tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post5001823228812777747..comments2024-02-12T15:25:44.028+11:00Comments on HotWhopper: WUWT round-up: Chris Horner's Email Withdrawal and a New Denier DonSouhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comBlogger116125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-79604440853642025502014-02-23T01:55:31.642+11:002014-02-23T01:55:31.642+11:00Anonymous, you are are gutless clueless Wattie. Yo...Anonymous, you are are gutless clueless Wattie. You are either such a coward that you have to hide, or you don't know how to work out the post submission form. Either way, it only proves that you are a neurotic numpty, and obsessed, especially since you are still trying to push the same pointless barrow. You claim that the data in the link you provided is able to show the impact of enhanced CO2, but it can't. The data you linked to is a BROAD spectrum analysis of LW/SW EMR. The effect of CO2 and water vapour is at specific frequencies, so you need to examine the data at the CO2 and water vapour adsorption frequencies.<br /><br />When that is done, the increasing effect of CO2 and water vapour is revealed.<br /><br />Read this for further information.<br /><br />https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/physics/Public/spat/John/Increase%20in%20greenhouse%20forcing%20inferred%20from%20the%20outgoing%20longwave%20radiation%20spectra%20of%20the%20Earth%20in%201970%20and%201997.pdf<br /><br />http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2003GL018765/abstract<br /><br />http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00704-004-0038-7<br /><br />http://www-ramanathan.ucsd.edu/files/pr50.pdf<br /><br />http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.49712253202/abstract<br /><br />http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022407397001520<br /><br />But I doubt that you will read the papers and understand them, since you are ideologically driven, and your Morton's daemon will no doubt conjure some pitiful excuses, and you will be driven to go to WUWT to soothe your cognitive dissonance.<br /><br />Also do you notice what I have done. I have not just interpreted the data myself, I have relied on published and peer reviewed papers by the experts in their field. What you have done is misinterpret raw data, a common feature of unqualified and ignorant keyboard warriors. Next time, don't link to raw data that you have grossly misinterpreted, but to published papers. That way your inexperience and unfamiliarity of the subject won't be so obviously demonstrated.Davenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-46208289992973658572014-02-23T01:19:11.510+11:002014-02-23T01:19:11.510+11:00Anon.
If you want to get a handle on the relative...Anon.<br /><br />If you want to get a handle on the relative efficacy of forcings you can use the <a href="http://data.giss.nasa.gov/efficacy/" rel="nofollow">lookup table</a> from <a href="https://espo.nasa.gov/home/macpex/content/Efficacy_of_climate_forcings" rel="nofollow">Hansen et al. (2005)</a>. <br /><br /><i>LWdown is increasing albeit insignificantly with respect to the natural variability (primarily major ENSO events).</i><br /><br />Net GHG forcing change is not "insignificant" in and of itself, although it is much less than transient variability so I think you would have to be careful not to introduce confusion over the standard position here. People might think what you actually meant was something like "GHG forcing increase on multi-decadal scales is negligible". <br /><br />BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-14188381715908906892014-02-22T22:33:52.774+11:002014-02-22T22:33:52.774+11:00Dave/PL/BBD
the impact of enhanced atmospheric CO...Dave/PL/BBD<br /><br />the impact of enhanced atmospheric CO2 and any positive water vapour feedback is shown in the data (subject to uncertainties). Again, I encourage you to check out ... http://www.gewex.org/images/Feb2011.pdf<br /><br />even better - it gives a link to the data - calculate the imbalance of surface fluxes yourself!<br /><br />Dave - read it! "...the precision needed to monitor the changes in fluxes associated with forced climate change remains a significant challenge"<br /><br />These are weasal words for - we cannot measure it precisely. Fine! I have no problem with that. It is an evident truth... BUT - they do provide a timeseries which whilst vulnerable to uncertainties in the absolute fluxes, is most definately reliable in their relative measures...<br /><br />LWdown is increasing albeit insignificantly with respect to the natural variability (primarily major ENSO events). <br /><br />Dave - I suspect you need to be more objective about your views and those of others that hold different views...<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-64909850674085654392014-02-22T07:12:04.105+11:002014-02-22T07:12:04.105+11:00Sou,
