending lewd text messages and assaulting a 16-year-old female. Given the acquittal, it would not generally be appropriate to bring up this sordid and unproven bit of history, except that O’Sullivan himself went on to write an “erotic” “novel” with a startlingly similar storyline: Vanilla Girl: a Fact-Based Crime Story of a Teacher’s Struggle to Control His Erotic Obsession with a Schoolgirl.

[source]

O’Sullivan claimed that he was an experienced attorney with an excellent record in New York and US federal courts. He isn’t. He identified a major law firm that he worked for. He didn’t work for them. He claims a fairly imporessive writing resume including some major outlets such as Forbes. None of that was true. He claims to be a member of the American Bar association but isn’t. He may or may not have a fake law degree from an on line alt-degree mill.

(See this for background.)

Starchild Speaks

To focus this line of thoughtlessness on the issue at hand, I’ll replicate Starchild’s comments here (combined into one):

Now that Michael Mann is in danger of being held in contempt of court for failing to release his research data, who’s the climate science “denier”? Hmm…

In his blog entry at http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2014/08/15/electronic-frontier-foundation-messes-up/ , Greg Laden wrote, “I’ll add that Mann’s research is all open source or open access with respect to data, methods, software, and results.”

It is, is it? Maybe that’s what he wanted you to think, until the time came when he actually had to produce:

“Prominent alarmist shockingly defies judge and refuses to surrender data for open court examination…

“(Climatologist Dr. Tim) Ball explains, ‘We believe he [Mann] withheld on the basis of a US court ruling that it was all his intellectual property. This ruling was made despite the fact the US taxpayer paid for the research and the research results were used as the basis of literally earth-shattering policies on energy and environment. The problem for him is that the Canadian court holds that you cannot withhold documents that are central to your charge of defamation regardless of the US ruling.’”

Let’s begin right away with the data that is supposedly being held secret. They are HERE They have always been there. Anytime anyone says “where’s the data, Michael Mann” just send them there, where the data are.

Regarding the rest of O’Sullivan’s claims as echoed by Starchild, this is a statement by Michael Mann’s attorney:

Contrary to the nonsensical allegations made by John O’Sullivan in his July 4 posted on climatechangedispatch.com and elsewhere, plaintiff Michael Mann has fully complied with all of his disclosure obligations to the defendant Tim Ball relating to data and other documents.

No judge has made any order or given any direction, however minor or inconsequential, that Michael Mann surrender any data or any documents to Tim Ball for any purpose.

Accordingly it should be plain and obvious to anyone with a modicum of common sense that Mann could not possibly be in contempt of court.

Just to be clear: Mann is not defying any judge. He is not in breach of any judgment. He is not, repeat not, in contempt of court. He is not in breach of any discovery obligations to Ball.

In this context, O’Sullivan’s suggestion that Ball “is expected to instruct his British Columbia attorneys to trigger mandatory punitive court sanctions” against Mann is simply divorced from reality.

Finally, a word about the actual issues in the British Columbia lawsuit.
If O’Sullivan had read Ball’s statement of defence, he would immediately see that Ball does not intend to ask the BC Court to rule that Mann committed climate data fraud, or that Mann in fact did anything with criminal intent.
O’Sullivan would have noticed that one of Ball’s defences is that the words he spoke about Mann (which are the subject of Mann’s lawsuit) were said in “jest.”

The BC Court will not be asked to decide whether or not climate change is real.
So there is no chance whatsoever that any BC Court verdict about Mann’s libel claims against Ball will vindicate Donald Trump’s perspective on climate change.

Roger D. McConchie

Also, the data are here.

Comments

  1. #1 Magma
    July 8, 2017

    A great post from beginning to end!

    I’ve thought for years now that the noise and smoke from the deniosphere could be cut to a tiny fraction of its size if ‘skeptics’ had to read a relevant scientific journal article and make a sensible comment about it before posting any public criticism of climate science. A skill-testing question, in other words. Too bad that’s not a practical option.

    One tiny criticism… “pre-graduate”? We call them “undergraduates” around here*.

    (*i.e., everywhere)

  2. #2 Wow
    July 8, 2017

    “Anytime anyone says “where’s the data, Michael Mann” just send them there, where the data are.”

    Never works. They don’t go. Then ask again later.

  3. #3 Greg Laden
    July 8, 2017

    Magma: I didn’t go to college, just grad school. But there was a brief period when I was starting to take graduate classes prior to the start of my admission at Harvard GSAS, so that is “pre-grad school.”

    (I did get a degree, with honors, from what is now known as Regent’s College, based on my work and research and by taking a bunch of exams for lib arts.)

  4. #4 Keith Pickering (@KeithAPickering)
    July 8, 2017

    Lie / truth / boots.

    ‘nuf said.

  5. #5 Magma
    July 8, 2017

    Corrected correction: (*i.e., everywhere**)
    ((**except Harvard))

  6. #6 MikeN
    July 8, 2017

    John O’Sullivan used to post more often several years ago trying to get money from skeptics or conservatives with claims that he put up his own house to help Tim Ball. I think most people have caught on.

  7. #7 Gerrit Bogaers
    Netherlands
    July 8, 2017

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2017/07/05/an-iceb
    erg-the-size-of-delaware-is-about-to-break-off-of-antarctica/?utm_term=.430a
    1ca88b18

  8. #8 John Mashey
    http://www.desmogblog.com/user/john-mashey
    July 8, 2017

    One minor nit, not wrong, but a slight omission that might be clarified. Without taking anything away from MBH99 contributions & improvements. they were normal science progress in action, not some overturning of consensus.

    See the history section in MedievalDeception 2015: Inhofe Drags Senate Back To Dark Ages.

    1) IPCC(1990) Fig.7.1(c) was surrounded by caveats, and was really a sketch from Lamb(1965) for a tiny patch of England. Climate dneiers seized on this as Eternal Truth, starting with MedievalDeception 1991: Lindzen Hijacks Curve For Western Fuels Video – Early Fake News and continuing to this day.

    2) But see graphs in MedievalDeception 2015:
    IPCC(1995) Fig.3.20 from Bradley& Jones(1993)
    then
    Jones, Briffa, et al(1998)
    MBH99 (more proxies & error bars)

    The latter two were pretty compatible, but MBH99 used more proxies & computed error bars. Both appeared in IPCC(2001).

  9. #9 Greg Laden
    July 8, 2017

    John, thanks for the comment.

    That early graph (people should click through to see it) is an example, in my view, of the nature of how our understanding has shifted over time. Back in the 1980s it was common for climate scientist to draw them. When I first saw the one you used, I thought it was from Ice Ages by Imbrie and Imbrie because there is a graphic there of a similar style. To some extent I characterize the understanding of climate change as a transformation from those sorts of graphs (which deniers are still using) to the ones with the actual data and error bars, as you do as well, apparently.

    As I think we have discussed before, I don’t see MBH as a shift in thinking as much as a pivot point from heading weakly in one direction to heading strongly in one direction, as warming itself started to do a decade or two before that research! Jones is certainly important, and I should add a link to it in the original post.

  10. #10 John Mashey
    July 8, 2017

    Thanks.
    I’d suggest that
    Bradley and Jones(1993) used in IPCC(1995) was an important intermediate step, which shows some paleo folks were already were beyond Lamb(1965) much earlier than 1998.

    Then in 1994 (but articles received in 1993) a 12-paper special issue of The Holocene was led by Was there a ‘medieval warm period’, and if so, where and when? as lead article in issue of The Holocene about this. The abstract says:
    “Taken together, the available evidence does not support aglobal Medieval Warm Period, although more support for such a phenomenon could be drawn from high-elevation records than from low-elevation records.”

    The conclusion says:
    “.In particular, the simplified representations of the course of global temperature variation over the last thousand years reproduced in various technical and popular publications (for example, Eddy et al., 1991; Firor, 1990; Houghton et al., 1990; Mayewski et al., 1993) should be disregarded, since they are based on inadequate data that have, in many cases, been superseded.”
    Houghton et al 1990 = IPCC(1990).

  11. #11 Wow
    July 8, 2017

    There are two things that are possibly enough to make MBH98 a breakthrough:

    PCA by nonspecialists to extend the record and get better accuracy on the reconstruction
    Error bars that put the MWP definitely below the current (at that time) climate mean.

    Before then, the error bars were bigger because the analytic tools in use were not as sophisticated. Without PCA the error bars would not have precluded the idea that it was warmer than any time in the record.

    Before 98 the decade anomaly was still notably lower than at or after that time, so even if PCA were used in 93, the data then available would not be enough to quite exclude the possibility it was as warm in the MWP.

    Statisticians who knew better how to use the tools criticised it for not being “best in class” and found that the difference if they used the better choices made no difference. Deniers who didn’t know better did it worse and “proved” that the warming was due to noise. Of course, having used a worse set of choices their conclusion was easily the result of their bad analysis and not a result of the data.

    But at the time both together made for a simple message: it’s warmer now than it has been in the last thousand years, back to the MWP. Up until then it was only pretty conclusively shown it was rising more rapidly than any time in recorded history.

  12. #12 John Mashey
    July 8, 2017

    Wow:
    search Joes et al(1998) for PCA.

    As it turned out, the choice (centering) not only wasn’t better, but in some ways not as good, as the MBH99 principal components corresponded somewhat better to physical effects, or at least no worse.

    There is an interesting paper from 2009 by statisticians , “ON RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN UNCENTRED AND
    COLUMN-CENTRED PRINCIPAL COMPONENT ANALYSIS” whose abstract ends “comparative assessment of PCA and its uncentred variant. The relations and the
    examples also suggest that the results of both types of PCA have more in common than might be supposed.”

    If you read the paper, it is clear that the choice of methods may make a noticable difference for some datasets, but as it turns out, not for the proxies MBH as using.

  13. #13 Joel Anaple
    United States
    July 8, 2017

    Mann is in contempt. He won’t release the actual data, only the manipulated data. Why is it that climatw alarmists must resort to threats, deception and fake science. Just because a person doesn’t believe the communist rhetoric doesn’t mean he is bought by big oil. You are bought by big government and thw radical anticapitalist left. And how can a science institution controlled by government be honest?

  14. #14 Greg Laden
    July 8, 2017

    First, no, you are wrong about the data. You are also wrong that he is being asked by anyone in this or any other court case to release any data. He is not in contempt.

    I expect you to apologize for your statement that any individual or set of climate scientists are engaged in threats, deception, or fake science.

    I love your remark about the communist rhetoric, though. Reminds me of the good old days.

    I’m not bought by anyone, and I expect you to apologize for that statement as well.

  15. #15 Hank Roberts
    essential reference material
    July 9, 2017

    Would you cite the source for that first chart? (or add info text to it if it’s your creation)
    https://i1.wp.com/scienceblogs.com/gregladen/files/2017/07/HockeyStickGraph.jpg?resize=590%2C445

    I’ve been sending people to globalwarmingart, but that one’s better for the fossil fuel caused bounce back from the cooling interglacial.

  16. #16 Wow
    July 9, 2017

    “Mann is in contempt.”

    No he isn’t.

    ” He won’t release the actual data, only the manipulated data.”

    Ah, right. So if they don’t remove the UHI, then they’re lying because ALL THE WARMING is UHI changes (by magic), and if they remove ANY of the UHI effect, then they’re lying because ALL THE DATA IS FAKE.

    You truly are a moron.

  17. #17 Wow
    July 9, 2017

    “Just because a person doesn’t believe the communist rhetoric doesn’t mean he is bought by big oil.”

    But what about the case when someone makes crap up out of think air and produces rabid anti-communist rhetoric for no reason whatsoever but to make whether reality is real a patriotic test, and the denial of reality the only True American ideal?

    THAT means they’re bought by big oil, yes?

  18. #18 RickA
    July 9, 2017

    I am not familiar with Canadian defamation law.

    But whether Dr. Mann is found in contempt or not will be decided by the court.

    Whether Dr. Mann is found to be defamed is going to be decided by either a Judge or Jury in both Canada and the USA.

    We will have to wait and see what is decided about the allegation of defamation.

    Speaking to the USA case, I don’t think Dr. Mann is going to win. I don’t know enough about Canadian defamation law to have an opinion about that case.

  19. #19 Li D
    Australia
    July 9, 2017

    #13
    Oh for gods sake, can deniers please get some smarts.
    It so freaking tediously um, tedious.
    Please deniers, send your best, most articulate men and women
    to the interweb. Not the halfwits.
    Or is the writer of #13 actually a believer in AGW and just pretending to be a really boring denier to denigrate the deniers?
    If so, please stop. Everyone gets how full of shit they are.
    We dont need satire.

  20. #20 Li D
    Australia
    July 9, 2017

    #13 Fuck you for daring to question the integrity of BoM.

  21. #21 MikeN
    July 9, 2017

    RickA, my understanding is that Tim Ball had the option of defending himself on the grounds that it is humor(probably his original intent as this wasn’t the first time the Penn State crack has been made), but instead is using truth as a defense. To win, he now has to prove Mann belongs in prison.

  22. #22 John Mashey
    July 9, 2017

    There has been an amazing degree of Dunning-Kruger regarding the Mann-Ball lawsuit.
    People might want to study Canadian libel and slander actions”. It’s thorough (1000 pages) well-written & even readable by a layperson. I bought one in 2011 to study before I had a delightful & informative 2-hour breakfast with its lead author Roger McConchie … who of course is Mann’s lawyer.

    It includes much good advice for both plaintiffs (which Mann follows, unsurprisingly) and defendants.I don’t think Ball has read the book, since he ignores the advice.
    In addition, what’s truly delightful is that any dumb comment made on the net against Mann in support of Ball’s claims is actually potential *evidence* that would help Mann :-), because it shows that some people actually believe Ball, hence a disreputable source doesn’t work.

    Chapter 3 is “Should you sue?” Good libel lawyers advise clients not to sue unless the former think they have a very good case. Roger is a very good libel lawyer.

  23. #23 Mitch
    Oregon, USA
    July 9, 2017

    Most people have also forgotten that the National Research Council was asked by Congress to evaluate the hockey stick. Their report appeared in 2006:
    https://www.nap.edu/catalog/11676/surface-temperature-reconstructions-for-the-last-2000-years

    They found minor issues, that the 500 year record was good but there were still uncertainties for the Medieval Climate Optimum. Since then, other work has shown that it is about equivalent to 1900 in terms of temperature.

  24. #24 Jeff Harvey
    July 9, 2017

    IMHO this is just another case of a complete non-entity is science – Ball – whose contribution to the empirical data is virtually nil, letting his bloated ego get the better of him. What is clear or should be is that there are so few qualified climate change deniers that veritable nobodies who join their ranks are given veritable megaphones by the coal and oil lobbies and the think tanks they fund. Look at the roll call of mediocrity when it comes to climate change deniers: Ball, Willie Soon, Patrick Michaels, Sallie Baliunas, The Idso clan, John Christy, David Legates et al. None of them have strong publication or citation records yet all are household names among denier circles. Even the CVs of their two alleged heavyweights, Judith Curry and Richard Lindzen are not that exceptional.

    What’s worse is that, with big industry behind them, some of these non entities become attack dogs, smearing climate scientists they don’t like. And it’s symptomatic of how pervasive deniers have become that you have dopes like Joel, Rick and Mike coming onto this blog to defend the likes of scum like Ball.

  25. #25 John Mashey
    July 9, 2017

    Pat Michaels & Richard Lindzen got paid by coal interests from early 1990s. Lindzen has spent 3 decades being wrong, including 1991 through 2016. In the short video from 1991, Lindzen tag teams with German coal guy.

  26. #26 John Mashey
    July 9, 2017

    Re#9 oops forgot.
    I actually think that the 1992, 1993, 1994 works were had already established the non-existence of a globsl “BigMWP”, and were heading in direction of slow decline, then both Jobes et al(1998) and MBH99 pushed that back to 1000AD.
    Of course, a long, slow jiggly decline is exactly what we’d expect from Milankovitch & data from past interglacials, although human activity (tree cutting) had slowed the rate of decline (Ruddiman).

  27. #27 Wow
    July 9, 2017

    “But whether Dr. Mann is found in contempt or not will be decided by the court.”

    Whether or not you’re found guilty or not of grooming your five year old nephew and selling him on your paedo circuit is also something that will be decided by the court, “mike”.

  28. #28 Marcus
    Ontario, Canada
    July 9, 2017

    I must admit that reading the competing pro and con AGW websites is an entertaining way to spend a relaxing Sunday afternoon. Thank you to this site. One observation though…there seem to be more ad hominem commentary from pro AGW contributors. Words like “fuck you” and “scum” surely have no place in a blog directed to rationality. Otherwise, most instructive.

  29. #29 Wow
    July 9, 2017

    Who the hell is “pro” AGW? The only ones are those denying it exists because they want it to happen.

    For another problem you do not know what “ad hominem” means, either.

    insult
    speak to or treat with disrespect or scornful abuse.

    Ad hominem
    a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.

    An insult is not ad homimen. If you dismiss the reality of the science and AGW merely by assuming insult==ad hominem, then you have failed to have any actual argument and fallen foul of the fallacy fallacy.
    Oh, and back again with the tone argument?

    The tone argument (also tone policing) is a logical fallacy that occurs when an argument is dismissed or accepted on its presentation: typically perceived crassness, hysteria or anger. Tone arguments are generally used by tone trolls (esp. concern trolls) in order to derail or silence opponents lower on the privilege ladder, as a method of positioning oneself as a Very Serious Person.

    The fallacy relies on style over substance. It is an ad hominem attack, and thus an informal fallacy.

    And deniers of reality have no place in a blog directed to rationality. But still you retards infest this place with your idiocy and rampant shitstorming.

  30. #30 Susan Anderson
    July 9, 2017

    Marcus, GL doesn’t normally censor or ban commenters and is not responsible for what they say. That said, you appear to have isolated three words and ignored the rest. I suggest you read the article and the more articulate commenters, and follow through to their links. You might actually learn something.

  31. #31 Susan Anderson
    July 9, 2017

    Ah, Marcus, I see you claim you did read the rest. I will hope you did so with an open mind.

    And for those using insult as argument, please, colleagues, you make this harder for the rest of us. It may relieve your feelings, but it’s only our earth and future at stake. I know it’s a double standard, but I hope you will exercise some restraint and leave the Trumpian behavior to the Trumpians.

  32. #32 Steve Elliot
    United States
    July 9, 2017

    There is a lot of things wrong with the climate discussion. One thing I’ve never heard anyone talk about is CO2 from a statistical point of view. For this example I’m using round numbers and they will be accurate enough to understand the point.
    CO2 a couple of decades ago was generally claimed to be about 325 parts per million or .000325% of the atmosphere. Now the claim is about 375 parts per million or .000375% of the atmosphere. So CO2 has increase by .00005% total percentage of the atmosphere. So we are to believe that this increase has warmed the other 99.999625% of the atmosphere? BAWHAHAHAHAHA. No scientist would believe this statistically. No one has looked at it from the point of view as far as I know. It’s just that other number – we’ve move from 325 parts to 375 parts. Wow sounds like a lot and it is a 13.3% increase which makes it sound like a lot but it isn’t a lot at all.
    In addition both Oxygen and Nitrogen (99% of the atmosphere) hold far more heat than CO2 so an increase in CO2 has been argued as actually a cooling agent instead of a heating agent. Now CO2 does hold heat a little longer than Oxygen and Nitrogen but CO2’s heat range is very narrow.
    Also the benefits of a little extra CO2 give us a greener planet which we all know is good.
    Now some other things most people don’t know. In the last couple of decades about 1/3 of the thermometers have been removed the the measurements and most of them were remote (i.e. in the woods.) In addition the 8000 that remain have many times become surrounded by “heat islands.” Finally the time in which they were read has also been changed (from midnight to 8PM – clearly that will make a difference.) There are too many variables in these three things to make up for in a computer model.
    So essentially the computer models are mostly “garbage in – garbage out.)
    Then we do know Mann cherry picked his data and hid some things – and that is indisputable, otherwise why not show the data? We also know about the 2009 & 2011 email scandals and cherry picking of data.
    If you really want to be an honest scientist all data counts. Mann is defended as not in for the money. That’s pure BS. He’s in it only for the research money.
    By the way the only person that cares about a .0005 increase is a guy at the drag strip.

  33. #33 Wow
    July 9, 2017

    “And for those using insult as argument, please, colleagues, you make this harder for the rest of us”

    No, we don’t. You make it harder for yourself.

    By pretending that the argument is real, you make it happen, and therefore you have to deal with it.
    By pretending that the argument is valid, you give it the power it has over you, and you make it our problem because YOU didn’t think.
    By berating others you make them see benefit to trying this asinine and moronic tone troll fallacy and continue its use by the trolls and morons.

    No, we don’t make it harder for you, you make it harder for everyone but the moron deniers. For them you make it all worth the effort and make them their rewards.

    Stop working for them, Susan.

  34. #34 Wow
    July 9, 2017

    “And for those using insult as argument”

    I will note too that it’s not just moron deniers who don’t understand what an argument is and what an insult is and when they are not the same thing.

    If you’re quacking like a denier, susan….

  35. #35 MikeN
    July 9, 2017

    Hehe, how’s it feel to be in the denier camp, Susan?

  36. #36 Wow
    July 9, 2017

    Thanks for admitting you’re a moron and a denier, “mike”.

  37. #37 Greg Laden
    July 9, 2017

    Steve,

    Your numbers are all wrong, your science is wrong, you logic is wrong, and your intent nefarious.

    What benefit do you gain from helping to ruin our children’s future?

  38. #38 Wow
    July 9, 2017

    “Then we do know Mann cherry picked his data and hid some things – and that is indisputable”

    Well, the courts and investigations all dispute that. As do I. So, wrong, it’s very disputed.

    And how can you claim a trace gas of no import is vital to plants?

    The entire post there was 100% zombie in a gish gallop of gallons of septic overflow.

  39. #39 dean
    July 9, 2017

    “we’ve move from 325 parts to 375 parts. Wow sounds like a lot and it is a 13.3% increase ”

    It takes a real idiot to complain that “nobody has looked at things from a statistics point of view”, make up a bunch of crap, and then screw up his own percentage increase. Congratulations Steve, you are that real idiot.

  40. #40 GOP-1
    USA
    July 9, 2017

    I don’t care what any of you say. The fact is we are incapable of significantly lowering Earth’s temperatures, changing the climate, or changing weather patterns. To say otherwise is to deny science!

  41. #41 Tyvor Winn
    USA
    July 9, 2017

    #32: “If you really want to be an honest scientist all data counts.”

    That statement is a prime example of a rhetorical ploy that is meant to impress nonscientists and makes no sense in most actual scientific contexts, especially those that involve a complex of interacting factors such as the case of climate science..

    Have you ever actually taken data in the field or in a lab? I have and I know that there are all sorts of good reasons to eliminate data point from an array. For example, there are measurement errors, equipment failures, and various anomalous conditions which produce misleading, often wildly misleading, data points.

    To minimize these, scientists repeat their measurements (and repeat other scientists’ measurements) if possible, test, calibrate, and assess the precision and accuracy of their equipment, and also try to increase the number of measurements in each measurement episode.
    – – – –
    “He’s [Dr Mann’s] in it only for the research money.”

    (A) How could you possibly know this? If you have any actual evidence of this, then bring it to the attention of the proper authorities. (B) As long as unsupported allegations are ok in your posts, I’ll venture that you are paid by some fossil fuel corporation or a right-wing action group to discredit the science supporting AGW.

    Regarding the rest of your post, I suggest reading “A Global Warming Primer” by Jeffrey Bennett.

  42. #42 Greg Laden
    July 9, 2017

    Plus it is more like 250 now at 404 heading for 500

  43. #43 Jeff Harvey
    July 9, 2017

    The Dunning-Krugerites are strong on this thread. Strange how those who are scientifically illiterate – Steve, GOP 1 etc – somehow believe that they possess wisdom which has eluded every major scientific organisation on Earth, every National Academy in every nation on Earth, and 97% of climate scientists. This must be the mother of all conspiracies, or else a few armchair educated pundits are just extremely brilliant.

  44. #44 RickA
    July 9, 2017

    Susan:

    I applaud your appeal to politeness. Thank you.

    With friends like these, who needs enemies – right?

  45. #45 Ed Thompson
    Winnipeg
    July 10, 2017

    I agree with Mr. Ball. I believe Mr. Mann started the suit against Mr. Ball to intimidate him. The seems to be a tactic by groups to silent opposition. Mr. Mann & Associates were simply not prepared to go to court. A defeat would be most revealing. Hence the blame game and the failure to engage Mr. Ball with data supporting his “hockey stick”. This must be a real shocker for the other “97% of Scientists” who also are exposed as not doing their homework. They should really be embarrassed by this development. Mr. Mann it’s time for your supporting groups to pay with money and loss of credibility!

  46. #46 Wow
    July 10, 2017

    “I don’t care what any of you say. ”

    Reality doesn’t care what you say, think or deny.

    To prove this, close your eyes and stand in the middle of a train track on a blind corner and make believe that because you can’t see the train it can’t hurt you.

    You’re wrong in the rest of the post for similar reasons.

  47. #47 Wow
    July 10, 2017

    See, Susan, how you validate the idiocy of the moronic deniers?

    YOU make it easier, even pat them on the back (remember, they aren’t worried about what they do, they’re CONVINCED that anyone who accepts reality on AGW is utter evil in intent and therefore their own atrocities are irrelevant in this fight).

    Well done helping the deniers and making it harder for everyone else, including you.

    Point that finger where it should, Susan. Back at yourself.

  48. #48 Jeff Harvey
    July 10, 2017

    Wow, you nailed it. Deniers for the most part are not a group of polite, well meaning individuals in search of the truth. They are primarily despicable liars, mangling and distorting science in pursuit of political agendas. It’s clear from the abominable witch hunts of scientists like Michael Mann, and the fact that some of the more prominent scientists who argue forcefully that we need to drastically change course are routinely threatened, that deniers are not honest brokers. I therefore vehemently disagree with Susan, who is inadvertantly being conned by an unscrupulous bunch. She should know better. This is not a polite debate but a street fight in which one side that has long lost on the science adopts all kinds of chimaera-like guises to try and remain relevant.

  49. #49 Jeff Harvey
    July 10, 2017

    I reiterate my last comment and direct it at Marcus as well. The problem is that passers-by in the climate change ‘debate’ often lack the acumen to be able to adjudicate the truth, which as I said above pits the vast majority of scientists against a small, but very vocal and well financed group of deniers. Having well lost the scientific debate, which never really interested them in the first place, deniers have resorted to all kinds of other strategies and tactics in an attempt to project themselves into the limelight. These include, as I said, attacks on the integrity of scientists like Mann, Hansen, Trenberth and others, as well as camouflaging the real political agendas that drive them. When deniers like RickA come on here acting holier than thou, it’s time to reach for the barf bag.

  50. #50 Wow
    July 10, 2017

    As a data point for evidence, there’s been no instance where Susan has turned up to debate deniers that hasn’t included berating realists for their language.

    So whether she#s been conned is not yet shown. It is concordant with the evidence so far that she’s deliberately pretending to be a realist merely so as to get the argument made in the way deniers want it to and that all they have to do to “win” the argument is engender such frustration that someone, ANYONE, will give vent to the frustration deliberately provoked.

    Deniers will insist that claims of their paid dishonesty must be proven, but will not deign to resist claiming specific people as being deliberate frauds. Deniers will insist that when THEY insult a massive group of people that this is fine “because”. Yet when you call a massive group of deniers, you’re insulting them.

    Nothing is out of bounds for them because they see their opponents as inherently inimical to life as they know it, an existential threat that must be defeated by any means whatsoever.

    So they will make a post without a single swear word and another post elsewhere that throws around insults like confetti, and if you continue the fight they started there, apologists will tut tut away and the denier will go “Oh, these people are so bad! LOOK! I did not swear like they did!”.

    And when they swear, they’ll point to your labels as insulting in just the same way.

    And when they apply labels, they’ll point to your curt dismissals in the same way.

    Because they don’t CARE what they do, they only want to obsess over anything they can grab on to for you to be wrong.

    And the Susan’s of the world help them do it. Deliberately or duped makes no difference, and evidence may not be conclusive but it IS indicative of which is more liable to be the case.

    If the Susans of the world wish to see arguments done with less swearing, they should do the debating.

    If they deign otherwise, they are only giving orders to others and have no power to enforce them except the power we give them.

    Hence my response to those who go to me or anyone else “Oh, your tone is damaging!” is to refute that power exists. And to point out that to refuse to accept a dangerous reality merely because of personal offence or, worse, offence on behalf of someone else who may or may not actually be offended (which is, after all, what those deserving the perjorative “SJW” do, whether they are left right or other wing) is to prefer the lack of certain words to the life of billions.

    And someone who cares so little for life but so overwhelmingly for their own opinion is someone to whom I do not care to reach rapport with.

    And that’s even without considering that someone so self opinionated would not be swayed by any argument they did not prefer for selfish reasons, making any attempt to debate or convince them pointless in the extreme.

    So in all and every way possible the tone argument falls flat and is null and void. Hence it is a fallacy.

    If you do not like words, excise them from the post yourself and if there is nothing left in the post, then there is no argument in the post.

    There may not have been any attempt to argue a counterpoint, anyway. LiD’s “Fuck you” point was not a counter to the BS claims against BoM, but a response to the slanderous poster.

    But if you remove the posts “uncomfortable words” and the counter claimed to be made were still there, then those words removed were not ad hominem attacks but insults. And to discard the arguments merely because of your discomfort with some words that were not part of it merely shows up your shallowness and overinflated self worth. And is instead an ad hom itself, the same (projection again!) problem as was claimed in the dismissal of the counterpoint.

  51. #51 Greg Laden
    July 10, 2017

    Ed, you have a rich fantasy life.

  52. #52 dean
    July 10, 2017

    There is a small chance that Susan is unaware of the complete lack of science knowledge, integrity, and honesty, folks rickA and mikeN demonstrate.
    Reading a few of ricka’s dismissal of concern for the welfare of the poor, minorities, or his worship of the free market unless intervention gives advantage to his interests, or mikeN’s complete dismissal of any scientific study that doesn’t match his predetermined view might change her mind.

    But I doubt that she’s unaware of how vile they are and I doubt she cares about what poor specimens of humanity those two are

  53. #53 Wow
    July 10, 2017

    “Mr. Mann started the suit against Mr. Ball to intimidate him. ”

    And the case brought by the state against the Unabomber was done to silence political protest….

    It doesn’t matter if you believe that or not, it’s completely counter to all evidence and all you believing it would mean is you don’t care about evidence or reality. And if you don’t believe it, then you’re just trolling BS.

    ” A defeat would be most revealing.”

    Yet it is the defendants who are trying to get the defeat voided by having the case thrown out before it gets to court. This means they know that the only defeat coming is theirs and that they want to avoid that since it would set precedent that their lies were not without consequence for them.

    “the failure to engage Mr. Ball with data supporting his “hockey stick””

    And the failure to accept that the data has been there supports the complete self-sealing idiocy or trolling of your claims.

    “who also are exposed as not doing their homework. ”

    Clearly the one not having done their homework is you, “Ed”:

    https://bbickmore.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/no-the-hockey-stick-has-not-been-falsified/

  54. #54 Wow
    July 10, 2017

    “There is a small chance that Susan is unaware ”

    I couldn’t say what the chance is, small or large. However there is no evidence she’s unaware and one piece of evidence she’s at least biased in what she comes to talk about and whose inference is she is not unaware.

    Personally I’d say the chance is 50:50. Without evidence one way or another it would be different, but there isn’t much and though the default position would be slanted to the “unaware”, the small evidence otherwise indicates that the chances of being aware are higher than justified on no evidence whatsoever.

    I don’t care, though. In either case the argument made by the Susans of the world are irrelevant for the reasons given above and that in either case there is no power in them other than what we accord them. If you really believe being unfailingly polite will work, then try it. See if it works. For decades it’s not. Hell, the entire science discussion has forbidden the harsh words yet still the same names crop up in the science circles with the same lame zombie arguments, and this is proof enough that politeness means nothing to them other than a way to browbeat others into submission. And in rhetoric, that beating only happens when you do the beating on yourself.

  55. #55 RickA
    July 10, 2017

    Wow #54 says ” If you really believe being unfailingly polite will work, then try it.”

    Thank you – I will try it.

    Do you think being unfailingly rude works better?

    I don’t.

    Are you advocating for being unfailingly rude?

    You should ask yourself how many hearts and minds you have persuaded to your position, with your rude name calling.

    Lurkers! Tell us – which works better, being rude or being polite. Thank you in advance for any response you wish to make.

  56. #56 12volt dan
    ontario
    July 10, 2017

    “Lurkers! Tell us – which works better, being rude or being polite. Thank you in advance for any response you wish to make.”

    Polite of course and explaining the data simply to the layman.

    and because “you” do denier infections will continue. Facts really bother them for whatever reason

    lurker

  57. #57 Richard Simons
    July 10, 2017

    Ed Thompson #45

    Mr. Mann & Associates were simply not prepared to go to court.

    If this is correct, it would be because any reasonable scientist would disagree with the evidence or its interpretation. They would not call another researcher a fraud unless there was extremely strong evidence. That Ball (who has had difficulty in keeping track of just when he became a professor and in which area of study, BTW for those who get confused, that is an ad hominem) should call someone a fraud without producing strong supporting evidence for his views on climate change shows how weak his position is.

    the failure to engage Mr. Ball with data supporting his “hockey stick”.
    Why do you believe this assertion to be correct? Why do you cavalierly dismiss the data at RealClimate?

  58. #58 Richard Simons
    July 10, 2017

    Sorry: I can now join the ranks of those who have had a blockquote fail!

  59. #59 SteveP
    basement archive
    July 10, 2017

    #32 “There is a lot of things wrong with the climate discussion.” Is English your second language? Perhaps Russian is your first?

    “One thing I’ve never heard anyone talk about is CO2 from a statistical point of view. “ So you are not well read. We can see that. Perhaps then, it would be a good idea for you to not post to a blog that rather quickly exposes the posturing of people who are trying to appear literate and numerate.

  60. #60 Wow
    July 10, 2017

    “Thank you – I will try it.”

    Nope, dick, you’ll still be an ignorant arsehole with no qualms about calling Mike Mann a fraud. And if anyone tries polite with you, this will never change your feculent “ideas”. Such as, for example, “You have to have a doubling to know what the climate sensitivity is”.

    “Do you think being unfailingly rude works better?

    I don’t.”

    Of course you don’t, under your own definition of “rude”, that being “does not agree with me”. And with you, because you’re a full-on denier and retard, nothing will work on you, so it really doesn’t matter if anyone is rude or polite or polkadot.

    You’ve made u p your mind based on your pocket book, and nothing will change it.

    What being rude to arseholes like you will do is make it clear that your antics are not respected and deserve no respect.

  61. #61 Wow
    July 10, 2017

    “with your rude name calling.”

    Those who would prefer to obsess over their feels or worse the feels of purported others over the lives of billions really do not matter to me.

    If you want to argue over reality, argue over it, not over whether you’re butthurt or offended. And if you can’t, then you’ll continue to complain about the offence you found because that is all you have to make your misanthropy “right” in your twisted mind.

  62. #62 Gary Faser
    Canada
    July 10, 2017

    This is hilarious. Mann had SIX YEARS

  63. #63 Gary Faser
    July 10, 2017

    This is hilarious. Mann had SIX YEARS to prepare for this, he knew that if he did not prevail, that his reputation and his hockey stick would be in the sewer. He knew the importance of winning. And he slunk away with his bogus data and now we “deniers” will have his butt handed to him. And Steyn is warming up in the bullpen. Mann lost. Common sense won. And Dr. Ball who you try to smear, wins big time. The smear is the only defence you have left, since the science – your Mann-god’s science, is debunked along with Mann’s reputation. Great news.

  64. #64 Mike Danger
    Florida
    July 10, 2017

    Of course there is the inconvenient research of Jan Esper: Esper et al (2012, 2014 and others). Esper and Mann both cannot be right. Furthermore Mann has been criticized by statisticians Stephen McIntyre and David Hand (former president of the Royal Statistical Society) for faulty statistical methodology. Similarly I find it troubling that Mann would choose to purse legal action against those who dare to criticize his research. Is he a political activist masquerading as a scientist?

  65. #65 Mark M
    Gold Coast, Australia.
    July 10, 2017

    GL, #36: “What benefit do you gain from helping to ruin our children’s future?”
    Wait. You have children?
    As Environmental Catastrophe Looms, Is it Ethical to Have Children?
    http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/05/31/is-it-ethical-to-have-children-climate-change-family-planning/
    Undeniably the Worst, Most Fraudulent Apocalypse. Ever.

  66. #66 Greg Laden
    July 10, 2017

    Mike Danger.

    Michael Mann has never, not once, taken legal action against anyone saying anything to criticize his research. You have been misinformed, or you are not telling the truth.

    McIntyre is of course a famous science denier. Also, his critiques have been long ago rejected by all the experts.

    Your claims about Esper are falsehoods. See: https://skepticalscience.com/esper-millennial-cooling-in-context.html

  67. #67 Greg Laden
    July 10, 2017

    Gary Faser: Are you paying attention to any of this?

    I assure you Tim Ball has been doing a sufficiently good job at smearing himself that I don’t have to do that.

  68. #68 Wow
    July 10, 2017

    “And he slunk away with his bogus data”

    More alternatives to sanity. Reality is a one-trick pony, but deneirs and morons just go batshit and the sky is the limit. There’s an infinite number of wrong things to claim, and morons like you try every last one.

  69. #69 Wow
    July 10, 2017

    “As Environmental Catastrophe Looms, Is it Ethical to Have Children?”

    And as an australian you can save 10x as much as a non birth just by killing yourself.

    Get yourself planted, the composting will help plants grow. They need more than CO2. Otherwise farmers would go round with CO2 tanks not muckspreaders to fertilise the ground.

  70. #70 Wow
    July 10, 2017

    “Esper and Mann both cannot be right. ”

    Really? First you only claim this. So the claim I dismiss as you present it: without evidence.

    Secondly, sure. So Esper is wrong. That comports with your assertion, so you’re happy.

    And note: not a single rude word.

  71. #71 Wow
    July 10, 2017

    ” Stephen McIntyre”

    The same McIntyre who worked on the M&M 2003 paper that was trashed by everyone for its ridiculous errors and not corrected at all?

  72. #72 RickA
    July 10, 2017

    Wow – thank you for again making my point for me.

    If I didn’t matter to you, then you would ignore my posts. Since you don’t, I clearly matter to you.

    I think that your approach of mindlessly pushing for 100% renewables will hurt more people than my approach of waiting and seeing, while advocating for more nuclear energy.

    But lets wait and see which approach hurts more people.

    It is not money which made up my mind, but the facts and evidence.

    Fact – the IPCC says ECS is between 1.5C and 4.5C.
    Fact – this is the same range the consensus has maintained since 1990.
    Fact – no one knows what ECS actually is – all we have are estimates. Some estimates are as low as 1.6C, some are higher than 3C.
    Fact – when we actually double CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm, we will actually be able to measure TCR and get a much better observational estimate ECS than we currently have (again, 1.5C to 4.5C is the range).
    Fact – the world only generates 3% of its energy with wind and solar.
    Fact – if you turned off all the coal, natural gas and oil (fossil fuels) energy you would cause massive hurt to billions of people.

    There are not enough batteries to store all the wind and solar necessary to go 100% renewable and the ecological damage caused by creating that many batteries is worse than just burning hydro-carbons (in my opinion).

    So I am in the wait and see camp.

    Meanwhile, I am not against a plan which attempts to generate as much baseload energy as possible with nuclear power.

    I have stated several times before on various threads that I would like to see the USA double its nuclear power plant count from 100 to 200 in the next 5 years (2 per state), and also build regional recycling reactors to process the waste stored on the 100 existing sites. That would take the USA from 20 % energy from nuclear to 40% nuclear. Then I would double it again to 80% in another 5 or 10 years.

    This plan would allow us to phase out 60% energy production from coal, natural gas and oil as the fossil fuel plants hit their end of life.

    If we can boost renewable cost effectively higher than 20%, than we can reduce the share of nuclear – otherwise it would end up at 20% renewable and 80% nuclear.

    That should take care of our CO2 emissions and maybe we will get lucky and invent some other cheap non-carbon producing energy source (maybe fusion or space based solar) and we can reduce nuclear in the future.

    This plan doesn’t involve any name calling and (in my opinion) will hurt less people than a 100% renewable plan.

    What is your plan again Wow? Or Dean? or Jeff Harvey?

    Lets hear them.

  73. #73 dean
    July 10, 2017

    Mike Danger: Are your lies always so blatant?

    The report Hand was involved in is summarized here.
    http://www.uea.ac.uk/documents/3154295/7847337/SAP.pdf/a6f591fc-fc6e-4a70-9648-8b943d84782b

    Here are some of the points.

    Although inappropriate statistical tools with the potential for producing misleading results have been used by some other groups, presumably by accident rather than design, in the CRU papers that we examined we did not come across any inappropriate usage although the methods they used may not have been the best for the purpose. It is not clear, however, that better methods would have produced significantly different results. The published work also contains many cautions about the limitations of the data and their interpretation.

    After reading publications and interviewing the senior staff of CRU in depth, we are satisfied that the CRU tree-ring work has been carried out with integrity, and that allegations of deliberate misrepresentation and unjustified selection of data are not valid. In the event CRU scientists were able to give convincing answers to our detailed questions about data choice, data handling and statistical methodology. The Unit freely admits that many data analyses they made in the past are superseded and they would not do things that way today.

    The first point of the overall conclusion:

    We saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit and had it been there we believe that it is likely that we would have detected it. Rather we found a small group of dedicated if slightly disorganised researchers who were ill-prepared for being the focus of public attention. As with many small research groups their internal procedures were rather informal.

    I’m sure you (and the other climate science denying liars) will spin things to show it supports your side, but that’s just part of your dishonest approach.

  74. #74 dean
    July 10, 2017

    And, M Danger, while it is true Mcyntire has harassed Mann, Mcyntire is not a mathematician nor is he a statistician, nor is he a scientist. He doesn’t like the hockey stick, true (neither do this blog’s resident liars rickA and mikeN) but they all dislike it for the same basic reasons.

    – They don’t like what it says
    – They don’t like that science has duplicated its message repeatedly
    – They don’t have any understanding of the analysis behind it, which means it’s “sciencey stuff”, which means it is anti-American (or some such ignorant crap)

    It’s a safe bet you share those reasons

  75. #75 Mark M
    July 10, 2017

    wow @ #69, quote: “And as an australian you can save 10x as much as a non birth just by killing yourself.”

    If the people who believe in Doomsday Global Warming only saw their doctor for an assisted suicide note, the planet would be saved.

  76. #76 RickA
    July 10, 2017

    dean #74:

    1. I am not a liar.
    2. You spelled Steve McIntyre incorrectly.
    3. The hockey stick was and is suspect because it was designed by Dr. Mann to get rid of the MWP. By careful selection of proxies, using them improperly (upside down, stripbark, etc.), careful selection of the number of principal components (2 instead of 3 or 4 or 5), decentering improperly, and then generating numerous graphs via the censored directory until he got the one he liked (after tweaking). Basically, the hockey stick MBH98 and MBH99 is propaganda and not science. It was created with an end in mind. We know this because after Steve McIntyre pointed out all the many errors, changes were made (some proxies were still used, but RegEm was dropped and so forth). So different hockey sticks were created . All of them have many flaws. But they are all designed for one purpose – to be able to claim that the warming we are experiencing now is unprecedented in the last 500 years or 1000 years or 2000 years. Created by science advocates more interested in how to use the graph to advocate for CO2 emissions than in actually answering the question of how much of the warming is due to human emissions.
    4. Except science has shown that the warming we have experienced is not actually outside the range of natural variability and is not unprecedented. It has been warmer than the present several times in the past 3000 years and also around 8300 years ago.
    5. So how much of the warming we have experienced lately is natural and how much from human CO2 emissions? No one knows the answer to this question. It could be 50/50 or 25/75 or 75/25. Science will continue to work on this question and I am sure models will continue to improve as we gather more and more data.
    6. But currently the models are not good enough to rely on for forecasts of what the climate will be like, even 10 years in the future, let alone 83 years in the future.
    7. So we are left back where we started – the Earth is warming, but we don’t know how much of the warming is due to human emissions and how much would have occurred anyway, in the absence of humans.
    8. The warming is net beneficial up to at least 2 degrees C, so we have 1C degree left of beneficial warming to go, before we even get to net negative consequences of warming.
    9. So relax – California will get wetter. Minnesota will get wetter (to pick just two places). Crops will grow faster and be more productive, and need less water to grow. People will adapt and plant different crops in different places, and we will continue to produce more food than ever before.
    10. People will continue to invent, with more brains working on our problems than ever before. Eventually someone will invent a non-carbon producing form of energy production which is actually cheaper than coal, natural gas or oil (fossil fuels) and the market will naturally switch over to the cheaper form of production.
    11. Until then, government can go nuclear (which is more expensive than fossil fuels) – but that is preferable to emitting all that carbon – right?

    To summarize – don’t worry, be happy.

  77. #77 dean
    July 10, 2017

    rickA, you are a congenital liar for repeating this: “is suspect because it was designed by Dr. Mann to get rid of the MWP. By careful selection of proxies, using them improperly (upside down, stripbark, etc.), careful selection of the number of principal components (2 instead of 3 or 4 or 5), decentering improperly, ”

    – You are willfully ignoring the the reports of other scientists
    – “careful selection of the number of principal components” — you have no clue about the purpose of PCA, apparently
    – “decentering improperly” — again, pure denial of review and lack of understanding

  78. #78 dean
    July 10, 2017

    You are consistent, however, (rickA), as we all knew you would show up to argue that when the report cited said X about Mann you would deny it.

    And nobody cares about Steve McIntyre since, as noted, he has 0 knowledge of the required material and simply made shit up.

  79. #79 John Mashey
    July 10, 2017

    Dean:
    re McIntyre
    Not only that, but one of his early & key posts was demonstrably (academic) fraud (false citation, misrepresentation).
    See The Significance of the Hockey Stick (wbcite)
    In order to make the Deming tale make even the slightest sense, he had to pretend that the 1990 graph was in IPCC(1995), as opposed to the reality of he history I showed in MedievalDeception 2015: Inhofe Drags Senate Back To Dark Ages (MD2015)

    2) Mcintyre obvious had neither IPCC(1990) nor (1995), and as shown in MD2015, anyone who actually read IPCC(1990) Fig 7.1(c) would see the caveats surrounding it, as seen in the annotated copy I included.

    3) But the image he used didn’t actually come from IPCC(1990) either, but happens to be identical to one that John Daly (Western Fuels Association “science consultant”) used a few years before. That same image got used many times, including by James Inhofe in his book & 2015. It’s close, but not the same, which you can see.

    4) McIntyre didn’t correct the bad 1995 date until 2012, when Tom Curtis asked him. Curtis (Oct 9, 2012) said it was posted by Daley.
    McinTyre posted:
    “I don’t recall where I picked up the version used in the post.”

    His narrative depended strongly on the false idea that this graph was taken seriously in 1995, and he couldn’t recall where he got the image, which was not in IPCC.

    As noted in MD2015, there will be later posts devoted to Daly, Deming, McIntyre, McKitrick, SInger, all involved in the false narrative.

  80. #80 hmi
    NYC
    July 10, 2017

    [false quote from fake news site deleted]

    [Link to fake news site deleted]

  81. #81 Chuck Long
    July 10, 2017

    Why doesn’t Mann just release his data? What is he hiding?

  82. #82 Jeff Harvey
    July 10, 2017

    Don’t you just love RickA and his ‘facts’? Most of them made up on the spot. Rick is a classic procrastinator. He has absolutely no relevant expertise but thinks he is a bonafide expert. He seems to think that we have all the time in the world to wait it out, while the evidence for harmful effects across the biosphere accumulate. But since his understanding of environmental science is virtually non existent, what do you expect? As for the other deniers contaminating this thread, one wonders why they aren’t all practicing climate scientists working at universities or other researchers institutes around the world since they all believe that they know more than scientists with decades of experience. The Dunning-Kruger effect is being amply demonstrated here.

  83. #83 Richard Simons
    July 10, 2017

    RickA #72

    Fact – when we actually double CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm, we will actually be able to measure TCR and get a much better observational estimate ECS than we currently have (again, 1.5C to 4.5C is the range).

    Are you still rattling on about this? You haven’t taken the mathematics courses we’ve suggested, have you? Do yourself a favour and enroll immediately.

  84. #84 BBD
    July 11, 2017

    3. The hockey stick was and is suspect because it was designed by Dr. Mann to get rid of the MWP.

    In which RickA argues that Mann tried to get rid of evidence for high climate sensitivity…

    Something I’ve explained to him several times before.

    RickA’s serial failure to grasp the basics is embarrassing at this point.

  85. #85 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “Fact – the IPCC says ECS is between 1.5C and 4.5C.”

    Lie.

    First, it only says the models they used gave ECS between 1.5 and 4.5C. Actual measurements show we have at least 2.4C and we’re not at equilibrium (as proven by the satellite TOA measurements)

    Secondly, it’s irrelevant to your claim you’re “attempting” to refute with your gish gallop of nonsensical rubbish and lies in both that post and the subsequent one, that you insist you have to wait for a doubling of CO2 to find out what ECS is, a fatuous claim that can only be believed by someone who never took a maths exam at school.

    The only way to deal with a gish gallop of septic sludge like yours is to prove one is completely wrong and let the FACTS speak for themselves.

  86. #86 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “To summarize – don’t worry, be happy.”

    Because dick has a stock portfolio to live off and your lives and the lives of anyone to come is irrelevant to him, because that doesn’t make him happy.

  87. #87 BBD
    July 11, 2017

    First, it only says the models they used gave ECS between 1.5 and 4.5C.

    CMIP5 ensemble results don’t go as low as 1.5C. This only got into AR5 because of a couple of studies where EBMs were fed estimated forcings supposedly fitted to observations. For a variety of reasons, this approach leads to significant under-estimation of ECS.

    Despite being told – over and over again – RickA still thinks the range presented in AR5 is equally likely from top to bottom.

    Either he’s a idiot who can’t understand the basics despite repeat explanations (see also #83) or he’s deliberately repeating things he knows not to be true (aka ‘lying’).

  88. #88 BBD
    July 11, 2017

    See Proistosescu & Huybers (2017) Slow climate mode reconciles historical and model-based estimates of climate sensitivity:

    The latest Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment Report widened the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) range from 2° to 4.5°C to an updated range of 1.5° to 4.5°C in order to account for the lack of consensus between estimates based on models and historical observations. The historical ECS estimates range from 1.5° to 3°C and are derived assuming a linear radiative response to warming. A Bayesian methodology applied to 24 models, however, documents curvature in the radiative response to warming from an evolving contribution of interannual to centennial modes of radiative response. Centennial modes display stronger amplifying feedbacks and ultimately contribute 28 to 68% (90% credible interval) of equilibrium warming, yet they comprise only 1 to 7% of current warming. Accounting for these unresolved centennial contributions brings historical records into agreement with model-derived ECS estimates.

    I’ve been telling RickA this for at least two years now.

  89. #89 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    Yes, but in a gish gallop it doesn’t matter if most or the most recent do not even say 1.5, all that matters is that IN NO CASE WHATSOEVER to ANY of the IPCC reports say ECS is between 1.5 and 4.5, because it only talks about the results of model runs and the ECS made.

    Given dick and other deniers love to whine about “only models” like creotards whine about “only a theory”, demanding the conflation with reality and model results is ironic and likewise instructive in the directed and duplicitous idiocy of deniers, but still irrelevant to the asinine claim and its failure at truth.

    Just like the rest of the unbelievable BS dick spouted is irrelevant. If one blank assertion the gish galloper made was entirely wrong the burden reverses and the galloping shitstain has to either let the lie stand for all to see exposed or argue on the one point, removing the only positive for the gish gallop: that it overwhelms people and makes it look like the retard using it must be more right because there’s so many “Fact:”s.

  90. #90 Greg Laden
    July 11, 2017

    Chuck, he released the data! I put a link in the post, above.

  91. #91 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “What is he hiding?”

    Nothing. He has long since released the data. What are you hiding from?

  92. #92 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    ‘If the people who believe’

    That would be you. Deniers believe it’s all a scam and it’s all wrong.

    Realists have evidence. No belief necessary.

    YOU were the one bringing up how having children was bad. If population is what you thik is a real problem, then you can solve it along with all the other deniers with the minimum of human suffering: kill yourselves. You produce a CO2 load far more than the average human does, therefore fewer of you have to die to fix the problem.

    Since you believe that population is the problem, you should do what your beliefs say is right: kill yourselves. If you don’t then we know that your claimed beliefs are fake and not real.

  93. #93 RickA
    July 11, 2017

    BBD:

    I never said that every point in the range has an equal probability.

    I simply said what the range is – which is 1.5C to 4.5C.

    It is a fact that the IPCC range for ECS is 1.5C to 4.5C. And it is a fact that this is the same range the IPCC started out with at the beginning.

  94. #94 RickA
    July 11, 2017

    Richard Simons #83:

    Perhaps it is you who does not understand.

    Let me try an analogy.

    You can measure the S&P 500 index performance for a quarter and then annualize to the forcast yearly performance (by multiplying by 4). This is a linear projection. It is an estimate and it may not be correct, depending on what happens the rest of the year.

    If you want to measure what happens when CO2 emissions double from 280 to 560, the best way is to measure what happens after CO2 doubles from 280 to 560. That will give you a much better answer than making a linear projection of what happens after CO2 increased from 280 to 400.

    ECS is based on 2X co2 increase from 280 to 560 ppm.

    You can actually measure TCR, the transient climate response when you hit 560 and then use that to get a better estimate of ECS than simply taking a measurement from 1/2 of the doubling (i.e. 280 to 400 ish) and then making a linear projection to 560 ppm.

    At least, that is my opinion.

    You are free to have your own opinion.

  95. #95 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “I never said that every point in the range has an equal probability.”

    Yes you did.

    “ECS is based on 2X co2 increase from 280 to 560 ppm.”

    No it isn’t. Just like pressure in pascals isn’t based on the force needed to hold back the liquid or gas over a square meter.

    “You can actually measure TCR,”

    WRONG. You can’t measure TCR because you have to measure over time during which both the forcing has changed, negating the force you’re measuring the response for, AND it has partly equilibriated, making it not TCR

    “At least, that is my opinion.”

    Nope, that is not your opinion.

    Only an AI programmed to spout that bullshit would say it without knowing it was lying, and such things don’t have beliefs.

  96. #96 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    And look what happened when I posted without any rude words.

    You posted four posts of full-to-the-brim bullshit gish gallop posts with the most insane and idiotic lies and rubbish that have been seen on the internet for some time. And this is an internet which has 4chan on it.

  97. #97 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    Here’s an analogy. You have a car that needs inflating. The car tyre pressure should be 32psi. Your car valve is not one full square inch in area. This does not mean you have to open up a hole in the tyre one inch in are to measure the pressure.

  98. #98 dean
    July 11, 2017

    “You can measure the S&P 500 index performance for a quarter and then annualize to the forcast yearly performance (by multiplying by 4). This is a linear projection. It is an estimate and it may not be correct, depending on what happens the rest of the year.”

    Only an idiot would present that as an example of anything.

  99. #99 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “It is a fact that the IPCC range for ECS is 1.5C to 4.5C.”

    It is a fact that that claim is a lie.

    First, it only says the models they used gave ECS between 1.5 and 4.5C. Actual measurements show we have at least 2.4C and we’re not at equilibrium (as proven by the satellite TOA measurements)

    Secondly, it’s irrelevant to your claim you’re “attempting” to refute with your gish gallop of nonsensical rubbish and lies in both that post and the subsequent one, that you insist you have to wait for a doubling of CO2 to find out what ECS is, a fatuous claim that can only be believed by someone who never took a maths exam at school.

  100. #100 RickA
    July 11, 2017

    Wow:

    You are free to continue to believe what you believe.

    However, when something is nonlinear, as both ECS and TCR both are – than it is not a good idea to measure the first 1/2 and then simply double it (as you propose). Sure, that gives you a linear estimate based on the first 1/2 performance, but as you know, past performance is no guarantee of future performance (especially in a nonlinear system).

    Since I assume you agree we are going to hit 560 ppm at some point, we can take an actual measurement at the doubling, rather than taking the measurement now (1/2 of the doubling) and projecting.

    Surely you are not against this?

    I will wait and see.

  101. #101 RickA
    July 11, 2017

    Wow:

    Here is another analogy.

    You want to observe the performance of a tire at 32 psi.

    You can either inflate to 16 psi and then project what the performance will be at 32 psi or you can just inflate to 32 psi and take your observations.

    I fear you actually believe that the first is the same as the second.

    Me – I will inflate to 32 psi rather than deal with guesses, estimates and projections.

    You can do what you want.

  102. #102 RickA
    July 11, 2017

    Does anybody dispute that a better estimate of ECS can be had from measuring global mean temperature when we hit 560 ppm, as compared to measuring global mean temperature when we are at 405 ppm?

    This is a serious question – I am really interested in any answers people are willing to post.

  103. #103 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “You are free to continue to believe what you believe.”

    Irrelevant, much like yourself, dick.
    1) I do not require your permission
    2) I do not care about your permission
    3) Your permission is immaterial
    4) It’s not belief, it’s reality supported by evidence
    5) It doesn’t mean you believe the fact-free bollocks you spout
    6) It doesn’t change the fact you’re wrong
    7) It doesn’t change the fact you’re lying
    8) You still don’t believe in reality and think that pretending belief is all there somehow makes your BS defensible when it does not.
    9) It is a nonsequitur, since it does not address the faulty claims you have made nor the evidence proving their inaccuracy

  104. #104 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “I am really interested in any answers people are willing to post”

    No you are not.

  105. #105 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “You want to observe the performance of a tire at 32 psi.”

    Has nothing to do with measuring pressure in psi without having a full inch of area to measure it over, moron.

    You do not have analogies, only weak excuses pretending to be analogies.

  106. #106 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “Only an idiot would present that as an example of anything.”

    And who hopes that everyone else is even more of a clueless idiot.

  107. #107 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “Does anybody dispute that a better estimate of ECS can be had from measuring global mean temperature when we hit 560 ppm”

    Yes, everyone who knows maths or science or anything relevant to the claim, dipshit.

  108. #108 BBD
    July 11, 2017

    RickA

    However, when something is nonlinear, as both ECS and TCR both are – than it is not a good idea to measure the first 1/2 and then simply double it (as you propose). Sure, that gives you a linear estimate based on the first 1/2 performance, but as you know, past performance is no guarantee of future performance (especially in a nonlinear system).

    The whole point of the latest research is that feedbacks are non-linear. See #88 and numerous responses by me to you in the past.

    What this means is that the rate of warming increases over time and will be greater at ECS than estimates derived from a simple linear extrapolation suggest.

    Please take a moment to think about this.

    I never said that every point in the range has an equal probability.

    I simply said what the range is – which is 1.5C to 4.5C.

    The low end is wrong because the EBM / ‘observational’ studies that produced it are biased low because – among other things – they treat feedbacks as LINEAR. As I keep on telling you.

    So, the bottom of the range is extremely unlikely to be valid. The composite estimate of ~3 however simply gets more and more robust over time. So honest discussions don’t use a borked range, they use the most likely value, which is ~3C. As I keep on explaining.

    It is a fact that the IPCC range for ECS is 1.5C to 4.5C. And it is a fact that this is the same range the IPCC started out with at the beginning.

    And it is a fact that the most likely value for ECS derived from multiple lines of evidence was and still is ~3C.

  109. #109 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    Dick the retard: “It’s non linear, people!”

    Then you can’t claim anything about just two datapoints of CO2, moron. Since it’s not linear.

    For all you “know”, the next 100ppm increase will lead to 3C of warming, or 8C of warming. There’s no upper limit really to the numbers up, but there’s no way it’s zero or less, putting a massive limit on the lowest number remaining.

    Yet you keep bleating on about how you “believe” with no evidence or support whatsoever, that ECS will be 1.5C when we have TCR already at 2.4C/doubling CO2.

    Moreover if you just bleat on and on about how it’s nonlinear, then your calls to wait are pointless. It won’t tell us about the next 100ppm increase. So you’ll demand more waiting. At least until you die.

    Care to hasten the path?

  110. #110 Richard Simons
    July 11, 2017

    RickA #94:

    Perhaps it is you who does not understand.

    Let me try an analogy.

    Suppose you fall from an aircraft. You can determine your speed every second for the first five seconds. From this you can estimate the effects of gravity and air resistance. You can then closely estimate the speed with which you will hit the ground. You do not need to wait until you go splat.

    Given that TCR is transient, in other words a temperature change that is passed through on the way to warmer conditions, I do not understand your fixation on it.

  111. #111 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    His obsession is his desire to lukewarm the problem away for his lifetime and claim it could be 1.5C for ECS because we haven’t seen 1.5C warming yet nor a doubling of CO2.

    Given it’s currently +1.2C anomaly and there’s a natural cooling of about -0.1 to -0.2 to add to that, we’re only at half a doubling and already could be +1.4C, he has no wriggle room other than flat out denial and insistence.

    After all if he can spam the same ignorant shit he’s been shitposting for, what, 5 years? to people who have corrected him time and time again to frustration and intemperance Susans will flock to berate his opponents making him feel vindicated and right.

    An anomaly of +1.5C is nowhere near where CO2 stops having its effect, unless you deny all the historical paleoclimate data which kinda screws with deniers claims about it being hotter in the past, since then there is no data for that claim. And it also kills the MWP accusations against Mann, since they have to deny the data is in any way reliable from Lamb et al, which would indicate a much higher climate sensitivity than 3.2C per doubling.

    But dick is just trying to egg people on and troll them to get someone else to berate for him and, if nobody does that, will whine about tone and other such irrelevant idiocies himself to avoid having to accept reality is not with him on this.

  112. #112 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “Me – I will inflate to 32 psi rather than deal with guesses, estimates and projections.”

    So you never inflate a car tyre given the schrader valve is less than one inch requiring a measurement of less than 2.5lb of force in the 8mm diameter valve to be extrapolated out to 32lbs per square inch.

  113. #113 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    Remember too that the pressure is not the same everywhere in the tyre, even if stationary and at a fixed temperature. But if it’s cooler or hotter or having to support the weight of a car with different loads in it (including different amounts of petrol), and with the tyre valve at different positions on the wheel wrt the contact with the ground, you are not measuring the tyre pressure, you’re having to approximate it with guesses and estimates, added to the projection to a full square inch as detailed above.

  114. #114 Bernard J.
    July 11, 2017

    If you want to measure what happens when CO2 emissions double from 280 to 560, the best way is to measure what happens after CO2 doubles from 280 to 560. That will give you a much better answer than making a linear projection of what happens after CO2 increased from 280 to 400.

    1) We know much of the physics of the response, and don’t need to reach 560 ppm to make a reliable estimate of TRC/ECS.

    2) We know enough that a “linear projection” is inappropriate. A logarrithmic modelling is more accurate, and in fact is also more parsimonious.

    3) A logarithmic fit of the 1.2°C warming realised in the progression from 280 to 400 ppm has already been drawn to your attention:

    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2017/01/24/why-is-the-us-government-turning-back-to-petroleum-when-clean-energy-means-jobs-jobs-jobs/#comment-642489

    4) Even the lowest logarithmic extrapolation of the current empirical realisations – ~2.4°C assuming nothing else* in the pipeline – would mean that warming manifested at doubling of pre-Industrial atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration would reach a level where human society is in deep trouble, and much (more**) of the planet’s biodiversity is committed to extinction.

    Rick A is welded to his fossil fuel investments: the fact that he does so in spite of the physics and the numbers implies that this dedication is bought at the (high) expense of the rest of the planet. There are many words for this type of behaviour.

    [*A ridiculously optiomistic and demonstrably inaccurate assumption, given that albedo and clathrate effects will increase with further warming…

    **We’re already faced with the inevitable and irreversible loss of many ecosystems over the coming decades and centuries, the Great Barrier Reef being but one example.]

  115. #115 MikeN
    July 11, 2017

    Nice try. Susan’s not berating his opponents, just you.

  116. #116 zebra
    July 11, 2017

    RickA 101,

    I know it is hopeless to attempt to inject some real engineering considerations here, but…

    Only measuring the tire characteristics at 32psi would be a “naive” approach– meaning, it’s what someone with no science or engineering education would think to do.

    Given a foundation of knowledge about physics and the characteristics of the materials, and construction of the tire, we would very likely make a more correct characterization of how the tire performs at 32psi by measuring at 8, 16, and 24, for example.

    Which would actually be the more correct analogy– just sayin’.

  117. #117 RickA
    July 11, 2017

    Richard #110:

    My fixation on TCR is you can actually measure it. It is not possible to measure ECS. Because the climate never reaches “equilibrium”.

    But we can use a measurement of TCR to estimate ECS, and it is my belief that a TCR measurement at the actual doubling (560 ppm) will give a more accurate estimate of ECS than a TCR measurement at 405 ppm. This can provide a useful check on the models and other calculations of ECS.

  118. #118 RickA
    July 11, 2017

    zebra #116:

    Of course other measurements in addition to ones taken at 32 psi make sense.

    But surely you would not advocate NOT taking any measurements at 32 PSI.

    All I am saying is that the measurement at 32 PSI is more important than the others, because that is the particular pressure we are interested in (in the hypo).

    Because ECS is defined at 2X CO2 (560 ppm), that is the most important data point to take measurements at.

    By all means, measure at all other CO2 concentrations – and use them to estimate what you think ECS will be at 560 ppm.

    But the measurements at 560 ppm will provide an actual TCR (rather than an estimated TCR) and will therefore provide a better ECS estimate – at least that is my opinion.

  119. #119 RickA
    July 11, 2017

    Bernard J. #114:

    I don’t actually agree with your #1.

    If we had the physics correct the models would not be so far off from the actual climate.

    The “pause” wouldn’t have been such a surprise.

    The point is that we have no clue what the climate will do in the future – it could start cooling due to the zero sunspot activity for all we know. Your fitted projections of what the climate will be like at 560 ppm are not as good as an actual measurement of what the climate is like at 560 ppm. That is all I am saying.

  120. #120 zebra
    July 11, 2017

    RickA #118

    I would not need the 32psi measurement if I had the other information.

    The 32psi measurement would not add anything to my understanding.

    What we have on climate is like what I described, so your 560ppm is meaningless.

  121. #121 RickA
    July 11, 2017

    zebra – whatever you say.

    I can assure you that the real climate scientists will all be taking measurements like crazy when we reach the magic point of having doubled CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm.

  122. #122 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “Susan’s not berating his opponents, just you.”

    Wrong. But reading comprehension is not your strong point, is it. Or your any point.

    Marcus was complaining about LiD and Bernard, used their words and Susan complained in supportive response to that. But you don’t know or car what reality is, you ave what you want to believe and what you can say and by damn you’re going to stick to your fantasy, aren’t you, “mike”.

  123. #123 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “and it is my belief”

    And it’s just as fatuously wrong as any religion held. It’s even more a lie than any, too, since you have been shown proof you’re wrong and every avenue of comprehension likewise indicates you are wrong.

  124. #124 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “I can assure you that…”

    The measurements made when we get to 1.5C anomaly and when we get to 560ppm will not be to prove ECS, moron.

  125. #125 Susan Anderson
    July 11, 2017

    Oh good, I’m public enemy #1 for climate realists, and RickA’s favorite. How exactly do you think isolating yourselves is going to solve anything? As I said, expressing insult and hatred instead of logical arguments and careful acceptance of others’ humanity may make you feel better, but it makes the barriers to actually doing something to relieve the stresses on our planet harder to surmount.

    RickA, I deplore almost everything you say.

    Good bye all. Out of here.

  126. #126 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “I don’t actually agree with your #1.”

    You don’t agree with maths, though. So what is your disagreement other than your unfounded assertion of belief?

    Nothing.

  127. #127 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “Good bye all. Out of here.”

    Yeah, that’s just how to be polite to deniers and explain their error. Run off in a huff. Or a minute and a huff.

  128. #128 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “All I am saying is that the measurement at 32 PSI is more important than the others,”

    But the measurement is pounds per square inch. And you have only measured over about 1/12th a square inch, so you have to extrapolate to get the tyre pressure.

    And you refuse to do that.

    So you are proving yourself wrong.

    Again.

  129. #129 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “2) We know enough that a “linear projection” is inappropriate. A logarrithmic modelling is more accurate, and in fact is also more parsimonious.”

    And given the ECS is a logarithmic figure, ECS already accepts and accounts for a non-linear response and again proves dick does not know what he’s blithering on about.

  130. #130 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “Because ECS is defined at 2X CO2 (560 ppm),”

    Lie. This is a COMPLETE FABRICATION and one you’ve been told every time before you regurgitated this bit of stale vomit.

  131. #131 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    ” There are many words for this type of behaviour.”

    “Fucking despicable” being one among many others.

  132. #132 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “The “pause” wouldn’t have been such a surprise.”

    It wasn’t. It was well known and expected to happen in any such long record of a noisy dataset.

    There would be time periods of years, a decade, maybe more, where, because the noise is higher than the trend year on year, there would appear to be no trend visible in the data.

    It’s entirely the reason why the WMO claim a 30 year period for climatological mean temperatures. The same ones you’d see in a World Atlas beside each country, along with the rainfall rates, defining the climate of the country.

    That definition has been around for over 70 years.

    So, no it was not a surprise.

    And change point analysis shows there is no change in the temperature trend, therefore no pause.

  133. #133 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “The point is that we have no clue what the climate will do in the future”

    Your incompetence belongs to you, don’t heap it on everyone else just so you can profit.

    ” – it could start cooling due to the zero sunspot activity for all we know”

    Nope, we know that cannot happen. The variation due to sunspot cycles is entirely insufficient to manage that.

  134. #134 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “Your fitted projections of what the climate will be like at 560 ppm ”

    Are figments of your imagination. They do not define ECS and the definition of ECS means we can calculate it off current data for ECS now.

    And that is over 2.4C per doubling of CO2e for mostly TCR and ECS is half to two thirds more than that.

  135. #135 JR
    Australia
    July 11, 2017

    I am a scientist – a geologist with a chemistry background, to be specific. I am in no way ‘anti-science.’ Several things:

    1. By perpetuating this “climate denier” moniker for anyone who dares question, inquire, or express that they aren’t completely sure that the bulk of the change in climate we have observed in the geologically recent past is due to anthropogenic sources, y’all actually the ones being ‘anti-science.’ I HATE the term ‘denier’ and find it completely counterproductive to any legitimate dialogue. Please help make it stop.
    2. Through numerous conversations with other geologists, it has become clear to me that:
    -many geologists are too afraid of the social, ‘moral’ and possibly professional ramifications of saying anything that questions either the interpretations of climate data, the data itself, or any assumptions behind the work
    -these same scientists aren’t willing to take the personal and professional risk of actually attempting to even ask for data and interpretations from specialists or other earth scientists because even ASKING for data or assumptions or rationale behind interpretations = being a “climate denier” (which is still the most non-sensical term: ain’t nobody denying the fact that the climate changes. If they are, well, then you can maybe call them that)
    -if this were really science (and not politics or the Church of Climate Change) then there would be no such thing as “deniers.”
    -I know you say it’s ok to ‘question’ and maybe even debate, but you then go on to say only if we do it in the ‘right way.’ Which is no way, so far as I can work out wrt climate ‘science’
    3. Many geologists don’t have all the information, particularly those of us who specialise in other areas, and will generally admit this when pressed in a private conversation. The reason for this is given above: it’s not safe to ask for the information. Because asking = denying.
    4. If the people who are unsure, under-informed, conflicted about reliable data and interpretation sources, and concerned with no clear path to resolution of their scientific understanding of the theory of anthropogenic-caused climate change are GEOLOGISTS who study the earth, this is a serious issue. How on earth are average non-scientists then supposed to do anything but listen to whoever is shouting the loudest?
    5. I know good geoscientists who I respect as honourable, smart, empirical, and analytical scientists who believe wildly different things about the changing climate (staunch defenders of an anthropogenic cause for the microscopically recent change in climate change as well as staunch defenders of the idea that anthropogenic contributions to climate change are not the main driver for the microscopically recent change in climate change). ?!?!? How on earth do I rectify this ? If there is this much difference of scientific opinion within the geoscience community, how is the answer and the data ‘obvious’?
    6. I was unfortunate enough to witness a presentation in 2007 about ‘climate change’ given at a university by a prominent employee of NOAA. During this presentation, a seriously misleading graph with a manipulated x axis (different amounts of time between evenly spaced marks) was used to show how much ‘faster’ climate was changing in recent times vs older times. I so wish I’d had a smartphone then. This graph and the context in which it was presented gave me grave doubts about the veracity of not only the story that was being told with the data but also the reliability of those who were telling it. If pressed, my answer to this whole anthropogenic climate change discussion is ‘I honestly don’t know – the whole story, who or what to believe, the answer … or how to reasonably and effectively find out without risking my reputation.’
    7. Can you please explain to me (and everyone who is too cautious to ask or doesn’t know about this particular tidbit of information) why CO2 rises before T in climate reconstruction data – but that this somehow this means that T is driving CO2 rather than the other way round? Legit please explain (with figures and/or condensed references included if possible).

    Ok. Internet trolls… GO! And please, someone sensible reply as well. If you feel the need to attack me personally or criticise any grammar or other non-material errors, please don’t. It’s the middle of the night. I should be sleeping but instead have siezed the courage to say *something* about the issues that I have observed with this issue.

  136. #136 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “Rick A is welded to his fossil fuel investments”

    And hatred for environmentalists, leftwingers, progressives, the poor and those who don’t meet his own standards for “proper thought”. It’s not just his personal investments, meager as they are, it’s also hatred for those he thinks are bad people.

  137. #137 JR
    July 11, 2017

    Ok. Revision: point 7. Yes, it’s the middle of the nite.

    Why T rises before CO2 but that this somehow means that increasing CO2 is driving T increases.

    I humbly beg the mercy of the Internet Gods and their troll minions.

  138. #138 RickA
    July 11, 2017

    Susan Anderson #125:

    I am sorry to see you go.

    I disagree with much of what you write.

    But at least we can disagree with each other politely.

  139. #139 RickA
    July 11, 2017

    Wow #130:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity

    “The climate sensitivity specifically due to CO2 is often expressed as the temperature change in °C associated with a doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere.”

  140. #140 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    And dick’s maths is clearly a lie.

    Complains about us giving a linear extrapolation when we say that 400 is half a doubling of 280 and 560 is half a doubling again indicates that to dick maths the difference between 280 and 400 is equal to the difference between 400 and 560.

    And dick wonders why his investment portfolio is not doing as well as the seller claimed….

  141. #141 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “The climate sensitivity specifically due to CO2 is often expressed as the temperature change in °C associated with a doubling of the concentration of carbon dioxide in Earth’s atmosphere.”

    Yes. So your claim it was

    “defined at 2X CO2 (560 ppm),”

    Was a lie.

    Maths failing for you and now reading and wikipedia quotes you yourself selected gang up against your lies.

    LOL

  142. #142 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    Pressure in psi is defined as the pounds of force over an area of one square inch.

    According to you to measure it over 1/12th of a square inch cannot get you psi. Only after a full inch square is measured can you claim the pressure in psi, all else is extrapolation.

  143. #143 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “I am sorry to see you go.”

    He needs you to stroke his ego and make him believe he’s the only nice person in this thread.

  144. #144 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pounds_per_square_inch

    The pound per square inch or, more accurately, pound-force per square inch is a unit of pressure or of stress based on avoirdupois units.

  145. #145 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “The units of psig (pounds per square inch, gage) remind us that we are talking about this *difference* in pressure. The absolute air pressure at sea level is about 14.7 psi. Suppose the air pressure in your car tire is 30 psig. Then the absolute pressure inside is 30+14.7 = 44.7 psi.”

  146. #146 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    400-280=120
    560-400=160

    160!=120

    Therefore the extrapolation made that proves you wrong is not a linear extrapolation, despite all your claims that to do so is incorrect.

  147. #147 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    Indeed a linear extrapolation would be that the 1.2C seen so far would become another 1.6C, indicating TCR of around 2.8C not the 2.4C.

    Indeed to get the 1.2C for TCS you claimed is only possible if there is a massive lead-up from climate forcing to eventual equilibrium, indicating that ECS is much higher than TCS is considered likely to be, and making it impossible for your claim for ECS to be 1.5C ACTUALLY impossible. And for ECS to be merely 25% higher than the transient response would indicate that the response to the climate from the current forcing at 400ppm will be very quickly the same as last time it was 400ppm, where over half of the continental USA was under sea water for at least part of the time and we have to not merely immediately stop CO2 production, since it will have near immediate effect, but also will have to remove CO2 deliberately and in massive amounts immediately as a matter of urgency so that the flooding may be halted.

    In either case, ECS would be 3C per doubling from actual observation rather than computer models or more likely between 3.2C and 4C per doubling.

  148. #148 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    And for the remainder of the warming to be an extra 0.3 from 400 to 560ppm would require the climate sensitivity at 400ppm to have dropped from about 3.5C per doubling down to 1C per doubling. When even the simplest calculation using CO2’s effects on its own would indicate 1.2C is the absolute floor.

    Nor is there any mechanism that would put such a stark boundary between 400 and 560ppm.

    And such effects would also be clearly apparent in the paleo data and would have to make the prehistoric temperatures at the PETM vastly lower than calculated from the CO2/O2 signatures and make the current warming that has been directly measured of even greater historical significance.

    There would be no way to claim it was warmer in the past than today since the 7xCO2 figures would give only 1.5C for the doubled to 2x CO2, and no more than 0.3 (and claimed reason for it being above 0) for each doubling thereafter, at 4xCO2 and 8x CO2.

    So the “it’s been hotter in the past!” would mean something around 1.8C to 2.1C warmer than the 1800 temperatures, while we are currently running at 1.2C warmer. Just at 400ppm.

  149. #149 RickA
    July 11, 2017

    Wow – here is another definition of ECS (this time from the IPCC):

    https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WGIAR5_SPM_brochure_en.pdf

    “The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multicentury time scales. It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a
    doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.”

  150. #150 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    There’s a definition you made up, dick.

    But the definition you came back with to prove your claim was not a lie actually proved your claim WAS a lie.

    “The equilibrium climate sensitivity quantifies the response of the climate system to constant radiative forcing on multicentury time scales”

    So, another quote showing you were lying when you said it was defined as doubling co2 (560ppm).

  151. #151 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    Not forgetting that you think 120 is the same as 160.

  152. #152 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    And remember:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pounds_per_square_inch

    “The pound per square inch or, more accurately, pound-force per square inch is a unit of pressure or of stress based on avoirdupois units.”

    So according to you, you can only measure it after you have measured it over 1 square inch.

  153. #153 RickA
    July 11, 2017

    Wow – I think you forgot the next sentence “It is defined as the change in global mean surface temperature at equilibrium that is caused by a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration.”

    Follow the link and you will see that I did not make this sentence up. This is the definition of ECS – it is defined in terms of a doubling of CO2.

  154. #154 RickA
    July 11, 2017

    wow – here is the climate sensitivity glossary entry from AR4:

    “Climate sensitivity In IPCC reports, equilibrium climate sensitivity refers to the equilibrium change in the annual mean global surface temperature following a doubling of the atmospheric equivalent carbon dioxide concentration.”

    Notice again the word “doubling”.

  155. #155 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “I think you forgot the next sentence ”

    Again with the fake thinking, dick?

    The next sentence was not forgotten. It also proves your claim was a lie.

  156. #156 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “Notice again the word “doubling”.”

    Notice agin the word “per”.

    And here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pounds_per_square_inch

    “The pound per square inch or, more accurately, pound-force per square inch is a unit of pressure or of stress based on avoirdupois units.”

    Note the words “per” and “square inch”.

    According to you, psi cannot be measured in a car tyre because the valve is 1/12th of a square inch.

  157. #157 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “wow – here is the climate sensitivity glossary entry from AR4:”

    Which also shows your claim it was defined a doubling of CO2 (560ppm) was a lie.

  158. #158 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “Follow the link and you will see that I did not make this sentence up. ”

    You did make this one up:

    “defined at 2X CO2 (560 ppm),”

    And since this is the one you made up and the one I’m telling you you made up and the one you have made these links to other definitions in a laughable piss-take of yourself to prove you made it up, the ones you’ve linked to that you never said are rather irrelevant.

    Yes, there are definitions of ECS you haven’t made up.

    But the one you have made up you made up.

    And you know it’s a lie because

    a) you’ve been told every time you vomit the claim up it is a lie
    b) every definition you’ve found that wasn’t your fiction but from actual subject experts has proved it was a lie

  159. #159 RickA
    July 11, 2017

    wow – here is the ECS definition from AR3 (called TAR):

    “The �equilibrium climate sensitivity� (IPCC 1990, 1996) is defined as the change in global mean temperature, T2x, that results when the climate system, or a climate model, attains a new equilibrium with the forcing change F2x resulting from a doubling of the atmospheric CO2 concentration. ”

    Notice again the word “doubling” in this definition.

  160. #160 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    ” it is defined in terms of a doubling of CO2.”

    Lie. It’s units are per doubling of CO2.

  161. #161 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “wow – here is the ECS definition from AR3 (called TAR):”

    Yes, and that one too proves you are a liar with your claim about the definition of ECS.

  162. #162 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “Notice again the word “doubling” in this definition.”

    Note also the words 560ppm missing.

  163. #163 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    Note too that you don’t need a doubling to know the sensitvity of climate to forcings.

    Yes, yes,we know that even one idea is too much for you, but the idea of a continuous variable such as temperature or partial pressures existing warps your fragile little mind beyond repair.

  164. #164 RickA
    July 11, 2017

    Oh – it is the 560 ppm you question?

    How about a quote from RealClimate:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/climate-sensitivity/

    “Climate sensitivity is a measure of the equilibrium global surface air temperature change for a particular forcing. It is usually given as a °C change per W/m2 forcing. A standard experiment to determine this value in a climate model is to look at the doubled CO2 climate, and so equivalently, the climate sensitivity is sometimes given as the warming for doubled CO2 (i.e. from 280 ppm to 560 ppm). “

  165. #165 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “the ECS definition from AR3”

    AR3? That one doesn’t say ECS is 1.5 to 4.5C per doubling, though.

  166. #166 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “Oh – it is the 560 ppm you question?”

    What part of

    ““defined at 2X CO2 (560 ppm),””

    Did you not comprehend, dick?

  167. #167 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “How about a quote from RealClimate:”

    Which again proves you lied when you claimed that it was defined on doubling CO2 and when it was defined as doubling CO2 (560ppm).

    Kinda great you manage to find so many quotes of actual experts that show you lied, yet still appear to think this is somehow vindication!

  168. #168 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    Hey, test your math (you are clearly too dumb to do sums, so this is going to be beyond you), try this.

    If ECS were 1.5C, what would the temperature anomaly be at 500ppm????

  169. #169 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    And what would the temperature anomaly be between 200ppm and 400ppm?

  170. #170 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    How about the temperature anomaly between 280ppm and 400?

  171. #171 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    If we abandon your stocks and shares and throw fossil fuels out of the mix in the next three years and the effect is to stop CO2 levels at 480ppm, is ECS incalculable and undefined?

  172. #172 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    If it stopped at 480ppm and then dropped to 250ppm, what would the world climate temperature anomaly be compared to today?

  173. #173 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    If it went to 610ppm and then dropped back to 340ppm, what would the anomaly be at 340ppm compared to when it was at 610?

  174. #174 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    If none of those questions can be answered, what is the meaning of climate sensitivity, since it cannot be used to calculate any scenario if it were defined as you “think” it is?

  175. #175 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    And if you can answer them, please provide how you worked it out.

  176. #176 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    Dick, can you tell us what your room temperature is? Is it actually defined?

    If you don’t know,how about your fridge?

    Because here is the definition of the Celsius scale:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celsius

    “the unit “degree Celsius” and the Celsius scale are currently defined by two different temperatures: absolute zero, and the triple point of Vienna Standard Mean Ocean Water (VSMOW), a specially purified water.”

    Note, it is only defined as two points: absolute zero, which your room is not, and the triple point of water, about freezing, which again your room is not.

    By your “thinking” of what definitions mean, that is all you can measure the temperature of.

  177. #177 RickA
    July 11, 2017

    Wow – I am really struggling to understand why you think my statement “defined at 2X CO2 (560 ppm),” is a lie.

    I have given you multiple definitions, all of which support my assertion that ECS is defined as the change in temperature from doubling the CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm.

    Perhaps you could explain in your own words what you understand the definition of ECS to be – it might help me understand why you think I lied.

  178. #178 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “Wow – I am really struggling to understand why you think my statement “defined at 2X CO2 (560 ppm),” is a lie.”

    Indeed you are. And that is because you can’t let that be allowed.

  179. #179 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    ” it might help me understand why you think I lied.”

    I think you lied because you are lying about it.

  180. #180 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “Perhaps you could explain in your own words what you understand the definition of ECS to be ”

    Why would that change a thing? Your claim about what the definition of ECS was a lie and every other source you found and quoted also supported the fact that it was a lie.

    Why would adding another one change this?

  181. #181 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “I have given you multiple definitions, all of which support my assertion ”

    And there is another lie.

    None of them support your assertion and actually prove yours is a lie. So claiming otherwise is a lie.

  182. #182 RickA
    July 11, 2017

    Anyone? A little help here. Does anybody have any clue what Wow is talking about? Does anybody else think I am lying when I say that ECS is defined in terms of the change in temperature from doubling CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm?

  183. #183 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    How about answering mine?

    If ECS were 1.5C, what would the temperature anomaly be at 500ppm????