This is not a "think about the poor&qu...Sou, <br /><br />This is not a "think about the poor" political argument tailored for pampered Western middle-class elitists (which is what Alyssa Battistoni was referring to). <br /><br />My point was that the developing world <a href="http://diggingintheclay.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/edmh1.png" rel="nofollow">"is steadfastly welded to a business-as-usual trajectory" </a> for a reason, and it has nothing to do with deniers at WUWT.<br />Greighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14845487134006948830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-79608308625370130142014-02-22T07:11:57.511+11:002014-02-22T07:11:57.511+11:00Since the denial is ongoing, I will repeat the fac...Since the denial is ongoing, I will repeat the facts:<br /><br />Two factors determine the size and speed of the climate response to a forcing change:<br /><br />- The rate of forcing change<br /><br />- The size of forcing change<br /><br />If both are extremely large, as is the case with anthropogenic CO2, then the effect on the climate system will be rapid and pronounced. Trying to pretend that increased ocean mixing will simply magic the energy away and leave us with a tiny TCR smoothed out over millennia is misrepresenting everything known about the way the climate system responds to a change in forcing. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-75270374255350485122014-02-22T07:09:58.714+11:002014-02-22T07:09:58.714+11:00Who said anything about a tiny TCR because of mill...<i>Who said anything about a tiny TCR because of millennial-scale buffering of surface temperatures by the deep ocean ? And you accuse me of fabricating, intellectual dishonesty and lying? </i><br /><br />FFS, Grieg, you are pushing it. You said it:<br /><br /><i>and there are a million upper circle seats (deep sea heat buffering) and an infinite amount of time before the show begins. And you are shouting "Fire!".</i><br /><br />So <b>you are once again lying about this</b>.<br /><br /><i>You assert that Modern climate behaviour ALONE demonstrates a rapidity of response to forcing change , when you know that the there is still so much real debate amongst climate scientists about how much AGW contributes over natural warming, and how difficult that is to discern over natural variability (eg ENSO, PDO, etc). In fact you argue that to explain the hiatus, spot the double standard?</i><br /><br />Don't play agnosia games with me. We *do* know that GHG forcing is driving the multi-decadal trend and that natural variability is clearly visible in in inter-decadal climate behaviour. Rosenthal was hand-waving and anyway he said again and again that the difference to surface warming trends *if any* would only be a brief respite. Read your own reference properly.<br /><br /><i>Quit with the "science-is-settled" argument, it is rubbish and you know it. </i><br /><br />I said that we know enough and we do. Quit with the agnosia bullshit. It is misrepresentation of the *real* state of scientific knowledge and if you don't know it, you should. <br /><br />Have another look at the graph you ignored. Observed climate response to forcing change during the C20th overturns your false claim that TCR is tiny and will be smeared over millennia by deep ocean warming. <br /><br /><b>You have been making the "tiny TCR" claim ever since you pitched up here, so do not have the gall to deny it again. </b>BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-88061789231317459432014-02-22T06:53:16.856+11:002014-02-22T06:53:16.856+11:00Who said anything about a tiny TCR because of mill...Who said anything about <i>a <b>tiny</b> TCR because of millennial-scale buffering of surface temperatures by the deep ocean </i>? And you accuse me of fabricating, intellectual dishonesty and lying? <br /><br />You assert that <i> Modern climate behaviour ALONE demonstrates a rapidity of response to forcing change </i>, when you know that the there is still so much real debate amongst climate scientists about <b> how much </b> AGW contributes over natural warming, and how difficult that is to discern over natural variability (eg ENSO, PDO, etc). In fact you argue that to explain the hiatus, spot the double standard?<br /><br />I am not arguing about whether AGW is real, or whether the forcing exists and is substantial. But there is still a lot of debate about TCR and rate of heat uptake in the ocean - the recent interview with Rosenthal and Lindley for example. And TCR is not just about ocean heat uptake, there are still unknowns around solar variance and there is clearly a problem with the CMIP parameterisations (eg feedbacks) <b> as acknowledged by the IPCC</b><br /><br />Quit with the "science-is-settled" argument, it is rubbish and you know it. Declaring that you know everything and can predict the future is unscientific. Such dismissive and emotive behaviour is the reason why nobody listens to alarmists.Greighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14845487134006948830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-1080078631897882482014-02-22T06:35:15.421+11:002014-02-22T06:35:15.421+11:00The question is about time, about rate of change.