  184. #184 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    ” Does anybody else think I am lying when I say that ECS is defined in terms of the change in temperature from doubling CO2 from 280 to 560 ppm?”

    Everyone you quoted in a sourced link did.

  185. #185 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    How about what would the temperature anomaly be between 200ppm and 400ppm, given an ECS is canonically set for sake of argument to 1.5C?

  186. #186 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    Still waiting for an answer to your calculation about the temperature anomaly between 280ppm and 400 if your ECS were correct.

  187. #187 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    Or any of the others, including whether you admit your definition makes no sense because it won’t tell you what the equilibrium climate sensitivity to CO2 changes are on planet earth.

  188. #188 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    Well, given that clearly your definition of ECS doesn’t tell you anything about what the climate would do given any scenario other than one specific one that will never be the only two phases of reality on planet earth that will never change other than flip between them instantly, another action that will never happen in reality, what use is YOUR definition of ECS, if your definition is what you “think” is the scientific one?

  189. #189 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    Hell, what WAS the temperature of the earth when CO2 was 280ppm? Was it at equilibrium? Because if not, your going to have to live with estimations that you refused to accept when Bernard proffered them.

    And when the earth is at 560ppm, will it be at equilibrium then, when the temperature is measured?

    Because if any of those points are not the case, then your asserted ECS is never possible to calculate.

    And if that is the case, what scientific point does it have?

    And if you can’t come up with a point for it, then it cannot and is not the definition of ECS used in science.

  190. #190 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    You have, after all, had ample time to answer any of the questions about what your claims of ECS would mean to the climate’s sensitivity to a change in forcings from CO2. Therefore it has no calculable use whatsoever.

    And if it turns out we can’t measure it either, then you have no definition of a term other than a nonsensical term.

  191. #191 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    And given your use of definitions to be as you assert them to be on your own cognizance, the definition of temperature in the Celsius scale is such that you cannot claim what room temperature is. Nor, since it is the change of temperature per joule of energy added, can specific heat capacities have any meaning unless they are heated from absolute zero to the freezing point of water and the energy input is accounted for.

  192. #192 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    “How about a quote from RealClimate:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/climate-sensitivity/

    “Climate sensitivity is a measure of the equilibrium global surface air temperature change for a particular forcing. It is usually given as a °C change per W/m2 forcing”

    So as long as there has been one watt and at least one square meter of earth received it, ECS can be calculated and there’s no need to wait for 560ppm CO2.

    Spectacularly own-goaling and then running round at having scored 20 goals to nil, all in your own open goal and high-fiveing yourself over your awesomeness!

  193. #193 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    And we all remember when you insisted that there was only one definition of ECS and accused others of making up new ones you’d “never heard of before” before ignoring the definition and sticking to the asinine claim of needing to pass 560ppm CO2 first.

  194. #194 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    Since the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere can be derived from quantum mechanics’ first principles and without relying on any assumptions other than “QM is an accurate description of reality at this scale”, each doubling is calculated to be 1.2W/m^2. Since ECS is C/W/m^2, each doubling of CO2 produces the same temperature change.

    Since feedbacks, both positive and negative, are temperature dependent in a linear scale, they merely change the 1.2 figure up or down, they don’t change the geometric relationship.

    So if we have half a doubling and 1.2C change, the next half a doubling will be another 1.2C change.

    That indicates that in units of “per doubling CO2e”, ECS is well above 2.4C right now.

  195. #195 Wow
    July 11, 2017

    And if you want them in terms of C per W/m^2, it’s the feedback multiplier times 0.6 W/m^2 to give 1.2C warming.

    And that means, again, that the next doubling of CO2 would produce another feedback multiplier times 0.6W/m^2 to give yet znother 1.2C warming.

    Since deniers like to insist that feedback multipliers must be one or very close, that would make ECS 1.2C/0.6W/m^2. Or 5C/W/m^2.

    This is much higher than the IPCC figures for ECS. Either you deniers are alarmists or you’re wrong.

  196. #196 Craig Thomas
    July 11, 2017

    We should really be grateful for RickA and a few of the other blow-ins providing entertainment.

    Personally, I find a visit to Jo Nova’s asylum for the chronically ignorant an occasional amusement. Certainly had fun on there last night fuelled by a nice bottle of Shiraz from Margaret River.
    The basic premise of that blog is that it occupies an alternate reality where assertions are fact, facts are a complete outrage, and kudos is awarded to those who devise positions of maximum ignorance.

    Remember David Evans’ “Force X”, which was based on some arbitrary manipulations of some arbitrary numbers taken from Solar Cycle 23, and which predicted that Solar Cycle 24 would see global cooling? Apparently the ignorant liked that particular silly model, even though the cooling it predicted has somehow been masked by record global warming.
    And Here’s a heads’ up: “No warming since 2016” is going to be all the rage for the next little while.

  197. #197 MikeN
    July 11, 2017

    Rick, your engagement just produces 100 comments from Wow that add nothing. I suspect you are wrong and Wow may have something correct somewhere, but you know you will never succeed in getting a concession from him that you are right on any detail. I don’t feel like parsing thru every comment to explain though.

  198. #198 RickA
    July 11, 2017

    Wow:

    I agree with you that ECS is a terrible metric. I have also stated this in the past.

    In order to measure it, you would have to hold a constant forcing on Earth until we reached equilibrium (several hundred years) and only then can it be measured.

    Since it is impossible to hold a constant forcing for even a day, it can never be measured.

    But I have quoted several definitions of ECS and none of them are “mine”. They were defined and created by climate scientists. You will have to ask your questions to them. But I agree it is not very useful.

    Even TCR is pretty limited, being measured at the point of doubling (when we hit 560 ppm).

    From TAR:

    “TCR, is the temperature change at the time of CO2 doubling and the �equilibrium climate sensitivity�, T2x, is the temperature change after the system has reached a new equilibrium for doubled CO2, i.e., after the �additional warming commitment� has been realised.”

    At least we can measure TCR (at the doubling point). Of course if we knew what the global mean temperature was when CO2 was at 200 ppm, we could have measured TCR at 400 ppm – but we don’t know the temperature from when CO2 was at 200 ppm. We do have temperature records from when CO2 was 280 ppm, which is considered the pre-industrial level, and therefore mostly untainted by human influence.

    But we have to wait for 560 ppm to measure TCR, by definition.

  199. #199 RickA
    July 11, 2017

    I should add that of course we can estimate TCR now (and do).

    But an estimate is not a measurement.

    We cannot measure TCR until 560 ppm.

    Once we have an actual measured TCR, we can obtain a much better estimate of ECS.

    So we are in wait and see mode.

  200. #200 Richard Simons
    July 11, 2017

    JR #135
    To respond to a couple of points: people who argue that there is little or no anthropogenic climate change are called deniers because most of the debate amongst climatologists took place 20 or 30 years ago. People who claim it is not happening are merely denying the evidence.

    (#137) Why T rises before CO2 but that this somehow means that increasing CO2 is driving T increases.

    Previously, global temperatures have risen for other reasons, in particular due to the Milankovitch cycles, which then led to a rise in atmospheric CO2 (my understanding it was largely from degassing from the oceans as they warmed). This time, the purely natural cycles should mean we would be in a cooling phase right now but they are being overwhelmed by the huge quantities of CO2 we are putting out.

  201. #201 Richard Simons
    July 11, 2017

    RickA #199

    So we are in wait and see mode.

    I’m not sure how hard I will hit the ground so I don’t know if I will need to deploy my parachute. Besides, I might land in a deep snowdrift. So we are in wait and see mode.

  202. #202 Jeff Harvey
    July 12, 2017

    When RickA says that “we are in a wait and see mode” I wonder who he is addressing as “we”. Certainly not the vast majority of scientists, who are increasingly forcefully arguing for measures to stabilise then reduce atmospheric concentrations of CO2. Not people in the developing world who will bear the short-term brunt of the effects of climate change (indeed they already are). No, he is instead referring to myopic, arrogant, science-hating people like himself, who worship at the alter of free market absolutism and neoliberalism. To be honest, RickA says things so glibly that he doesn’t even know how arrogant they sound. We have a significant portion of the scientific community arguing that if surface temperatures are allowed to crash through the 2 C barrier in the coming few decades that the feedbacks it will set in motion are likely to have devastating impacts on natural and managed ecosystems across the biosphere. In turn, these will have potentially serious effects on mankind. And against this knowledge RickA opines that “we are in a wait and see mode”.

    How utterly despicable.

  203. #203 BBD
    July 12, 2017

    RickA

    If we had the physics correct the models would not be so far off from the actual climate.

    The “pause” wouldn’t have been such a surprise.

    Wrong. Yet again, you’ve confused short-term variability with the long-term forced signal. The models cannot predict the former and it doesn’t affect their ability to predict the latter.

    #153

    Follow the link and you will see that I did not make this sentence up. This is the definition of ECS – it is defined in terms of a doubling of CO2.

    NO IT IS NOT. Climate sensitivity is defined as the equilibrium response to a change in radiative forcing which can be solar, atmospheric (including GHGs and albedo) or surface albedo or any combination of these. As you have been shown, in clear and painful detail fairly recently. By me. This was the last time I caught you out lying and shamed you for it, remember?

    And now you are doing it again.

  204. #204 BBD
    July 12, 2017

    #135 JR

    1. By perpetuating this “climate denier” moniker for anyone who dares question, inquire, or express that they aren’t completely sure that the bulk of the change in climate we have observed in the geologically recent past is due to anthropogenic sources, y’all actually the ones being ‘anti-science.’

    The scientific consensus on attribution is that all warming post-1950 is anthropogenically driven (AR5 WG1; good discussion here), so there is a basis for describing those who claim otherwise as (science or evidence) deniers because that is what they are doing.

    Because asking = denying.

    That’s complete crap and if you are a scientist yourself, you know it. But this worries me:

    the Church of Climate Change

    That isn’t a scientific take on another discipline, it is denialist rhetoric.

    7. Can you please explain to me (and everyone who is too cautious to ask or doesn’t know about this particular tidbit of information) why CO2 rises before T in climate reconstruction data – but that this somehow this means that T is driving CO2 rather than the other way round? Legit please explain (with figures and/or condensed references included if possible).

    Can you unpack this further? I think I know what you are trying to say, but would rather not second-guess you at this stage.

  205. #205 Craig Thomas
    July 12, 2017

    I think he’s saying he’s shit-scared of CO2-forced warming because he’s identified the feedback response that will follow.

  206. #206 Wow
    July 12, 2017

    “Rick, your engagement just produces 100 comments from Wow that add nothing. ”

    Dick produced nothing and nothing produced anything in dick, so it is entirely correct to produce 100 comments of “nothing”.

    Care to answer any of those questions yourself? After all, if they’re nothing, there’s nothing there to trouble you in answering, right?

  207. #207 Wow
    July 12, 2017

    “Rick, your engagement ”

    Dick did not engage. He just posted. There is a difference, though your partisanship won’t let you know it.

  208. #208 Wow
    July 12, 2017

    “I should add that of course we can estimate TCR now (and do).”

    And it is already around 2.4C per doubling.

    “But an estimate is not a measurement.”

    It’s a measurement not an estimate. And your assertion about its value is already proven wrong.

    “We cannot measure TCR until 560 ppm.”

    Nope, we can measure it now.

    “Once we have an actual measured TCR”

    We already have. It’s 2.4.

    “So we are in wait and see mode”

    Except you are not in wait and see mode, you’re in hide behind time and idiocy mode whilst making a load of shit up when already proven wrong.

    You have been shown time and time again, even by yourself your claims about ECS, even its definition, are wrong and therefore you have knowingly lied.

    You are already wrong.

  209. #209 Wow
    July 12, 2017

    “But we have to wait for 560 ppm to measure TCR, by definition.”

    by definition we do not have to wait until 560ppm to measure TCR. We can do that now.

    And it is 2.4C per doubling.

  210. #210 Wow
    July 12, 2017

    “Why T rises before CO2″

    It didn’t.

    ” but that this somehow means that increasing CO2 is driving T increases. ”

    Because your claim is wrong.

    “I humbly beg the mercy of the Internet Gods and their troll minions.”

    Dick isn’t listening. Nor are you, clearly.

  211. #211 Wow
    July 12, 2017

    ” why CO2 rises before T in climate reconstruction data ”

    Because we don’t have to run with paleo data and we cannot run with it for such recent times. And in recent times we have thermometers and CO2 meters that show the CO2 going up first and then T following.

    As it did during the PETM.

  212. #212 Wow
    July 12, 2017

    “From TAR:

    “TCR, is the temperature change at the time of CO2 doubling and the �equilibrium climate sensitivity�, T2x, is the temperature change after the system has reached a new equilibrium for doubled CO2, i.e., after the �additional warming commitment� has been realised.””

    This is the same quote from the TAR that proved you were lying, dick.

  213. #213 Wow
    July 12, 2017

    “At least we can measure TCR (at the doubling point). ”

    We can measure it at any two points. Just like you can measure velocity at two different times and get acceleration or distance at two different times and get velocity. You don’t have to wait until it’s finished it’s course to do that, nor wait for a full meter.

    And measuring it now shows it to be 2.4C per doubling for TCR.

  214. #214 Wow
    July 12, 2017

    “Even TCR is pretty limited, being measured at the point of doubling (when we hit 560 ppm)”

    Lie. Even the TAR quote you provided proves that lie.

    We can measure it now and it gives us 2.4C per doubling. No need to wait and see.

  215. #215 Wow
    July 12, 2017

    “I agree with you that ECS is a terrible metric. ”

    Ah, so you agree you’re lying about it and the definition.

    But you think your definition of TCR is better?

    OK, so if TCR were 1.2C per doubling like you claim, what will be the anomaly at 500 ppm?

    What would the difference be between the temperature at 200ppm and 400ppm?

    Clearly your definition of TCR will be unable to answer those too, so you also agree that your definition of TCR is likewise bullshit and useless.

  216. #216 Wow
    July 12, 2017

    And your definition of TCR means it would be impossible to measure TCR too. When the CO2 was 280ppm was it entirely out of equilibrium? When the CO2 is 560ppm, will none of the radiative forcing have been equilibriated? Because if either of those are “no”, then you’re not measuring TCR at all either.

    Yet here you are claiming it can be measured but only if we wait.

    And by your definition, it can only cause an effect at one specific point in time. You cannot use it anywhere else and it’s no longer any use after that.

    So your definition of TCR is useless in all ways and of no scientific purpose.

    Yet scientists have a definition of TCR that is different from yours and that has scientific purpose.

    Clearly then you have an incorrect definition.

    Note too that TCR is ALSO measured in C/W/m^2.

    And that fact of reality made you abandon ECS. What will you do when you abandon TCR too as being incompatible with obstructionism?

  217. #217 Wow
    July 12, 2017

    “Once we have an actual measured TCR, we can obtain a much better estimate of ECS.”

    We already have an actual measured TCR, but the estimate of ECS is 50-60% more than TCR. Which means that if your claim of ECS were 1.5, then TCR would be 0.9-1.0C. Since we’re already 1.2 above, your claim of TCR is proven false.

    Given we have already measured it at 2.4C for TCR, that makes ECS 3.6-3.9C.

  218. #218 Wow
    July 12, 2017

    “I am a scientist – a geologist with a chemistry background, to be specific. I am in no way ‘anti-science.’ ”

    All contradicted by the evidence provided so far.

    “If you feel the need to attack me personally or criticise any grammar or other non-material errors, please don’t. ”

    Tone argument, moron. It’s a fallacy.

    And remember, errors are errors. *AS A SCIENTIST* you would welcome all corrections, no matter how minor.

    “1. By perpetuating this “climate denier” moniker for anyone who dares question…”

    Liar. those who questioned were answered but the current crop of “questioners” are merely JAQing off and are regurgitating the same questions as had been answered long before.

    See Spencer Weart’s book on the history of climate science.

    “2. Through numerous conversations with other geologists…”

    Pure hearsay and similarly to point 1, entirely consisting of alarmism and persecution complex with an insistence that this cannot be taken as just your paranoia because you insist that there are many people you asked, despite no proof any were.

    “3. Many geologists don’t have all the information, …”

    But you make claims about the results without that information. And you ask questions that have long been answered but insist on ignorance as a defence. Ignorance is no defence, retard.

    “5. I know good geoscientists who I respect as honourable, smart, empirical, and analytical scientists who believe wildly different things about the changing climate”

    Then they’re wrong. Even if we had any evidence whatsoever they existed. Or what they believed.

    “During this presentation, a seriously misleading graph with a manipulated x axis (different amounts of time between evenly spaced marks) ”

    No, it wasn’t misleading, it just was beyond your comprehension. Even if we had any evidence it existed. Which we don’t.

    “7. Can you please explain to me (and everyone who is too cautious to ask or doesn’t know about this particular tidbit of information) why CO2 rises before T ”

    Can you explain why T increased AFTER CO2 in the instrumental record, if CO2 comes after a temperature increase? Where is the 800 year old temperature spike of about 2 degrees over a 50 year period?

    “Legit please explain (with figures and/or condensed references included if possible). ”

    Where are your figures or references for your claims?

    AS A SCIENTIST you would not be providing claims without evidence, especially if you were going to insist on them in response.

    ALL your claims are unsupported claims, even the claims claiming to have been the result of “many” others’ reports (to claim it is therefore data not anecdote). There is not one thing you’ve claimed that is not anecdote except where it’s been merely lies.

    Making the claim you’re a scientist and not anti-science also an unlikely unsupported claim.

  219. #219 Wow
    July 12, 2017

    “I HATE the term ‘denier’”

    I couldn’t give a shit.

  220. #220 Wow
    July 12, 2017

    “-if this were really science (and not politics or the Church of Climate Change) then there would be no such thing as “deniers.””

    Explain flat earthers or creationists, then, moron.

  221. #221 Wow
    July 12, 2017

    ” If there is this much difference of scientific opinion within the geoscience community, how is the answer and the data ‘obvious’?”

    Most employment of geologists is by the fossil fuel industry, therefore their paycheck depends on denial of AGW since that kills the fossil fuel industry.

    Therefore those claiming it’s a hoax or unsupported or faked are doing so because of their paycheck.

  222. #222 Wow
    July 12, 2017

    “have siezed the courage to say *something* about the issues that I have observed with this issue.”

    No you have siezed [sic] an opportunity to make unsupported claims in denial of reality because your job, if you actually ARE a geoscientist of which we have only your claim to be one to indicate it, depends on being paid by your employer who employs you to find more fossil fuels.

    You have found the “courage” to insist that others do all your thinking for you and answer things you claim not to have any proof of but demand that proof is given and that, despite your use of insult and slur against others (such as that NOAA scientist presenter), nobody is allowed to do that to you.

    Yeah, such courage…..

    Fucking wimp.

  223. #223 BBD
    July 12, 2017

    #137 JR

    Missed this, sorry:

    Ok. Revision: point 7. Yes, it’s the middle of the nite.

    Why T rises before CO2 but that this somehow means that increasing CO2 is driving T increases.

    Evidence? Perhaps time for an update on the literature. See eg. <a href="https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/seminars/pdfs/Parrenin_Science_2013.pdf&quot;Parrenin et al. (2013) Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming and Pedro et al. (2012) Tightened constraints on the time-lag between Antarctic temperature and CO2 during the last deglaciation.

    It turns out that when Antarctic ice core chronologies are tightened up, the supposed CO2-to-T lag disappears.

    And with it, another weary old contrarian talking point…

  224. #224 BBD
    July 12, 2017

    That buggered link should be:

    Parrenin et al. (2013) Synchronous Change of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature During the Last Deglacial Warming

  225. #225 Wow
    July 12, 2017

    “I’m not sure how hard I will hit the ground so I don’t know if I will need to deploy my parachute. Besides, I might land in a deep snowdrift. So we are in wait and see mode.”

    Maybe we need to give dick a parachute and take him to the top of a tall cliff (so no mess to clean up or danger to passers by) and push him off. See if he waits until he’s willing to wait and see if he’ll hit a snowbank or an updraft brings him to a halt before hitting the ground.

    We’d all be in wait and see mode. After all, we’re not in danger of anything if we’re wrong. We’re just standing and watching dick fly!

    I also wonder if he has a wait and see approach to rumours of financial problems with the companies he’s invested in. You know, keep his money in there because it’s not failed yet and therefore his investment is still there.

  226. #226 Wow
    July 12, 2017

    re 223, it’s the zombie argument from the vostok cores:

    https://skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm

    Argument #12. “CO2 lags temperature”.

  227. #227 Wow
    July 12, 2017

    When deniers decide to gish gallop, we should run a herd of buffaloes over them in response.

    For those who think volume is a metric of reality, posting 100 posts with questions that remain unanswered or rebuttals that are not countered seems even more voluminous than a gish gallop post of 100 unsupported claims. If only because there’s no way to get to the count of unsupported claims in one post because it’s such heavy going

  228. #228 Wow
    July 12, 2017

    ” you know you will never succeed in getting a concession from him that you are right on any detail. ”

    That would be because he’s not right on any detail.

    Conceding a point isn’t a candy to hand out as a consolation prize. Conceding a point has to be earned. Not gifted because at some point the moron is going to be sad.

  229. #229 Wow
    July 12, 2017

    And again with the gendering? And Susan got called “him”. What? Don’t feel like “her”s can argue with men?

  230. #230 Wow
    July 12, 2017

    “But I have quoted several definitions of ECS and none of them are “mine”. ”

    You have also made several definitions, all of which are solely sourced from you, therefore are yours. And the quoted definitions of others disagree with your claims, proving you wrong and lying (since you knew the claims you made were wrong before you made them)

  231. #231 Craig Thomas
    July 12, 2017

    Lol. 17 sequential comments from the poster whose over-enthusiasm far exceeds his ability to conduct a rational dialogue.

  232. #232 Wow
    July 12, 2017

    You’ve not posted that much, craig.

  233. #233 Wow
    July 12, 2017

    But, hey, I guess you could answer how dick’s TCR would answer those questions?

  234. #234 Wow
    July 12, 2017

    But as you know, those who can’t do, criticise.

    Care to try doing? Or worried about proving why you aren’t?

  235. #235 RickA
    July 12, 2017

    Craig #231:

    Yes – I noticed that.

    Wow tends to post lots and lots when he has been caught out as being wrong.

    It is almost as if he is trying to fill up the thread to get away from his error.

    I think he finally did realize that the IPCC is in fact looking at the temperature difference from doubling CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm. Apparently he/she never knew that.

    Have you noticed he/she gets more and more incoherent in this thread also?

    Truly funny.

  236. #236 Wow
    July 12, 2017

    You do tend to talk a load of gobshite when you’re wrong, don’t you, dick? Which leaves you mostly talking gobshite, really.

    “It is almost as if he”

    “He” again? Well, i guess learning isn’t a thing you do, is it, dick.

    “is trying to fill up the thread to get away from his error.”

    Which isn’t said because that would make it falsifiable…

    “I think he finally did realize that the IPCC is in fact looking at the temperature difference from doubling CO2 from 280 ppm to 560 ppm.”

    Nope. They aren’t, dick.

    ” Apparently he/she never knew that.”

    Not even the IPCC knew that. Which kinda proves your lie, doesn’t it, dick?

  237. #237 Wow
    July 12, 2017

    Hey, you’re avoiding the thread because you’re still not capable of answering any of the questions, dick.

    So given your inability to answer the questions of how you make use of your definition of TCR in any real situation, I guess you’re going to admit that it’s a useless definition of yours, just like you did about your definition of ECS.

  238. #238 Wow
    July 12, 2017

    “Have you noticed he/she gets more and more incoherent in this thread also?”

    Have you noticed that your lies get even less relevant to reality as your ass gets handed to you time after time, dick?

    I mean you’ve patted your back about scoring 20 own goals on ECS, then segued into the exact same failfest with TCR.

    And now you think that blabbing out claims of “Duh, they’re incoherent, ‘cos I can’t understand them!” is going to work???

    Sorry, petal, life doesn’t work that way.

  239. #239 Wow
    July 12, 2017

    So your estimate of TCR of 1.2 is already proven wrong since we’re at that long before a doubling of CO2. Your ECS is also proven wrong because the TCR is 2.4C per doubling, above the 1.5C you insisted on “wait and see” with, and it would have been wrong even if the asinine claim of TCR being 1.2C were even right, since the ECS would have been nearer 2C than 1.5.

  240. #240 Wow
    July 12, 2017

    And, no, snowflake, you don’t get to whine that there’s no content, none of you snowflakes can. Since there’s been no content from dick whatsoever. Just tired repeats of the same unmathematical bollocks that has been proven wrong to the retard scores of times before over the years here.

  241. #241 RickA
    July 12, 2017

    Wow:

    I gave you several quotes to back up my take on ECS and TCR. All you have are insults and a bunch of irrelevant questions. Not impressive.

  242. #242 Wow
    July 12, 2017

    “I gave you several quotes to back up my take on ECS and TCR.”

    Nope they all proved your take is wrong, entirely wrong.

    “All you have are insults ”

    Nope. I have insults and a hell of a lot more, moron-boy. But you can’t respond to the other stuff so you ignore it and make claim it’s all I’ve got.

    “and a bunch of irrelevant questions.”

    Please prove they are irrelevant.

    Blank assertion is not acceptable.

  243. #243 Wow
    July 12, 2017

    What, for example, is irrelevant about the question: if ECS were 1.5C, what would the temperature of the earth be at 500ppm?

    Since it forced you to admit your definition of ECS was shit and then moved to TCR, what is irrelevant about the question: if TCR were 1.2C what would the temperature of the earth be at 500ppm?

  244. #244 Wow
    July 12, 2017

    What’s not impressive is your whining and continued ignorance, dick.

  245. #245 Jeff Harvey
    July 12, 2017

    Susan Anderson said, “RickA, I deplore almost everything you say”.

    That makes two of us. What is so utterly annoying about Rick is that he tries to package his denial in phrases and wording that makes him sound rational, reasonable, balanced. But he is anything but. Smears/putdowns etc. are done in the most polite way, but they are smears nevertheless.

    I have seen this trick used before, most notably by mediocre statistician/political scientist* (delete as appropriate) Bjorn Lomborg. Lomborg has honed the talent of coming across all pure and honest and sweet and innocent when projecting his myopic views, a deliberate ploy to not only disarm his adversaries, but to evoke strong defense from the far end of the political right who are his biggest supporters. This game of playing the innocent, honest broker searching for the truth in this complicated world is a true Lomborgism, and RickA has long honed it here. In the end, beneath all of this posturing are dishonest people who are very wrong but who are using the radical innocence approach to gain credibility and to mask their deceptiveness. I have had enough personal experience with Lomborg to know all about where he is coming from, and Rick is in the same league,

  246. #246 RickA
    July 12, 2017

    Jeff Harvey #245:

    Thank you.

    It is only the irrational, unreasonable and unbalanced posts of those like WOW which make me “sound rational, reasonable, balanced”.

  247. #247 RickA
    July 12, 2017

    Here is a definition of climate sensitivity from SAR (really of ECS).

    https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/climate-changes-1995/ipcc-2nd-assessment/2nd-assessment-en.pdf

    From page 5 of the report (pg. 15 of the PDF), footnote 7.

    “In IPCC reports, climate sensitivity usually refers to long-term (equilibrium) change in global mean surface temperature following a doubling of atmospheric equivalent CO2 concentration. More generally, it refers to the equilibrium change in surface air temperature following a unit change in radiative forcing (°C/Wm-2).”

    This definition makes it clear that the IPCC uses this phrase differently than the more general definition. In the IPCC reports, ECS refers to temperature change after a doubling of CO2.

    The IPCC measures the starting point of CO2 from pre-industrial (CO2 at 280 ppm) [SAR pg. 4, pg. 14 of PDF]. So a doubling (280 plus 280 would be 560 ppm). The IPCC also assumes the climate system was at equilibrium at 280 ppm.

  248. #248 RickA
    July 12, 2017

    Jeff:

    I am just as biased as the next person. And I definitely have a point of view and lots of opinions. However, I do admit that we don’t actually have a full understanding of the climate system. That we don’t actually know the value of ECS or TCR, that all we have are estimates which fall into ranges (the range of ECS being 1.5C to 4.5C).

    On the other hand, someone like WOW professes to know the value of TCR at the doubling point of CO2 (560 ppm), which makes him/her sound unbalanced, irrational and unreasonable – because that would mean WOW knows the future. Of course all reasonable, balanced rational people know that it is impossible to know the future and that WOW cannot know the value of TCR from some indeterminate point in the future when we hit 560 ppm. But as regular readers will know, WOW says what TCR IS, even though it hasn’t happened yet.

    Amusing.

  249. #249 RickA
    July 12, 2017

    I am going for 17 in a row.

    Just kidding, I am done for now.

  250. #250 dhogaza
    July 12, 2017

    “RickA

    If we had the physics correct the models would not be so far off from the actual climate.

    The “pause” wouldn’t have been such a surprise.

    Wrong. Yet again, you’ve confused short-term variability”

    Good grief, RickA. Individual model runs show exactly the kind of variability that we sometimes see in the historical record, as with the (statistically never existing) “pause”.

    When dozens of model runs are averaged together variability is suppressed, just as the variability of heads-v.-tails in a ten flip sample averages out if you make dozens of such samples.

    If we had dozens of worlds we’d see it in historical climate data, as well.

    You’ve been told all of this dozens of times over and over. You come back with the same “but the earth is flat and 6,000 years old” level of denialism time and time again, which makes you either a liar or thick as a very dense brick. Most likely the former.
    I think you’re relatively intelligent and just as dishonest as hell.

    Meanwhile, I’m glad you have at least some sense of self:

    ‘It is only the irrational, unreasonable and unbalanced posts of those like WOW which make me “sound rational, reasonable, balanced”.’

    Wow: you aren’t helping. This is a fair summary of your endless contributions which are boring as hell, often incorrect, and only serve to make lying RickA and MikeN look like reasonable people.

  251. #251 Craig Thomas
    July 13, 2017

    RickA says:
    “This definition makes it clear that the IPCC uses this phrase differently than the more general definition. In the IPCC reports, ECS refers to temperature change after a doubling of CO2.”

    I’ve always thought sensitivity would be different for different starting and end-states, so it seems fairly logical to me that when we talk about climate sensitivity in the context of current warming, that the IPCC would be talking about two defined states.
    So why is this an issue?

    “The IPCC also assumes the climate system was at equilibrium at 280 ppm.”

    Well, considering that level of CO2 (or within 40ppm of it) pertained for a *very* long while, and no other sudden change of forcings was in play, why wouldn’t you assume that?

  252. #252 BBD
    July 13, 2017

    Wow: you aren’t helping. This is a fair summary of your endless contributions which are boring as hell, often incorrect, and only serve to make lying RickA and MikeN look like reasonable people.

    +1

  253. #253 BBD
    July 13, 2017

    RickA

    More generally, it refers to the equilibrium change in surface air temperature following a unit change in radiative forcing (°C/Wm-2).”

    Which is what I have been telling you from the beginning of this ‘discussion’ months ago.

    NOT just CO2. CO2 in IPCC reports and discussion of climate, yes, but NOT always and by definition.

    Your own reference clarifies this.

  254. #254 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “It is only the irrational, unreasonable and unbalanced posts of those like dick”

    FTFY you, retard.

    Sorry,snowflake, just because you’re getting your arse handed to you by someone who may not even be male doesn’t mean you get to make shit up about the arguments you’re losing against.

  255. #255 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “+1”

    Yeah, right dumdum. Your work has been soooo successful.

  256. #256 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “This definition makes it clear that the IPCC uses this phrase differently than the more general definition”

    No it doesn’t dick. It makes it clear you’re lying.

  257. #257 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    ” In the IPCC reports, ECS refers to temperature change after a doubling of CO2.”

    But nowhere does it say you must wait until it’s doubled to measure ECS. You are lying about it.

  258. #258 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “I’ve always thought sensitivity would be different for different starting and end-states,”

    Incorrect.

    Well, outside some fairly large ranges. E.g. about 50ppm CO2 and less it’s not per doubling, it’s linear. And above something well above 100,000ppm CO2 it’s no longer per doubling. but between them, it’s per doubling, because the relationship between GHG forcing and temperature is log-linear.

  259. #259 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “The IPCC also assumes the climate system was at equilibrium at 280 ppm.”

    But you can’t, because you use your own personal definition of ECS and TCR that cannot be justified by looking at the IPCC reports since they don’t agree with your definition.

  260. #260 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “Wow: you aren’t helping.”

    Nothing is helping. Because the retard isn’t listening and doesn’t care.

    YOU aren’t helping. Neither is Susan, Dumdum or craig.

    So will you lot shut the fuck up or change? No? Then I’ll return the indifference to your complaint, thanks.

  261. #261 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “This is a fair summary of your endless contributions which are boring as hell”

    Whine whine whine whine whine.

    Boring as heel, So shut the fuck up, right, ‘cos your whinge is boring. Oh, not a good reason? You think it not boring, that it is useful or warranted? Same here, dog. Same here.

  262. #262 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “You’ve been told all of this dozens of times over and over. You come back with the same “but the earth is flat and 6,000 years old” level of denialism time and time again, ”

    Which indicates you’re not helping, doesn’t it, dog?

    So will you STFU? Or keep trying what you think is needed?

  263. #263 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “Just kidding, I am done for now.”

    You were done to begin with, dick. Of that there is no doubt.

  264. #264 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “I am just as biased as the next person.”

    But you’re next to Anthony Watts. And you’re the one wearing the Dunce cap.

  265. #265 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “And I definitely have a point of view and lots of opinions”

    And do not care in the least whether they’re wrong. You resist every attempt to learn and that means you’re not just biased or opinionated, but that you are a retarded moron in denial of reality.

  266. #266 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “On the other hand, someone like WOW professes to know the value of TCR at the doubling point of CO2”

    We do. Or at least we know that ECS, your original claim, is absolutely wrong and can measure it now.

    YOU meanwhile pretend that you cannot know and that it can only be measured at one point.

    When every quote you gave showed that you were wrong.

  267. #267 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    ” Of course all reasonable, balanced rational people know that it is impossible to know the future and that WOW cannot know the value of TCR from some indeterminate point in the future”

    No, only retards who want to claim they are reasonable balanced rational people when they’re none of those things but just an internet blowhard moron, believe with all their heart and head and soul that they cannot know the value of TCR from some determined point now.

    We can measure it now and it’s 2.4C per doubling without even reaching equilibrium, so your claim of ECR being 1.5 is proven wrong right now, today.

  268. #268 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “WOW says what TCR IS, even though it hasn’t happened yet.”

    It has. The climate has responded. Therefore we can measure TCR right now.

  269. #269 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “all we have are estimates which fall into ranges (the range of ECS being 1.5C to 4.5C).”

    No we don’t. For a start, it’s not 1.5 to 4.5. That is merely the range the computer models got to that were included in the report.

    Computer models, not reality.

    Morover, we already know it can’t be less than 2.4C per doubling because we can measure the TCR response right now at that figure and we’re still not at equilibrium.

  270. #270 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “serve to make lying RickA and MikeN look like reasonable people.”

    No it doesn’t, and claiming this merely emboldens dick and “mike” to make even more outlandish claims and refuse reality.

    Putting the cause of reality back to, well, three years ago on this thread.

    Maybe you shout stop fucking reality up, dog.

  271. #271 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “From page 5 of the report (pg. 15 of the PDF), footnote 7.

    “In IPCC reports, climate sensitivity usually refers to long-term (equilibrium) change in global mean surface temperature following a doubling of atmospheric equivalent CO2 concentration. More generally, it refers to the equilibrium change in surface air temperature following a unit change in radiative forcing (°C/Wm-2).””

    Which proves you wrong, dick.

    Still.

    Just like last time.

  272. #272 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “So a doubling (280 plus 280 would be 560 ppm).”

    Has fuck all to do with when we can measure TCR. All we have to do is change the forcing, know what that change in forcing is and measure the climate’s response to it.

    By definition.

    We can measure TCR right now and have, and we have found it to be 2.4C per doubling.

  273. #273 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “The IPCC measures the starting point of CO2 from pre-industrial (CO2 at 280 ppm) [SAR pg. 4, pg. 14 of PDF].”

    Has fuck all to do with when we can measure TCR. All we have to do is change the forcing, know what that change in forcing is and measure the climate’s response to it.

    By definition.

    We can measure TCR right now and have, and we have found it to be 2.4C per doubling.

  274. #274 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “In the IPCC reports, ECS refers to temperature change after a doubling of CO2. ”

    They do, because the units used where they reference it are per doubling CO2.

    But that has fuck all to do with when we can measure TCR. All we have to do is change the forcing, know what that change in forcing is and measure the climate’s response to it.

    By definition.

    We can measure TCR right now and have, and we have found it to be 2.4C per doubling.

  275. #275 RickA
    July 13, 2017

    Craig #251:

    The IPCC definition of ECS versus the general definition responds to an argument BBD and I have had over several threads. I quote the IPCC definition and BBD says I am a liar and comes back with the general definition. However, relying on the IPCC definition does not make me a liar – so I disagree with BBD saying I am a liar. So that is why I highlighted that.

    As to the 280 equilibrium thing – that was for WOW who was commenting on that issue (in his string of incoherent posts).

  276. #276 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “As to the 280 equilibrium thing – that was for WOW who was commenting on that issue ”

    Ah, yes, another claim that is contrary to reality. Nope. I asked you about whether it was in equilibrium. You could not answer.

  277. #277 RickA
    July 13, 2017

    Wow:

    You are once again confusing “measurement” from “estimate”.

    We cannot measure TCR now because it can only be measured “at doubling”. We have not doubled and won’t until we are at 560 ppm.

    As for ECS, we can never measure it – but even if we could, it could only be measured “following a doubling” – and once again we have not yet doubled.

    As you yourself pointed out, we have only gone up 120 ppm (maybe 125 ppm now).

    You say the measured value of TCR IS 2.4 C.

    But the global mean temperature has only gone up 1C – so that is clearly impossible.

    What everybody knows you are doing (except you of course) is you are taking the delta T and linearly projecting it to 560 ppm (the point at doubling). That is not a measurement.

    I sure hope this sounds reasonable, balanced and rational.

    Cause your point sure doesn’t.

  278. #278 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    ” I quote the IPCC definition and BBD says I am a liar ”

    You are, dick. The quotes show you are a liar.

    You are also a liar without the quotes, because you’ve been told your errors but kept to them anyway, knowing the falsity.

  279. #279 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “You are once again confusing “measurement” from “estimate”.”

    You are once again lying, dick.

  280. #280 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “What everybody knows you are doing (except you of course) is you are taking the delta T and linearly projecting it to 560 ppm ”

    Nope.

    For a start you are not everbody.

    Secondly, nope, I’m not linearly extrapoating.

    Third, it’s being stated in terms of the units you decided to insist on being used: C per doubling of CO2.

    You measure the forcing. You measure the response. That gives you the TCR.

    And we have measured it and it’s 2.4C per doubling.

  281. #281 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “We cannot measure TCR now”

    Yes we can.

    ” because it can only be measured “at doubling””

    No that is a lie. All we have to do is change the forcing, know what that change in forcing is and measure the climate’s response to it.

    By definition.

    We can measure TCR right now and have, and we have found it to be 2.4C per doubling.

  282. #282 RickA
    July 13, 2017

    WOW – by saying “measured” you are saying the global mean temperature of Earth TODAY is 2.4C higher than it was in 1750 (when we were at 280 ppm).

    So you should either use the word “estimated” for your guess of what the future value of TCR will be, or admit you are wrong. I won’t call you a liar, because I know the difference between lying and just being wrong.

    You are wrong.

  283. #283 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “As for ECS, we can never measure it ”

    That is a lie. We could cut the CO2 levels and hold it at 400ppm and then in a hundred years we’d have equilibrium temperature. That then allows us to measure it.

  284. #284 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “WOW – by saying “measured” you are saying the global mean temperature of Earth TODAY is 2.4C higher than it was in 1750 ”

    No.

    I’m saying that we know we have increased CO2 by half a doubling from 280ppm to 400ppm and that the Earth’s temperature now is 1.2C warmer than it was when it was 280ppm.

    Therefore we can work out the TCR from those two figures. And it works out to 2.4C per doubling.

    Double what you claimed it could be, thereby proving you are wrong.

  285. #285 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “So you should either use the word “estimated” ”

    Nope. I should use the correct term, not the term you prefer.

  286. #286 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “for your guess of what the future value of TCR will be”

    I’m not guessing. It’s calculated.

    And it’s not what it will be, it is what it is right now.

  287. #287 RickA
    July 13, 2017

    Since we have not doubled CO2 yet, the “per doubling” unit you are using converts your “measurement” to an estimate, a linear projection to a future value.

    No scientist would call that a measurement.

    You are wrong.

  288. #288 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “I won’t call you a liar,”

    Because I’m not.

    TCR can be calculated right now and it’s 2.4C per doubling.

  289. #289 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “No scientist would call that a measurement.”

    You are wrong.

    Only retards and liars would call that not a measurement, dick. We can measure TCR right now, all we have to do is change the forcing, know what that change in forcing is and measure the climate’s response to it.

    By definition.

    We can measure TCR right now and have, and we have found it to be 2.4C per doubling.

  290. #290 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “Since we have not doubled CO2 yet,”

    Has fuck all to do with when we can measure TCR. All we have to do is change the forcing, know what that change in forcing is and measure the climate’s response to it.

    By definition.

    We can measure TCR right now and have, and we have found it to be 2.4C per doubling.

  291. #291 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “But the global mean temperature has only gone up 1C – so that is clearly impossible.”

    Lie.

    It’s gone up by 1.2C.

  292. #292 RickA
    July 13, 2017

    Wow #286 – “It’s calculated”.

    Yes – thank you for conceding that.

    It is not a measurement. It is a calculation based on a measurement.

  293. #293 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “I sure hope this sounds reasonable, balanced and rational.”

    Nope, it sounds like a lying fuckwit in denial of reality and highschool level maths

  294. #294 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “Wow #286 – “It’s calculated”.

    Yes – thank you for conceding that.”

    Yes – thank you for conceding that your claim it was an estimate was a lie.

  295. #295 RickA
    July 13, 2017

    Wow #291:

    The el nino bump has already gone away – it is 1C now.

    I am getting a warning that I am posting to much, so I will stop for now.

  296. #296 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “It is not a measurement. It is a calculation based on a measurement.”

    Which means it’s a measurement. Thank you for conceding that.

  297. #297 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “it is 1C now.”

    Lie.

    It’s 1.2C now.

  298. #298 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “I am getting a warning that I am posting to much”

    No, it’s just telling you you’re posting too much gobshite. Try some reality and non lying truth telling.

  299. #299 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “converts your “measurement” to an estimate,”

    Lying again. Twice.

    Nope, it’s not “measurement”, it’s measurement.

    And conversion of units does not make it an estimate, retard.

    The SI unit for pressure is Pascal. That doesn’t make your car tyre pressure in psi an estimate.

  300. #300 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “As you yourself pointed out, we have only gone up 120 ppm (maybe 125 ppm now).”

    Yup.

    “You say the measured value of TCR IS 2.4 C.”

    Yup.

    We know we have increased CO2 by half a doubling from 280ppm to 400ppm and that the Earth’s temperature now is 1.2C warmer than it was when it was 280ppm.

    Therefore we can work out the TCR from those two figures. And it works out to 2.4C per doubling.

  301. #301 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    ” However, relying on the IPCC definition does not make me a liar ”

    But quoting the IPCC definition and claiming a different one is real DOES make you a liar, dick.

  302. #302 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “so I disagree with BBD saying I am a liar. ”

    No liar agrees with anyone calling them a liar, since being called out a liar ruins your ability to get away with lying.

  303. #303 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    Solar irradiance is about 0.9 W/m2 brighter during solar maximum than during solar minimum. Analysis by Camp and Tung shows that this correlates with a variation of ±0.1 °C in measured average global temperature between the peak and minimum of the 11-year solar cycle.[49] From this data (incorporating the Earth’s albedo and the fact that the solar absorption cross-section is 1/4 of the surface area of the Earth), Tung, Zhou and Camp (2008) derive a transient sensitivity value of 0.69 to 0.97 °C/(W/m2).[50] This would correspond to a transient climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide doubling of 2.5 to 3.6 K, similar to the range of the current scientific consensus. However, they note that this is the transient response to a forcing with an 11-year cycle; due to lag effects, they estimate the equilibrium response to forcing would be about 1.5 times as high.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_sensitivity#Sensitivity_to_solar_forcing

  304. #304 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    Solar irradiance is about 0.9 W/m2 brighter during solar maximum than during solar minimum. Analysis by Camp and Tung shows that this correlates with a variation of ±0.1 °C in measured average global temperature between the peak and minimum of the 11-year solar cycle.[49] From this data (incorporating the Earth’s albedo and the fact that the solar absorption cross-section is 1/4 of the surface area of the Earth), Tung, Zhou and Camp (2008) derive a transient sensitivity value of 0.69 to 0.97 °C/(W/m2).[50] This would correspond to a transient climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide doubling of 2.5 to 3.6 K, similar to the range of the current scientific consensus. However, they note that this is the transient response to a forcing with an 11-year cycle; due to lag effects, they estimate the equilibrium response to forcing would be about 1.5 times as high.

    [50] Tung, K.K.; Zhou, J.; Camp, C.D. (2008). “Constraining model transient climate response using independent observations of solar-cycle forcing and response”

  305. #305 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “a linear projection to a future value.”

    Lie.

    It’s a calculation of the actual value that can be, and has been, done right now.

    It is not a linear extrapolation because anyone who has attended school to the age of 12 knows that 120 is not the same as 160.

    But maybe you didn’t stay at school that long, dick?

  306. #306 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “As you yourself pointed out, we have only gone up 120 ppm (maybe 125 ppm now).

    But the global mean temperature has only gone up 1C – so that is clearly impossible.”

    Therefore your claim of 1.2C per doubling for TCR is clearly impossible. It’s not even within any reasonable error limit. And your claim of an ECS at 1.5C per doubling is clearly even more incorrect, since ECS is around 60% higher than TCR.

    So we don’t have to wait to see if you’re wrong, dick, we already know you are wrong.

  307. #307 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “I do admit that we don’t actually have a full understanding of the climate system.”

    And your “we” means you deniers.

    As evidenced with your failures at predicting the climate:

    http://skepticalscience.com/comparing-global-temperature-predictions.html

  308. #308 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    Shorter dick (the internet seems to have a cure for that, though, dick. check the non-nigerian-prince emails you replied to): “I don’t know what will happen if I take these drugs, so I’ll take them and see if I’m OK!”.

  309. #309 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    Actually, dick knows it’s a lie. It’s more like:

    “I don’t know if 22 or 25 million people will lose their healthcare since we haven’t repealed the ACA, but it might be fine for them anyway, and it’s a tax break for those who don’t need it, so lets remove their healthcare and see!”

    Because it’s only other peolple he thinks will get hurt. Hence the no-pushing-off-a-cliff-with-a-parachute for dick, because that risks HIS safety. Push someone else off? Sure, he has not qualms about that.

  310. #310 RickA
    July 13, 2017

    Wow #303:

    Thank you for the quote.

    Its funny the quote uses the terms “derive” and “estimate” instead of your term “measure”.

    Hmmmmm.

    Its almost as if their calculations of TCR and ECS are not measurements.

    Weird.

  311. #311 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “Its funny the quote uses the terms “derive” ”

    And you derive the reaction by measurement. You derive acceleration from measuring the velocity at at least two different times.

    You clearly do not want to accept the definition of the words measurement and derive, dick.

  312. #312 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “the terms “derive” and “estimate” instead of your term “measure”.”

    And your quotes never said “we have to wait until 560ppm CO2 to measure TCR.

    Almost as if you are lying about the measurement of TCR.

  313. #313 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “Its almost as if their calculations of TCR and ECS are not measurements.”

    And lying again.

    They measure TCR and estimate ECS because an 11 year cycle clearly never reaches equilibrium in a process where the equilibriation scale is decades or centuries.

    Your lying is exactly as if you know you’re wrong but are scrabbling for excuses.

  314. #314 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “Thank you for the quote.”

    And thank you for the quotes of the ACTUAL definitions of ECS which proved you were lying about it, dick.

  315. #315 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    By measuring force and movement you can derive the mass of an object. This is how you measure the mass of an object.

    By measuring the expansion of a liquid you can derive the temperature change. This is how you measure the change in temperature.

    By measuring CO2 and temperature at different times, you can measure the TCR from a change in CO2. And when you do that, the value for TCR is measured as 2.4C per doubling.

  316. #316 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    According to your definition of measure, your measurement would only measure the temperature when CO2 is 560ppm. That is all you have measured: temperature. You can measure CO2 and that is all you have measured: CO2 levels.

    From that you can derive TCR, but you claim that is not measuring TCR.

  317. #317 RickA
    July 13, 2017

    Wow – you quoted my quote yourself at #212:

    “TCR, is the temperature change at the time of CO2 doubling and the �equilibrium climate sensitivity�, T2x, is the temperature change after the system has reached a new equilibrium for doubled CO2, i.e., after the �additional warming commitment� has been realised.”

    Note the phrase “at the time of CO2 doubling”.
    Note the phrase “after the system has reached a new equilibrium for doubled CO2 . . “.

    Yes – you cannot MEASURE TCR until “at the time of CO2 doubling”. Which is in the future, when we hit 560 ppm.

    Yes – you cannot MEASURE ECS until after doubling of CO2 (560 ppm) and after we reach a new equilibrium.

    These are all events which will occur in the FUTURE, but which have not occured yet.

    What you are saying is that you have MEASURED your acceleration at some point in time next week (or next year).

    No – you are ESTIMATING something which will happen in the future – not measuring it.

    You are wrong WOW.

  318. #318 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “Wow – you quoted my quote yourself at #212:”

    Yes. And I quoted the quote at #212.

  319. #319 RickA
    July 13, 2017

    Wow #315:

    Time #1 is 1750, when CO2 was 280 ppm. Those are the earliest pre-industrial temperatures we have for global mean average. So yes – we have a measurement for time #1.

    Now we wait until at the point of doubling. This will be when CO2 is at 560 ppm and will occur at some point in the future.

    We have not reached time #2 yet – so we cannot take the temperature measurement at the point when CO2 has doubled to 560 ppm. So we are missing a crucial piece of information for the calculation which is based on the temperature and CO2 concentration at two different points of time.

    The doubling point is built into the IPCC definitions of TCR and ECS – those are not my metrics, but IPCC metrics.

    All we can do is ESTIMATE what TRC and ECS will be – we cannot MEASURE what they are, until we reach the point of doubled CO2.

    I am going to lay off of this now because I am sure everybody else feels I have beaten this horse enough – but I wanted to make it absolutely clear to all readers that you are wrong WOW.

  320. #320 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “TCR, is the temperature change at the time of CO2 doubling and the �equilibrium climate sensitivity�, T2x, is the temperature change after the system has reached a new equilibrium for doubled CO2, i.e., after the �additional warming commitment� has been realised.”

    Yup, which proves you are wrong in your claims about what TCR is, a thing you’ve known for a very long time, hence you knowingly lied.

  321. #321 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “Now we wait until at the point of doubling. ”

    Has fuck all to do with when we can measure TCR. All we have to do is change the forcing, know what that change in forcing is and measure the climate’s response to it.

    By definition.

    We can measure TCR right now and have, and we have found it to be 2.4C per doubling.

  322. #322 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “. This will be when CO2 is at 560 ppm and will occur at some point in the future.”

    Has fuck all to do with when we can measure TCR. All we have to do is change the forcing, know what that change in forcing is and measure the climate’s response to it.

    By definition.

    We can measure TCR right now and have, and we have found it to be 2.4C per doubling.

  323. #323 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “Note the phrase “at the time of CO2 doubling”.”

    Note the complete lack of “to measure TCR”.

  324. #324 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “The doubling point is built into the IPCC definitions of TCR and ECS – those are not my metrics, but IPCC metrics.”

    Nope.

    The definition of the units are per doubling. Not the measurement.

    Lying again, dick.

  325. #325 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “All we can do is ESTIMATE what TRC and ECS will be”

    Wrong. We can measure it now.

    All we have to do is change the forcing, know what that change in forcing is and measure the climate’s response to it.

    By definition.

    We can measure TCR right now and have, and we have found it to be 2.4C per doubling.

  326. #326 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “we cannot MEASURE what they are, until we reach the point of doubled CO2.”
    Wrong. We can measure it now.

    All we have to do is change the forcing, know what that change in forcing is and measure the climate’s response to it.

    By definition.

    We can measure TCR right now and have, and we have found it to be 2.4C per doubling.

  327. #327 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “but I wanted to make it absolutely clear to all readers that you are wrong ”

    Except all you’ve done is shown how badly you lie and how resistant to anything to do with reality you are, dick.

    WOW.

  328. #328 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “We have not reached time #2 yet ”

    Yes we have.

    Time #1 is 1850. Time #2 is today.

  329. #329 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “So we are missing a crucial piece of information for the calculation which is based on the temperature and CO2 concentration at two different points of time.”

    Nope. We have it all now.

    All we have to do is change the forcing, know what that change in forcing is and measure the climate’s response to it.

    By definition.

    We have both right now.

    We can measure TCR right now and have, and we have found it to be 2.4C per doubling.

  330. #330 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “you cannot MEASURE ECS until after doubling of CO2 (560 ppm) and after we reach a new equilibrium.”

    WRONG! You can measure it now, since the forcing haa changed as well as the temperature.

    We can measure TCR right now and have, and we have found it to be 2.4C per doubling.

  331. #331 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “you cannot MEASURE TCR until “at the time of CO2 doubling”. Which is in the future, when we hit 560 ppm.”

    WRONG! You can measure it now, since the forcing haa changed as well as the temperature.

    We can measure TCR right now and have, and we have found it to be 2.4C per doubling.

  332. #332 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “These are all events which will occur in the FUTURE, but which have not occured yet.”

    Has fuck all to do with when we can measure TCR. All we have to do is change the forcing, know what that change in forcing is and measure the climate’s response to it.

    By definition.

    We can measure TCR right now and have, and we have found it to be 2.4C per doubling.

  333. #333 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    “What you are saying is that you have MEASURED your acceleration at some point in time next week (or next year).

    No – you are ESTIMATING something which will happen in the future – not measuring it.”

    Wrong. What are you saying is they’re in the future and making up shit about how it’s only ESTIMATION, proving that you haven’t the first clue what the word means.

  334. #334 BBD
    July 13, 2017

    This is just pathological.

  335. #335 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    Don’t be so hard on yourself.

  336. #336 Jeff Harvey
    July 13, 2017

    “I am going to lay off of this now because I am sure everybody else feels I have beaten this horse enough”….

    I will finish the statement for RickA, adding what he meant to say but never got there.

    ….”so the time is well past to procrastinate any longer. Although there are uncertainties in how increased atmsopheric concentrations of greenhouse gases – especially C02 – will affect global surface temperatures, the prognosis is not good. I have no expertise in climate science whatsoever, so I defer to the wisdom of the climate science community in projecting possible outcomes. And if the global surface temperature goes through the2 degree C barrier, they have predicted quite serious effects on natural and managed ecosystems across the biosphere. These effects will rebound on mankind and inflict heavy costs. That is, or should be the wake up call for immediate action”.

    Well there you go. I put the words right into RickA’s mouth. That wasn’t so hard was it? Thanks Rick for (1) deferring to the expertise of people actually trained in climate science, and (2) urging for immediate action to be taken to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of C02. It shows that you have a scintilla of common sense.

  337. #337 Wow
    July 13, 2017

    Thanks for telling everyone else what dick meant to say but couldn’t get past his ideology.

  338. #338 dhogaza
    July 13, 2017

    Wasn’t this thread originally about some lawsuit or somesuch?

  339. #339 RickA
    United States
    July 13, 2017

    Jeff:

    Actually, in my plan above at #72, I did call for building 100 nuclear power plants (2 per state) within the next five years. That is pretty immediate action which I do support.

    Do you have a plan? And if so, what is it?

  340. #340 dean
    July 13, 2017

    Actually, in my plan above at #72, I did call for building 100 nuclear power plants (2 per state) within the next five years.

    Something that is impossible to accomplish is not a plan. I suspect that’s why you “support” it.

  341. #341 Wow
    July 14, 2017

    “Do you have a plan? ”

    Goodness. So you’ve been ignoring EVERYTHING in the news, every single bit of information in the world? It’s the only way you can ask that as if you don’t know what plan is out there.

    “2 per state”

    So not a plan.

    “I did call for building 100 nuclear power plants within the next five years.”

    Ah, well, if that’s the detail needed the plan is: reduce CO2 output by 90%.

  342. #342 Craig Thomas
    July 14, 2017

    New record for the orifice surrounded by WWs: 21 posts in a row.

    And if Rick refrained, even higher records would be possible.

    Why don’t you get your own blog, WoW, instead of filling this one with your gibberish?

  343. #343 Wow
    July 14, 2017

    Craig, try using that brain. Lets say I get a blog of my own. Does that make it impossible to post elsewhere?

    No.

    So what YOU have to do is get your OWN blog and block me.

    Fucking moron.

  344. #344 Wow
    July 14, 2017

    And why the fuck are you posting here? Get your own blog to pot on. Morons writing stuff on other blogs, where the hell do you get your arrogance from to do that! FFS!

    Get the problem with your whinging yet, retard?

  345. #345 Wow
    July 14, 2017

    “New record for the orifice”

    Ah, right. You’re obsessed with anuses.

    From the moron who has a picture of someone else because they’re so useless and incomplete themselves.

    And whose alphabet is missing a shitload of letters because, well, 26 is just too hard to deal with. About 5 is better, right, whiner?

  346. #346 Wow
    July 14, 2017

    “And if Rick refrained, even higher records would be possible.”

    Wrong!

    But you don’t care about reality any more than dick does, do you, crap? You just can’t think and loathe anyone who does. Hence your hatred to me.

    I just show you up for the mental midget mentalist you are, Crap.

  347. #347 Wow
    July 14, 2017

    “your gibberish?”

    Yeah, right. More proof your mental capacity is insufficient to the task of comprehension of simple language or thoughts.

    Just like dick.

    No wonder you are defending him so vehemently!

  348. #348 Wow
    July 14, 2017

    “21 posts in a row.”

    Did you get a grown up to help you count that, Crap Thomas? Or did you whip out Crap Junior to count that high in your jim-jams?

  349. #349 Wow
    July 14, 2017

    Crap, instead of sullying a picture of someone to whom cognition is a good thing, try some picture a little more appropriate to your posting history:

    http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02661/hollande_2661326b.jpg

  350. #350 Wow
    July 14, 2017

    Forgot this “nugget” of brown “wisdom” from dog:

    “often incorrect, ”

    Such as???? According to Crap here, 21 posts in a row. Where is, oh, say, 7 incorrect ones, and how are they incorrect, in that list? If it’s “often”, then 7 should be a shoe-in, right?

    Nah, like deniers do, you just blurt out a claim and hope that will suffice.

    Since your only post here has that and it is currently incorrect due to lack of evidence, are you “often incorrect” in your posts, and just projecting?

  351. #351 BBD
    UK
    July 14, 2017

    Such as????

    Well, there are problems with your #258 response to Craig Thomas:

    “I’ve always thought sensitivity would be different for different starting and end-states,”

    Incorrect.

    Well, outside some fairly large ranges. E.g. about 50ppm CO2 and less it’s not per doubling, it’s linear.

    First, CT is correct to say that climate sensitivity *is* state-dependent. If you start in a warm climate state with a small cryosphere, the effects of ice albedo feedback are much smaller compared to a Pleistocene interglacial. Classic state-dependence of S.

    Also, the relationship between S and dF is probably non-linear as feedbacks to warming are probably non-linear. See #88.

  352. #352 Wow
    July 15, 2017

    “Well, there are problems with your #258 response to Craig Thomas:”

    I’ll not bother with what you’re evidence is, but just accept it for the moment for the sake of counting.

    So that’s one.

    Looking for proof of “often”. One out of 21 (remember the rest of the post you quote mined, dumdum). This is not often.

    We’re looking for the proof of “often”.

    One is not “often”. So we need several more.

  353. #353 Curmudgeon
    Winnipeg
    July 15, 2017

    Your opening paragraph was enough to warn me of the mental gymnastics that you were going to use.
    Your simple question is 2 questions, and they are mutually exclusive.
    Global warming is happening, even Tim Ball’s data shows that. His issue has been the science behind the promoters of the panic theory. Mann requested the recess in court proceedings. It was granted on the condition that he turn over his data. The fact that he didn’t can only mean that he doesn’t want it reviewed by people (Ball is not alone) who oppose his theory.
    The second question is not simple at all, and starts with a false proposition – that all climate change is attributable to humans. Humans may well be contributing, but how much, by what means, and the share of each of those means is unknown. For example, although Tesla cars have no emissions, they create heat through friction, just as internal combustion engines do. Does the heat from friction contribute more to warming than the internal combustion emissions? If so, by how much, and how much compared to other means?
    Your simplistic approach is the problem, not the solution.

  354. #354 Greg Laden
    July 15, 2017

    Crumudgeon, you are totally wrong.

    You can see the statement by Mann’s lawyer to learn about that side of it. You can repeat the lies about that all you want (but not here, elsewhere, please) saying something that isn’t true over and over again really does not make it so.

    Global warming is human caused. Variation in climate including surface temperature has several causes, including natural dust, variations in sun’s energy, various cycles that have to do with the ocean, etc. But the long term rise in surface temperatures generally referred to as global warming is 100% caused by human effects. There is no uncertainty about this. In fact, there are humane effects that increase temperature, and human effects that decrease temperature, and natural effects that do both. The sum over the last century of natural effects is essentially zero, the sum over this time period of human effects is net positive, so more warming.

    This is the science. Your comments are incorrect and essentially dishonest. You are a science denier.

    Also, your digital footprint shows you are not writing to us from Winnipeg.

  355. #355 Wow
    July 15, 2017

    “The fact that he didn’t ”

    The fact is he did.

    The fact is you claim otherwise and call it a fact despite reality being discordant to your claims about it.

    The only question is WHY?

    Do you not know? In which case why have you made the claim based on lack of knowledge? If you just blank believed, why that claim and not ones that say otherwise?

    Will you ever accept otherwise? Because if not, then throwing your comment out either by actual deletion or by burying it under a hundred posts of minimal content is entirely acceptable and as effective with the added advantage your erroneous BS is never read to be repeated by similarly brain damaged idiots who prefer a narrative to truth.

    “starts with a false proposition ”

    It is not false, though, and there is likely MORE THAN 100% of the warming since 1850 due to AGW. To ignore the natural effects that are a net cooling in their totality would be to make the asinine claims of single and ignorant causation you accuse realists of.

    And again, since reality is in disagreement, all the same why questions arise.

    Does knowledge really mean that little to you?

  356. #356 BBD
    July 15, 2017

    We’re looking for the proof of “often”.

    Well, your whole treatment of ECS / TCR is problematic too, as I’ve pointed out several times before. That would account for much of the rest of your commentary on this thread.

    For back of the envelope, calculate the delta T at equilibrium using the method in Knutti & Hegerl (2008) and assume ECS to be 3C per doubling of CO2:

    ΔT = S ln(CO2/CO2(t=1750))/ln2

    ΔT = 3ln(400/280)/ln(2) = ~ 1.5C at equilibrium

    The transient response is likely to be about 60% of equilibrium. 60% of 1.5 = 0.9C, so observed transient warming is what we’d expect if ECS is about 3C.

  357. #357 MikeN
    July 15, 2017

    Curmudgeon do you have a source for your statements about Tim Ball’s court case that are not from John O’Sullivan either directly or indirectly?

    Any frictional heat would also exist for internal combustion engines since they also need friction to move.

  358. #358 Wow
    July 15, 2017

    “Well, your whole treatment of ECS / TCR is problematic too,”

    I don’t care if you are comfortable with a factually supported claim, all I asked is for some incorrect posts. Try again, dumdum.

    We’re at 1. Not anywhere near “often”.

  359. #359 Wow
    July 15, 2017

    “as I’ve pointed out several times before. ”

    And your problem is you don’t comprehend reality or maths?

    :
    “ΔT = S ln(CO2/CO2(t=1750))/ln2

    ΔT = 3ln(400/280)/ln(2) = ~ 1.5C at equilibrium”

    Yeah, problems.

    You’re insisting that it’s 3C/doubling. Sic ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy.

    Don’t calculate ECS when you input the ECS you want to calculate into that equation you want to calculate it with.

  360. #360 SteveP
    July 15, 2017

    Anyone else having trouble getting into the Politics blog? I keep getting an error about too many attempts to log in by a human or crawler.

  361. #361 Wow
    July 15, 2017

    It’s probably a port-banging attempt to hack. There may be another exploit for WordPress out and it’s being exploited before it’s patched.

  362. #362 SteveP
    July 16, 2017

    I’m having quite a time getting into the site. The port-banging attempt suggestion is the sort of thing that I was thinking might be happening, though I didn’t have words for it.

    It took several minutes of continual trying to get into this part of the site. Let’s try something more current next.

  363. #363 MikeN
    July 16, 2017

    BBD, at this point I think he is being deliberately obtuse. Perhaps Wow is short for Warden of West Maine.

  364. #364 Wow
    July 17, 2017

    “Mike”, try looking at evidence rather than pretend you can think. And push your accusations to the moron who has warranted it: Dick.

    And, no, again your bollocks is well off the mark. Wow just means “Wow. What a load of bullshit spewing retards are posting on scienceblogs because they believe opinion is as good as fact”.

  365. #365 Ed Thompson
    Winnipeg
    July 17, 2017

    First, I will be interested to know how the court case turns out after all it was initiated by Mr. Mann. Doesn’t want to share data.? Doesn’t make sense in the court case I know all info must be revealed. A bully tactic that failed? A simple observation.
    It is pretty simple to blame CO2 for all global warming and climate change. I thought our star might have some influence and Mr. Ball believes that too. Anyone of the 97% of scientist ever consider the number of sunspots per year might have some influence on our climate?
    If carbon production by man is the big problem why are we not talking about reducing our world population? Our world population has more than doubled since 1965. Yet CO2 has not – Why? Other influences perhaps? Since some scientist estimate that each human being emits 52 tons of CO2 per year (must be a 95% of Scientist agree on this one) then an additional 2 Billion people projected over the next 20 to 30 years would add another 1.04E11 tons of CO2 per year. The solution a carbon tax! Good luck with that.
    I submit the emphasis on family planning in the world would have the largest effect on CO2 reduction not to mention the reduction of earth’s resources. So if CO2 is the problem why is world population not in the debate? I am more concerned about the depletion of the earth’s resources than the 400 PPM increasing to 600 PPM of C02. I dare you to bring up the subject.
    By the way I understand the sun activity (sun spot count) is starting to decline. Global cooling? No its climate change and CO2 is the problem both ways! World Population is a non factor! Obviously the 97% of Scientists that believe in man made climate change have picked on poor little CO2 and ignored the Elephant called population growth.

    In the book “Slaying the Dragon” of which Tim Ball wrote a chapter or two there is a chapter written by a physicist explaining in Scientific jargon how CO2 actually works in the atmosphere. Although the book is mentioned but by the comments it is obvious it hasn’t been read. Mr. Mann probably read some of it and then decided to pull the plug on his lawsuit against Mr. Ball. In that sense he was a wise man!

    I think we all have to consider an important point, a warm climate with more CO2 will support more people than a mini ice age (sunspot activity decline a real concern). 2 Billion or 3 billion more people for the earth to feed is an onerous task. Do you think starving people will choose to die peacefully? The issue really is the adoption of world wide family planning and not if and when CO2 concentrations make up 1/2% to 1% of the atmosphere. What about the other 99%? Not a factor?

    In all seriousness we have to encourage a NO-GROWTH world population scenario. Emphasis on CO2 does nothing to address this. Ironically increased concentrations of CO2 has proven to enhance vegetative growth and hence food production. The good news is that should man be unable to establish a N0-GROWTH world population we still have CO2!

  366. #366 Richard Simons
    July 17, 2017

    Ed Thompson #365
    Difficult to know where to begin with this garbled mishmash of distortions, untruths and non sequiturs. Perhaps a good starting point would be for you to read up about the Dunning-Kruger effect and how it might apply to you.

  367. #367 Wow
    July 18, 2017

    “Doesn’t want to share data.? ”

    He does share the data. CLEARLY you are entirely uninterested in reality,dick ed.

    ” I thought our star might have some influence”

    Weird. You said that without thinking. CO2 traps heat. Guess what heat it traps? Fucking moron.

    “why are we not talking about reducing our world population?”

    We do. So go kill yourself. “Population” is merley the racist wankstains’ attempt to make AGW the fault of the niggers for breeding.

    “… is starting to decline. Global cooling?”

    0.1C from min to max. 0.9W/m^2. We measure it. It’s nowhere near AGW’s effect, moron.

    ” a warm climate with more CO2 will support more people than a mini ice age ”

    Prove it, shitstain.

    “In the book “Slaying the Dragon” ”

    Ball writes a load of cock.

    “a NO-GROWTH world population ”

    No, we need to remove the retards such as yourself from humanity’s ranks.

    1) the general intelligence of humanity will rise, and this genetic benefit will be passed down
    2) those most responsible for the problem will be paying for their acts
    3) It makes a better ROI to remove whiteys like yourself than poor third-world peoples
    4) Instead of taking 50 years, it happens in a couple of years, since death takes place immediately.

    Oh, to save taxpayer money, please kill yourself. it’s cheaper than administering lethal injection.

    TIA, the world.

  368. #368 Ed Thompson
    Canada
    July 18, 2017

    I can see why Mr. Mann withdrew from the court case he launched. It seems comments from his followers such as yourself does little to advance his case. Name calling and put downs do not work well in court.

  369. #369 Lionel A
    July 18, 2017

    I can see why Mr. Mann withdrew from the court case he launched.

    He did? Evidence please.

    BTW it is Dr Mann to you.

  370. #370 Bernard J.
    July 18, 2017

    Mr DK Logical-Fallacy says:

    Anyone of the 97% of scientist ever consider the number of sunspots per year might have some influence on our climate?

    It might have occurred to one or two of them. RTFSL and find out.

    If carbon production by man is the big problem why are we not talking about reducing our world population?

    Many are, but not necessarily just for reducing carbon emissions. And carbon emissions can be reduced independently of population. You’ve made a spurious entanglement based on a false premise.

    Our world population has more than doubled since 1965. Yet CO2 has not – Why?

    Because the baseline atmospheric CO₂ concentration was greater than 0 ppm. Work it out – if you have the mathematical capability, that is.

    Since some scientist [sic] estimate that each human being emits 52 tons of CO2 per year (must be a [sic] 95% of Scientist [sic] agree on this one)…

    Reference for the 52 tons figure? Reference for the 95% figure?

    I am more concerned about the depletion of the earth’s resources than the 400 PPM increasing to 600 PPM of C02.

    You should learn to walk and chew gum.

    I dare you to bring up the subject.

    You don’t need to. I already have, for years, but in a far more nuanced context.

    In the book “Slaying the Dragon” of which Tim Ball wrote a chapter or two there is a chapter written by a physicist explaining in Scientific jargon how CO2 actually works in the atmosphere.

    Except that it doesn’t work the way that Ball claims, and no amount of “scientific jargon” from him will make a silk purse from his troll’s ear.

    …a warm climate with more CO2 will support more people than a mini ice age…

    Actually no. Humans are not evolved to a planet 3°C or more warmer than pre-Industrial levels, and nor is a large part of the biodiversity on which we rely for our food and other commodities. We’d be relegated to climatic refuges, fighting amongst the remaining remnants of the population, and if we don’t transition soon we’ll be technologically unprepared to deal with a post-peak fossil fuel world. Throw in antibiotic resistance, expanded disease ranges, and a host of other resource shifts and warming doesn’t look so good for “more people”.

    The issue really is the adoption of world wide family planning and not if and when CO2 concentrations make up 1/2% to 1% of the atmosphere.

    If atmospheric CO₂ concentration reaches 5,000-10,000 ppm as you propose, there will be no need for family planning – humans will be on an irreversible colllision course with extinction by then.

    In all seriousness we have to encourage a NO-GROWTH world population scenario.

    This is the only thing that you’ve said that has any merit, and wiser people than you have been saying the same thing for decades and centuries before you.

    Ironically increased concentrations of CO2 has proven to enhance vegetative growth and hence food production.

    In particular circumstances, and only when growth is not otherwise constrained by Sprengel’s/Liebig’s law of the minimum. Further, many crops grown in excess CO₂ show nutrient deficiency resulting from C:N imbalance. Also, many plants will comnpensate for excess CO₂ by closing their stomata, resulting in overall modest increase in growth, if at all. More than this, excess growth and nutrient imbalance can result in serious vulnerability to pest attack. And then there’s the negative impact of increased water and temperature stress resulting from a warmed climate.

    There’s more, but you’re probably choking on this lot already, and you need do at least some work pursuing your own understanding of the negative consequences of warming the planet.

    And learn the proper meaning of “ironically”.

    The good news is that should man be unable to establish a N0-GROWTH world population we still have CO2!

    Only an idiot would think that this is good news.

    Oh, that’s right…

  371. #371 BBD
    July 18, 2017

    #360

    Just like you, I have been locked out for days from scienceblogs.. This is just a test comment.

  372. #372 BBD
    July 18, 2017

    @ Wow

    I don’t care if you are comfortable with a factually supported claim

    It’s wrong.

    You’re insisting that it’s 3C/doubling. Sic ergo propter hoc is a logical fallacy.

    Don’t calculate ECS when you input the ECS you want to calculate into that equation you want to calculate it with.

    No, what we are doing here is testing an assumption against observations to see if it is – or is not – a good fit. That you don’t understand this speaks volumes.

  373. #373 Wow
    July 18, 2017

    “I can see why Mr. Mann withdrew from the court case”

    By closing your eyes and imagining REAL hard?

    “It seems comments from his followers”

    So following reality is “his followers”? Sorry, retards don’t get to whine like that. Visit reality before putting ass to mouth again.

    “Name calling and put downs do not work well in court.”

    Who the fuck is in court, you fuckwitted retard?

    Go tell us when you last were in court and used a web browser to appear?

    Shitheaded cocksucker.

  374. #374 Wow
    July 18, 2017

    “”

    I don’t care if you are comfortable with a factually supported claim”

    It’s wrong.”

    Wrong, retardo.

    “No, what we are doing here is testing an assumption”

    Wrong. You’re calculating what the maths does when you put in the number you want to calculate.

    That’s a fucking stupid way to calculate.

    There’s a much easier way. DO NOT FILL IN S, you fucking idiot.

  375. #375 Wow
    July 18, 2017

    “> In all seriousness we have to encourage a NO-GROWTH world population scenario.

    This is the only thing that you’ve said that has any merit, and wiser people than you have been saying the same thing for decades and centuries before you.”

    But when denier morons insist on this, they then turn around and insist that this is an eugenics push by the leftist NWO to kill off a shit-ton of people. So their insistence on this is merely a pretext to manufacture proof that AGW is promoted by a death-dealing NWO and their acolytes.

    See, for example, their refusal to help jumpstart the effort by removing themselves and their CO2 footprint from reality.

  376. #376 BBD
    July 18, 2017

    Wow

    That’s a fucking stupid way to calculate.

    It’s a perfectly reasonable way to test an assumption. As I have now explained twice.

    You might have come across a chap called Isaac Held. Dr Held is one of the world’s foremost experts on climate sensitivity, and luckily for intellectual pygmies such as us, he maintains a blog. Here, Dr Held summarises the reasons why TCR is unlikely to be greater that 1.8C.

    1.8C is 60% of 3C.

  377. #377 Wow
    July 18, 2017

    “> That’s a fucking stupid way to calculate.

    It’s a perfectly reasonable way to test an assumption.”

    So you agree that it’s a fucking stupid way to calculate. Your “response” (cannot call it a reply since it does no such thing) would otherwise defend the claim rather than segue off into BSland.

    “Here, Dr Held summarises the reasons why TCR is unlikely to be greater that 1.8C. ”

    Then he’s wrong.

  378. #378 Wow
    July 18, 2017

    And, there is no way that Dr would have done a calculation like that, dumdum. It’s very unlikely that he’s as intellectually feeble to even consider it valid.

  379. #379 Wow
    July 18, 2017

    “1.8C is 60% of 3C.”

    And 2.4C times 1.5 = 3.6C.
    Meanwhile 3.2 times 1.6 = 5.12.

    Your point?

  380. #380 BBD
    July 18, 2017

    So you agree that it’s a fucking stupid way to calculate.

    Strawman, again. It’s a reasonable way to test an assumption. And guess what: the assumption stands up.

    Then he’s wrong.

    Wow, you do not know more about this than Held. Just writing what you did irredeemably consigns you to the bin of Internet Clowns and Nutters.

  381. #381 Wow
    July 18, 2017

    “> Then he’s wrong.

    Wow, you do not know more about this than Held”

    Argument from authority. Invalid, dumdum.

    a) Prove I do not know more than Held.
    b) You still have to prove him right.
    c) And you still have to prove him wrong.

  382. #382 Wow
    July 18, 2017

    “c) And you still have to prove me wrong.”

  383. #383 BBD
    July 18, 2017

    Argument from authority. Invalid, dumdum.

    Wrong-o! It’s only a logical fallacy if the appeal is to an inappropriate authority. But Isaac Held is a pre-eminent expert in this field. You are making a complete tool of yourself again.

    And 2.4C

    2.4C is virtually impossible to reconcile with observations and breakdowns of forcing components. Read the Held post.

    Why do you think that being badly, aggressively, stubbornly wrong all the time is somehow going to help persuade contrarians of the error of their ways?

  384. #384 BBD
    July 18, 2017

    a) Prove I do not know more than Held.

    Oh you nutter.

  385. #385 Wow
    July 18, 2017

    “> So you agree that it’s a fucking stupid way to calculate.

    Strawman, again. ”

    Wrong, dumbass.

    1) It is not a strawman retard.
    2) You have not claimed it before, so even if you “think” it a strawman, it cannot be “Again”, this being the first time.

    The FACT that it’s the WRONG WAY to calculate an unknown “Guess the value” when you can just reconfigure for the only unknown variable making it a calculation of THE ANSWER YOU ARE LOOKING FOR makes it a fucking stupid way to do the calculation.

    No matter how much your butthurt screams at you, moron.

  386. #386 Wow
    July 18, 2017

    a) Prove I do not know more than Held.

    Proclamation by your own assertion is not it, moron.

    Try proof. Or is that entirely beyond your ability, dumdum?

  387. #387 Wow
    July 18, 2017

    “> Argument from authority. Invalid, dumdum.

    Wrong-o! It’s only a logical fallacy if the appeal is to an inappropriate authority.”

    WRONG!

    Einstein was wrong about Quantum mechanics.

    The fallacy is the attempt to pretend that the proof is the eminence of the one claimed.

    But that is entirely your M.O., isn’t it dumdum? Find an expert who you agree with then don’t bother to see if they’re right, just appeal to them regardless of reality.

  388. #388 Wow
    July 18, 2017

    “2.4C is virtually impossible to reconcile with observations and breakdowns of forcing components.”

    2.4 has already been seen as TCR, moron.

  389. #389 Wow
    July 18, 2017

    Tung, Zhou and Camp (2008) derive a transient sensitivity value of 0.69 to 0.97 °C/(W/m2).[50] This would correspond to a transient climate sensitivity to carbon dioxide doubling of 2.5 to 3.6 K, similar to the range of the current scientific consensus. However, they note that this is the transient response to a forcing with an 11-year cycle; due to lag effects, they estimate the equilibrium response to forcing would be about 1.5 times as high.

    [50] Tung, K.K.; Zhou, J.; Camp, C.D. (2008). “Constraining model transient climate response using independent observations of solar-cycle forcing and response”

    Do YOU know better than Tung, Shout and Camp, dumdum?

  390. #390 Wow
    July 18, 2017

    …Zhou…

  391. #391 Wow
    July 18, 2017

    Why do you think that being badly, aggressively, stubbornly wrong all the time is somehow going to help persuade contrarians of the error of their ways?

    Yes, dumdum,why do you?

  392. #392 Wow
    July 18, 2017

    And we’re still at #1. And only since I’ve merely conceded the point unargued and unopposed merely for the purposes of illustration.

    Not often at all.

  393. #393 BBD
    July 18, 2017

    TZC(2008) is an outlier with a quirky solar-focussed methodology for deriving its estimates. The current scientific consensus doesn’t exclude TZC08 but it does make it look questionable.

    This would be the same Tung and Zhou who made such a hash of estimating a low ECS by misinterpreting the AMO.

    T&Z like their oscillations. Be careful.

  394. #394 Wow
    July 18, 2017

    “TZC(2008) is an outlier ”

    So you DO claim to know better than them dumdum? Or do you merely claim they are wrong?

    You know, like I did here:

    “> Then he’s wrong.

    Wow, you do not know more about this than Held”

    Oh you nutter, nutbag.

  395. #395 Wow
    July 18, 2017

    “T&Z like their oscillations. Be careful.”

    They also know how to actually do maths, dumdum.

    Unlike yourself.

  396. #396 Wow
    July 18, 2017

    “such a hash of estimating a low ECS ”

    So you think that they said it was too low??!?!?!?!

    Sorry, dumdum, you’re clutching at air here.

    Your asinine claim 2.4C is impossible is as lame as your maths “skillz” that doesn’t know how to rearrange an equation to find the single unknown.

    Or your ability to make any coherent count of an error I’ve made, which claim is still only at 1 because I’ve decided not to argue the point on that single instance.

    Do I have to show how that count is already too high for you, dumbfuck?

  397. #397 MikeN
    July 18, 2017

    “a) Prove I do not know more than Held.”

    Your posts in this thread are proof enough.

    “Why do you think that being badly, aggressively, stubbornly wrong all the time is somehow going to help persuade contrarians of the error of their ways?”

    When I said it, you called it game theory.

    “No, what we are doing here is testing an assumption against observations to see if it is – or is not – a good fit. That you don’t understand this speaks volumes.”

    You assume too much. Deliberately obtuse. Wow = Warden of WestMaine.

  398. #398 Ed Thompson
    Canada
    July 18, 2017

    Mr. Tim Ball did not write the chapter on physics involved in CO2 interaction with global warming. I encourage you to read the book, but your defence is a lot of put downs and fowl language. I suppose likely half of forest fires and 100% of wars would go in the category of man made CO2 as well. You would get 100% consensus if you stated wars contribute significantly to CO2 emissions and of course are man made.

    Please have Mr. Mann go back to court and defend his data! Calling people morons, stupid, and other derogatory names is not a good defense. Obviously, the US government agrees!

  399. #399 Jeff Harvey
    July 19, 2017

    Ed is most seriously afflicted with a serious infection of the Dunning-Kruger effect. It seems like his sole source of information is a book written/edited (whatever) by a fourth rate scientist (Ball) with a massive ego. Ball’s scientific publication record is abominable; less than a handful which are pretty well ignored by peers. The only reason this blowhard has been given a veritable megaphone by his handlers is because there are so few scientists of any standing who deny anthropogenic climate change. Back in 1998 a leaked memo from the American Petroleum Institute stated that there was concern among the coal and oil industries that they might use up their credibility if they relied on the same bunch of scientists on the academic fringe to deny warming. So here we are, 20 years and a significantly warmer planet later and it’s still ostensibly the same cast of old discredited farts banging the denial drum. Lindzen, Singer, Ball, Christy, Idso etc al as nauseum. And simpleton Ed here treats Ball’s applying tome as his climate science Bible. Pathetic.

    But the real howler is when Ed refers to the current kleptomaniacs in the US government as if they are an ‘authority’ on climate. Having had his arguments summarily annihilated by Bernard, the last refuge for Ed is to give credit to a scientifically illiterate President and his band of thieves. When I read bullshit of the caliber spewed by Ed here, it makes me realise how deep of an abyss awaits us.

  400. #400 Jeff Harvey
    July 19, 2017

    Please excuse any typos… It’s this lousy autocorrect on my smartphone…

  401. #401 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “Ed is most seriously afflicted with a serious infection of the Dunning-Kruger effect. ”

    Or he’s an ignorant little shithead trolling this thread, in which case he deserves to be buried.

  402. #402 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “Mr. Tim Ball did not write …”

    Then stop calling it his book, moron.

  403. #403 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    ” I encourage you to read the book”

    So where can I download a free copy?

  404. #404 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “but your defence is a lot of put downs and fowl language.”

    Tone argument is an ad hominem fallacy.

    And the claim itself here is a flat out lie.

  405. #405 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “I suppose likely half of forest fires and 100% of wars would go in the category of man made CO2 as well”

    Go ahead. Means nothing, says nothing. Accuses nothing.

  406. #406 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    ” You would get 100% consensus if you stated wars contribute significantly to CO2 emissions and of course are man made. ”

    That is your claim? Care to prove it?

    Oh, and do you realise that this is yet another meaningless claim anyway? Still has nothing to say.

  407. #407 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    Shorter Dick Ed: “Oh, you call me a moron and a fuckwit? Then Ball is right!!!!”

    Everyone sane: “??????”

    Know what a non sequitur is, moron?

  408. #408 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “Please have Mr. Mann go back to court ”

    He never left, moron.

    The fact that you accuse Mann and have so little grasp of reality about it, such as the actual state of the case, indicates Mann is definitely right and you know it but are desperately ignorant and unable to mount anything even vaguely approaching a coherent argument against it.

  409. #409 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “and defend his data! ”

    Ball doesn’t have any data, dipshit. He’s the defendant, remember? Or is that part of reality something else you can’t bear to comprehend?

  410. #410 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “Calling people morons, stupid”

    Is absolutely fine if they’re morons, stupid, shitheads, knoblickers, idiots, trools or other disgusting abberations of humanity.