...<i>The question is about time, about rate of change.</i><br /><br />Two factors determine the size and speed of the climate response to a forcing change:<br /><br />- The rate of forcing change<br /><br />- The size of forcing change<br /><br />If both are extremely large, as is the case with anthropogenic CO2, then the effect on the climate system will be rapid and pronounced. Trying to pretend that increased ocean mixing will simply magic the energy away and leave us with a tiny TCR smoothed out over millennia is misrepresenting everything known about the way the climate system responds to a change in forcing. <br /><br />Proponents of the "tiny TCR" meme will also have to explain <a href="https://s3-us-west-1.amazonaws.com/www.moyhu.org/Hx/plotterv2.htm#HxB1?HxG=%5B%5B1900,2012,'GAT%20response%20to%20forcings',%5B99,71%5D,0,%5B%5D%5D,%5B%5B%5B-2.445,7.239%5D,1,0,%5B1979,2000%5D%5D,%5B%5B-2.2668,0.9148%5D,0,1,%5B1979,2000%5D%5D%5D,%5B%5B%5B6,0%5D,16,0,0,0%5D,%5B%5B6,1%5D,27,0,0,0%5D,%5B%5B6,4%5D,18,0,0,0%5D,%5B%5B2,0%5D,5,%5B1,11%5D,0,0%5D,%5B%5B0,1%5D,23,%5B1,11%5D,0,0%5D,%5B%5B1,0%5D,19,%5B1,11%5D,0,0%5D%5D%5D" rel="nofollow">the observed multidecadal response to forcing change</a> over the C20th, which is clearly *not* lagged by millennia. <br /><br />[Caption: GAT (surface) annual means are shown at the top (green). The three lower curves are coherently-scaled forcings. Well-mixed GHGs (blue) and solar (yellow; bottom) bracket the total net forcing (red).]BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-50735689558403809702014-02-22T04:35:37.921+11:002014-02-22T04:35:37.921+11:00The question is about time, about rate of change. ...<i>The question is about time, about rate of change. </i><br /><br />You aren't merely an idiot, you are intellectually dishonest, Greig, and it is now pissing me right off.<br /><br />You find me a study - any study - that argues for a tiny TCR because of millennial-scale buffering of surface temperatures by the deep ocean. You just make this shit up but most of us here know what we are talking about and we recognise your BS for exactly what it is. <br /><br />Modern climate behaviour ALONE demonstrates a rapidity of response to forcing change that falsifies your claim.<br /><br />So stop making it. It is rubbish and it is a core part of your science denial and I am calling you right out over this. Either back it up or cease. We've all had enough of this incessant lying now. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-24758277090030461922014-02-21T22:44:26.956+11:002014-02-21T22:44:26.956+11:00D'oh, of course he was referring to Tony's...D'oh, of course he was referring to Tony's. That's what you get for posting after midnight - gremlins...<br /><br />(I'm not worried about them not appearing quickly if you're not worried about fishing them out. Mostly, I enjoy reading here more than posting)<br /><br />FrankDAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17213114136787682122014-02-21T13:58:38.359+11:002014-02-21T13:58:38.359+11:00Okay, I exaggerated with the "almost half&quo...Okay, I exaggerated with the "almost half" - it's more like a quarter. It's still more than Greig's fair share.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-79867949661375567352014-02-21T13:44:37.365+11:002014-02-21T13:44:37.365+11:00Now it's back to the "think of the poor&q...Now it's back to the "think of the poor" argument that fake sceptics trot out when they run out of other things. Global warming is going to affect poorer countries much more severely than developed countries in the short to medium term.<br /><br />Anyway, I'll let Alyssa Battistoni respond, because she covers pretty well every talking point Greig has made in this thread:<br /><br /><i>He’s right that we shouldn’t attribute any one event to climate change, and that there’s a lot we still don’t know about climate systems; few scientists would argue otherwise. But there’s a whole lot we do know, and waiting decades until we do anything at all is the kind of logic only a former Exxon lobbyist could come up with. The thing is, there aren’t many people these days who deny that climate change is happening at all; even among Republicans, a plurality of voters believe climate change is occurring. Instead, self-styled “skeptics” offer a patchwork of arguments designed to obfuscate the issue, cautioning that we don’t really understand what’s going on, that we don’t know how much humans are really contributing, that scientists are just out for grant money, and besides, won’t somebody please think of the poor? They seek out the fringe scientists who support their opinions, and use scientific-sounding arguments to counter the scientific consensus; they’re just reasonable enough to sound legitimate to anyone who’s not well acquainted with the evidence.</i><br /><br />http://www.salon.com/2012/07/05/climate_skeptics_still_not_worried/<br /><br />And Greig - you've already written almost half the comments in this thread (incl the ones I deleted). Take a break, take a breath and go read some science or walk the dog or have a cuppa or something. You're repeating yourself.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-12617266419533956872014-02-21T12:50:11.331+11:002014-02-21T12:50:11.331+11:00despite decades of serious effort by informed peop...<i>despite decades of serious effort by informed people to encourage otherwise, humanity remains steadfastly welded to a business-as-usual trajectory</i><br /><br />That is because most of the world's inhabitants see economic prosperity and overcoming poverty as the most important objectives, and addressing climate change is a secondary issue. Not everyone in the world lives your privileged lifestyle and can afford more expensive energy.<br /><br />However if you think that it all caused by the ignorant "deniers" over at WUWT, then keep on screaming at them. I am sure it will yield results one day. Not.<br /><br />And thanks Bob, I have read both those pages previously and followed the discussion on England et al.Greighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14845487134006948830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-86032580955523849272014-02-21T11:16:11.333+11:002014-02-21T11:16:11.333+11:00paleoclimate behaviour demonstrates unequivocally ...<i> paleoclimate behaviour demonstrates unequivocally that the climate system is sensitive to radiative perturbation. </i><br /><br />Over time, and when associated with positive feedback processes such as CO2 outgassing and albedo.<br /><br />The question is about time, about rate of change. You know this. Don't treat me like an idiot and I won't need to point out your nonsense. Then we will both be happy.<br /> Greighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14845487134006948830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-84566557408629415612014-02-21T10:14:19.330+11:002014-02-21T10:14:19.330+11:00All I can do is apologise, FrankD. It didn't ...All I can do is apologise, FrankD. It didn't work that time - weirdly. I'll try to stay on top of this. I can't explain it.<br /><br />(Phil Clarke was referring to a comment he made at WUWT, not here.)Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-17321165833058611812014-02-21T09:58:45.660+11:002014-02-21T09:58:45.660+11:00Greig
You wrote this:
and there are a million up...Greig<br /><br />You wrote this:<br /><br /><i>and there are a million upper circle seats (deep sea heat buffering) and an infinite amount of time before the show begins. And you are shouting "Fire!".</i><br /><br />Which is peddling your favourite misrepresentation exactly as I described it above. Don't treat me like an idiot and I won't need to point out your nonsense. Then we will both be happy.<br /><br /><i>BBD, you are playing the "science is settled" card, when you know that there is nothing analogous in the paleoclimate record to current climate forcing, which is why there speculation around TCR, and even new ideas emerging (eg England et al) to explain the fact that observations do not match the CMIP projections. </i><br /><br />First, the lack of analogy in the paleoclimate record for modern rates of GHG forcing increase is irrelevant. There is an A in AGW for a reason. Second, paleoclimate behaviour demonstrates unequivocally that the climate system is sensitive to radiative perturbation. Modern climate behaviour confirms this but with high-resolution data you see the natural variability imposed on the long-term trend. You hyperfocus on decadal variability and claim - incorrectly - that this is informative about TCR and ECS. <br /><br />I've already said all this and the repeats are getting boring for me and doubtless for others.BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-83102669876079076802014-02-21T09:53:10.117+11:002014-02-21T09:53:10.117+11:00We (that is humans alive today, collectively) know...