  411. #411 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “is not a good defense.”

    Well, guess that’s why Mann isn’t basing his defence on you being a fuckwitted moron idiot, dick Ed.

  412. #412 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “is not a good defense.”

    Oh, is Ball using the “You’re a poopyhed” defence? Or is it “My supporters are morons” as a defence? Maybe Ball is claiming HE’S a fucking idiot, therefore not responsible for any ill will since he has not the mental capacity for it?

    Remember, Ball is the defendant, moron.

  413. #413 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    ” Obviously, the US government agrees!”

    With what? The orange moron in the oval is continually trying the “Call everyone a shithead” method of defending himself against every accusation.

    And it works with you, dick ed.

  414. #414 Craig Thomas
    July 19, 2017

    Some bloke from Canada calling himself Ed Thompson joked,
    “Please have Mr. Mann go back to court and defend his data!”

    Hahaha.

    I imagine this is yet more harking back 539 years to the Tribunal del Santo Oficio de la Inquisición.

    What these muppets don’t seem to understand about science in this instance is comprised of a series of variously ignorant and daft misapprehensions:

    1/ The bullk of the stuff they are referring to as “Mann’s data” isn’t Mann’s data, hence their intellectual deficiency in continuing to expect that he “release” other people’s data to them.

    2/ The “Hockey Stick” isn’t data. It is an analysis. If it’s wrong, it doesn’t take an inquisition to deal with, it merely takes alternative researchers to demonstrate that it is wrong. Alternative researchers have in fact all confirmed it to be correct. Dozens of them.

    3/ If the data is wrong, again, get your own and demonstrate that it is more accurate. Alternative data collectors have done exactly this, using ice cores sedimentology, boreholes, all sorts of other stuff and – again – these all indicate that the data Mann used was properly analysed.

    4/ If you don’t like the data, don’t like the analyses, loathe the scientists, and in fact are opposed to science in general, publishing libellous lies about scientists is an own-goal that will hopefully land you in court where *you* get to try to defend your lies.

  415. #415 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “3/ If the data is wrong, again, get your own and demonstrate that it is more accurate. Alternative data collectors have done exactly this,”

    they already tried that, but BEST showed that it was valid, so they have to try smearing and imagination.

  416. #416 BBD
    July 19, 2017

    So you DO claim to know better than them dumdum? Or do you merely claim they are wrong?

    Sigh. Read harder, Wow:

    TZC(2008) is an outlier with a quirky solar-focussed methodology for deriving its estimates. The current scientific consensus doesn’t exclude TZC08 but it does make it look questionable.

    It’s not *me* that is saying that TZC08 is an outlier and likely incorrect. It’s all the other experts in the field aka ‘the current scientific consensus’.

    Further demonstrations of cluelessness on your part are unnecessary at this point.

  417. #417 BBD
    July 19, 2017

    So you think that they said it was too low??!?!?!?!

    Read the link. T&Z botched their AMO analysis and came up with an incorrect estimate of the anthropogenic component of modern warming. This should caution you about being over-confident in their other conclusions, especially when they are outside the mainstream, as is the case with their solar-derived TCR stuff.

  418. #418 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “Sigh. Read harder, Wow:”

    I did.

    Explain. How does your quote answer the query: “So you DO claim to know better than them dumdum? Or do you merely claim they are wrong?”

    Dumbass.

  419. #419 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “> So you think that they said it was too low??!?!?!?!

    Read the link”

    Why will that help? You claim they said ECS was too high, ECS has never been thought to be 2.4, despite that being the measured value for the current transient response. And despite another calculation showing something over that is the case too.

    Both proving your assertion about 2.4 is wrong.

    But you still blather on with no clue in place.

  420. #420 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    You also have th wrong maths elsewhere.

    ECS is expected to be 60% higher (from models). Yet you claimed TCR is 60% of ECS, rather than ECS being 1.6x TCR, or, and we ALL now know how rearranging values is beyond your ken, TCR is 5/8ths ECS, or 62,5% and not 60%.

    High Irony content in a thread where you’re whining about my maths being wrong….

  421. #421 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “T&Z botched their AMO analysis and came up with an incorrect estimate of the anthropogenic component of modern warming.”

    So you know more than both of them put together, dumdum?

    Because that’s 100% what you claimed when you palmed the idea of Held having calculated ECS.

    When I say “He’s wrong”, you whine “But he professor!!!!! You nutcase!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”. Yet when YOU say it, that isn’t you BSing and being a double nutcase.

    Moron.

  422. #422 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    Oh, and this is suspiciously bullshit:

    “came up with an incorrect estimate of the anthropogenic component of modern warming.”

    As you’ve tried to explain to Dick, ECS doesn’t concern only AGW, it’s ANY FORCING.

    That either makes the claim irrelevant or a load of known lying bollocks from you dumdum.

    How do you expect dick to believe ECS is not about how much anthropogenic CO2 there is but about ANY forcing when you don’t even care to keep that fact in mind????

  423. #423 BBD
    July 19, 2017

    ECS is expected to be 60% higher (from models).

    Wrong.

    Go away and read.

    Yet you claimed TCR is 60% of ECS,

    Because this is the mainstream scientific view.

    we ALL now know how rearranging values is beyond your ken

    A lie. But we do know that you don’t understand the basic process of testing assumptions against observations.

    Only one clueless dumbass here, Wow.

    I’ll leave you to it.

  424. #424 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “Because this is the mainstream scientific view.”

    Nope. Wrongo!

  425. #425 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    ” ECS is expected to be 60% higher (from models).

    Wrong.”

    Wrong. Go off and get educated.

  426. #426 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    ” we ALL now know how rearranging values is beyond your ken

    A lie. ”

    OK, YOU don’t know it, but it is evidently the case that rearranging values is beyond your ken, dumdum.

  427. #427 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “Only one clueless dumbass here, Wow. ”

    Another patent lie, dumbass,

    There’s dick for one.

    Dick Ed too.

    And “mike”.

    Plus you, dumdum.

  428. #428 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    I guess it’s kinda in line with your other mathematical incompetencies, dumdum, though, that you can’t count one accurately.

  429. #429 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “But we do know ”

    Wrong. You make shit up and pretend there’s a legion of you.

    Just like Dick Ed.

  430. #430 RickA
    July 19, 2017

    BBD:

    Good try.

    Wow doesn’t think he/she needs to learn anything. He/she knows everything he/she needs to know already.

    But the important thing is that your and I (and lurkers) know that Wow has no clue what he/she is talking about. This thread has amply demonstrated that fact. The more Wow realizes he/she has made an error, the greater the frequency of posts, the more name calling and insulting. By that measure, wow clearly knows he/she has made several fundamental errors – but is not willing to admit to them.

    Wow doesn’t know the difference between a measurement and an estimate, or the future versus now, which I have demonstrated in this thread.

    You have demonstrated that wow doesn’t know the relationship between TCR and ECS (as the IPCC uses those terms).

    And wow has demonstrated that he/she has little to offer other than name calling, insults and parroting back what people say (along with insults and name calling).

    It is all very amusing.

    I recommend ignoring Wow henceforth, and will try very hard to follow my own recommendation.

  431. #431 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    And I’ll continue to ignore the puling whining of the snowflake nutjobs, dick.

    Hell, you’re not losing anything since you don’t like what reality is saying and ignoring it entirely and for all time, so ignoring me is merely a continuation of that refusal to accept reality that is not in your favour.

  432. #432 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “Wow doesn’t think he/she needs to learn anything.”

    Ah, pure 100% projection of an ignorant asshole.

    The proclamation comes from you, dick, a retard who insisted that since you “only ever heard of ECS being a doubling of CO2” that it MUST ONLY AND PERMANENTLY BE DEFINED AS THAT.

  433. #433 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “He/she knows everything he/she needs to know already.”

    Just because you’re a dumfuck, dick, doesn’t mean you get to whine at those better educated than you for their education.

  434. #434 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “But the important thing is ”

    Being in denial of reality. That’s all you really need, dick. And something you put much effort into.

  435. #435 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “the more Wow realizes he/she has made an error,”

    Which so far amounts to zero counts.

    Let me know when I’ve made one, snowflake.

  436. #436 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “Wow doesn’t know the difference between a measurement and an estimate,”

    Pure projection again, dick.

    You’re the clueless fuckwit who does not know what the words mean. Nor “calculation”. Nor the meaning of “derive”.

  437. #437 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “You have demonstrated that wow doesn’t know the relationship between TCR and ECS”

    Wrong, dick.

  438. #438 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “And wow has demonstrated that he/she has little to offer other than name calling, insults…”

    And counterpoints, and arguments, and calculations, and saying back to the morons and retards so that they can demonstrate how little their complaint means when it’s them doing it.

    Supposedly I’m not supposed to say a professor is wrong, but dumdum can say three of them are.

  439. #439 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    So one entire post from dick the moronic idiot of scienceblogs contained fuck all other than slurs, insults and blank assertion with zero backup or competency displayed.

    And whines when I put barely more effort in my retorts to the shitstreak’s vomitous garbage.

  440. #440 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    Because hypocrisy is only for hypocrites he agrees with to use, not for anyone else. Because that shit don’t stink from them.

  441. #441 BBD
    July 19, 2017

    Let’s add the authors of Marvel et al. (2015) – including Gavin Schmidt – to the bin of those who know less than Wow.

    M15 investigates the issues with several ‘observational’ estimates of TCR / ECS, and finds that they are indeed biased low:

    How big an effect is this? Well, for Otto et al (2013), the estimated TCR without taking account of the efficacies is 1.3ºC (which is on the low side of other estimates), but with this effect accounted for, it is closer to 1.8ºC. The results are similar for the other studies we looked at and for the ECS values too (which go from 2ºC to 2.9ºC).

    Just more know-nothings who found that TCR is about 1.8C and ECS about 3C:

    In particular, with the publication of Marvel et al (2015) (and also Shindell (2014)), the reason for the outlier results in Otto et al and similar papers has become much clearer. And once those reasons are taken into account, those results no longer look like such outliers – reaffirming the previous consensus and reinforcing the idea that there really is a best estimate for the sensitivity around 3ºC.

    Just dumbasses, of course.

  442. #442 MikeN
    July 19, 2017

    > TCR is 5/8ths ECS, or 62,5% and not 60%.

    Says the one who posted 50 is 60% more than 35, and tried to defend this error as close enough.

  443. #443 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “Says the one who posted 50 is 60% more than 35”

    Says the one who thinks that 56 is further from 50 than 42 is.

    And also that whine is irrelevant. All it means is you have no evidence and do not care to find any either, “mike”.

  444. #444 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “and tried to defend this error as close enough.”

    It was closer than 42. And both were less wrong than you were “mike”. And, please show that it WASN’T “close enough”.

  445. #445 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “Just dumbasses, of course.”

    That would be you, dumdum.

  446. #446 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “Just more know-nothings who found that TCR is about 1.8C and ECS about 3C:”

    You’re the only one calling them know-nothings, dumdum.

    Because unlike you, I KNOW WHAT THEY’RE TALKING ABOUT. What makes it worse is that your error is the same fucking problem dick has with the claims about ECS and insisting it “must be possible it’s 1.5C”.

    Strange that. You’ve become what you loathed about Dick.

  447. #447 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “Let’s add the authors of Marvel et al. (2015) – including Gavin Schmidt – to the bin of those who know less than Wow.”

    Only you are claiming that, dumdum. Because you’re basically a stupid fuckwit. And desperate to make me worse so that you can regain “face”.

  448. #448 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “The results are similar for the other studies we looked at and for the ECS values too (which go from 2ºC to 2.9ºC).”

    Hmm. So is 2.4 in 2 to 2.9?

    Seems like dumbass dumdum doesn’t read his quotes either. Just like Dick fails.

  449. #449 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    ΔT = S ln(CO2/CO2(t=1750))/ln2

    S=ΔT ln2/ ln(CO2/CO2(t=1750))

    S~2.4

    And since this ΔT is not equilibrium but transient,before equilibrium.

  450. #450 BBD
    July 19, 2017

    You cannot use the equation you present to calculate TCR. It is only for ECS.

  451. #451 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    Really dumdum????

    But if TCR is just a constant factor less than ECS, then that just becomes another constant factor in the equation.

    So, yet again, you prove you haven’t the first fucking clue about maths.

    And ironically making the same fuckups as dick does. The same ones that get you so very very angry with him.

    I guess it’s fine when YOU don’t understand simple maths, because you are a perfectly dunning kruger hypocrite.

  452. #452 BBD
    July 19, 2017

    ΔT = S ln(CO2/CO2(t=1750))/ln2

    ΔT = temperature at equilibrium.

    But you have used the current transient response for ΔT:

    S=ΔT ln2/ ln(CO2/CO2(t=1750))

    That’s why you get the wrong result.

  453. #453 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “ΔT = temperature at equilibrium.”

    Nope. ΔT = temperature CHANGE, dumbass.

    Moreover, if the temperature is NOT at equilibrium, the S produced would be the transient sensitivity of the climate, moron.

    Go learn some maths, idiot.

  454. #454 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “That’s why you get the wrong result.”

    No, that is why you “think” i have the wrong result: because you do not comprehend what the maths says.

    Go ask someone who knows what the fuck they’re talking about, moron. You have been talking to me, and I DO know what I’m talking about, but you WILL NOT listen.

    Because you’re still butthurt over the drubbing you’ve been given for the nuke fluffery you’ve peddled before. You don’t want reality, you want revenge.

    Just like some of the deniers.

  455. #455 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    Hey, dumdum, this is even one way in which your dumbass way of “calculating” ECS is useful.

    A) Try calculating dT with an S of 3C. At any CO2 concentration. Now multiply that by 60% or 5/8ths, whichever one you think you want to believe is right.

    B) Now try calculating dT with an S of 1.8C (or 1.875, depending on whether you want to believe 60% or 5/8ths is right).

    Do you get a different value or the same one as you calculated for TCR at A for any value of CO2 you decide to use?

  456. #456 BBD
    July 19, 2017

    S=ΔT ln2/ ln(CO2/CO2(t=1750))

    S~2.4

    ?

    S = 1 x ln(2) / ln(400/280) = 1.9

    So even if we agree with your argument, the TCR estimate of ~1.8C is validated (yet again).

  457. #457 BBD
    July 19, 2017

    Hey, dumdum, this is even one way in which your dumbass way of “calculating” ECS is useful.

    It’s not ‘my’ dumbass method. It is a standard calculation. See Knutti & Hegerl (2008) linked upthread.

  458. #458 BBD
    July 19, 2017

    “ΔT = temperature at equilibrium.”

    Nope. ΔT = temperature CHANGE, dumbass

    No, in this equation, ΔT = change at equilibrium. Read K&T08.

  459. #459 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “No, in this equation”

    No. In that equation it is delta-T. Not change at equilibrium. Change.

    READ K&T08 moron.

    It works with dT at dCO2 and equilibrium to find ECS and it works with dT at dCO2 and not equilibrium to find TCR.

    Maths, moron. Try learning it.

  460. #460 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “It’s not ‘my’ dumbass method.”

    Yes it is, dumbass.

  461. #461 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    ” It is a standard calculation.”

    That’s true. But your method is your dumbass method, dumbass.

  462. #462 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “S = 1 x ln(2) / ln(400/280) = 1.9”

    ?

    Then your claim dT was 1.5 (in #356) was wrong, fuckwit, proving you are wrong again, moron.

  463. #463 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    dT=1.2, moron. Actually, slightly more.

  464. #464 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    And you’re still ignoring the test to prove your asinine claim “you can’t use that equation, it only works for ECS!!!!”.

    Go ahead:

    A) Try calculating dT with an S of 3C. At any CO2 concentration. Now multiply that by 60% or 5/8ths, whichever one you think you want to believe is right.

    B) Now try calculating dT with an S of 1.8C (or 1.875, depending on whether you want to believe 60% or 5/8ths is right).

    Do you get a different value or the same one as you calculated for TCR at A for any value of CO2 you decide to use?

  465. #465 BBD
    July 19, 2017

    The K&T paper that you haven’t read is called The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes.

    The clue is in the name. Or you could read the text, in which it is made repeatedly clear that ΔT refers to the change in temperature at equilibrium.

    You are being ridiculous as well as wrong. Get a grip. Read K&H for starters and stop misusing their equation (1) in public discussions. You are not doing your ‘side’ any favours.

  466. #466 BBD
    July 19, 2017

    A) Try calculating dT with an S of 3C. At any CO2 concentration. Now multiply that by 60% or 5/8ths, whichever one you think you want to believe is right.

    B) Now try calculating dT with an S of 1.8C (or 1.875, depending on whether you want to believe 60% or 5/8ths is right).

    See #456

    You even got your own calculation wrong:

    S=ΔT ln2/ ln(CO2/CO2(t=1750))

    S~2.4

    2.4?

    S = 1 x ln(2) / ln(400/280) = 1.9

    So the TCR estimate of ~1.8C is validated (yet again).

  467. #467 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “The equilibrium sensitivity of the Earth’s temperature to radiation changes.”

    And the transient sensitivity of the earth’s temperature to radiation changes can be done with the exact same equation.

    “The K&T paper that you haven’t read is called ”

    The K&T paper you have never understood doesn’t make the claims you assert and refer to that paper to bolster.

    “You are being ridiculous as well as wrong. ”

    You are projecting both of those because the only one being a ridiculous and incorrect retard here is you, dumdum.

    “Read K&H for starters and stop misusing their equation (1)”

    I have read it. More than you, I understood it.

    Including their equation.Prove it for yourself:

    A) Try calculating dT with an S of 3C. At any CO2 concentration. Now multiply that by 60% or 5/8ths, whichever one you think you want to believe is right.

    B) Now try calculating dT with an S of 1.8C (or 1.875, depending on whether you want to believe 60% or 5/8ths is right).

    Do you get a different value or the same one as you calculated for TCR at A for any value of CO2 you decide to use?

  468. #468 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “So the TCR estimate of ~1.8C is validated”

    Nope.

    S=ΔT ln2/ ln(CO2/CO2(t=1750))

    S~2.4

    “S = 1 x ln(2) / ln(400/280) = 1.9”

    WRONG. It#s 2.3. Because you have dT wrong.retard.

    AGAIN.

    Moreover this proves two claims you made earlier ALSO wrong:

    a) Every time you claimed it only calculates ECS. Since you just calculated TCR. With the equation you claimed cannot be used to do that

    b) Your insistence it was 1.8C

    Dumbass.

  469. #469 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    ” A) Try calculating dT with an S of 3C. At any CO2 concentration. Now multiply that by 60% or 5/8ths, whichever one you think you want to believe is right.

    B) Now try calculating dT with an S of 1.8C (or 1.875, depending on whether you want to believe 60% or 5/8ths is right).

    See #456″

    And?

    I saw it. It did not show any of that. Nor did it say whether it was the same or different.

    Try actually answering instead of linking to a post that doesn’t answer it, moron.

  470. #470 BBD
    July 19, 2017

    WRONG. It#s 2.3. Because you have dT wrong.retard.

    I used ~1C for dT as it is consistent with observations. What value for dT are you using?

  471. #471 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    Try using 1.2C since it is consistent with observations. Why did you use only 1C? I know: it’s because it gave a value of more of 1.8C that you claimed it should but you could claim I was wrong.

    Isn’t that right, dumdum?

  472. #472 BBD
    July 19, 2017

    A) Try calculating dT with an S of 3C. At any CO2 concentration. Now multiply that by 60% or 5/8ths, whichever one you think you want to believe is right.

    B) Now try calculating dT with an S of 1.8C (or 1.875, depending on whether you want to believe 60% or 5/8ths is right).

    (A) ΔT = 3ln(400/280)/ln(2) = ~ 1.5C at equilibrium
    (B) ΔT = 1.8ln(400/280)/ln(2) = 0.9

    0.9 is 60% of 1.5.

    So if we go to the equilibriated response to a *doubling* of CO2:

    ΔT = 3ln(560/280)/ln(2) = 3C

    60% of 3 = 1.8

    TCR = 1.8C

    Again.

  473. #473 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “(A) ΔT = 3ln(400/280)/ln(2) = ~ 1.5C at equilibrium
    (B) ΔT = 1.8ln(400/280)/ln(2) = 0.9

    0.9 is 60% of 1.5.”

    So, same number? You used THE SAME EQUATION AND GET THE SAME NUMBER???

    Even if you use DIFFERENT CO2 levels????

    BUT HOW CAN THAT BE? When you claim that the equation CANNOT be used for calculation of TCS, yet here you are getting the same goddamned as if you use it to calculate ECS then adjust or use a different sensitivity for TCS and get TCS directly?

    Care you answer that? Square that circle, dumdum. Go ahead.

  474. #474 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    Because here is my squaring of that circle: you were asininely wrong when you claimed it could not be used to calculate TCR and insisted it could ONLY be used to calculate ECS.

    This is what I’ve said all along, and you insisted otherwise, because I knew what the hell the equation meant, whereas you merely had your authority fallacy in lieu of comprehension, feeling that merely pointing to a PhD meant that you didn’t have to comprehend what the PhD was talking about before making claims on it.

  475. #475 BBD
    July 19, 2017

    TCR = ~1.8C

    Why is this getting lost in the noise?

  476. #476 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “TCR = 1.8C”

    By assuming the ECS. Again.

    Shit, Mad Monckton kept bleating on about how the IPCC kept putting the climate sensitvity into the models to make the fake temperature forecasts.

    He was wrong as fuck.

    And you’re desperately trying to prove that bug-eyed lunatic right!

    Only the fact you are an incredibly dense moron who is talking out of their ass and have no fucking clue what maths means or what the papers you point to mean, lacking all comprehension of the methods and conclusions stops monckton and the other deniers using your idiocy to validly rubbish the IPCC reports as completely faked garbage.

  477. #477 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “TCR = ~1.8C

    Why is this getting lost in the noise?”

    It isn’t. What’s getting “lost” is your comprehension that that claim RESIDES ON THE ASSERTION ECS is 3C/doubling.

  478. #478 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    ΔT = 4ln(560/280)/ln(2) = 4C

    60% of 4 = 2.4

    TCR = 2.4C

  479. #479 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    And working in reverse:

    ΔT=1.2C for half a doubling.
    ΔT=2.4X for a CO2 doubling.
    2.4 is 60% of 4C.

    ECS=4C/doubling.

  480. #480 BBD
    July 19, 2017

    But only if you pick a high value for ECS. There’s more evidence to support an ECS of ~3C than one of ~4C. So I use the best-supported estimate. Ditto with dT.

  481. #481 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “But only if you pick a high value for ECS”

    WRONG.

    All I do is read dT. And find that ECS must be about 4C per doubling.

  482. #482 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “There’s more evidence to support an ECS of ~3C ”

    Nope. None. We don’t have ECS anywhere on the planet.

    You don’t have any either, which is why you assumed 3C for ECS when you claimed:

    “ΔT = 3ln(560/280)/ln(2) = 3C ”

    Fucking idiot.

  483. #483 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    ” So I use the best-supported estimate.”

    Nope, you use the median of the ranges FROM MODEL OUTPUTS.

    Fucking idiot.

  484. #484 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “Ditto with dT.”

    Lie.

    dT=1.2

    Therefore TCR~2.4C/doubling. Therefore ECS is somewhere around 3.6C per doubling.

  485. #485 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    “TCR = ~1.8C”

    Only if you choose a low value of ECS.

  486. #486 Wow
    July 19, 2017

    And you haven’t accepted your claim about that equation being incompatible with calculating TCR was entirely wrong, dumdum.

  487. #487 BBD
    July 19, 2017

    Nope, you use the median of the ranges FROM MODEL OUTPUTS.

    Fucking idiot.

    As Knutti & Hegerl explains, ~3C is a synthesis of palaeo, modelled and observational estimates. I may be a fucking idiot, but at least I have read the paper.

    “But only if you pick a high value for ECS”

    WRONG.

    All I do is read dT. And find that ECS must be about 4C per doubling

    If you use a dT of 1C, then you get ~1.8C TCR and ~3C ECS.

    It’s worth remembering that total warming 1750 – present is not all attributable to CO2.

    And you haven’t accepted your claim about that equation being incompatible with calculating TCR was entirely wrong, dumdum.

    I really dislike it when K&H(1) is used as you did. Contrarians input current temps as dT and claim that it shows that ECS is 1.5C. Please don’t do this.

  488. #488 MikeN
    July 19, 2017

    >I really dislike it when K&H(1) is used as you did. Contrarians input current temps as dT and claim that it shows that ECS is 1.5C. Please don’t do this.

    I think we know he will ignore you. I have made this argument before, but find your explanation interesting, and will refrain from doing so.

  489. #489 Ed Thompson
    July 19, 2017

    I went to the http://www.carbonify.com website. It stated that the C02 levels in 1963 were 321.39PPM. I also know the worlds population was put at 3 Billion in 1963 or 64. The shocking thing for me at the time was the estimate of the world’s population reaching 6 Billion by 2000. Guess what? That is exactly what happened. Anyhow in 2000 this carbonify.com web site put the C02 measurement at 371.81. These measurements were all based on April readings. The difference was a little less than 50 PPM increase in C02 levels over that period of time. Now in 2017 estimates of population is 7.5 Billion and the reading is now 409 PPM of atmospheric CO2. With an additional 1.5 billion people the C02 levels increased by by 37.2 PPM since 2000. The next 1.5 Billion people by this logic would put the CO2 levels at what another 50PPM at most or 459 PPM. And if the earth can support an additional 1.5 billion people (a very big if) we could see C02 levels at 500PPM.

  490. #490 Ed Thompson
    July 19, 2017

    I pushed the wrong button!
    What are we saying here when it comes to atmospheric levels of C02 rising with population by at most another 90 PPM above todays levels as the worlds population increases to 10.5 Billion? The temperature rise is supposed to be exponential with C02 concentrations but observations since 1963 do not show that. Do we get to 450PPM and poof the temperature rises 3 degrees C?? I think not.
    Conclusion man does contribute to atmospheric C02 by population growth alone, but C02 is not a big player in global warming or climate change.
    In the 1970s in was global cooling, then we were all going to die because of the holes in the ozone layer. Interesting fact is that ozone also helps the earth retain its heat.
    I was surprised to learn large cities like Los Angeles measure smog intensity by measuring ozone levels in the atmosphere not C02. And now global warming to climate change and it is simply the extra 100PPM of C02 causing it. Most of the world’s citizens will pay a tax on C02 emissions to no avail.

    This will benefit the financial elite people because they will still be able to fly in less congested airports, travel less congested highways, and sleep in less congested but expensive hotels! The rest of us will ride our bikes for vacations, sleep in tents and wait for the sun activity to decline or a huge volcano to erupt! The governments will likely blame C02 for global cooling too as they will want the continued tax revenue!

    By the way “WOW, WOW” each person on the earth is expected to produce 58.6 metric Tonnes per year not the 52 Tonnes I mentioned before. If you ride your bike and sell your car you will reduce your C02 emisions by 2.8 tonnes per year. Thanks for doing that!

  491. #491 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “I really dislike it when K&H(1) is used as you did”

    Nobody gives a shit whether you dislike it or not. Reality doesn’t care either.

    The mathematical fact is that despite your distaste, the equation is equally valid to determine TCR, despite your prudery and ignorance.

    Dick didn’t like it when you used a different definition of ECS. Does that mean you are wrong to say otherwise? No? Then why do YOU get your feels to overwhelm reality, dumdum?

    And you STILL haven’t accepted your claim about that equation being incompatible with calculating TCR was entirely wrong, dumdum.

  492. #492 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “As Knutti & Hegerl explains, ~3C is a synthesis”

    And that doesn’t change the FACT that measuring dT now shows TCR is 2.4. Moreover paleo work shows a higher ECS than models do. As does the reaction of the climate to the solar constant cycle.

    Just like deniers, you have not the first clue of what the terms MEAN and their utility. You believe without comprehension, and that is disastrous when it comes to explaining because you’ll half-ass it.

  493. #493 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “If you use a dT of 1C, then you get ~1.8C TCR and ~3C ECS.”

    If you use a dT of 1.2C, then you get ~2.4C TCR and ~4C ECS.

  494. #494 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “If you use a dT of 1C, then you get ~1.8C TCR and ~3C ECS.”

    And dick could use a dT of 0.5C, then get ~1.0TCR and ~1.5C ECS.

  495. #495 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “It’s worth remembering that total warming 1750 – present is not all attributable to CO2. ”

    It’s worth remembering that TCR and ECS is not defined as “the heating due to CO2”.

    Moreover, the ECS for CO2 alone is about 1.2C and can, and has, been calculated from Quantum Mechanical first principles.

    You see you have rote remembered some facts but not bothered to comprehend their meaning. And so you make asinine claims like this.

    Are you trying to create a dogmatic reef of idiocy to help deniers hide and even flourish, dumdum?

  496. #496 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “I think we know he will ignore you.”

    Because dumdum’s dislike is completely irrelevant unless we’re only here to fluff his ego and make a safe space for him.

  497. #497 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    And with the “he” Again? Care to reflect on why you assume what is not evident, “mike”?

  498. #498 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    ” The shocking thing for me at the time was the estimate of the world’s population reaching 6 Billion by 2000. Guess what? That is exactly what happened.”

    Wow. You were shocked that projections were accurate?

    We’re shocked that you’re bleating on about population while still being part of that problem, dick Ed.

  499. #499 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “The next 1.5 Billion people by this logic would put the CO2 levels at what another 50PPM”

    Irrelevant, Dick Ed.

    The count of people does not make CO2 in the atmosphere. Are you trying to pretend that “We breathe CO2 out!” a thing? Go to SkS and read up on that.

  500. #500 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    ” And if the earth can support an additional 1.5 billion people (a very big if) we could see C02 levels at 500PPM.”

    And if we halved the number of people but still dig out and burn fossil fuels, we would STILL see CO2 levels at 500ppm. The CO2 level depends on the rate at which fossil fuels are extracted and burned, dick Ed. Not the number of people.

  501. #501 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “Conclusion man does contribute to atmospheric C02 by population growth alone,”

    Utterly wrong, dick Ed.

    ” but C02 is not a big player in global warming or climate change.”

    Utterly wrong, dick Ed.

  502. #502 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “In the 1970s in was global cooling,”

    Wrong again, dick Ed. That’s a denier myth, not reality.

  503. #503 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    ” then we were all going to die because of the holes in the ozone layer”

    So we changed things and stopped the problem before it got that bad.

    Exactly the same scenario here with CO2 and AGW. Yet here you are, being an ignorant twat and spouting bullshit to ensure that AGW continues apace.

  504. #504 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    ” And now global warming to climate change and it is simply the extra 100PPM of C02 causing it”

    Wrong. It’s an extra 120ppm CO2 causing it. Plus the feedbacks. Plus extra warming to overcome the natural cooling end of the cycle normal after a warm glacial period, such as the Holocene Climatic Optimum.

    But that 120ppm CO2 is causing it. It’s the trigger. The control knob.

  505. #505 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “Most of the world’s citizens will pay a tax on C02 emissions to no avail. ”

    Except avoiding death and disruption due to climate change.

  506. #506 Dave Burton
    Cary, NC USA
    July 20, 2017

    BBD wrote, “Just like you, I have been locked out for days from scienceblogs.. This is just a test comment.”

    I’ve been trying to comment here for over four days. I first got a weird “Your access to this service has been temporarily limited. Please try again in a few minutes. (HTTP response code 503) Reason: Exceeded the maximum number of page requests per minute for humans” error. Then my comments apparently went into “moderation,” and never came out.

    Greg isn’t answering emails. So this time I’m posting with no links, to try to avoid moderation limbo. Here we go…
     

    Pardon me for interrupting the food fight with a few points about Greg’s article.

    1. John O’Sullivan is a crank, and a liar. His blog is an example of what someone using the handle “Merovign” calls The Inappropriate Name. That’s a name which misrepresents the reality if the thing it identifies.
    Ref: tinyurl {dot} com {slash} glsb01

    O’Sullivan calls his organization & blog “Principia-Scientific,” blog but it is actually rabidly unscientific.

    The Inappropriate Name seems to be a “thing” these days. Many other examples come to mind:

    * “Skeptical Science” (“SkS”) tolerates precious little skepticism.
    * “Tamino’s Open Mind” is even more close-minded and strictly censored than SkS.

    But it’s not just blogs.

    * “Greens” passionately strive to prevent greening of planet Earth. Ref: tinyurl {dot} com {slash} glsb02
    * “Planned Parenthood” is in the business of terminating parenthood by terminating young lives.
    * “9-11 Truthers” lie like rugs. They hate truth like the Wicked Witch of the West hated water.
    * “Christian Science: is neither Christian nor scientific.
    Etc., etc., etc.

    We live in interesting Orwellian times.
     

    2. “Is global warming real and human caused?” is not an interesting question.

    For one thing, it is a silly: hardly anyone doubts that global warming is “real.”

    For another, it is ambiguous: does it mean that any global warming is human-caused, or does it mean that all global warming is human-caused? To claim certainty of the former is to be comfortably with the consensus; to claim certainty of the latter is a fringe view.

    For a third, it asks the wrong question. Most scientists who are skeptical of climate alarmism do not doubt that human activity warms the planet. The evidence for that is very strong. Rather, we doubt that anthropogenic warming is a problem.

    The Chicken Littles are frightened of the prospect of a couple of degrees of warming. But even if the magnitude of the warming is that large (which I doubt), it will still be pretty minor. At U.S. latitudes +2°C would be roughly equivalent to moving 100 miles south. By comparison, estimates in the published literature are that over the course of the last deglaciation Antarctica warmed by about 10°C (ten Celcius!). The best evidence is that anthropogenic climate change is real, but modest and benign, and that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very beneficial, for both agriculture and natural ecosystems.

    That’s what we say:
    Ref: tinyurl {dot} com {slash} glsb03

    To ridicule, instead, the silly notion that manmade global warming is not “real” is to attack a strawman.
     

    3. “Hockey sticks” have straight handles. That’s the point of the analogy. But to have a straight “handle” in the temperature graph depends on erasing major pre-anthropocene zig-zags, like the MWP, the LIA, the 1930s-40s warm period, and the 1950s-70s cooling.

    Suspiciously enough, that’s exactly what was done, and in the Climategate emails there’s ample cause to suspect a thumb on the scale. Do you recall this discussion between Phil Jones and Tom Wigley’s about how to adjust-down the 1940s “warm blip,” to support the Hockey Stick narrative?

    1254108338.txt
    From: Tom Wigley
    To: Phil Jones
    Subject: 1940s
    Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600
    Cc: Ben Santer

    Phil,

    Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly
    explain the 1940s warming blip.

    If you look at the attached plot you will see that the
    land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).

    So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,
    then this would be significant for the global mean — but
    we’d still have to explain the land blip.

    I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an
    ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of
    ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common
    forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of
    these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are
    1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity
    plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things
    consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.

    Removing ENSO does not affect this.

    It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,
    but we are still left with “why the blip”.


     

    4. Greg, you say, “Let’s begin right away with the data that is supposedly being held secret. They are HERE They have always been there. Anytime anyone says “where’s the data, Michael Mann” just send them there, where the data are.”

    That RC link a very useful resources (which is why I have that link on my own web site). But the data is not all there.
    (Here’s that same link on my web site: tinyurl {dot} com {slash} glsb04 )

    There is a culture of secrecy among many climate scientists, particularly w/r/t the touchy issue of modifications to the data. I’m sure you recall the Climategate email in which Jones told Mann that if Steve McIntyre and Ross Mckitrick file a FOIA request for the CRU station data, he (Jones) planned to delete the data rather than release it to them.
    Ref: tinyurl {dot} com {slash} glsb05

    For another example, the NOAA Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), a/k/a National Climatic Data Center, takes active measures to try to prevent automatic archiving of their data, which has the effect of preventing comparison of recent versions to old versions. Look at their robots dot txt file:

    tinyurl {dot} com {slash} ncdcrobots

    Here’s how it starts:

    User-agent: *
    Disallow: /*.csv
    Disallow: /*.dat
    Disallow: /*.kmz
    Disallow: /*.ps
    Disallow: /*.txt
    Disallow: /*.xls

    Do you know what that means? It means they are forbidding The Internet Archive (a/k/a The Wayback Machine) from archiving “their” (our!) data.

    It is absolutely appalling. Are you appalled?

    As I’m sure you know, the U.S. and global averaged temperature data from NASA GISS, which they apparently get from NOAA, has been drastically revised over the last couple of decades. Since 1999, wholesale “homogenization” adjustments to the USHCN temperature data have added about 0.7 °C (1.26 °F) of warming to the 20th century’s reported average temperature trend for the 48 contiguous United States.

    What’s more, NASA GISS has apparently deleted much of the old data, which makes the adjustments even more suspicious: if they have nothing to hide, then why are they hiding it?

    The oldest version of their temperature index which I found (circa 1999) I had to reconstruct by digitizing a graph from an old Hansen/NASA paper, because the data which was shown in that graph has apparently been deleted.

    Here’s the paper: tinyurl {dot} com {slash} glsb06

    If you think that the data shown in those graphs has not been deleted, then please try to find it. I tried, and I was unsuccessful.

    Following the advice of Nick Schor, I even asked the Climate Science Rapid Response Team (CSRRT) to help me locate the missing old data, and to find an explanation for the alterations which added so much apparent “warming” to the U.S. surface temperature record. Scott Mandia replied, but he was unable to either find the missing data or find explanations for about half of the net adjustment. Here’s my conversation with Mr. Mandia and the CSRRT:

    tinyurl {dot} com {slash} glsb07

    The version of that USHCN averaged temperature data file which I reconstructed by digitizing the graph, and as many other old versions as I was able to find, (but nothing before from 1999 because all that data seems to be missing), are on my web server, here:

    tinyurl {dot} com {slash} glsb08

    Here’s a screenshot, showing what happens when you attempt to retrieve old versions of files in The Internet Archive if a restrictive robots dot txt file was used to block it:

    tinyurl {dot} com {slash} glsb09

    (Note: When I made that snapshot, NCDC was using their robots dot txt to block even html files from The Internet Archive. As you can see from the robots dot txt above, that is no longer the case, so at least you can now view archived versions of most html files. But they’re still blocking data file archiving.)
     

    P.S. — beneath the comment-entry form on this page are three options.

    The first is:
    [] Notify me of follow-up comments by email.

    The third is:
    [] Notify me of followup comments via E-Mail.

    What is the difference?

  507. #507 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “wait for the sun activity to decline or a huge volcano to erupt! ”

    So where is your GCM that proves this will happen, dickEd?

    “The governments will likely blame C02 for global cooling too as they will want the continued tax revenue!”

    Nope. Since there’s nothing to indicate your scenario is anything like reality.

  508. #508 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “each person on the earth is expected to produce 58.6 metric Tonnes per year”

    Wrong.

  509. #509 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “That RC link a very useful resources (which is why I have that link on my own web site). But the data is not all there.”

    All his data is.

  510. #510 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “Do you know what that means? It means they are forbidding The Internet Archive (a/k/a The Wayback Machine) from archiving “their” (our!) data.”

    It’s saving your taxpayer dollars being spent just to keep a massive amount of data being duplicated by the internet. The wayback machine is NOT a data archive.

    Moreover, your access is NOT via the wayback, just issue your own HTTP GET request.

    You denier morons REALLY are simpletons, aren’t you? And whiney-ass ones at that.

  511. #511 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “Suspiciously enough, that’s exactly what was done”

    No it wasn’t.

    “and in the Climategate emails there’s ample cause to suspect a thumb on the scale.”

    Nope. Only those with directed imaginations and a wilful desire to manufacture such a scenario would do so.

  512. #512 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “There is a culture of secrecy among many climate scientists, particularly w/r/t the touchy issue of modifications to the data”

    Lie.

    There are scores of papers and entire reams of documentation on what the modifcations are, why they occur *for each station through its history*.

    Oddly enough your claims ARE correct about the UAH record by John Christie, the deniers’ favourite. His code has still not be put for peer review, never mind public review. And it’s that code that does all the modifications to the raw satellite data that deniers love to use to “prove” AGW is nonexistent.

  513. #513 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “Since 1999, wholesale “homogenization” adjustments to the USHCN temperature data have added about 0.7 °C (1.26 °F) of warming”

    Lie.

    Not really much to add, since so little other than bare assertion exists there, and it’s a flat out lie.

  514. #514 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “because the data which was shown in that graph has apparently been deleted.”

    Lie.

    But data retention costs. And those costs have to be paid. And that means higher taxes just to keep data. A few terrabytes of archived data EACH DAY is produced by a WMO site such as the UKMO. And nobody wants to pay to keep it all. Want it all? Pay up.

  515. #515 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “if they have nothing to hide, then why are they hiding it?”

    If there is a scam going on, why do you have to lie to “prove” it?

  516. #516 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “* “Skeptical Science” (“SkS”) tolerates precious little skepticism.”

    Lie.

    they refuse to accept politicking and do not suffer fools or idiots gladly. You either do science and rational thinking or you GTFO.

  517. #517 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    For example, I would not be allowed to post like this and call you a fucking retard, Dave on SkS because that is not science and irrelevant to skepticism.

    So YOUR whining is merely YOU want YOUR unscientific idiocy put up on their site but you would not like to see anything disparaging you on there, because that’s not scientific argument.

    You get neither or both, moron.

  518. #518 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “* “Tamino’s Open Mind” is even more close-minded and strictly censored than SkS.”

    Lie again.

    Same thing, too. YOU just claim “not open to the idea of me being right”. Oddly enough, you’re not open to the idea of Tamino being right. Strange that.

  519. #519 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “Scott Mandia replied”

    So you took him away from his paid for work in investigating and wasted the taxpayer money paid to him to go on a hunt for your personal pleasure?

    Why the hell are you wasting taxpayer dollars, retard? Can everyone else get a refund of what you wasted?

  520. #520 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “Jones told Mann that if Steve McIntyre and Ross Mckitrick file a FOIA request for the CRU station data, he (Jones) planned to delete the data rather than release it to them.”

    Another flat out lie.

  521. #521 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    ” If you ride your bike and sell your car you will reduce your C02 emisions by 2.8 tonnes per year.”

    And if you killed yourself, that would save nearly 60T a year, right?

    So I will sell my car and you will kill yourself, right?

  522. #522 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    And both of us will avoid paying a CO2 tax.

  523. #523 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “What’s more, NASA GISS has apparently deleted much of the old data,”

    Lie.

  524. #524 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “please try to find it. I tried, and I was unsuccessful.”

    Because YOU are a dumbass and “tried” (I doubt you did) to use the Wayback Machine to retrieve it. Which isn’t what the wayback machine is meant to do. It crawls web pages for the information on the WWW. NOT an archive for the entire world’s internet connected computers.

  525. #525 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “The version of that USHCN averaged temperature data file …are on my web server, here:”

    Which is sealevel.info. A site about sea level info, not temperature data….

  526. #526 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “* “Planned Parenthood” is in the business of terminating parenthood by terminating young lives.”

    Lie.

    Really. Flat out lie. Couldn’t be lie-e-er if it tried.