<i> We (that is humans alive today, collectively) know more than enough to *know* how to act </i><br /><br />If only that were true.<br />Greighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14845487134006948830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-53974331225114159632014-02-21T09:49:21.646+11:002014-02-21T09:49:21.646+11:00There are scientists who add to knowledge, who mak...There are scientists who add to knowledge, who make the unknown known, and then there are the anti-science brigade who want to only talk about what isn't known for sure with absolute certainty down to the fifteenth decimal place and pretend that nothing at all is known.<br /><br />We know *you* don't know, Greig. You've made that abundantly clear.<br /><br />HotWhopper is not meant to be a platform for various less than knowledgeable commenters. It's aim is to *demolish* the disinformation about climate. Much of that disinformation takes the form of a pretence that the known isn't known. Or isn't known sufficiently to take action. <br /><br />We (that is humans alive today, collectively) know more than enough to *know* how to act and have *known* this sufficiently well for more than thirty years.Souhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08818999735123752034noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-90717998816574908252014-02-21T09:30:01.957+11:002014-02-21T09:30:01.957+11:00BBD: Greig is still peddling his claim that all ...BBD: <i> Greig is still peddling his claim that all forcing increase is buffered by deep ocean heating for millennia, so TCR is negligible and ECS so distant a concern as to be irrelevant. </i><br /><br />I am not "peddling" any such thing. It speaks volumes that you need to misrepresent and exaggerate.<br /><br /><i> This is a gross misrepresentation of the way the forced climate system responds as any climatologist or <b>paleoclimatologist</b> will confirm. </i><br /><br />BBD, you are playing the "science is settled" card, when you know that there is nothing analogous in the paleoclimate record to current climate forcing, which is why there speculation around TCR, and even new ideas emerging (eg England et al) to explain the fact that observations do not match the CMIP projections. <br /><br />I have pointed out the weakness in Bernard J's analogy, noting he still cannot fathom that the rate of heat accumulation can and does change over time due to feedback processes (which remain largely unknown), that there is no circumstance where the number of patrons exceeds the theatres capacity, i.e. we are not facing a catastrophe but a continuous change over time.<br /><br />Science does not answer all of our questions at this point (we do not know what the future holds). This should be self-evident, but it emerges constantly here, the absurdity of absolute confidence that science has predicted everything, that that it is unambiguously bad. Such a position is not how scientists behave- you have abandoned your scepticism, you are not willing to acknowledge what you don't know.Greighttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14845487134006948830noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-21727021229237951562014-02-21T05:38:45.857+11:002014-02-21T05:38:45.857+11:00I see Greig is still peddling his claim that all f...I see Greig is still peddling his claim that all forcing increase is buffered by deep ocean heating for millennia, so TCR is negligible and ECS so distant a concern as to be irrelevant. This is a gross misrepresentation of the way the forced climate system responds as any climatologist or paleoclimatologist will confirm. BBDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10687930416706386215noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-24311784440819731642014-02-21T04:42:58.077+11:002014-02-21T04:42:58.077+11:00Greig