  527. #527 Li D
    Australia
    July 20, 2017

    #489
    Bwahahahaha.
    What a classic case of D K.
    Seems to have heard of correllation but not causation.

    Get out of the way you muppet. This pathetic denier crap
    needs to stop. Savvy? You are an embarrassment to whatever
    crap arse school you went to to write such absolute horseshit.

  528. #528 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    ” But even if the magnitude of the warming is that large (which I doubt), it will still be pretty minor.”

    Lie.

  529. #529 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “anthropogenic climate change is real, but modest and benign,”

    Complete asspull based on nothing.

    “and that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are very beneficial, for both agriculture and natural ecosystems.”

    Complete lie.

  530. #530 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “estimates in the published literature are that over the course of the last deglaciation Antarctica warmed by about 10°C (ten Celcius!).”

    But the global average changed only 3C.

    Polar amplification, moron. Heard of it?

    And guess what the temp anomaly is at the polies? About 7C.

  531. #531 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “3. “Hockey sticks” have straight handles”

    And MBH98 didn’t have a “straight handle”, therefore it’s not a hockey stick?

    “But to have a straight “handle” in the temperature graph depends on erasing major pre-anthropocene zig-zags, like the MWP, the LIA, the 1930s-40s warm period, and the 1950s-70s cooling.”

    And MBH98 doesn’t erase any of them. Not forgetting that 1930-40 and 1950-1970 are both in the anthropocene era, so aren’t pre-anthropocence zig zags. If there were so many zig zags, why did you have to lie?

  532. #532 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “To ridicule, instead, the silly notion that manmade global warming is not “real” is to attack a strawman.”

    To insist that it is a strawman is to lie about reality, dickhead.

  533. #533 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    And to call such claims silly is to claim your own post is silly, since it also insists there has been no manmade global warming. Which you’ve just said is silly and a strawman that should not be ridiculed (except you just ridiculed it as well as made the claim your very self).

    Irony.

  534. #534 Li D
    Australia
    July 20, 2017

    #506
    Bwahaha
    Conspiracy. God its so boring.

  535. #535 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “* “Greens” passionately strive to prevent greening of planet Earth. ”

    Lie again.

  536. #536 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “does it mean that any global warming is human-caused”

    Yes. And this is the case in reality

    “, or does it mean that all global warming is human-caused?”

    All and more of the recent warming is.

  537. #537 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    ” to claim certainty of the latter is a fringe view.”

    Lie. The evidence has been convincingly that way for a decade and more.

    Only idiots (who claim they know when they do not) and people who haven’t kept up with it (and make no claim on it, because to do so is idiotic) do not know this.

  538. #538 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “For a third, it asks the wrong question.”

    Wrong. It’s one you want avoided.

  539. #539 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “Most scientists who are skeptical of climate alarmism”

    The only alarmism is from deniers. And you are not a skeptic, you are a credulous moron in denial of reality and proclaiming alarmism for others so that you can fake that you’re right despite reality being against your idiotic screed.

  540. #540 Li D
    July 20, 2017

    #365 ” In the book Slaying th…. ” hahahahaha

  541. #541 Li D
    Australia
    July 20, 2017

    #245 Spot on about Lomborg.

  542. #542 BBD
    July 20, 2017

    It’s worth remembering that TCR and ECS is not defined as “the heating due to CO2”.

    Ah, I see your blind spot now.

    We are discussing K&T equation (1) which ONLY deals with the dT in response to a change in CO2.

    You fucked up again, Wow.

  543. #543 BBD
    July 20, 2017

    Moreover, the ECS for CO2 alone is about 1.2C and can, and has, been calculated from Quantum Mechanical first principles.

    That’s the no-feedbacks ECS to a doubling of CO2. It is consistent with a fast-feedbacks (standard definition, look it up) ECS of ~3C which in turn is consistent with a TCR (standard definition dT at the point of doubling) of 1.8C.

    Your understanding of this topic is crap, and this stuff about measured TCR of 2.4 is rubbish. It gives me no pleasure to agree with RickA on this point but you are just flat-out wrong.

  544. #544 BBD
    July 20, 2017

    The mathematical fact is that despite your distaste, the equation is equally valid to determine TCR, despite your prudery and ignorance.

    No it isn’t. You have to bork it entirely by using a specific and incorrect value for dT. How you can think this is acceptable usage is beyond me:

    (B) ΔT = 1.8ln(400/280)/ln(2) = 0.9

    Jabberwocky nonsense from a nutter.

  545. #545 BBD
    July 20, 2017

    >>> a specific and incorrect value for *S*

  546. #547 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    >>> a specific and incorrect value for *S*

    What? Since you have not defined any subscript, what S is it? Transient effect or equilibrium?

    You STILL haven’t the first fucking clue what the terms mean, do you dumdum?

  547. #548 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    ” You have to bork it entirely by using a specific and incorrect value for dT. ”

    Which is what you did, dumdum.

    dT is 1.2.

  548. #549 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “(B) ΔT = 1.8ln(400/280)/ln(2) = 0.9”

    Which was the same when you used 3 for S and then multiplied the result by 0.6 to get TCS. Therefore the 1.8 is the correct value of S to get the transient climate response.

    Quite what you are whinging about here, batshit looney, is completely beyond me, having little ability in the batshit loony mindset. I’m pretty much a reality based person, and my ability to put my mind into the lunatic fringe that you inhabit is limited by my experience of reality leaving your unreality outside of my capacity.

  549. #550 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “We are discussing K&T equation (1) which ONLY deals with the dT in response to a change in CO2.”

    No it doesn’t, you fucking loon.

    You can derive ANY dT response to a change in CO2 with a given sensitvity.

    The TCR is the sensitvity to CO2 without equilibrium.

    And the equation CAN BE USED THERE.

    But you do not comprehend either maths nor the paper nor its meaning and utility.

  550. #551 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “That’s the no-feedbacks ECS to a doubling of CO2”

    Yes.

    Which is what you should be quoting if you “think”, in your lunatic way, that

    “It’s worth remembering that total warming 1750 – present is not all attributable to CO2. ”

  551. #552 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    ” It is consistent with a fast-feedbacks (standard definition, look it up) ECS of ~3C which in turn is consistent with a TCR (standard definition dT at the point of doubling) of 1.8C.”

    There is nothing consistent between those two.

  552. #553 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “with a fast-feedbacks (standard definition, look it up) ECS of ~3C which in turn is consistent with a TCR (standard definT at the point of doubling) of 1.8C.”

    But reality shows that ECS (standard definition, look it up) ~4C which in turn is consistent with a TCR (standard defnition) of 2.4C, which would lead to a dT of 1.2C today, which is what we see, you dumbfuck.

  553. #554 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “Your understanding of this topic is crap,”

    No, yours is, but you are so insane and clueless and so very VERY deeply in the DK pothole that you cannot comprehend the error, only go apoplectic over it.

    “and this stuff about measured TCR of 2.4 is rubbish”

    Nope, it’s only rubbish if you are as clueless as you are about this subject.

    Half a doubling of CO2 giving 1.2C warming means TCR is 2.4C. MEASURED. TODAY. NO PROXIES. NO MODELS.

    MEASURED.

  554. #555 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “It gives me no pleasure to agree with RickA on this point ”

    But, and this is where your calamitous stupidity raises you well above Dick’s incompetence, your arguments for why I’m wrong are PRECISELY what dick uses to insist he’s right and nobody can prove him wrong, because we “have to wait until 560ppm”.

    That same stuff that made you incandescent with rage.

    But when YOU do it, well, you get incandescent with anyone who doesn’t accept your batshit crazy assertion just to shut you the fuck up.

  555. #556 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “You fucked up again, Wow.”

    Nope, you still don’t know what the fuck the equation means, nor what the paper did, dumdum.

  556. #557 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “How you can think this is acceptable usage is beyond me:

    (B) ΔT = 1.8ln(400/280)/ln(2) = 0.9”

    How can you think that it is unacceptable, dumbfuck?

  557. #558 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    The 1.8 is your assertion of what TCR per doubling of CO2 is.

    Put it in the equation with CO2 level changes and you get the TCR at the given CO2 level. 0.9C under the ASSUMPTION TCR is 1.8C per doubling.

    So why is (B) so impossible for you to comprehend, dipshit?

  558. #559 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    You assume ECS is 3. Calculate using that equation what dT you get. And since you assert TCR is 60% of ECS, when you calculate the transient response in temperature, you multiply the equilibrium dT by 0.6.

    THAT IS MATHEMATICALLY IDENTICAL to multiplying ECS by 0.6 to calculate the transient dT you get from a change in CO2.

    It’s fucking junior school level maths! Commutative multipliers!

  559. #560 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    Good grief.

    No wonder people like dick who WANT to not get it don’t get it.

    You bunch of fucking retarded morons just rote learn and think this equals knowledge.

  560. #561 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    Dumdum, do YOU believe that you have to have a hole one square meter in area before you can measure your car tyre pressure?

    Or do you accept in the blatantly obvious cases that the units of a measure are not the REQUIREMENTS OF THAT MEASURE, but when you don’t comprehend science or the papers you read but did not understand, you are incapable of applying that knowledge, proving that you do not understand how units of measure work, only the rote mechanisation of “measuring pressure in a tyre” and each measure on a case-by-case basis?

  561. #562 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “We can’t tell our speed in miles per hour, because we haven’t gone an hour yet!”
    “We can’t tell what gravitational acceleration is because we haven’t a 1m drop!”
    “We can’t measure climate sensitivitiy because we haven’t had a doubling of CO2 yet!”

    ALL OF THEM are identical in both claim and ignorance.

  562. #563 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    Hell, this may be a counter I’ll use against Dick and his “We have to wait and see”.

    We should stop increasing CO2 levels right now and wait to find out what ECS is by measurement, not extrapolation or models or assertions. We must stop CO2 emissions and bring them to zero. Then wait and see what ECS is. THEN we can decide if fossil fuel burning is safe.

  563. #564 Li D
    Australia
    July 20, 2017

    Bedtime reading. Working Group 1, 2007.
    I think its about NASA and the communists taking over the world or something like that. Lol.
    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html

  564. #565 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    Or the third world trying to steal the money of the first.

    Or anticapitalists in positions of wealth and power trying to give the money of people in positions of wealth and power away to the poor. Or capitalists in positions of wealth and power trying to steal the money off poor people.

    Or all the above, all at the same time.

  565. #566 Li D
    Australia
    July 20, 2017

    #565 yeah it gets confusing what bullplop the deniers spin sometimes.The only constant is that its boring. They need to
    add a few aliens or something on the mix to liven it up a little.
    Even the background softly softly anti semitism gets tedious.
    Although one stays alert for outliers.

  566. #567 Philip Bruce Heywood
    Queensland, Australia.
    July 20, 2017

    Ante-diluvian delusion.
    Congratulations to Greg Laden. Always attracts some sort of action. And does so with free speech.
    Did you ever study geology, Sir?
    …… 552 comments, and counting … and haven’t got to the topic in hand! Somewhere between bemusing, and amusing.
    I publish the paper that usually comes up top when I enter, “Climate Moderation’, on my brand of GOOGLE. Has done for a decade. Is doing so today.
    Unless you account for the one, glaring, obvious, paramount, startling fact, you are wasting time, on this topic. We are here! Alive! Every fact of geologic processes, every observation, every climate analysis, every blasted ruin of Space .. everything about stars, planets, and 5 thousand million years and 5 thousand million chances of exponential go-crazy climate destruction scream one message. Impossible! Impossible for the alarmist message to be wrong. We can not be here.

    What say we find out about things?

    I could attempt to download the rheems of facts and evidences herewith. If anyone wishes to get the story about why we are here and how we survived and why we will survive until this temporary hologram is switched off – I can oblige. Here is a hint. It may prepare the ground to skip over to WIKIPEDIA, “Chaos Theory”, scroll down to the statement that climate is a classic instance thereof and think about why playing God equals playing the fool. Then, unless you are acquainted with the recently proved fact that such an item as a megneto-plasma wave exists — that’s physics, not quackery — well….. become acquainted. Apply science. Not the science that has been over-applied, such as this:
    THE SCIENCE.
    Once upon a time, there was a planet with very high I.Q..
    It decided to grow some plants. After this, it decided to grow some animals. All these living things relied upon atmospheric carbon. The planet took care of the plants and animals for four thousand million years — never allowing atmospheric carbon to fall so low as to cause total annihilation. You see, the atmospheric carbon must have come from Space — as did the entire planet. And, perhaps, from time to time, more carbon gases arrived from Space. Frozen carbon gases in comet – like bodies? The planet knew it needed carbon, because it kept on burying the carbon in rock strata and in the waters. Carbon would run out if the planet could not find a source replacement. Perhaps it DID go very close to running out — five mass extinctions must have worried the planetary I.Q. lot’s, eh? Every mass extinction could have been triggered by shortage of carbon.
    The planet collected carbon from Space (perhaps) and fired up its gas -emitting volcanoes, so life survived. This planet had brains.
    It processed something of the order of the equivalent of twelve of its atmospheres pure CO2 in sequestering the carbon estimated to exist in rock stratas and water.
    Being ambidextrous and ambi – generally, and, well, perhaps, ambitious(?), the planet supplied its plants and animals, collecting from Space, re-cycling with its volcanoes. Chug Chug puff puff.
    Whilst concurrently it governed its climate so nothing really bad happened. Bad Bad.
    You know. Like the moon. Mars. Venus. OOH so much carbon dioxide. Naughty planets!
    Those nasty astyreoids killed their bunny rabbits.

    Discover the topic!
    I can provide the story in logical, if voluminous, order. Data? Facts which will stand in a law court? Let’s go with with objective human observation — half a millennium’s worth. Then back it up with modern physics and run a check against the geologic record. But not all that, just here, just now. (It could run longer than the entire blog.)
    Long-term Variations in Solar Activity
    and their Apparent Effect on the Earth’s Climate
    K.Lassen, 1998.
    Danish Meteorological Institute, Solar-Terrestrial Physics Division,
    Lyngbyvej,100, DK-2100 Copenhagen (2), Denmark
    Abstract
    The varying length of the 11-year cycle has been found to be strongly correlated with longterm variations of the northern hemisphere land surface air temperature since the beginning of systematic temperature variations from a global network, i. e. during the past 130 years. Although direct temperature observations before this interval are scarce, it has been possible to extend the correlation back to the 16th century due to the existence of a series of proxy temperature data published by Groveman and Landsberg in 1979. Reliable sunspot data do not exist before 1750, but we have been able to derive epochs of minimum sunspot activity from auroral observations back to 1500 and combine them with the direct observations to a homogeneous series.
    Comparison of the extended solar activity record with the temperature series confirms the high correlation between solar activity and northern hemisphere land surface air temperature and shows that the relationship has existed through the whole 500-year interval for which reliable data exist.

    A corresponding influence of solar activity has been demonstrated in other climatic parameters. Thus, both the date of arrival of spring in the Yangtze River Valley as deduced from phenological data and the extent of the sea-ice in the Atlantic sector of the Arctic sea have been shown to be correlated with the length of the sunspot cycle during the last 450 years.
    Conclusion
    70-90 years oscillations in global mean temperature are correlated with corresponding oscillations in solar activity. Whereas the solar influence is obvious in the data from the last four centuries, signatures of human activity are not yet distinguishable in the observations………. END DANISH MET. INSTITUTE EXTRACT. (I can e-mail the full paper upon request)
    If someone replies with the message that Lassen and half a millennium of observation are disproved — due to falling solar radiance concurrent with increasing global temperatures — I will be obliged to download the next step in this somewhat lengthy saga. …………. .

  567. #568 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “552 comments, and counting … and haven’t got to the topic in hand!”

    so to celebrate you add another post that is huge before even reading what’s there.

    Well done moron.

  568. #569 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “Conclusion
    70-90 years oscillations in global mean temperature are correlated with corresponding oscillations in solar activity. ”

    Conclusion: a complete fucking fabrication. No, solar cycles is not working. Because the current trend, and this has been the case for two, nearly three, decades now, has been the opposite. We’ve been warming despite the sun’s acitivity leading to a cooling.

  569. #570 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “If someone replies with the message that Lassen and half a millennium of observation are disproved”

    What’s proved is it’s not the sun, stupid. From millennia of observations the conclusion arises.

    And Lassen was wrong to begin with. Go look at SkS and the FAQ section.

  570. #571 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “. Impossible! Impossible for the alarmist message to be wrong. We can not be here. ”

    So clearly your alarmists must be figments of your diseased imagination.

  571. #572 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “I publish the paper that usually comes up top when I enter, “Climate Moderation’, on my brand of GOOGLE. Has done for a decade. Is doing so today.”

    And just like a decade ago, it’s wrong.

    Live with it.

  572. #573 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “I will be obliged to download the next step in this somewhat lengthy saga.”

    Which will still be 100% bollocks.

  573. #574 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “What say we find out about things?”

    Why don’t you?

  574. #575 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “Unless you account for the one, glaring, obvious, paramount, startling fact, you are wasting time, on this topic. We are here! ”

    Please prove how not accounting for us being alive means everything said is a waste of time?

    Just a woomancer assertion, signifying nothing.

  575. #576 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    Neither do you account for the fact we are here.

    So clearly you waste your time. And will waste it with the rest of the saga until that saga addresses that startling fact: we are here.

  576. #577 Li D
    Australia
    July 20, 2017

    Well its vastly more entertaining then the stodgy american fare.
    I asked for aliens and got Alfven friggen waves.
    Beggars cant be choosers.

  577. #578 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    ” Then, unless you are acquainted with the recently proved fact that such an item as a megneto-plasma wave exists ”

    Uh, what? You clearly do not comprehend the plasma discovery.

    Besides which, this has zero bearing on why we are alive. Nor climate change.

    Or anything.

  578. #579 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    But, hey, go on, how does plasma waves mean we are alive?

  579. #580 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “I asked for aliens and got Alfven friggen waves.”

    Plus a whole lot of woo and a complete braindump from a retard.

  580. #581 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “Being ambidextrous and ambi – generally..the planet”

    The living organisms are mostly not bilateria. Never mind ambidexterous. And the planet isn’t anydexter.

  581. #582 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “Discover the topic!”

    But not from this moron.

  582. #583 Li D
    Australia
    July 20, 2017

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfv%C3%A9n_wave

    Oh yeah, this is less boring than climatefuckinggate.

  583. #584 Li D
    Australia
    July 20, 2017

    #583 marginally

  584. #585 Li D
    Australia
    July 20, 2017

    “Being ambidextrous and ambi – generally”
    See, Tony Heller can only dream of writing of this calibre.

  585. #586 Jeff Harvey
    July 20, 2017

    Two more verbose Dunning-Kruger alumni appear in the form of a luke-warmer (Dave) and a denier (Philip) spewing their kindergarten-level analysis on here. What strikes me about these laymen with delusions of grandeur is that they write as if they have stumbled on ‘facts’ that have eluded the scientific community. There are thousands of climate scientists working to better understand the extent of the human fingerprint on the recent warming episode and the vast majority of them just don’t understand the role played by the sun. It takes some armchair expert – Philip – who has no relevant professional qualifications to show them the error of their ways. Talk about hubris.

    Then we have Dave writing absolute gibberish about the net benefits of a warmer world. This simpleton does not understand basic environmental science, and clearly has never read anything relevant to the effects of abiotic stresses on biodiversity and in turn on ecosystem functioning. He patently ignores a suite of other anthropogenic stresses that exacerbate the deleterious effects of warming, and has not even a basic grasp of relevant terms like phenology, stoichiometry, trophic interactions, food webs and communities. What he does is take his basal knowledge and draw conclusions completely at odds with what population ecologists like myself know about the consequences of the rate of warming on biodiversity at all levels of organisation. Far from concluding that the effects of 2C warming over several decades will be benign or negligible, me and my peers know that it will lead to the fraying of food webs and ultimately to collapsing ecosystems – indeed the signs are already there in numerous studies published in the empirical literature. The facts are unambiguously clear: the rate of warming currently exceeds the ability of many species to adapt. Given that species interactions mediate the functioning of communities and ecosystems, warming represents a profound threat to nature and ultimately to mankind. There are no hidden caveats. This is already patently clear, as laid out in the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, the various IPCC reports and in numerous published studies. Studies and reports that Dan does not read or understand. So instead, he makes up his own reality based on nothing more than his gut feelings and limited knowledge of the field, with a lot of political bias thrown in for good measure.

    I really am getting fed up with the sheer volume of willfully ignorant people I encounter on social media. Plug one leak and 10 more show up. What is clear to me is that society is full of people who vastly overestimate their scientific knowledge, and when combined with their own political/social/economic biases, it creates a toxic cocktail of ignorance.

  586. #587 Ed Thompson
    July 20, 2017

    Do you include “wow wow” in your group as brilliant? A toxic cocktail of brilliance?

  587. #588 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    What’s wrong dick Ed? You just complained without content there.

    And how can the nauseous slurry you have in your head be made even more toxic than it is? There is no difference in there whether you’re treated with the richly deserved scorn and derision or have your ego fluffed. The end result is you won’t change that charnel pit of idiocy you call a mind no matter how reality is presented.

  588. #589 Jeff Harvey
    July 20, 2017

    Sorry I didn’t lump you in Ed with Dan and Philip because your comments are as scientifically vacuous as theirs. Bernard demolished your comments and you ignored him. Par for the course.

  589. #590 BBD
    July 20, 2017

    Half a doubling of CO2 giving 1.2C warming means TCR is 2.4C. MEASURED. TODAY. NO PROXIES. NO MODELS.

    MEASURED.

    Nope. The forcing is logarithmic. Since you’re such a genius, you will be able to work out that the first half of a doubling yields more forcing than the second half. So doubling the (incorrect) 1.2C value will give an incorrect estimate of TCR.

    And you faff on about deniers not wanting to learn. Good god.

  590. #591 BBD
    July 20, 2017

    (B) ΔT = 1.8ln(400/280)/ln(2) = 0.9”

    How can you think that it is unacceptable, dumbfuck?

    Because it is. Rearranging the terms such that you have to use a specific, incorrect value for S (ECS, RTFR instead of whining) is a bork.

    I’m not saying that it doesn’t work, you fucking clown. I’m saying that it is unspeakably shitty methodology – and *worse* – it encourages the contrarians to misuse eq (1) to make false claims about ECS.

    But no, you won’t be told. As ever. Because you are a nutter.

  591. #592 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “Nope. The forcing is logarithmic.”

    FFS, you tit.

    What did you think the “ln” means in the fucking equation??? Linear????

  592. #593 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “Since you’re such a genius, you will be able to work out that the first half of a doubling yields more forcing than the second half.”

    Ah, so another fucking clueless moron who thinks that 120 == 160.

    No, dumbass, you’re wrong.

    The first half of a doubling produces EXACTLY AS MUCH as the second half of a doubling.

    Because the interval is bigger for the second doubling, you retarded fuckwit. So the second doubling you get less PER LINEAR UNIT.

    BUT, and here is the fucking thing you and dick REALLY do not comprehend in your asinine stupidity, THE SAME LOGARITHMIC INTERVAL.

  593. #594 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “So doubling the (incorrect) 1.2C value will give an incorrect estimate of TCR.”

    Do some fucking maths, retard.

  594. #595 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    Doubling the (correct) 1.2C value will give the correct value for TCR.

    It’s a fact of maths. Do the actual fucking sums yourself and see. Do the dT between 400 and 560ppm.

    Go on you ignorant blowhard.

  595. #596 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “” (B) ΔT = 1.8ln(400/280)/ln(2) = 0.9”

    How can you think that it is unacceptable, dumbfuck?”

    Because it is.”

    Except it isn’t.

  596. #597 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “Rearranging the terms such that you have to use a specific, incorrect value for S (ECS, RTFR instead of whining) is a bork. ”

    Except rearranging doesn’t do that.

    And there is not a specific incorect value for S. TCR is an S just like ECS is an S. Sensitivity to change.

    Fucking moron.

  597. #598 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “I’m not saying that it doesn’t work”

    You lying twat. You ARE saying it doesn’t work. you insist it CANNOT EVER be used that way.

  598. #599 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “I’m saying that it is unspeakably shitty methodology”

    WRONG.

    Just flat out wrong.

    And it’s 100,000,000% your asinine problem there.

    You want S, so you guess an S and put it in then get a dT when you can frigging MEASURE THE dT VALUE.

    THAT is a fucking moronic method.

    Did you EVER do maths? At all. ONCE. EVER???

  599. #600 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “it encourages the contrarians to misuse eq (1) to make false claims about ECS. ”

    WRONG.

    Entirely wrong.

    And, yet again, 100,000,000% the problem YOU are making, dumbass.

  600. #601 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “But no, you won’t be told.”

    Yeah, strange. I won’t be told a load of rancid cockmeat by a moron.

    ” Because you are a nutter.”

    Projection. As always.

  601. #602 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “And you faff on about deniers not wanting to learn. Good god.”

    Yes.

    And I learn. Unlike yourself.

    I learned what maths meant and how to use and work with it. Again, unlike yourself.

  602. #603 Ed Thompson
    July 20, 2017

    The language used is not very professional and seriously detracts from you credibility. The sun, volcanoes and water vapour do have an effect on climate change. I know your supporter Mr. WOW WOW will say “WRONG”. My position is the influence of these factors is much greater that an additional 100 PPM increase in C02 regardless of how it comes about. I also am firmly attached to the idea that population growth and wars make a contribution to climate change but it is far from 100%. The debate is about what the percentage is. Do you really think it is 100%?

  603. #604 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    Do the actual fucking sums yourself and see. Do the dT between 400 and 560ppm.

    Go on you ignorant blowhard.

    Or terrified of not winning against me, who has ripped your stupidity apart and shamed you in front of everyone on the internet?

    Do the fucking maths.

    Use the same 1.8S between 400 and 560ppm. What dT do you get? because if it’s ALSO 1.2C, then you have just proven you were 100% precisely, utterly, and in all ways possible, wrong.

  604. #605 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “The language used is not very professional”

    Tone troll argument and is an informal ad hominem fallacy.

    ” and seriously detracts from you credibility.”

    Wrong. Because as a counter to claims, it is an ad hom fallacy.

  605. #606 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “The sun, volcanoes and water vapour do have an effect on climate change.”

    Go see the attribution section in the IPCC WG1 paper, fuckwit.

  606. #607 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “WOW WOW will say “WRONG”. ”

    WRONG.

    And being wrong about something so easy to not be wrong about eviscerates your credibility.

    As does your assumption of my gender being “he”. What? Women not capable of holding their own against arrogant assholes on the internet? Unable to protect themselves without a man to white knight them? Incapable of standing up against idiots?

  607. #608 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “My position is the influence of these factors is much greater that an additional 100 PPM increase in C02”

    A position of ignorance.

    And entirely and utterly laughably wrong.

  608. #609 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “I also am firmly attached to the idea that ,,,”

    is wrong, but you are ignorant of reality and have arrived at a position based on ignorance and political ideology.

  609. #610 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “The debate is about what the percentage is.”

    WRONG. You may be debating that in your post, but that is YOUR debate. Not “The debate”.

    ” Do you really think it is 100%?”

    Zero %.

  610. #611 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    The debate is how much of the warming is due to AGW.

    And out of the dT between 1750 and 2017, it’s more than all of it.

  611. #612 BBD
    July 20, 2017

    And as usual, when wow gets caught out in a fuckup, he buries it deep in a thread-bombing that would leave the USAF green with envy.

  612. #613 Ed Thompson
    July 20, 2017

    Are you saying Human Activity has zero effect on climate change? Did you not read my question?

  613. #614 Ed Thompson
    July 20, 2017

    #589
    Who is Bernard? I didn’t see anything from Bernard?

  614. #615 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “And as usual, when wow gets caught out in a fuckup, he buries it deep”

    WHERE did I get caught out, moron?

    Nowhere.

    What DID *YOU* miss? THIS:

    Do the actual fucking sums yourself and see. Do the dT between 400 and 560ppm.

    Go on you ignorant blowhard.

    Or terrified of not winning against me, who has ripped your stupidity apart and shamed you in front of everyone on the internet?

    Do the fucking maths.

    Use the same 1.8S between 400 and 560ppm. What dT do you get? because if it’s ALSO 1.2C, then you have just proven you were 100% precisely, utterly, and in all ways possible, wrong.

  615. #616 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “Are you saying Human Activity has zero effect on climate change?”

    Nope. That was not the claim you made, dick Ed, so I can not have said anything on that subject.

    Fucking lying toerag.

  616. #617 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    As usual, when dumdum isn’t getting anywhere with his Bullshit and Lies, he tries gaslighting.

  617. #618 BBD
    July 20, 2017

    Well let’s check. ΔT at equilibrium for +120ppm CO2 (280 – 400ppm):

    ΔT = 3ln(400/280)/ln(2) = 1.5

    Now for an additional 160ppm (400 – 560ppm):

    ΔT = 3ln(560/400)/ln(2) = 1.4

    So. The ΔT for the first 120ppm is greater than for the subsequent 160ppm.

  618. #619 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    Well your maths is wrong, retard.

    Odd that.

    ΔT = 3ln(400/280)/ln(2) != 1.5

    ΔT = 3ln(400/280)/ln(2) != 1.54397

    So clearly we are working to approximations.

    Oh dear.

  619. #620 MikeN
    July 20, 2017

    BBD, it appears the dispute is over whether the correct dT is 1.2 or .9, and you keep talking about this equation.
    Half a doubling I understood to be where we are at 400 vs 280, and not 420 vs 280. If you just added an extra step every time you use the formula and replace ln(400/280)/ln(2) with 1/2, I think Wow’s ‘argument’ will be clearer to you.

  620. #621 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “So. The ΔT for the first 120ppm is greater than for the subsequent 160ppm.”

    By a rounding factor.

    Oh boo hoo.

    So you are complaining about a change from 3.0 to 2.9?!?!?!

    Are you REALLY going to whine about that?

    You can try actual doublings if you want to be accurate. Go on, be accurate.

    So we have 280 to 560. Your maths gives 3.0 as the difference. Yes?

    So try exactly half a doulbling from 280: 395.979797464
    Then try exactly half a doubling from 395.979797464 to 560.

    280-395.979797464, dT = 1.49999999999

    395.979797464-560, dT = 1.50000000001

    Remember, the absolute claim you said was wrong was the first half doubling would produce a different value to the second half doubling:

    #560:

    Nope. The forcing is logarithmic. Since you’re such a genius, you will be able to work out that the first half of a doubling yields more forcing than the second half.

    Oh, you dumbass.

  621. #622 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    See, even “mike” can get past his preference for his political ideology and understand.

    Yet dumdum can’t.

    Won’t.

    Both.

  622. #623 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    Further to #621, I COULD be as much an asshat as dumdum and dick are and use the last digit rounding to PROVE that the second half of doubling causes MORE change than the first half of doubling. But unlike dumdum, I know how maths works.

  623. #624 BBD
    July 20, 2017

    ΔT = 3ln(400/280)/ln(2) = 1.5

    Now for an additional 160ppm (400 – 560ppm):

    ΔT = 3ln(560/400)/ln(2) = 1.4

    So. The ΔT for the first 120ppm is greater than for the subsequent 160ppm.

    Wow is wrong.

    End of.

  624. #625 BBD
    July 20, 2017

    Further to #621, I COULD be as much an asshat as dumdum and dick are and use the last digit rounding

    WTF?

    120ppm = 1.5

    The next 160ppm = 1.4

    Clowns, please note that 160 > 120.

    Log taper. Thanks.

  625. #626 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “So. The ΔT for the first 120ppm is greater than for the subsequent 160ppm.”

    Oh, yeah, by rounding.

    Big whoop.

    Remember your claim, mental midget?

    #560:

    Nope. The forcing is logarithmic. Since you’re such a genius, you will be able to work out that the first half of a doubling yields more forcing than the second half.

    What a fucking wimp.

  626. #627 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “WTF?

    120ppm = 1.5

    The next 160ppm = 1.4”

    WTF?

    #560:

    Nope. The forcing is logarithmic. Since you’re such a genius, you will be able to work out that the first half of a doubling yields more forcing than the second half.

    Is 280-400 exacrly half a doubling? Nope.

    But, hey, if you were whining about a rounding error, then going apeshit and claiming it is entirely wrong and asinine to an extent you found completely incomprehensible, why the fuck do you complain about a discrepancy of 3%????

    Why aren’t you pissed entirely off with your 1C which is far more than 3% off the actual value????

    Oh, that’s right, because you’re a fucking moron.

  627. #628 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “Oh noes! It’s supposed to be 3.0C for a full doubling but it’s 2,9C by wow’s accounting!!!! WOW IS SO MINDBOGGLINGLY WRONG!!!!!

    Hmm? i rounded figures too? WTF? I’ll ignore that”.

  628. #629 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “So. The ΔT for the first 120ppm is greater than for the subsequent 160ppm.

    Wow is wrong.

    End of.”

    Wrong about what, moron? 400 being exactly half a doubling? Sure.

    But how wrong were YOU:

    #560:

    Nope. The forcing is logarithmic. Since you’re such a genius, you will be able to work out that the first half of a doubling yields more forcing than the second half.

    Dumdum was entirely wrong there. Not a sliver of right.

  629. #630 BBD
    July 20, 2017

    “So. The ΔT for the first 120ppm is greater than for the subsequent 160ppm.”

    Oh, yeah, by rounding.

    You are either innumerate or a liar.

    160 > 120.

    That, not ‘last digit rounding’ is the problem you are pretending doesn’t exist.

    You are wrong, again. You are lying about it, again.

    It really has come to the end of my patience this time.

    Fuck off, Wow.

  630. #631 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    If you wanted more accuracy, you should have claimed it was not accurate enough, dumdum.

    You should be using around 1.3-1.5C as the dT, and 280 to 405 as the CO2 levels.

    S=1.3/0.532495080827=2.44C
    S=1.4/0.532495080827=2.63C

    If you wanted to insist that the cooling trend naturally neutral therefore dT=1.2

    S=1.2/0.532495080827=2.25C

    Of course the natural overall cooling trend is not zero. So I kinda rounded them all out.

    and somehow, being 2.4 instead of 2.25 or 2.63 or 2.44 is such a yuge error to dumdum here that his mind could not comprehend the way it would be arrived at.

    Because he’s a fucking idiot.

  631. #632 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “You are either innumerate or a liar.”

    Neither, you gaslighting idiot.

  632. #633 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    #560:

    Nope. The forcing is logarithmic. Since you’re such a genius, you will be able to work out that the first half of a doubling yields more forcing than the second half.

    You are innumerate AND a liar, dumdum.

  633. #634 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “160 ”

    Is that half a doubling from 400, dumdum? No.

    You’re innumerate AND a liar.

  634. #635 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “120 ”

    Is that half a doubling from 280, dumdum? No.

    You’re innumerate AND a liar.

  635. #636 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “That, not ‘last digit rounding’”

    ln(400/280)=0.356674943939
    ln(560/400)=0.336472236621

    First sig fig: same.
    Second sig fig: out by less than two.

    You’re innumerate AND a liar, dumdum.

  636. #637 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    Done in one go: 3.0C.

    At 400ppm you gave a figure of 1.5. Rounding similarly you get another 1.5 at 560ppm. total 3.0. Identical.

    The fact that YOU rounded the figures makes YOU the party who was wrong. I just followed your rounding.

  637. #638 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    And remember your claim was

    #560:

    Nope. The forcing is logarithmic. Since you’re such a genius, you will be able to work out that the first half of a doubling yields more forcing than the second half.

    Because you rounded to 1.5, I discount an off-by-one in the last digit. That makes it 2.9 rather than 3.0 and by the accuracy YOU YOURSELF SUPPORTED is the same number, within the rounding error.

    Yet you make out like this is a massive discrepancy.

    If so, it’s your own doing, dumbass.

  638. #639 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    And where IS the first half doubling from 280, dumdum?

    You are innumerate and a liar. However, the answer has already been supplied.

    Guess what happens when you do more accurately two half doublings, retard?

  639. #640 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    Remember, this is all from 593:

    “Since you’re such a genius, you will be able to work out that the first half of a doubling yields more forcing than the second half.”

    Ah, so another fucking clueless moron who thinks that 120 == 160.

    No, dumbass, you’re wrong.

    The first half of a doubling produces EXACTLY AS MUCH as the second half of a doubling.

    Because the interval is bigger for the second doubling, you retarded fuckwit. So the second doubling you get less PER LINEAR UNIT.

    BUT, and here is the fucking thing you and dick REALLY do not comprehend in your asinine stupidity, THE SAME LOGARITHMIC INTERVAL.

  640. #641 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “Log taper. Thanks.”

    Ah, this is a tape of your shit?

    Or do you not understand that the tapering off from a log/linear relationship is the values from a linear/linear relationship?

    Because to prove a log taper affects a logarithmic change (half doublings), you need to show it tapers for the first half doubling, then the next half doubling (so less than one full doubling), then the next half doubling and the one after that (so much less than two full doublings) and therefore that the terms diverge.

    If you manage that you’ve killed a lot of mathematics but have won several nobel prizes for it.

  641. #642 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    Here, lets just do the factors of doubling.

    By half doublings

    First half doubling: sqrt(2)^1
    Second half doubling sqrt(2)^2
    Third half doubling sqrt(2)^3
    Fourth half doubling sqrt(2)^4
    Fifth half doubling sqrt(2)^5
    Sixth half doubling sqrt(2)^6
    Seventh half doubling sqrt(2)^7
    Eighth half doubling sqrt(2)^8

    And lets compare to the equivalent range in full doublings:

    First doubling 2^1
    Second doubling 2^2
    Third Doubling 2^3
    Fourth Doubling 2^4

    Since you claim each subsequent half doubling produces less than the previous doubling, these two should diverge greatly in the last term presented, eight half-doublings being the equivalent four full-doublings.

    So is sqrt(2)^8 a lot less than 2^4?

    You’re innumerate and a liar, dumdum.

  642. #643 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    And if you proclaim this is invalid because ECS is ignored, then take a hypothetical atmosphere whose ECS is 1.

    Or if you insist we must use 3.0 as the only valid value, the final question becomes:

    does 3*sqrt(2)^8 diverge massively from 3*2^4?

    If you insist on logs being used, what is the use of ln(x)/ln(2) in your equation?

    Ah, I forget, you’re innumerate and a liar, dumdum.

  643. #644 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    And in case ln(x) is too abstract for you, what is:

    ln(1)/ln(2)
    ln(2)/ln(2)
    ln(3)/ln(2)
    ln(4)/ln(2)
    ?
    Does this pattern correlate to any other series that may be bandied around here in this thread on special needs teaching of maths?

  644. #645 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    Hint:

    ln(x)/ln(2)

    gives you how many doublings of one x is equal to.

    But you’re innumerate and lying, dumdum.

  645. #646 Jeff Harvey
    July 20, 2017

    Ed, Bernard responded to you @370. Clearly you passed that by. He essentially demolishes every one of your arguments one by one. Bernard is an ecologist like me and he is very well informed.

    To your points. Of course volcanoes and the sun affect climate. But as I said above you and the other deniers/luke warmers here write as if somehow thousands of independent scientists working around the world haven’t taken this into consideration. The IPCC reports went though 12 internal and 3 external rounds of peer-review. They involve a huge number of scientists combing through the empirical evidence. Every factor that may have contributed to the recent warming was taken into consideration and it was concluded beyond any reasonable doubt that humans are the primary driver. So there is no longer a debate on causation. Its primarily down to us. Period. End of story. The scientific debate is now focused on the potential repercussions of warming and of solutions. The process and causation debates are history, yet this is where much of the public debate is stuck.

    The real problem is that in the environmental and Earth sciences it seems that everyone, regardless of their education, thinks that they are an expert. I defer to the wisdom of the climate science community when it comes to expertise. Not some guy who studied electronics or another fellow who is an accountant. I study community and population ecology. Its like some guy who works in a bank refuting theories on isalnd biogeography based on his reading snippets here and there and then thinking he knows what he is talking about. I find that it takes remarkable hubris for a layman to somehow he thinks he knows more about certain fields of science than people who have been working in these fields for decades. But social media and blogs are full of these ‘armchair experts’ who claim to know more than statured experts. I have encountered huge numbers of them over the years on blogs.

    Wow was correct when he dismissed your argument about the fear of an impending ice age in the 1970s. Very, very few scientific articles made that claim; it is a tired and recylcled denier myth. Indeed, many more were already suggesting that if humans continued to release huge quantities of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere then there would be discernible effects on global climate by around the year 2000. The Johnson adminstration even commissioned a report on this back in 1965 and reached exactly that same conclusion. It has turned out to be correct.

    Right now the scientific debate once again is focused on solutions. What should we be doing to prevent global surface temperatures crashing through the 2 C threshold. Because if we don’t, the consequences for humanit are likely to be dire. Certainly, we will see widespread ecological collapse predicated around a spike in the extinction rate and a major disruption of ecosystem services across wide swathes of the biosphere. We are already too late to prevent some of the impending consequences, as we have procrastinated for over two decades while Rome has been burning. Time is running out: the longer we delay taking serious actions to rein in C02 concentrations, the more serious the consequences will be.

  646. #647 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    Well, technically, how many powers of two you have.

    Depends on how pedantic you want to get. Which with dumdum rounding 1.54…. to 1.5 then whining that rounding the two half doublings together isn’t exactly 3.0 if you rounded the first one down, who can tell how petty and small an issue will be brought up to hide his own massive error.

  647. #648 Wow
    July 20, 2017

    “What should we be doing to prevent global surface temperatures crashing through the 2 C threshold. ”

    And the usefulness of ECS is to work out what level of CO2 could be there and still keep a possibility of keeping to that 2C limit.

    TCR is much more useful as a measure to check what sensitvity of this world as it is in reality is, since it does not require waiting at a set CO2 level until equilibrium is reached.

    This also shows why insisting as dick does that it can only be defined and measured if you deliberately double CO2 is a maniac’s “idea”.

    If that were true, then we’d have to go to 3C warming (or 4C, maybe even higher) because dick demands we hold CO2 at 560ppm (and do nothing to stop it until then) to measure ECS.

    However this is not the case. If we held the CO2 at 450ppm (more accurately 444ppm), and it stabilises at 2C different, we know that ECS is 3C per doubling. Without actually doubling CO2. If we held CO2 at 396ppm and it stabilised at 2C anomaly, we know that ECS is 4C per doubling.

    And taking ratios is, despite dumdum’s alaurums actually mathematically correct. We can do those calcuations, and they ARE valid.

    NOTE: see that if ECS is 4C per doubling that we have already gone past 2C and MUST reduce atmospheric CO2 to keep below 2C anomaly?

  648. #649 Ed Thompson
    July 20, 2017

    Activity of Humans pursuing life will generate C02 and this includes the energy to support those activities. If we continue to keep reproducing to hit 10.5 Billion people and keep doing what we have been doing since 1963 the C02 levels could reach around 500 PPM. In your mind this would be a catastrophe. We are at 409 PPM now with 7.5 Billion people up from 321 PPM in 1963 when the world was at 3 Billion. The evidence does not show me a sudden exponential increase in C02 levels but rather an increase to perhaps around 500PPM. It is very likely the earth will not be able to support that many people so C02 levels may not even get to 500 PPM.
    Since 1963 oil consumption has increased from roughly 24 million barrels a day to some estimates as high as 96 million barrels per day. That is a 3.5 times increase. Why have C02 levels only increased (409 PPM-321 PPM =+88 PPM) by 1/4 of 1 over the same period of time? I don’t see exponential increases in C02 in the future. Even at 500ppm this represents .05% of the total atmosphere. Wow, time to pick on other atmosphere gases like ozone, nitrous oxide, methane and believe it or not H20. The fairytale is .05% of C02 in the atmosphere is more powerful in climate change than 126 million cubic miles of water, our sun, volcanoes and water in the form of clouds? Brainwashing at its best!

    No wonder Mr. Mann had to back down in his court challenge to Mr. Ball! Keep up the good fight. I admire your courage. By the way all the numbers quoted can be found on the internet. I expect to hear a lot of swearing and name calling on this submission. It is the only defense available.

  649. #650 Jeff Harvey
    July 20, 2017

    Note how semi-literate Ed once again worms his way out of the demolition by Bernard J @370 of his puerile arguments. Ed, trying (but failing miserably) does some elementary maths in his untrained brain and miraculously concludes that atmospheric concentrations of CO2 will peak around 500 ppm when the human population reaches around 10 billion. No empirical evidence is provided for this figure, it is merely made up on the spot by Ed, who clearly has never bern near a university-level lecture theater in his life. In his world correlation and causation are linear. Then even more laughably he makes the same, long discredited argument that since CO2 makes up only a tiny fraction of the atmosphere, that its influence is insubstantial. Then why not reduce that .05% to zero and see what happens? This argument is so utterly flawed and childish that there is no need to debunk it here.

    Ed and his ilk of ignoranti illustrate the perils and pitfalls of social media and the internet. Not only does this give simpletons like him a platform to air their myopic views, it also gives them an audience. And there are a huge number of gullible, uneducated people out there who are prone to believe the gibberish that people like Ed spew on blogs and elsewhere on venues like Facebook.

    As an aside, in terms of pedigree and knowledge, Tim Ball is not qualified to walk in the shoes of Michael Mann. Just a cursory look at their respective CVs reveals a gap tht is light years apart.

  650. #651 Li D
    Australia
    July 20, 2017

    #649 oh gawd its so freaking tedious.
    Look mate can ya please throw aliens into your spiel.
    Or force x. Or something.

  651. #652 Jeff Harvey
    July 20, 2017

    Please tell us all Ed what your day job is. I for one wait with baited breath. While you are at it I am curious as to how many peer-reviewed papers you have in the scientific literature. You exhibit such remarkable hubris when it comes to plugging your own wafer thin arguments that you must be a well published and cited scientist. How else could you so confidently accuse every Academy of Science in every nation on Earth, along with every major relevant scientific organization and 97% of scientists of brainwashing? Clearly you intimate that we are all part of the most nefariously well organized conspiracy in history. A conspiracy that has been exposed by an army of armchair-dwelling self professed experts with no formal scientific qualifications whatsoever.

    You people make me laugh.

  652. #653 Li D
    Australia
    July 20, 2017

    #650
    “In his world correlation and causation are linear”
    Thats my distinct impression as well.

  653. #654 Li D
    Australia
    July 20, 2017

    Now look you stupid denier scum, can you please come up
    with something new or just stay quiet.
    Challenging established ideas is a really very good and
    important thing. But once a challenge is established to be another crazy pile of shite, move on.
    Challenging involves original thinking, not regurgitation.

  654. #655 Wow
    July 21, 2017

    “Tim Ball is not qualified to walk in the shoes of Michael Mann. ”

    He’s not really qualified to be the bathroom attendant..

  655. #656 Wow
    July 21, 2017

    ” We are at 409 PPM now with 7.5 Billion people up from 321 PPM in 1963 when the world was at 3 Billion. ”

    Mathturbatory bullshit.

    If we used zero fossil fuels, the CO2 levels would go down because of drawdown of CO2 into the oceans.

  656. #657 Wow
    July 21, 2017

    ” That is a 3.5 times increase. Why have C02 levels only increased (409 PPM-321 PPM =+88 PPM)”

    Why do you not know? The IPCC report says. So you’re clearly just making shit up here out of think air.

  657. #658 Wow
    July 21, 2017

    “Even at 500ppm this represents .05% of the total atmosphere. ”

    and 0.05% of strychnine in you would be, what? 20g? Try eating 20g of Strychnine. See how well that works for you. It’s a meaninglessly small percent of your body weight, so according to you can not be causing anything.

  658. #659 Wow
    July 21, 2017

    ” The fairytale is .05% of C02 in the atmosphere is more powerful in climate change than 126 million cubic miles of water”

    Your fairytale is that 0.05% of CO2 greens the planet and is important to the growth of plants,and ignores126 million cubic miles of water, billions of cubic miles of Oxygen, all potassium, nitrogen, calcium, etc.

    You win the most ridiculous fairytale, dick Ed.

  659. #660 Wow
    July 21, 2017

    “No wonder Mr. Mann had to back down in his court challenge”

    No wonder you made that claim up. You have nothing, dick Ed.

  660. #661 Wow
    July 21, 2017

    “I expect to hear a lot of swearing and name calling”

    Because you’re trying to get that reaction you feculent retard.

    Swearing and name calling *are what you have earned*. Stop whining about it, shitstain.

  661. #662 Wow
    July 21, 2017

    ” It is the only defense available.”

    Against retards making shit up, because knowledge certainly doesn’t take place in their processes?

    Sure.

    You’re an ignorant dickhead, dick Ed, and the only way to make you fuck off is to make your experience as unpleasant as possible.

    IF you had been open to ANY sort of knowledge or facts, there would be other defences against you, because facts and knowledge work to dispel ignorance.

    But they do not dispel dunning kruger morons.

    Only dealing to them as they deal with others works.

    See all the whining and bitching and moaning you do about your (richly deserved) treatment. Clearly it is making an impact on you and making you feel like the shit you are.

  662. #663 Wow
    July 21, 2017

    “who are prone to believe the gibberish that people like Ed spew on blogs and elsewhere on venues like Facebook. ”

    I doubt believe is what happens. They just accept it. Hence their ability to “believe” (in actual fact, just accept) multiple contradictory claims. If they BELIEVED in any one of them, they could not hold to the others. But if they just gormlessly accept all claims that make them feel they are on the right side or that the people opposing them are on the wrong side, then they can accept each and every contradictory claim to that end.

    It’s one of several reasons that calling them the fuckwits they are is not damaging the cause of reality, since they’ll just find other excuses why reality is wrong. And their ego gets deflated. As long as some moronic tit doesn’t try to protest the deserved abuse they receive.

  663. #664 Wow
    July 21, 2017

    “our sun, volcanoes and water in the form of clouds?”

    Except they do not ignore them, dick Ed.

    But reading what the people you’re attacking are saying is more work than you need. You can just make this shit up and post it. Reality is not your thing. So why bother putting effort in, right?

    Hence your content free bullshit and rambling complaints have no effect on anyone sane or rational.

    Because they can all read and they can read the IPCC reports and KNOW how much ignorant bullshit your claim there is and treat the rest of that bilge the way it deserves, without spending more time and effort investigating.

  664. #665 Wow
    July 21, 2017

    “But once a challenge is established to be another crazy pile of shite, move on.”

    That would require effort making up another false position, though.

  665. #666 Dave Burton
    Cary, NC USA
    July 21, 2017

    Jeff Harvey wrote, “the rate of warming currently exceeds the ability of many species to adapt…”

    That is preposterous nonsensense.

    The rate of global warming is so tiny that it is utterly dwarfed by normal, natural climate fluctuations, and cyclical processes like ENSO.

    In fact, the rate of warming is so tiny that it is very difficult even to resolve with our measurements, as demonstrated by the fact that corrections & adjustments account for a large portion of the reported warming even in the United States, which has much better measurements than most places.

    Here’s what anthropogenic CO2 is really doing for the biosphere:

    tinyurl {dot} com {slash} glsb11

    Follow the link and learn that even wildly alarmist National Geographic (ScienceBlogs’s owner) admits that anthropogenic climate change is “greening” deserts, though they couldn’t quite bring themselves to say it’s the CO2 that’s responsible. Here’s an excerpt:


    Images taken between 1982 and 2002 revealed extensive regreening throughout the Sahel, according to a new study in the journal Biogeosciences.

    The study suggests huge increases in vegetation in areas including central Chad and western Sudan. …

    In the eastern Sahara area of southwestern Egypt and northern Sudan, new trees—such as acacias—are flourishing, according to Stefan Kröpelin, a climate scientist at the University of Cologne’s Africa Research Unit in Germany.

    “Shrubs are coming up and growing into big shrubs. This is completely different from having a bit more tiny grass,” said Kröpelin, who has studied the region for two decades. …

    “Before, there was not a single scorpion, not a single blade of grass,” he said.

    “Now you have people grazing their camels in areas which may not have been used for hundreds or even thousands of years. You see birds, ostriches, gazelles coming back, even sorts of amphibians coming back,” he said.

    “The trend has continued for more than 20 years. It is indisputable.”

    Here’s another fact for you to mull over: at least 15% of current agricultural productivity is a direct result of CO2 fertilization, from anthropogenic CO2 emissions. If mankind had to do without that additional production, we could almost, but not quite, make up the deficit by putting all the world’s rain forests under cultivation.

    The IPCC represents the Left/alarmist end of the spectrum of opinion, and they project a total “equilibrium” warming (“ECS”) of about 3°C (central value) for a “doubling” of CO2. (I think that’s too high.)

    Note that the warming effect of CO2 is logarithmically diminishing. The higher CO2 levels go, the less effect additional CO2 has. One ppmv of CO2 added today has only about 75% of the effect of one ppmv of CO2 added a century ago, when the average outdoor CO2 level was just over 300 ppmv.

    One “doubling” relative to “pre-industrial” (roughly 285 ppmv) means increasing CO2 by 285 ppmv, from 285 ppmv (in the early 1800s) to 570 ppmv (a level we’re likely to reach near the end of the 21st century).

    CO2 levels might someday exceed 570 ppmv, but probably not by much. The higher the levels go, the faster terrestrial and ocean feedbacks remove it, and there’s a limit to how much fossil fuel can be burned. For info on those feedbacks, google for CO2 Absorption By Water Feedback, CO2 Fertilization Feedback, and CO2 Coccolithophore Feedback, or see:

    tinyurl {dot} com {slash} glsb10

    Note that mankind will never get a 2nd “doubling.” That would require quadrupling the pre-industrial 285 ppmv, taking the total to 1140 ppmv, which is certainly impossible.

    What’s more, “equilibrium” means after several centuries, and the anthropogenic CO2 “pulse” probably won’t stay above 400 ppmv for that long. “Transient climate response” (TCR) is estimated to be about 2/3 of ECS. If the IPCC is right, that means about 2°C, and it is generally agreed that TCR is a better metric for realistic projections over moderate timescales.

    Compared to “pre-industrial” (Little Ice Age) temperatures, if you accept all the adjustments, which have increased the reported warming, we’re up about 1°C so far. If you doubt the correctness of the adjustments (as I do) it’s even less.

    If all of the warming since the Little Ice Age is due to anthropogenic GHGs (as the IPCC assumes but I doubt), then 1°C of warming so far is consistent with TCR of about 2°C, which means ECS of about 3°C — the IPCC’s central value — because the CO2 we’ve added to the atmosphere (taking CO2 from about 285 ppmv to about 405 ppmv) is already about half of one “doubling.” (+120 might not seem like half of +285, but that’s what it is on a log-scale, which I think even BBD & Wow have finally agreed on, above.)

    Of course, those numbers depends on the IPCC’s assumption that all (or even more than “all!”) of the warming so far was anthropogenic. In other words, it depends on the assumption that the Little Ice Age would never have ended if it weren’t for the influence of human GHG emissions. I think that’s unlikely, and if some of that post-LIA warming was natural, then TCR & ECS are even lower.

    If CO2 gets to 570 ppmv — which is likely near the end of the century, absent a big shift to nuclear or other non-fossil-fuel energy — that would represent one full “doubling” since pre-industrial levels. From that, even using the IPCC’s numbers, we should expect a total of only about 2°C warming from that CO2 level compared to the Little Ice Age, and eventually 3°C warming if CO2 levels were to stay at that level for several centuries (which is unlikely).

    But we’ve already experienced about 1°C of that warming. So the net warming compared to present should be only about an additional 1°C (TCR) or 2°C (ECS).

    So, figure on only 1 to 2 °C of additional warming, if the IPCC is right, by the end of the century.

    That’s not much. For comparison:
    * From ice core isotope analysis it is believed that Antarctica warmed a total of about 10 °C over the course of the last deglaciation.
    * In Raleigh, NC, daily temperature swings average around 12 °C.
    * In Raleigh, NC, seasonal temperature swings average around 23 °C.
    * 1 °C of warming is roughly equivalent to moving only about 50 miles south, in the United States.
    * 1 °C of warming is about the same temperature change as you would get from a reduction in elevation of 500 feet (based on a 6.5°C/km avg lapse rate).

    So, for example, if you were to move to a house 25 miles south and 250 feet lower in elevation, the climate at your new location would average about 1 °C. You would probably notice no difference in the local wildlife populations and vegetation.

    In other words, even using the IPCC’s pessimistic figures, the effects of the expected warming will be slight.

  666. #667 Wow
    July 21, 2017

    “That is preposterous nonsensense.”

    Well, I don’t know what the term that is comletely the opposite of “preposterous nonsense”, so I’ll just tell you, no, it isn’t. You can find the technical term.

  667. #668 Wow
    July 21, 2017

    “So, figure on only 1 to 2 °C of additional warming, if the IPCC is right, by the end of the century.”

    Over the 1.2C we’ve had so far??? When most of that was in the last 50 years?

    Clearly THAT is preposterous nonsense!

    Oh, and an extra 2C makes 3C overall. And 3C is the difference between the Holocene optimum and a mile deep ice cube over New York state.

    So kinda stupid to claim that such a change is minor, dumbass.

  668. #669 Wow
    July 21, 2017

    “the effects of the expected warming will be slight.”

    More preposterous nonsense.

  669. #670 Dave Burton
    Cary, NC USA
    July 21, 2017

    Typo correction (2nd-to-last paragraph):

    “…the climate at your new location would average about 1 °C.”

    should have been:

    “… the climate at your new location would average about 1 °C warmer.”

  670. #671 Wow
    July 21, 2017

    “at least 15% of current agricultural productivity is a direct result of CO2 fertilization, ”

    That is a complete lie.

  671. #672 Wow
    July 21, 2017

    “Here’s what anthropogenic CO2 is really doing for the biosphere:”

    Linking to not the biosphere. Merely a tiny segment.

    Cherry picked in a world where we have vastly improved our techniques for irrigation over “a trough with water flowing through it” level of sophistication.

  672. #673 Wow
    July 21, 2017

    “and they project a total “equilibrium” warming (“ECS”) of about 3°C (central value) for a “doubling” of CO2. (I think that’s too high.)”

    Based on what? Your ass pull?

  673. #674 Wow
    July 21, 2017

    “That’s not much. For comparison:”

    Moronic comparison.

    For comparison, 3C is the difference between oceans being at current sea level and the oceans being 92m higher.

  674. #675 Wow
    July 21, 2017

    “So, for example, if you were to move to a house 25 miles south ”

    From the South pole? How do you do that, moron?

    The entirety of your comparisons are invalid because the difference isn’t in one location, it’s over all locations. So when the poles are 10C warmer, the global average is 3C warmer. And 10C above its current level and there’s no summer ice whatsoever at either pole and then we have huge inundations.

    Even if the poles were kept to 2C warmer, this would reduce the polar ice massively and this would not be a good thing for people living near the sea. Which is 70% of humanity.

  675. #676 Wow
    July 21, 2017

    “* 1 °C of warming is about the same temperature change as you would get from a reduction in elevation of 500 feet (based on a 6.5°C/km avg lapse rate).”

    So how much would it cost to move all the cities of the world, including all farmland, 500m up in the air? And where would we get the rock and soil from to do that?

  676. #677 Wow
    July 21, 2017

    And would we not have to do it again every 100 years because you insist it’s not worth stopping burning fossil fuels for such a “small effect”?

    Have you included the costing for your inaction in your “not much to worry about” claims?

  677. #678 Wow
    July 21, 2017

    “* 1 °C of warming is roughly equivalent to moving only about 50 miles south, in the United States.”

    OK, so now much would it cost to move all the cities of the USA north 50 miles, including all the farmland? And do this every 100 years?

  678. #679 Wow
    July 21, 2017

    And given Canada is on your northern border, will you merkins have to pile up on the US side of the US/Canada border until it warms enough for some of you to be moved to Alaska to regain their previous climate in the warming world you prefer?

  679. #680 Li D
    July 21, 2017

    #678
    As i am sure you realise wow, often farmland cant just move.
    There could be well be soil issues. And deforestation issues.
    And even altitude issues, And unkown new pest and weed issues.
    Deniers are fucked in the head.

  680. #681 Dave Burton
    July 21, 2017

    Wow wrote, “3C is the difference between the Holocene optimum and a mile deep ice cube over New York state.”

    It’s more like 6 °C, from what I’ve read (or much more than that, if you talking specifically about New York State).

    Speaking of the Holocene Climate Optimum, do you agree that it was probably, on average, warmer than our present climate?

  681. #682 Wow
    July 21, 2017

    “As i am sure you realise wow, often farmland cant just move.”

    But DAVE thinks it can. Just move it 50 miles north every 100 years!

    After all, he wouldn’t have made the claim if it wasn’t relevant, would he??!?!?

  682. #683 Wow
    July 21, 2017

    And you can move it. Just hire enough trucks to carry the soil 50 miles and dump it there. Dave has the figures, I’m sure.

  683. #684 Wow
    July 21, 2017

    “Wow wrote, “3C is the difference between the Holocene optimum and a mile deep ice cube over New York state.”

    It’s more like 6 °C, ”

    Nope. More like 3C.

    The global figure is less than the poles’ change. It’s a well known and easily seen phenomenon called “Polar Amplification”.

    Anyone who had done enough work to make a claim like “from what I’ve read ” and be believed would have read enough to know that.

    You, however, did not.

    Odd that, innit.

  684. #685 Wow
    July 21, 2017

    “Speaking of the Holocene Climate Optimum, do you agree that it was probably, on average, warmer than our present climate?”

    No.

    Speaking of agreement, do you agree that your claims and references are all bullshit?

  685. #686 Wow
    July 21, 2017

    ” if you talking specifically about New York State).”

    So you think that during the ice age when NYS was under a mile of ice, that ice came from NYS????

    Can you agree that was a fucking stupid claim of yours, rodney?

  686. #687 Wow
    July 21, 2017

    LiD @680, I wonder what dave will insist you have to do. If you move Sydney 50 miles south, you’re in the ocean. Adelaide and Melbourne don’t manage much better…

  687. #688 Li D
    Australia
    July 21, 2017

    #687
    Australias soils are massivly depleted compared to other places.
    Ya cant just move around growing any old thing willy nilly.
    Temp is just one factor in agriculture.

    Another issue denier muppets dont think about is how much
    ground water is utilized and how much will be fucked up
    by encroaching sea level. So even if a farm isnt submerged,
    its primary water source might be rooted.
    Just keep driving your V8s and using clothes dryers and dont worry about these things you stupid dumb yank denier fuckwits

  688. #689 Wow
    July 21, 2017

    “Australias soils are massivly depleted compared to other places.”

    But if dave tells you how you dig up and move the land 50 miles south, you can be assured it will be well watered! With lots of minerals!

    But it would have to be enough soil to get above sea level, because even dave can’t claim that being under water is good for farmland…

  689. #690 Dave Burton
    Cary, NC USA
    July 21, 2017

    I wrote, “at least 15% of current agricultural productivity is a direct result of CO2 fertilization,”

    Wow replied, “That is a complete lie.”

    The fact that you were unaware of it does not make it a lie.

    Have you ever heard of Freeman Dyson? He’s America’s most illustrious living scientist. He took over Albert Einstein’s job at Princeton. He probably has more IQ points than the two of us combined:

    tinyurl {dot} com {slash} glsb12

    That 15% estimate is based on thousands of studies, which have shown that increased CO2 levels are dramatically beneficial for agriculture. In private email Prof. Dyson agreed with me that 15% is a conservative estimate.

    Since the industrial revolution, mankind has increased average outdoor CO2 levels by about 120 or 125 ppmv, from just under 0.03% of the atmosphere (by volume) to just over 0.04%. (Indoor CO2 levels are often much higher.) Two-thirds of that increase has come in the last fifty years.

    But CO2 levels are still far below optimum, for most plants. Commercial greenhouses usually elevate CO2 levels by 800 to 1100 ppmv, to optimum levels of 1200 to 1500 ppmv — i.e., 6 to 9 times the outdoor increase to date.

    Yet even the small outdoor increase to, from ~280 or 285 ppmv to ~405 ppmv, has resulted in large improvements in crop yields.

    The indispensable CO2Science dot org web site has a massive index of scientific studies of the effects of elevated CO2 on hundreds of different plants. The studies show that nearly all plants benefit from extra CO2.

    Almost all crops benefit from additional CO2. Most crops use “C3” photosynthesis, and C3 crops benefit the most, but even “C4” crops benefit if there’s risk of drought.

    A level of 1200 – 1500 ppmv is optimal for most C3 plants, but levels much higher than that are well-tolerated by both plants and animals. NASA kept the atmosphere in the Space Shuttle at about 5000 ppmv (0.5%) CO2. The air in the International Space Station is kept at about 4 mm Hg = 5400 ppmv (0.54%) CO2. In submarines, CO2 levels are often even higher.

    There’s no excuse for climate campaigners to be ignorant of these facts. It is not new information. Here’s an article from Scientific American nearly a century ago:

    tinyurl {dot} com {slash} 1920sciamCO2

    In that article, Scientific American called anthropogenic CO2 “the precious air fertilizer.” From their photos you can certainly see why.

    Wow also attributed the greening of the Sahel to, “vastly improved… techniques for irrigation over “a trough with water flowing through it” level of sophistication.”

    But he just made that up. That land is not irrigated.

    “Wow,” why are you so anxious to disbelieve good news, that you’ll even invent nonsense like that, grasping at straws to try to avoid acknowledging the scientifically proven benefits of anthropogenic CO2?

  690. #691 Li D
    Australia
    July 21, 2017

    Just had a specific thought about all that bore irrigated sugar cane growing right on the coast in QLD.
    And no doubt in the Caribbean.
    Nah, dont worry about it deniers. Its all good eh.

  691. #692 Dave Burton
    Cary, NC USA
    July 21, 2017

    Wow wrote, “Even if the poles were kept to 2C warmer, this would reduce the polar ice massively…”

    Antarctica averages more than 40° below zero. 2° or 10° won’t melt it.

    But reduced sea-ice coverage would increase lake/ocean-effect snowfall on the ice sheets. Do you know what that would do for the ice mass?

    (If you don’t know then google search for “Glacier Girl”.)

  692. #693 dean
    July 21, 2017

    ” He’s America’s most illustrious living scientist.”

    You’re kidding, right?

  693. #694 Li D
    Australia
    July 21, 2017

    #690
    “… disbelieve good news ”
    My god. How can say that with a straight face.
    Get fucked you idjit.

  694. #695 Dave Burton
    Cary, NC USA
    July 21, 2017

    I wrote, “1 °C of warming is roughly equivalent to moving only about 50 miles south, in the United States… So, for example, if you were to move to a house 25 miles south and 250 feet lower in elevation…”

    Wow replied, “From the South pole? How do you do that, moron?”

    Last time I checked, the south pole was not “in the United States.”

    Maybe it should be.
     

    Wow also wrote, “OK, so now much would it cost to move all the cities of the USA north 50 miles, including all the farmland?”

    and Li D added, “often farmland cant just move…”

    Sorry if I was unclear, gentlemen.

    The point is that you don’t need to move anyting. The cities are just as nice 100 miles south of here. The farmland is just as productive, too.

    That means a degree or two of warming will not make the Raleigh less nice, or the local farms less productive.

    Do y’all understand, now?
     

    Wow added, “every 100 years!”

    Whereever did you get the idea that global warming will continue to increase temperatures, century after century?

    It won’t. Powerful negative (stabilizing) feedbacks, and the finite supply of fossil fuels ensure that cannot happen.

    I’ve already pointed out that there will never be a “2nd doubling” of CO2. The higher CO2 levels go, the faster negative feedbacks like terrestrial greening and coccolithophore feedback remove it, and the less warming effect additional CO2 has on temperatures. See:

    tinyurl {dot} com {slash} glsb10

  695. #696 Jeff Harvey
    July 21, 2017

    Dave, you don’t know who the heck I am or what I do and yet you think you can stand fade to face with me and debate this. You are writing all kinds of nonsensical gobbledegook up here, very little if any of it gleaned from the peer-reviewed literature. Indeed, what I see from your words is a profoundly shallow understanding of complex adaptive systems, species interactions, communities and ecosystems, unfortuneately amplified by your own Dunning-Kruger infused ego. For all I know you drive a taxi or work in a bank; one thing that is for certain is that you aren’t a scientist and don’t have a clue what the hell you are talking about. Like a car withour breaks, you vastly overestimate your knowledge and think that you can debate me on the science. You can’t. Not even close. In an academic venue I would demolish you. The problem with blogs is that you can hiot and run,. Write some garbage then hide behind a wall.

    I am a population ecologist and a Professor in Amsterdam whose research in part studies multitrophic interactions under climate change scenarios; I have 180 plus papers in the empirical literature and over 5500 citations of my work; your totals are likely to be 0 and 0 respectively. So we are starting on very, very uneven intellectual playing fields and it shows in the pile of unadulterated rubbish you spewed @666.

    It’s hard to know where to begin debunking your childsih waffle, clearly which you have gleaned from a blog here and an online source there. None of this is remotely plausible, but since you vastly overestimate your own knowledge you think that you have something useful to say.

    You don’t. Charles Darwin describes people like you to a tee: ‘Ignorance begets confidence more often than knowledge’. Stephen Hawking describes you well too: ‘The big problem is not ignorance, but the illusion of knowledge’.

    Ever hear of a tropical scientist named Daniel Janzen? I thought not. In 1974 Janzen said that ‘the ultimate extinction is the extinction of species interactions’. What climate change is doing – and scientific journals are full of studies reporting it – is differentially affecting rthe ecophysiology of species involved in tightly linked trophic interaction networks. In other words we are seeing many examples of phenological asynchrony among plant-herbivore-predator interactions up the food chain caused by differential effects of warming on various members of these chains. We know that a number of resident and migratory songbirds in Europe are declining because they have become desynchronized with the optimum supply of caterpillar food due to much warmer winters and minimal night temperatures that are allowing many insects to emerge earlier and earlier in spring whereas the birds are arriving on their breeding grounds at the same time owing to the fact that they use cues other than temperature to intiate migration from their wintering grounds. And the current rate of warming, as accepted by every relevant major scientific organization and National Academy in every nation on Earth far exceeds in terms of rate comparable changes that have probably occurred over the past several hundreds of thousands of years or longer. We are effectively squeezing into a century or less temperature changes that would normally take thousands of years to unfold. This is occurring against a background of a suite of other anthropogenic stresses creating a synergism: habitat loss and fragmentation, invasive species, overharvesting, and other forms of pollution are all in the mix. Biodiversity did not have to contend with such an array of multiple threats in the past. This is exactly why we are now officially living in the Anthropocene. Now I know that when it comes to science you are essentially illiterate, as your two appalling posts showed. But there are a number of reviews published e.g. by Parmesan, Post etc. in rigid journals like Nature and Science which describe in detail the effects of warming so far on species, communtiies and ecosystems in terrestrial and aquatic biomes across the planet. So before you come on here again thinking somehow that your high school science is up to my university standard, I suggest that you read a lot more. Ever read anything from the following journals – Ecology Letters, Oikos, Ecology, Journal of Animal Ecology, Functional Ecology, Ecosystems, Biological Invasions, Global Change Biology, Ecosphere, Ecology and Evolution, Oecologia, PLoS Biology, Nature, Nature Climate Change, Science, Science Advances et al? I thought not. I have published papers in most of them.

    As for your ‘greening’ meme, this has been utterly debunked so many times and yet simpletons like you cling to it like there is no tomorrow. Certainly SOME (though certainly not all) plants benefit under increased C02/warmth scenarios BUT ONLY TO A POINT. Enough experiments have been done and papers published to show that there are limits to C uptake and to thermal tolerance. Plants exhibit well defined distributions based on a wide array of biotic and abiotic conditions that render certain places (but not others) optimal for growth and reproduction. A plant cannot simply uproot and move hundreds of miles northwards if certain areas fall outside of their thermal optimum. We are already seeing widespread movements of plants and animals polewards and to higher elevations as a result of the recent warming episode. We are also seeing changes in season growth and flowering patterns, some of which are desynchronzing interactions with specialist pollinators. Moreover, a plant’s ability to deal with increased C will be influenced by its carbon pathway e.g. C3, C4 or CAM.

    And then there is a little thing you know nothing about (obviously) called stoichiometry. Another constraint is that bigger plants are not necessarily healthier, because increased folirar C comes at the expense of decreased foliar N, P and other limiting nutrients. Moreover, C is not a limiting nutrient for consumers (herbivores and natural enemies) but N and P are. Plants with increased C incorporated into their tissues will be less nutiritous, meaning that herbivores will exhibit compensatory feeding to make up for N deficiency. Tons of papers are showing this with arthropod herbivores. And on top of this, plants produce secondary metabolities (allelochemicals) that have no metabolic function but are instead used in defence against pathogens and herbivores. We know that these defenses are usually C or N based. Plants with C based defenses are becoming more toxic – resesarch in Australia suggests that Eucalyptus, which has C based defenses, are even becoming toxic to koalas. Plants with N based defenses on the other hand are becoming less toxic and therefore more vulnerable to attack from their enemies. And of course since plants exhibit different physiological responses to warming and changes in atmospheric concentrations of C this means that there will be winners and losers – the end result being the simplification of plant communities that will (indeed already are) rippling up through to food chanin.

    Of course you don’t know any of this. You have a superifical understanding of complexity and it shows. The trouble is that social media gives clots like you bloth a platform and an audience. I encounter armchair ‘experts’ like you every day of the week, unfortunately. The problem is not among most people who can see through your nonsense, but that small number of fence sitters to whom you sound superficially convincing. Its the only reason i waste my breath on you. If you stood before an audience at a scientific conference and spewed out this nonsense you would be laughed out of the venue. Sadly, some people might think that you are informed on a blog. You most certainly aren’t.

  696. #698 Li D
    Australia
    July 21, 2017

    Heres a link to the glacier girl thingie.
    Could be of interest to WW2 history buffs.

    https://www.damninteresting.com/exhuming-the-glacier-girl/

  697. #699 dean
    July 21, 2017

    He clearly does not read the primary literature.

    As is repeatedly demonstrated by him, mikeN, rickA, and the other science deniers who post here. Their posts also make it abundantly clear their understanding of statistics ends with the sample mean.

  698. #700 Dave Burton
    Cary, NC USA
    July 21, 2017

    Jeff wrote, “you don’t know who the heck I am or what I do…”

    I do know who you are.
     

    Jeff wrote, “You are writing all kinds of nonsensical gobbledegook up here, very little if any of it gleaned from the peer-reviewed literature…”

    Wrong. There have been literally thousands of peer-reviewed studies of the effects of CO2 on plants, and I’ve told you where to find them. But you apparently can’t be bothered to read them.
     

    Jeff wrote, “It’s hard to know where to begin debunking your childsih waffle…”

    The reason it is “hard” for you to debunk is that what I wrote is correct. If you could debunk it you wouldn’t have to resort to childish insults.
     

    Jeff wrote, “the current rate of warming… far exceeds in terms of rate comparable changes that have probably occurred over the past several hundreds of thousands of years or longer. We are effectively squeezing into a century or less temperature changes that would normally take thousands of years to unfold.”

    That fallacy is a product of statistical illiteracy. Most paleoclimate information, inferred from indirect evidence like marine sediments and ice cores, is naturally “smoothed,” by processes which blend the evidence from consecutive decades, centuries, and millennia. As any engineer knows, when you smooth a graph, sharp fluctuations disappear.

    But some people don’t understand that. They see a paleoclimate graph and say, “look, it took ten thousand years to change by 5°, that’s much slower than the 20th century!” But, of course, they have no way of knowing how many times it went up or down by 2° in a decade during that ten thousand years.

    The evidence is strong that climate has changed very abruptly in the past, much more abruptly than the slight warming we’ve seen over the last century.
    Ref: doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2004.10.016

    The evidence is also very strong that there’s nothing at all unusual about the modest warming which the Earth has experienced over the last century. The current Modern Climate Optimum is very similar to the Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Climate Optimum, and probably cooler than the Holocene Optimum, which was probably cooler than the Eemian interglacial.
     

    Jeff wrote, “…against a background of a suite of other anthropogenic stresses…”

    That is true.
     

    Jeff wrote, “As for your ‘greening’ meme, this has been utterly debunked so many times…”

    With all due respect, you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    AR5 — hardly a skeptic source — estimates that the terrestrial biosphere removes about (2.5/9.2) = 27% [p. 6-3] or 29% [Fig. 6.1] of anthropogenic CO2 emissions from the atmosphere, each year, through enhanced plant growth, because anthropogenic CO2 is “greening” the Earth. Where do you think all that enhanced plant growth is going?

    Here’s a recent paper:
    doi:10.1038/nclimate3004

    Here’s a NASA article about it:
    tinyurl {dot} com {slash} glsb13

    Excerpt:

    From a quarter to half of Earth’s vegetated lands has shown significant greening over the last 35 years largely due to rising levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide, according to a new study published in the journal Nature Climate Change…

     

    Jeff wrote, “Certainly SOME (though certainly not all) plants benefit under increased C02/warmth scenarios BUT ONLY TO A POINT.”

    Wrong.

    First of all, the “warmth scenarios” bit is obfuscation. Stop it. We were talking about CO2 fertilization.

    Of course you can always find ways of stressing plants. If you bake plants with heat lamps or similar (Shaw, Zavaleta, et al, 2002), or if you try to grow crops which are inappropriate for the local climate, you can stunt or kill them. That’s a red herring: farmers know how to choose crops which are appropriate for the local climate, and they don’t bake their crops under heat lamps.

    The fact is that C3 plants benefit very dramatically from additional CO2, to levels far beyond what we could ever hope to reach outdoors. Optimum CO2 for C3 plants is around 1500 ppmv; we’ll be very lucky to ever get to even 600 ppmv, outdoors.

    Most C4 plants benefit little from additional CO2 when grown under otherwise ideal conditions, but they benefit considerably when under drought stress.
     

    Jeff continued, “Enough experiments have been done and papers published to show that there are limits to C uptake and to thermal tolerance.”

    Of course there are limits to thermal tolerance, but temperature changes on the order of one or two tenths of a degree per decade are not problematic.

    For C3 plants, there is no practical limit beyond which increases in outdoor CO2 level would not benefit them.

    Of course that doesn’t mean wheat, rice, fruits & vegetables can be infinitely productive. What it means is that, unfortunately, we can never hope to drive outdoor CO2 up to anywhere near the optimum level for C3 crops.

    C4 and CAM plants also benefit, but less dramatically.

    C4 plants mainly benefit under drought stress. But the most important C4 crops are frequently grown where there’s drought risk, so CO2 is very helpful.

    There’s only one economically significant CAM crop, and that’s pineapples. They benefit modestly from additional CO2, as well.

    And how do I know that, you might be wondering? The answer is that it has been studied.

    The peer-reviewed papers about a wide variety of studies of the effects of CO2 on various plants are very nicely indexed at co2science dot org. If you ask about the effect of elevated CO2 on plant xyz, that’s where you can find the papers about the relevant studies.

    I’m late for an appointment, so that’ll have to be all for now.

  699. #701 Li D
    Australia
    July 21, 2017

    “…against a background of a suite of other anthropogenic stresses…”
    ^^^^^ This needs waaaay more highlighting in dialog.
    If you took away all the current climate change, the current
    antho impacts are enormous in their own right.
    Enormous in scale and complexity. Throw climate change
    on top and well, we are clearly in deep deep shit.
    It mystifies me that this is not obvious to all.

  700. #702 dean
    July 21, 2017

    Dave’s source explains his stupid comments.

  701. #703 Li D
    Australia
    July 21, 2017

    Im so bored by deniers repetitive crap im gunna help em.
    SLR is a good thing cuz their will be more water for the fish to
    swim around in and we can catch more fish. Yum yum.

    No doubt rhe denier scum are all over changes and threats to river and mangrove ecology.

  702. #704 Li D
    Australia
    July 21, 2017

    #700
    “First of all, the “warmth scenarios” bit is obfuscation. Stop it. ”
    Bwhahahahaha

  703. #705 Bernard J.
    July 21, 2017

    Dave Burton:

    But CO2 levels are still far below optimum, for most plants. Commercial greenhouses usually elevate CO2 levels by 800 to 1100 ppmv, to optimum levels of 1200 to 1500 ppmv — i.e., 6 to 9 times the outdoor increase to date.

    and

    The fact is that C3 plants benefit very dramatically from additional CO2, to levels far beyond what we could ever hope to reach outdoors. Optimum CO2 for C3 plants is around 1500 ppmv; we’ll be very lucky to ever get to even 600 ppmv, outdoors.

    Jeff’s already tried to correct your simplistic understanding of the issue, but it bears repeating given that you seem refractory to learning.

    First, the greenhouse situation is artifical, where multiple abiotic and biotic parameters are carefully adjusted to avoid the results of Sprengel’s/Liebig’s law of the minimum. In open air agriculture/horticulture and in natural systems, the (often slight) benefit of extra CO₂ is lost courtesy of Messrs Sprengel and Liebig.

    Worse than being lost though, there are many negative consequences of altering the proportions of growth input. Nutritional imbalance and pest resistance Jeff touched on, but there are also impacts on structural strength, phenological dissynchronies and other trophic relationship alterations – amongst other effects.

    Further, in practice the relationship between growth and extra CO₂ rapidly breaks down with the concommittent impacts that CO₂ has on climate. C3 plants cannot tolerate too much of an increase in temperature above their thermal envelopes – increased warmth increases the rate at which RuBisCO photorespirates compared to its carbon fixation function, and this has a growth antagonism effect. Also, the decrease in soil moisture that accompanies warming results in stomatal closure, which further skews the CO₂:O₂ ratio in the internal milieu, increasing photorespiration, and again leads to reduced growth.

    Increasing growth using carbon dioxide is not a one-knob phenomenon. It’s incredibly complex, and requires a sohpisticated understanding of the requirements of each species whose growth enhancement is desired. Claiming that CO₂ is a great way to increase photosynthetic production is no different to claiming that dynamiting a reef or lake is a great way to increase fish catches.

    Finally, there’s your misunderstanding of the very concept of “optimum, for most plants.” Plants are very largely evolved to photosynthesise CO₂ at concentrations around 200-300 ppm. There are many studies that show that when CO₂ concentration increases above this on an evolutionary scale, plants respond by reducing their stomatal densities in order to reduce water loss – effectively they don’t need the extra CO₂, even in a competitive ecosystem, because it’s not the rate-limiting factor. If it was, evolution would probably have developed great efficiencies in photosynthetic pathways than occurs now: that it hasn’t, and that stomatal densities can be reduced in elevated CO₂ environments, indicates that it’s already optimum compared to the overall availablility of other growth factors in the biosphere.

    The bottom line that this is from where you’re blowing it…

  704. #706 Bernard J.
    July 21, 2017

    The peer-reviewed papers about a wide variety of studies of the effects of CO2 on various plants are very nicely indexed…

    by a CO₂ industry propganda site that has a propensity to misrepresent the significance of much of the literature.

    Also, there’s more than one “significant CAM crop”. It’s a curious bias of the First World (fossil fueled) corporate sector, and their happily lapping yap-dog zombies, that fails to understand this…

  705. #707 Dave Burton
    Cary, NC USA
    July 22, 2017

    Bernard J wrote, “the greenhouse situation is artifical, where multiple abiotic and biotic parameters are carefully adjusted to avoid the results of Sprengel’s/Liebig’s law of the minimum. In open air agriculture/horticulture and in natural systems, the (often slight) benefit of extra CO₂ is lost courtesy of Messrs Sprengel and Liebig.”

    That’s actually the opposite of the truth.

    In both open air agriculture and greenhouses, farmers routinely supplement with fertilizer as required, to make up for nutrient deficiencies in the soil. So there’s no difference there.

    Alternately, since nitrogen fertilization can be quite expensive, farmers may opt to grow clover or other legumes, which fix nitrogen — and, fortunately, extra CO2 is extremely beneficial for nitrogen-fixing legumes.
    Refs:
    doi:10.1111/j.1365-2486.2005.00935.x
    doi:10.2135/cropsci2005.10-0378

    The four big benefits of greenhouses over open fields are:
    1. greenhouses are warmer
    2. greenhouses are almost always provided with extra CO2
    3. greenhouses are never subject to drought
    4. greenhouses can protect plants from many pests

    One disadvantage is that crops in greenhouses receive a bit less sunlight than crops in open fields.

    Note that fertilization is not one of the differences. Farmers know how to fertilize their crops, as necessary. Most wheat and corn fields are fertilized, but not irrigated.

    #3 has an implication that you apparently were unaware of, Bernard. Greenhouse crops never experience drought, but field crops often do. Since additional CO2 is enormously beneficial to crops under drought stress, including even C4 crops (mainly corn, barley & millet), additional CO2 benefits unirrigated field crops more than it benefits greenhouse crops.

    The benefits of extra CO2 for agriculture are dramatic, and the negative consequences are nonexistent.

    That’s why, even though extra CO2 is less valuable in greenhouses than it is in unirrigated fields, virtually all commercial greenhouses supplement CO2, at significant expense, to raise the level far above outdoor ambient, typically to 1200 – 1500 ppmv.
     

    Bernard J continued, “Further, in practice the relationship between growth and extra CO₂ rapidly breaks down with the concommittent impacts that CO₂ has on climate. C3 plants cannot tolerate too much of an increase in temperature…”

    Wrong. The very small temperature differences we’re talking about have negligible effect on agricultural productivity. Claims to the contrary ignore the fact that farmers know how to pick the crops and cultivars that are best suited for their local growing conditions.

    Wheat is a C3 crop. If you think it “cannot tolerate too much of an increase in temperature” then how do you explain the fact that it is grown profitably from Lousiana to Canada?

    Google (potato cultivation map) and see Maine and Florida are both major potato producers.
     

    Bernard J continued, “the decrease in soil moisture that accompanies warming results in stomatal closure, which further skews the CO₂:O₂ ratio in the internal milieu, increasing photorespiration, and again leads to reduced growth.”