I think Richard Alley, as ever, puts it wel...Greig<br /><br />I think Richard Alley, as ever, puts it well in a quote included in 'Rising Sea Levels' by Hunt Janin and Scott A Mandia which can be found here, <br /><br />http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=l6RA71uAQu4C&pg=PA136&lpg=PA136&dq=%22The+climate+can+be+a+little+like+a+kayak%22&source=bl&ots=lcTeV0TYMC&sig=mgP1Y51dTk8gjevqmA23U0iV-Ws&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9eYFU5a-BNORhQfFwICYBw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22The%20climate%20can%20be%20a%20little%20like%20a%20kayak%22&f=false<br /><br />start from 'The climate can be a little like a kayak,Lionel Ahttp://lionels.orpheusweb.co.uk/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-83430816014961176532014-02-21T01:39:46.110+11:002014-02-21T01:39:46.110+11:00Further to the above, I would recommend this Real ...Further to the above, I would recommend <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/12/the-global-temperature-jigsaw/" rel="nofollow">this Real Climate article</a> to Grieg.<br /><br />Also, <a href="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/02/going-with-the-wind/" rel="nofollow">this more recent article</a> on the England et al paper.Bobnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-73945839444135904882014-02-21T01:15:22.856+11:002014-02-21T01:15:22.856+11:00Grieg.
The best analogies are kept simple. You&#...Grieg.<br /><br />The best analogies are kept simple. You've conceded that the Earth is accumulating heat, so what will this rate of heat accumulation do to the mean temperature of planet over decades and centuries, and what effect will this increase in temperature have on humans and the biosphere?<br /><br />You can wiggle and squirm and dissemble all you like, but there is a fracking mountain of science that tells us the answers, and bugger all from your denialist buddies that says that the effects aren't serious or are unknown. If you adhere to this nonsense all it proves is that you aren't aware of the science, or you choose to ignore it. Take your pick.<br /><br />Personally, I couldn't give a rat's if you learn anything or not, because I know that you're wrong and if you're happy to continue living in Delusionland then that's your issue. I'm just curious to see if you have anything that resembled an evidenced argument to contradict the <i>real</i> science, and you don't.<br /><br />That's the bottom line.Bernard J.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-13720969160609150992014-02-21T00:32:21.366+11:002014-02-21T00:32:21.366+11:00Phil, it has nothing to do with censorship. The bl...Phil, it has nothing to do with censorship. The blog software has been eating comments, a problem that Sou has referred to on several threads. Several of my comments have also had to be hauled from the spam folder.<br /><br />I'm experimenting with posting anonymously (with a sig) rather than the Name/URL option, which seems to be less problematic. At least, its worked on the small number of comments I've made since the problem cropped up.<br />(fingers crossed)<br /><br />FrankDAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2313427464944392482.post-37417984562535152612014-02-20T23:59:29.633+11:002014-02-20T23:59:29.633+11:00Greig, so you think I incorrectly paraphrased you....Greig, so you think I incorrectly paraphrased you. Let us see, here are the pertinent sections of your ramble through uncertainty:<br /><br />'Unknown, since the rate of accumulation over time and impact in the future is unknown...but the rate is unknown, since we do not understand the natural processes (eg rate of ocean heat uptake, feedback processes, etc). Since these natural factors are unknown, we face an unquantified future risk of climate change.<br />Further the impact on the biosphere of a warmer world is unknown. <br />Finally, when facing an unquantified future risk...There are reasons for us to reduce atmospheric CO2, and reasons why we should not dramatically change our energy technology base...'<br /><br />So what do we see in the above? No recognition that we know enough about the amount of extra warming in the pipeline even if we stop adding GHGs to the atmosphere as of now to understand that the consequences for the biosphere, of which we are a part, are going to be severe.<br /><br />Oh and on being 'Not even wrong' - no that does not indicate that you are correct, check out what the originator of that expression, Wolfgang Pauli, intended it to mean. It is rather like the question Peter Lilley asked.Lionel Ahttp://lionels.orpheusweb.co.uk/noreply@blogger.com