    You are badly confused.

    In the first place, although warmer temperatures do increase evaporation, there’s no evidence that anthropogenic warming decreases net average soil moisture.

    In fact, droughts are declining as CO2 levels rise. For a recent relevant article, Google search for this headline:

    U.S. drought reaches record low as rain reigns

    (I wish I could post links, but when I try that my comments never appear.)

    The reduced stomatal density associated with higher CO2 levels enables plants to get the carbon they need while needing less soil moisture, and using less water through transpiration.

    So in unirrigated crops under drought-stressed conditions, CO2 is even more beneficial to crops than when there is plenty of water.

    In irrigated crops, the extra CO2 reduces the amount of water needed for irrigation.
     

    Bernard J continued, “there’s your misunderstanding of the very concept of “optimum, for most plants.” Plants are very largely evolved to photosynthesise CO₂ at concentrations around 200-300 ppm. There are many studies that show that when CO₂ concentration increases above this on an evolutionary scale, plants respond by reducing their stomatal densities in order to reduce water loss – effectively they don’t need the extra CO₂, even in a competitive ecosystem, because it’s not the rate-limiting factor.”

    You are the one who is confused, Bernard. The fact that plants which are benefiting from extra CO2 reduce their stomatal densities and water usage does not mean they don’t also increase their growth. It’s not an either-or proposition, it’s a “some-of-each” proposition.

    Extra CO2 helps plants both</b by improving growth and by reducing their water usage.
     

    Bernard J continued, “If it was, evolution would probably have developed great efficiencies in photosynthetic pathways than occurs now: that it hasn’t…”

    Is that a joke?!?

    O2 is at 21%, CO2 is at 0.04%. Just how far down would it have to go before you considered plants’ ability to scavenge carbon from the atmosphere to exhibit “great efficiencies?”

    Have you ever wondered about the high level of free oxygen in the Earth’s atmosphere?

    On Venus and Mars nearly all the oxygen in the atmosphere is in the form of CO2. O2 is nearly non-existent, because it is highly reactive, and combines with other elements to make less-reactive, more stable molecules, like CO2 and H2O.

    But on Earth, other than some water vapor, 99.8% of the oxygen in the atmosphere is in the form of O2, and only 0.2% is in CO2, despite fires and animal respiration which constantly produce CO2 from O2.

    Have you ever wondered why that is true?

    The correct answer is that it’s because CO2-hungry living things have stripped nearly all the CO2 from the atmosphere, to get the carbon, releasing the O2 as a waste product. That’s why, although 21% of the Earth’s atmosphere is oxygen, CO2 levels are measured in parts-per-million.

    The CO2/O2 balance is determined mainly by a race between plants and animals. Animals use O2 and produce CO2; plants use CO2 and produce O2. But there are a lot more plants than animals, and in the tug-o-war between plants and animals the plants have won. They’ve tugged the CO2-O2 tug-of-war rope all the way to the end. Animals are relatively scarce, compared to photosynthetic plants, and the plants have used up nearly all the CO2.

    The reason that the atmosphere contains more than 500x as many O2 molecules as CO2 molecules is that in the race between plants and animals, the plants won. The animals just can’t produce enough CO2 to keep up.

    The plants would use even more CO2, but they ran out of it. The reason plants are so incredibly efficient at scavenging CO2 from the atmosphere is that they’re locked in a life-and-death competition with one another, to get the scarce carbon. The chronic shortage of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is the primary limit on plant growth.

    That’s your takeaway point. If you forget everything else I’ve written, at least try to remember this: The chronic shortage of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is the primary limit on plant growth.
     

    Bernard J continued in #706, “[co2science dot org is] a CO₂ industry propganda site that has a propensity to misrepresent the significance of much of the literature.”

    A piece of advice: that sort of nonsense does not help your cause. It’s vicious smears like that, against fine scientists like Sherwood & Craig Idso, which, almost as much as the Climategate revelations, cause other scientists to be suspicious of the “Hockey Team.”
     

    Bernard J continued, “there’s more than one “significant CAM crop”. It’s a curious bias of the First World…”

    Don’t keep me in suspense! What other significant CAM crops are there, besides pineapples? Do you consider aloe vera or agave, significant, or do you have in mind something else?

  706. #708 Li D
    Australia
    July 22, 2017

    Ive got in mind this.as a CAM plant.
    Short video.

    https://youtu.be/rWWHIFIQNRM

  707. #709 Li D
    Australia
    July 22, 2017

    Titanic sinking.
    Passenger ” Yay. Free ice “

  708. #710 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    “Dave’s source explains his stupid comments.”

    So dave is on the sauce.

    ‘splains a lot.

  709. #711 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    “That’s actually the opposite of the truth.”

    That’s actually a complete lie, moron.

    “O2 is at 21%, CO2 is at 0.04%. ”

    That too is a lie.

    H2O is the biggest GHG, somewhere around 60% of the GHG effect, but this stuff rains out if there is too much for the temperature of the atmosphere to retain it in gaseous form. CO2 is the next, somewhere around 30% of the effect. This does not rain out, despite what Tony “What’s up with my brain” Watts may believe or at least tell his gullible morons.
    The rest of the GHG include Ozone and Methane, among other constitutents all at most a few percent of the effect.

    Since H2O is volatile it cannot be a driver of climate change, only a reinforcing feedback. The biggest greenhouse gas is CO2. And by a long chalk. Like nearly 10x as much as the next.

  710. #712 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    “The chronic shortage of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere is the primary limit on plant growth.”

    That is an utter and complete lie.

  711. #713 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    “A piece of advice: that sort of nonsense does not help your cause. ”

    Wrong.

    CO2Science IS a complete hackjob of reality and is purely a lying toerag of a source dedicated to lying about science to promote the political denial of the problem

    Trying to point to it demolishes your argument, and trying to defend it with such asinine rhetoric merelyu confirms you are a clueless moron who has never bothered to do any more work than read political opinion that makes you feel better and empowered against your greatest fear: lefties.

  712. #714 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    “The correct answer is that it’s because CO2-hungry living things have stripped nearly all the CO2 from the atmosphere,”

    Utter fabrication.

    If it were even vaguely true, the CO2 would not have risen at all.

    You’re not even trying, are you, you fucking ignoramus?

  713. #715 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    While you’re fellating the free market hoping for the money shot before you come to your senses, remember that reality does not give one single shit that you’re terrified of being poor or losing control.

    And making this shit up merely confirms you as the disease-ridden prostitute desperately trying to “milk” the free market for the tiny drop they will make you go on your knees to receive that you are.

  714. #716 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    “Antarctica averages more than 40° below zero. 2° or 10° won’t melt it.”

    Ah, I see. Completely immune to sanity, fuckwit.

    Nope. Entirely wrong. If the average temperature lowers, more ice builds than melts and the ice bulds up INTO AN ICE AGE.

    You’re a fucking ICE AGE DENIER!!!!

    What a fucking moron.

    And when it warms, more ice melts than builds and the ice leaves. That’s the interglacial.

    Which you are brazenly pretending does not exist!!!

    What a fucking idiotic moron!

  715. #717 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    Maybe dave ought to sue monsato et al for selling all this pointless agribusiness shit that he insists has made bugger all difference, and insisted on selling “breathing on fields” as the solution to higher crop yields.

    Maybe the lunatic needs to ask for nurse to help him take his medication.

    All I can tell he’s doing neither and has to do at least one.

  716. #718 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    “Do you know what that would do for the ice mass?”

    Do you know what higher temperatures do to ice mass?

  717. #719 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    Hell, do you know what pressure does to ice mass?

  718. #720 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    “Sorry if I was unclear, gentlemen.”

    No, you were quite clear.

    You’re a lunatic and wrong.

    Both very clear.

  719. #721 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    “Last time I checked, the south pole was not “in the United States.””

    Last time I checked, your claims were wrong.

  720. #722 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    “Last time I checked, the south pole was not “in the United States.””

    So the only place on earth is the united states in your “mind”, moron????

    Or do you not know what “global warming” means and think that it only happens in the USA???

  721. #723 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    “The indispensable CO2Science dot org web site”

    Is only indispensable for lying toerags looking for fake information to vomit elsewhere in denial of reality.

    You know, lying toerag gullible morons like yourself

  722. #724 Li D
    Australia
    July 22, 2017

    ” only happens in the USA”
    Its surprising how common this view is.

  723. #725 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    “The point is that you don’t need to move anyting. ”

    Yes you do.

    Ask a farmer. Any farmer. They’ll tell you that their choice of plant depends on the climate at that zone and that zone has changed and that to continue to make the same crops grow they have had to move their farms northward to follow the zones’ change.

  724. #726 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    “” only happens in the USA”
    Its surprising how common this view is.”

    Well, with their heads shoved immovably up their ass, deniers don’t get to see much of the world, just the echo of Fox news rumbling round their innards.

  725. #727 Bernard J.
    July 22, 2017

    #3 has an implication that you apparently were unaware of, Bernard. Greenhouse crops never experience drought, but field crops often do.

    FFS, are you constitutionally unable to parse?!

    Actually, reading the rest of your response to me it’s apparent that all you’re on about is cherry-picking information in order to promote the idea that the atmosphere (and hence the biosphere) requires more CO₂. At each point you are ignoring the fact that today’s biosphere is adapted to a pre-Industrial concentration of atmospheric CO₂, and that altering this in conjuction with warming the planet by a global average of several degress celsius, and more in poleward regions, will seriously damage many ecosystems. This isn’t about what industrial agriculture can do in greenhouses, it’s about the harm we’re inflicting on the planet.

    As it stands, the warming that we’ve manifested to date will see the demise of the Great Barrier Reef, the southern Australian giant kelp forests, most (if not all) of the high-elevation Australia Nothofagus forests, and from recent indications possibly significant stretches of northern Australian mangrove associations. That’s just in my country. And that’s just a sampling of affected species and communities. And in no way will the elevated atmospheric CO₂ help with their demise…

    O2 is at 21%, CO2 is at 0.04%. Just how far down would it have to go before you considered plants’ ability to scavenge carbon from the atmosphere to exhibit “great efficiencies?”

    You seem not to realise it, but this is exactly why plants probably don’t expend too much energy trying to evolve appreciably greater efficiencies in photosynthesis – as things currently stand, they are already able to reduce CO₂ to being a minor atmospheric component by volume. And because they’re already able to capture most of the atmospheric CO₂ over evolutationary timescales, they’re adapted to this equilibrium atmospheric concentration.

    Basically, plants have taken paleologically-ancient levels of CO₂ and reduced them to what we had prior to the Industrial revolution. What you’re advocating is to shift the concentration to a non-equilibrium one, as if this is going to improve the biosphere. It won’t – in terms of carbon capturing, the Earth was effectively at peak-biosphere as could be sustained biogeologically by the planet before humans came along. Adding CO₂ is not something the biosphere needs. But what it does need is a climate that is amenable to the species and ecosystems that have evolved within it.

    If you’re such a fan of CO₂ you can rest assured that it will be available for use in glasshouses ad libitum. In the atmosphere though, at the concentration to which humans are raising CO₂, its physical properties are net-harmful to the biospheric milieu in which a huge number of species (including Homo sapiens) have evolved. That is neither “optimal”, nor even good.

  726. #728 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    “Titanic sinking.
    Passenger ” Yay. Free ice “”

    Passenger Dave: The titanic can’t be sinking! Boats float! That’s what they’re designed to do!!!!

  727. #729 Li D
    Australia
    July 22, 2017

    “… almost as much as the Climategate revelations, cause other scientists to be suspicious of the “Hockey Team.” ”

    Hahahahahahaha

  728. #730 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    “If you’re such a fan of CO₂ you can rest assured that it will be available for use in glasshouses ad libitum.”

    And if he doesn’t like the weather, he can easily move 50 miles north rather than burn trillions of dollars of product. Much cheaper.

  729. #731 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    Or indeed 50 miles south if he likes it warmer.

  730. #732 Li D
    Australia
    July 22, 2017

    #728 is very nearly Cornwall Alliance material.

  731. #733 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    “almost as much as the Climategate revelations”

    Which revealed the biggest nothingburger in history, or ever in the future.

    Meanwhile the release of the HI emails indicated just how venal and paid for their spiel was.

    Bringing it up still merely proves how divorced from reality (and who can blame dave when he’s being made to prostitute himself on his knees for the “milk of human wealth” from the free market. It’s gotta suck) that people like dave are. Living in a time when the emails had never been read and MIGHT have shown some conspiracy. Which has been proven by everyone who ACTUALLY read it to contain no such juicy information.

  732. #734 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    “#728 is very nearly Cornwall Alliance material.”

    So, Cornhole Alliance.

  733. #735 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    “Where do you think all that enhanced plant growth is going?”

    Why do you think, if you can, it isn’t 100% of the CO2, if you ALSO think, if that is the right word, that CO2 hungry organisms are eating as much CO2 as is possible until they starve?

  734. #736 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    “Wow added, “every 100 years!”

    Whereever did you get the idea that global warming will continue to increase temperatures, century after century?”

    Wherever did you claim it would stop, dumbfuck?

  735. #737 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    “Powerful negative (stabilizing) feedbacks,”
    If they existed, please explain the PETM.

    ” and the finite supply of fossil fuels ensure that cannot happen.”

    So we have less than 100 years of fossil fuels left?!?!?!?!?

    You’re a fucking moron.

  736. #738 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    “The current Modern Climate Optimum is very similar to the Medieval Warm Period ”

    Wrong. the MWP was not global and was overall cooler than the 20thC average, which is cooler than the 21st Century average by a long shot.

    “and the Roman Climate Optimum,”

    Double dipping on the stupid.

    ” and probably cooler than the Holocene Optimum,”

    Wrong. Nobody knows why you believe that. Or that there is evidence for this asinine claim.

    ” which was probably cooler than the Eemian interglacial.”

    How the hell would you know? Hope and pray?

  737. #739 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    “No doubt rhe denier scum are all over changes and threats to river and mangrove ecology.”

    Just like they’re all over third world poverty.

  738. #740 Li D
    Australia
    July 22, 2017

    Heres the fossil fuel ( and more ) counter for those interested.

    http://www.worldometers.info/

  739. #741 Dave Burton
    Cary, NC USA
    July 22, 2017

    Bernard J wrote, “there’s more than one “significant CAM crop”. It’s a curious bias of the First World…”

    I replied, “Don’t keep me in suspense! What other significant CAM crops are there, besides pineapples? Do you consider aloe vera or agave, significant, or do you have in mind something else?”

    Li D replied, “Ive got in mind this.as a CAM plant… [ref prickly pear cactus]”

    Thanks, but is that really economically significant, Li?

    I googled, searching for the monetary value of prickly pear cactus as a crop, but I didn’t find much. I did find an article touting it as a potential “niche crop” for Arizona, but the articl said that it hasn’t been studied much because it lacks “some economic value.”

    I wish I could link to the article, but when I post links here my comments don’t appear. You can find it by googling for a snippet from the quote:

    Scott McMahon, curator of cacti at the Desert Botanical Garden in Phoenix, said the prickly pear could have greater potential as a niche crop for Arizona. But he said that idea hasn’t received much consideration.

    “There haven’t been a lot of studies done because research tends to only be done on plants that have some economic value,” McMahon said. “Although the prickly pear might to some degree, it has not been investigated enough; not enough is known.”

    Nevertheless, I did find a few studies of the effect of elevated CO2 on prickly pear cactus. Like most other plants, it benefits substantially from extra CO2. Here are some relevant papers:
    1. Nobel & Hartsock. Short-term and long-term responses of Crassulacean acid metabolism plants to elevated CO2. Plant Physiology, 82: 604–606. (1986)
    2. doi:10.1016/0168-1923(91)90095-8 (1991)
    3. PMID:12231958 (1993)
    4. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3040.1994.tb00322.x (1994)
    5. PMID:12226228 (1996)
    6. doi:10.1006/jare.1996.0100 (1996)
    7. doi:10.1093/aob/mci034 (2005)
    8. doi:10.1104/pp.107.103911 (2007)

    Here’s a quote from the abstract of that first reference:

    …net CO2 uptake over 24-hour periods and dry weight productivity of these two CAM succulents is predicted to increase an average of about 1% for each 10 microliters per liter rise in ambient CO2 level up to 650 microliters per liter.

  740. #742 Li D
    Australia
    July 22, 2017

    I dont give a rats arse about what good things people think might
    happen with elevated co2..
    Its all crap because you fucking IDIOTS rather the miss the
    pertinent points which is that it not good its really really fucking bad.
    The house is burning down. Oh yay we can toast marshmellows.
    Get fucked.

    I just popped this thing from SA on to Deltoid about a sat fault.
    Might as well pop it here too

    https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/satellite-snafu-masked-true-sea-level-rise-for-decades/

  741. #743 Li D
    Australia
    July 22, 2017

    And fuck me. Seriously. If anyone fucking thinks climitegate represents anything about climate science they can get fucked.
    Its the most infantile crap in the universe.
    Anyone who talks about it like its a deal of some kind is waving a big flag saying dickhead.

  742. #744 Dave Burton
    Cary, NC USA
    July 22, 2017

    Li D, I can understand and appreciate your desire to shine the best possible light on your friends. In fact, Scripture recommends that [Philippians 4:8].

    However, there comes a point when you’ve transitioned from charity to willful blindness.

    For instance, did you read my comment #506 (above), with the Wigley-Jones email about changing the temperature data to shrink the 1940s warm blip? (You can also find it by googling for 1254108338.) Does that not trouble you?

    It should! There’s a reason that the Institute of Physics called the Climategate revelations, prima facie evidence of determined and co-ordinated refusals to comply with honourable scientific traditions and freedom of information law.”

    If you want to understand what was so terrible about Climategate, you need to read things other than defenses of those implicated in the scandal. You could only think they were exonerated of misconduct if you were very selective in your reading.

    The U.S. Senate EPW Minority Staff did an in-depth investigation after the first (2009) document dump. Their report is entitled, ‘Consensus’ Exposed: The CRU Controversy. Google for the name to find it.

    I don’t think you will enjoy reading it. But if you wish to understand Climategate, you will read it anyhow.

    If you’re in a hurry, and want just a taste, rather than a full meal, search on YouTube for:
    Muller hide the decline

  743. #745 dean
    July 22, 2017

    Dave is on of the larger fountains of lies and ignorance to come round in a long time.

  744. #746 Dave Burton
    Cary, NC USA
    July 22, 2017

    Bernard J wrote & Wow quoted, “If you’re such a fan of CO₂ you can rest assured that it will be available for use in glasshouses ad libitum.

    Google G2y8Sx4B2Sk

  745. #747 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    “Anyone who talks about it like its a deal of some kind is waving a big flag saying dickhead.”

    And wearing a t-shirt that says “Please empty contents: full of shit”.

  746. #748 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    “Bernard J wrote & Wow quoted,”

    A lot of your bullshit, of which you ignored all of it because,face it, you never arrived at your conclusion through THOUGHT, did you.

  747. #749 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    “Dave is on of the larger fountains of lies and ignorance to come round in a long time.”

    The problem really is that it’s such old and tired shit. Not one ounce of thought or creativity went into the reams of bullshit spewed.

    Clearly not a fan of reality.

  748. #750 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    “Muller hide the decline”

    Yup. And the problem is that there was no decline in temperatures and morons thought that there “MUST” be a decline despite this being in the proxies not the thermometers.

    Because you’re a bunch of gullible retards chowing down on the longfellow of freemarkets. With the promise of “good things to come” for you as long as you closed your eyes and ignored what you were doing.

  749. #751 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    “Scripture recommends that [Philippians 4:8].”

    Aaaawwww. So trying to belittle reality by quoting scripture at us?

    So sad, you ignorant buffoon.

    Try something that could come from a human being rather than a creationist.

  750. #752 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    “The U.S. Senate EPW Minority Staff did an in-depth investigation”

    And found a big nothing burger with a sidesalad of fuck all,despite the delusions of the denialist morons such as yourself.

    Pity for them that you don’t comprehend reality, otherwise their efforts would not be ignored, would they?

  751. #753 Jeff Harvey
    July 22, 2017

    Now David is referring to scripture. It appears that you can throw in the fact that he suffers from both the Dunning-Kruger effect and religious indoctrination in the trailer he inhabits in NC.

    Note how much his replies to me, Bernard and the others are cherry-picked. And he picks only a very small number of cherries, as is evident. Terms like stoichiometry sail over his head, as he tries – and fails – to insinuate that greenhouse conditions, which are strictly controlled, are good proxies for complex adaptive systems. I will leave that term to filter into David’s shallow mind for a few seconds because he will obviously not have a clue what it means.

    Bernard and I have easily debunked the vast majority of Dave’s puerile screeds, and since very few of us in the scientific community take his arguments seriously (e.g. read the stark conclusions of the various IPCC reports, the Milennium Ecosystem Assessment, and the positions of every major relevant scientific organization on Earth and that becomes clear) then I will make only a few further comments while also noting how Dave cherry picks his responses. This is because terms like stoichiometry and phenology sail over his unscientific noggin.

    One critical point ignored by Dave that I mentioned before is that plant growth, reproduction and fitness are determined by much, much more than abiotic factors. Indeed, Dave’s one dimensional world focuses on a single abiotic factor, CO2. Perhaps this explains why he does whatever he does for a living, which is clearly not anywhere remotely close to science. There are an array of biotic factors that critically affect plants, and even those grown in greenhouses. There are important constraints imposed by antagonists such as pathogens and herbivores and multualisms with soil microbes, fungi, and pollinators and natural enemies. All of these are affected in one way or another by climate change and associated processes. I work with microbial ecologists and several colleagues have already shown that increasing CO2 disrupts above and below ground interactions in negarive ways through differing evophtsiological responses among the various players. As Bernard said, plants have evolved most strongly under atmospheric concentrations of 200-300 ppm CO2, but Dave is suggesting that they will adaptive.y respond to increases in this gas in the blink of an evolutionary eye (I am not even sure that Dave believes in evolution, given his religious preamble). Moreover, he is actually intimating that plant fitness has been constrained by low atmospheric concentrations of this gas, and somehow parrots nonsense from the infamous Oregon Petition that humans are doing nature a favor by pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. This is willfully ignorant of even basic ecophysiology within an evolutionary framework. You will find very few plant ecologists who would make such a ridiculous assertion, and it explains why nincompoops like Dave are stuck on blogs where they can spew out this nonsense then take cover. He has been forced to cite 39 year old studies that were not in any way trying to draw correlations between closed and controlled greenhouse conditions and open systems across the biosphere. The scientists who wrote these papers would be horrified to see climate change deniers using them to argue that increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2 will yield net benefits to nature and to agriculture. As I said yesterday, if Dave gave a lecture at a scuentific conference making this point he would be greeted with howls of laughter and derision. So its the blogosphere for him.

    I digress. To continue with my demolition, Dave singularly failed to understand my point that ecological interactions are profoundly important in influencing plant vigor and fitness. Pollinators are vitally important. Many plants rely on specialist pollinators, and yet we are well aware that populations of many key pollinators around the world are in decline because of a suite of anthropogenic stresses including climate change. As I explained yesterday the phenology of many important ecological interactions, including plant-pollinator mutualisms, are strongly temperature dependent, and many of these trophic interactions are unraveling because if the recent rapid warming – and I mean rapid in an evolutionary sense based in temporal scale. Dave just is not intellectually equipped to understand this or many other important concepts like stoichiometry. Indeed, he thinks that cause and effect relationships in complex adaptive systems are entirely linear; the idea of non-linearity does not register with him, and clearly the concept of critical thresholds and tipping points – well elucidated by the work of scientists like Martin Scheffer – sails completely over his head.

    The sad fact is that simpleton Dave thinks that he has the intellectual high ground here, as evidenced by his response to Li. Of course he doesn’t, but as the Dunning-Kruger model showed, people who know nothing vastly over estimate their knowledge because they are not intellectually equipped to recognize that they are ignorant. I won’t even attempt here to debunk Dave’s argument about the rate if warming because 97% of climate scientists, NASA, the NIAA, AMS, AAAS, AGU, and National Academies across the world all agree that it is warming rapidly and well outside of natural forcings. Its a miracle when a few non-experts lacking any relevant expertise claim on blogs that all of these esteemed bodies are wrong and that they know more.

    Speaking of which, tell us all here Dave what you do for a living. You pound your chest like a Silverback gorilla on steroids, so by definition you must have a large publication and citation record. After all, you feel uniquely qualified to dismiss the scientific community by-and-large. So please inform us all if your actual scientific contributions to debates on global change, I for one can’t wait to see your impressive resume.

  752. #754 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    “But if you wish to understand Climategate, you will read it anyhow.”

    Understand how fucking insane deniers are? We knew that long before they got riled up at the sweet F.A. of “climategate”.

    Tell me, do you believe everything deniers say merely because they disagree with the leftists? Or is this because you’re a plain old idiot?

  753. #755 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    “The sad fact is that simpleton Dave thinks that he has the intellectual high ground here,”

    With his head shoved firmly up his arse, Dave’s view is inverted.

    This explains a lot.

  754. #756 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    Dave hopes that if he makes enough shit up about AGW he’ll get something better than the last time they tried:

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Wegman_Report

    Sad.

  755. #757 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    “Speaking of which, tell us all here Dave what you do for a living. ”

    He claims to be the owner of a website that is a spreadsheet of sea level data somewhat similar to woodfortrees.

    However, he also claimed that it showed temperature data when he brought up a link to it. Via a tinyurl link so that the web page would not be found to be “sealelvel.info” when he claimed it was all the gaps in temperature records that he’s whining about with MBH98.

    So even he doesn’t know what he does. Even if it’s his only employment. Which it may not be. It may just be some data key entry for a warehouse.

  756. #758 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    “I dont give a rats arse about what good things people think might happen with elevated co2..”

    Exactly. If Dave were slaughtered and his blood and body scattered over a wide area, his corpse and blood and flesh would cause some significant increase in the health of the nearby plants and animals.

    I doubt he’d be happy with it, though, despite it being “good for the plants”.

  757. #759 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    If you think the data record is wrong, google for BEST.

    Even skeptics of AGW agree it’s really true and not a fake.

  758. #760 Jeff Harvey
    July 22, 2017

    Please excuse typos above. It was written in a rush. And Dean is indeed correct: Dave is indeed one of the bigger fountains of lies and ignorance to contaminate this blog is a long time. The problem is that he packages his screeds in verbiage that may sound convincing to the uninitiated, None of it fools me, of course, or most others writing here.

    People like Dave, as I said yesterday, are classic symptoms of the perils of social media and the internet. Only a few years ago these kinds of simpletons would not have had the platforms to spew their vacuous nonsense, but now they have it as well as an audience to read it, Dave is the kind of person who writes comments to stories on Yahoo and who proudly gets multiple replies. He strikes me as one of Donald Trump’s science alumni, schooled by the likes of Marc Morano, Steve Milloy and Sean Hannity.

  759. #761 Wow
    July 22, 2017

    “You pound your chest like a Silverback gorilla on strepsils

    FTFY, Jeff.

  760. #762 Lionel A
    July 22, 2017

    Dave is indeed one of the bigger fountains of lies and ignorance to contaminate this blog…

    And at DesmogBlog too recently with the same old cherry picked packets of disinformation. Tiresome in the extreme.

    He has totally missed Bernard Js (note to Ed Thompson: to find Bernard Ctrl/F and type the name in box and hit Enter) point about vegetation in natural eco-systems bearing little relationship to crops nurtured in artificial environments. Also how plants adapt to elevated CO2 levels, or that forced crops can contain more non-digestible fibrous material and fewer trace elements making it necessary to consume more, which uses more in energy, to maintain nutritional rate, thereby also increasing the toxin loads.

    Take time to study this Dave:

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

    but do not think for one minute that is my only source, neither is this:

    https://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm

    the only source to bat away your Climategate charges.

    I have no doubt that these and other sources have been put before you before, that you still try to argue these is indicative that you are either a slow learner, or ideologically damaged.

  761. #763 Jeff Harvey
    July 22, 2017

    Thanks Lionel. The good news is that Dave and his grade school level science are restricted to blogs. None of this nonsense is taught at universities anywhere. The problem, as I said above, is that some blogs reach a lot of people and this empowers people like Dave to write comments in a lot of them. What I have found amazing over the years of blogging is in noticing how many laymen like Dave not only believe the simplistic gibberish they write, but also how they write on the assumption that these areas have been little studied at universities and research institutes. In other words, it’s as if there were no scientific journals or thousands of peer reviewed studies that have already shown that, 1. increased atmospheric concentrations of CO2 do not improve plant quality or long term fitness, focusing on species occuring in natural ecosystems; 2. The rate of surface temperature increases exceeds comparative changes in at least tens of thousands of years and probably much longer; 3 recent warming is already having a very noticeable effect on a wide range of species and species interactions in nature; 4. These facts are recognised by every relevant scientific organisation on the planet as well as by the vast majority of scientists, myself included, and this broad consensus is urging society to take action to stabilise and then reduce GHG emissions.

    On blogs, people like Dave write as if there were no such thing as scientific institutions, and that blogs are therefore at the cutting edge forefront of science. And of course these deniers rarely if ever tell us their professions because this would confirm the fact that they are laymen.

  762. #764 MikeN
    July 23, 2017

    Dean, last time you said I was ignorant of statistics, I had said that two populations with different variance(in this case men and women), the one with higher variance would dominate the extremes of the bell curve. When I asked you to explain what is wrong with this statistically, you ended up retreating to the assumption is wrong about different variance. The statistics that I supposedly didn’t understand you ended up not contesting.

  763. #765 Wow
    July 23, 2017

    “Dean, last time you said I was ignorant of statistics”

    So have you improved yourself, “mike”?

    ” the one with higher variance would dominate the extremes of the bell curve.”

    Not the evidence that you are shit at stats, “mike”. You said rather more than that and not even that was in the same words. Are you trying to lie about what you said in the past, or just ignoring the evidence that was present that made the conclusion you’re incompetent at statistics because you find it inconvenient to actually argue against your opening complaint being wrong?

    In short your opening declaration is not addressed, but you clearly wish to imply that it is.

    Clearly you are incompetent at arguing too. And not yet improved your knowledge of stats either.

    Sad

    “The statistics that I supposedly didn’t understand you ended up not contesting.”

    Well that’s a flat out lie. You DO know that, right? You cannot just snip bits of someone’s text and stitch them together to make a different meaning and avoid the fact that you are lying by doing so, “mike”.

    And your complaint is also a non sequitur having nothing to do with Mann, climate, paleo reconstructions or any single thing other than your mealy-mouthed offence at being told you’re incompetent.

    Take it to somewhere that cares, dipshit.

    Or take it back to the thread where the accusation happened so your assertions can be checked against reality by anyone worried enough to care.

  764. #766 Ed Thompson
    July 23, 2017

    In 1961 we had a crop failure in Manitoba due to drought. We have not had anything close to that since. In the dirty 30’s their were years in a row of drought conditions and above “normal” conditions that have not been surpassed to this day.
    In the early 50’s most farms had a third of their acreage in summerfallow. The summerfallow was thought necessary to restore nutrients (primary Nitrogen) and to control weeds. Our wheat yields on first crop after summerfallow we hoped would make 30 bus. per acre. In the second year after summerfallow when we occasionally grew red spring wheat we thought 20 bus. per acre was good. We did not use fertilizer ( except animal manure on a small portion of our land) and no herbicides. In the third year we went back to summerfallow and of course no crop.
    Canola (rapeseed then) only was seeded into summerfallow and yields of 25 bu. per acre were hoped for. Again no herbicides and very little fertility added.
    Over the years plant breeding provided higher yields due to improving a plant’s ability to utilize moisture more efficiently as well as take up more nutrients if they were available. At the same time herbicides began to appear which helped to control the nasty weeds competing with the crop for moisture and nutrients.
    Today with new varieties and high use of nitrogen, phosphate, potash, sulfur and in some areas copper, zinc and selenium my yields on continuous cropping (no summerfallow) have risen to 65 to 75 bu. per acre for spring wheat, 80 to 85 bus. per acre for winter wheat. For Canola I am getting consistent yields well over 50 bus. per acre.
    I think if you talk to every grain farmer in North America you would get the same story. In areas of southern England for example the precipitation rises from our average 20 inches a year to over 30 inches a year. The result higher inputs and higher yields.
    In the meantime our world population has increased from 3 billion in 1963 to an estimated 7.5 Billion today. Our C02 levels have also increased. I am not suggesting in anyway C02 level increases were significant enough to influence yield.
    The takeaway is that world’s population as of today cannot be maintained by eliminating the use of herbicides and fertilizers.

    So if you wish to claim C02 level increases from 1963 to now are responsible for global warmer ( a huge influence) could one say the same about its influence on crop production? Personally, I think not on both.

  765. #767 Wow
    July 23, 2017

    “In 1961 we had a crop failure in Manitoba due to drought. We have not had anything close to that since.”

    Meanngless drivel, dick Ed. California has had a horrendous drought for years. Therefore AGW is real.

  766. #768 Wow
    July 23, 2017

    “So if you wish to claim C02 level increases from 1963 to now are responsible for global warmer could one say the same about its influence on crop production?”

    Nope.

  767. #769 Wow
    July 23, 2017

    ” For Canola I am getting consistent yields well over 50 bus. per acre.”

    More meaningless bullshit. Sued Monsato and the rest of Agribusiness yet, dick Ed, for selling you all that expensive yet “useless” fertiliser and farming equipment?

  768. #770 Wow
    July 23, 2017

    “Our wheat yields …”

    Ah, walter mitty imagination from dick Ed. who hasn’t been closer to a farm than driving past on the way to the seaside….

  769. #771 Wow
    July 23, 2017

    “Personally, I think not”

    We know you think not.

    Then again, no reason given for thinking from you either.

  770. #772 Wow
    July 23, 2017

    “Today with new varieties and high use of nitrogen, phosphate, potash, sulfur and in some areas copper, zinc and selenium”

    All meaningless, surely, since you insist that CO2 is the only thing that plants need to grow. Part of the evidence for the assertion that you’re making this whole thing up, dick Ed.

  771. #773 Wow
    July 23, 2017

    For example, dick Ed, which plants are you farming that warrant selenium or zinc?

  772. #774 Wow
    July 23, 2017

    Of course I could just google it, but you have it right to hand, right, dick Ed? So that’ll be quicker than googling.

  773. #775 Li D
    Australia
    July 23, 2017

    A really good overview of Australias rooted soils.
    Theres continuous claims North Australia can be a huge food basket. Lol.

    http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Previousproducts/1301.0Feature%20Article801966

  774. #776 Ed Thompson
    July 23, 2017

    Monsanto does not sell fertilizer nor farm equipment. Again getting your facts right seem to a problem for you. I was not talking about the weather in California. They do a lot of irrigating because for the most part California is semi-arid. Because of California’s ability to obtain water for irrigation their Agricultural output dollar wise is close to all of Canada. This is because they are able to grow vegetables and fruits which have a much higher return per acre than our crops.
    I now more than ever have to question the validity of any remarks you make. I guess that is why you call yourself “WOW” as would be an embarrassment for you to use your real name. More so now!
    I have farmed and been associated with farming most of my life. I currently have a small farm. Reality is important. I was specific about my farming observations. These observations about production increases could be attributed to C02 increases. One could argue this to be as valid as C02 on global warming. Some science is about explaining the observable present. Unfortunately, the computer models on global warming, using C02 as the cause, have not been good predictors. I think the “hockey stick” is broken. Time to include other factors (mentioned in previous blogs) in computer model predictions. It is much more than C02 affecting our climate. I realize it would be real difficult for you to make that admission. Profanity and name calling is hardly a rebuttal!

  775. #777 Li D
    Australia
    July 23, 2017

    ” other factors ”
    Yes. Force fuckin x.
    Thats it.

    Btw models are damn good actually.
    There seems strongly to be an underlying
    belief amongst deniers that scientists are
    stupid. Really stupid.
    And consilience has no value.

  776. #778 Li D
    Australia
    July 23, 2017

    Btw denier idiots.
    Not only do yas have to come up with a new mechanism as yet
    unknown to science, you must show that existing mechanisms that are known are wrong.
    Until yas do both yas are pissing in the wind, and just being very
    annoying and boring as batshit besides.

  777. #779 Li D
    Australia
    July 23, 2017

    Get any sane person, from 4 years old to a hundred and four, to
    look at the consilience matrix for AGW, and they can see what its all about and why deniers are insane to push their disbelief.
    Christ, ya wouldnt want such muppets serving as judges working out penalties, or
    on panels deciding things.
    Totally useless at examining evidence.

  778. #780 Jeff Harvey
    July 23, 2017

    Two points: first, there is enough food at present to feed everyone on Earth but there is no social justice or equity. The rich countries effectively loot from the lands of the poor to maintain massive disparities in wealth. It’s one facet of our neoliberal capitalist system that is unsustainable.

    Second, it’s preposterous to suggest that increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations have played a role in increasing crop production. The green revolution that Ed alluded to was based on technologies that were responsible. But as we know many of these technologies have delayed ecological effects that are becoming increasingly apparent. And as I said before, plant quality and quantity are very different things. Learn a little about stoichiometry and constraints imposed by low N and P in plant tissues. This fertilization myth is acknowledged by most scientists, and is simply another denier meme.

  779. #781 Jeff Harvey
    July 23, 2017

    Ed thinks that the ‘hockey stick’ is broken. We Ed, the entire scientific community bows to your infinite wisdom. Why didn’t you say so before? Since you are one of the world’s most esteemed experts on everything, then of course you must be correct.

    The fact is that the scientific community, me included, don’t don’t​ care what the hell you think Ed. The hockey stick is NOT broken at all, as several independent reconstructions have shown. You are simply a right wing anti environmentalist who distorts science to bolster your own political opinions. The fact that you like a non entity like Tim Ball excludes you for being taken seriously.

  780. #782 Richard Simons
    July 23, 2017

    After a mini-essay on ‘Why Manitoba Crop Yields are Increasing’ Ed @766 writes “So if you wish to claim C02 level increases from 1963 to now are responsible for global warmer ( a huge influence) could one say the same about its influence on crop production?” to which the answer is ‘No’.
    Ed: have you noticed that slugs and aphids are more of a problem than they used to be? Slugs are much better able to survive the winter than in earlier years. Aphids are able to overwinter farther north because of the milder winters. Successive generations in a year gradually move north but traditionally, they were not much of a problem because by the time they got to Manitoba they were too late to do much damage. Now, however, they don’t have as far to travel and arrive in time to do affect the crops. This is quite apart from any direct effect of CO2 on the crop’s vulnerability to pests.

    Ed: have you been to Jasper recently? Large tracts of forest are orange because of the mountain pine beetle. Why do you think it has only recently become a problem? How much extra growth do you think the dead and dying pine trees will do as a result of CO2 fertilization?

    Jeff mentioned plant/pollinator interactions. In addition, higher temperatures can themselves interfere with pollination. That is the main reason wheat can not be grown in the tropics except at high altitude. There are increasing reports of other crop yields being reduced by high temperatures at pollination, e.g. corn, rice, soybeans.

    BTW, regarding your suggestion that a move of a few miles polewards will solve the problems, have you ever contemplated what it would be like to farm near Cross Lake or even Manigotagan? Forget the virtual absence of soil, how would you even get your product to market?

  781. #783 Richard Simons
    July 23, 2017

    Ed @776

    Unfortunately, the computer models on global warming, using C02 as the cause, have not been good predictors.

    Which specific models? Where can I find the evidence that they are not good predictors? All the comparisons I have seen have been remarkably good. I think you are just parroting something you saw someone write on the internet.

  782. #784 Ed Thompson
    July 24, 2017

    I am sorry to inform you that slugs and aphids were around 50 years ago. They have not been a problem on my farm for a goodly number of years. If they were, we could spray for them.

    The pine beetles is another question. These insect infestations can come in cycles as well. As I understand it the pine beetle is a problem in BC. Some say it is due to milder winters, others say it is due to how the forest is managed. After all those fires in B.C, I suspect the pine beetle numbers will have substantially been reduced.

    The Ash borer is moving closer to the US Manitoba border. It apparently is not stopped by cold winters. Nor is the beetle that causes dutch elm disease. Army worms and grasshoppers have not been a problem for a number of years now. Does C02 get any credits here?? Or it just gets blamed for all the bad things that happen!
    The one thing I do agree on is the suggestion that the emphasis on CO2 caused global warming predictions should be for 100 years or more. You can predict anything you like then.
    The climate has always changed in the history of the earth. Their are other components that have an effect on climate. CO2 is a small player. Going from .04% to .05% or .06% in concentration levels is not convincing when compared to the influence of water vapor,methane, Nitrous oxides, our sun activity variation, volcanoes, even the small changes in our earth’s orbit around the sun, and a slight change in the earth’s tilt to the sun are all factors that have to be addressed.
    Does man contribute to climate change? By focusing solely on CO2 the answer is not much! War and hydrogen bombs to “enhance negotiations” would be a more compelling factor.

  783. #785 Ed Thompson
    July 24, 2017

    #783

    Hi Richard,

    I got this from the US Republican Senate inquiry on Global warming. There were a number presentations. There was also a pretty good presentation on how the “97% of scientists” was arrived at. You can review the presentations on you tube.

  784. #786 Ed Thompson
    July 24, 2017

    #783

    Hi Richard,

    Check out the US Republican Senate inquiry on Global warming. There were a number presentations. There was also a pretty good presentation on how the “97% of scientists” were arrived at. You can review the presentations on youtube.

  785. #787 Wow
    July 24, 2017

    “Monsanto does not sell fertilizer nor farm equipment.”

    You lying shitstain, dick Ed I said “Monsato and Agribusiness”

    What the flying fuck of a moribund squirrel do you think agribusiness do, shithead? And do you know ANYTHING about what Monsato DO???? Sell legal services???

    Fucking moron.

  786. #788 Wow
    July 24, 2017

    And you’ve not explained to us what crops you grow that you needed to get Selenium for.

    This is exactly like you’d do if you had just googled for fertilisers when you had your ass handed to you about potassium and nitrogen being ignored in your insistence tat the only thing that makes plants grow is CO2 and are pretending that you know ANYTHING about a farm

    Lunatic idiot.

  787. #789 Wow
    July 24, 2017

    “Check out the US Republican Senate inquiry on Global warming.”

    Which proves denial of AGW is merely party politics, dumbass.

  788. #790 Wow
    July 24, 2017

    “There was also a pretty good presentation on how the “97% of scientists” was arrived at. ”

    And showed that the 97% figure was valid and probably now an underestimation.

  789. #791 Wow
    July 24, 2017

    “I am sorry to inform you that slugs and aphids were around 50 years ago.”

    I’m sorry to inform you that this is just ignorant bullshit. They’ve been around for many millions of years.

  790. #792 Wow
    July 24, 2017

    “The climate has always changed in the history of the earth. ”

    And always for a reason.This time it’s Anthropogenic. We are the reason why it’s changing.

    But you’re a fucking braindead denier, and cannot comprehend reasons for things exist.

  791. #793 Wow