cohenite,

I understand it better than you buddy. You've put up your best. I've looked at them and spat them back out....."

That is the most spectacularly arrogant self-assessment I think I've read on OLO - and you have no formal qualifications in any of the disciplines associated with climate science. In fact, you measure your expertise on climate science by the fact that you "....assess complex legal disputes..."

Stunning!

"Stunning!"

Thank you frenchie, I knew I'd get in your good books sooner or later.

Pity your little mate has done a runner, eh

The science produced by bonmot has no bearing on the premise of AGW.

Human emissions have not been shown to have any measurable effect on global climate.

The topic is whether human emissions can be shown to be a cause of global warming, and bonmot gives a reference to a paper “in Response to Global Warming”. Not a mention of human emissions.

He cannot be as dense as he pretends. This action in posting a completely irrelevant reference is pure humbug.

We all know that there is no current science to support any assertion of significance to the trivial effect of human emissions. We are only dealing with failure to admit the truth. The effect of human emissions is not measurable, because it is trivial.

Five years ago, the IPCC said it was “very likely”, a perverse way of admitting that there is no science to back the assertion. They promised that the science to back it was imminent, and none has been forthcoming.

How many years do we have to wait for an admission, that this unscientific guess is nonsense?

Cohenite, never assume that bonmot means it when he promises not to return. His promises are like his understanding of science. Of no effect.

At last ! Thank you, Cohenite. So, 0.5-0.8 degrees in a century, and what - all of it attributable to AGW ? No solar cycles, etc. ? No heat island effects on measuring stations ?

Okay, 0.8 degrees maximum. Nice to know.

And, by the way, calving icebergs: in the past, did icebergs never calve off until the ice sheet reached much further south, half-way to the Equator ? Seriously, sooner or later, all icebergs calve off glaciers and ice-sheets, and the larger the iceberg, the longer it has had to grow ? Or what ? And since they are, after all, water, sitting on water, when they melt they have absolutely no effect on sea-levels - isn't that so ?

Cheers,

Joe

Dearest Leo,

You say:

>> Cohenite, never assume that bonmot means it when he promises not to return. <<

Which part of this statement do you not comprehend?

"This will be my last comment to you here, Anthony."

.

Btw, I suspect you and your fellow traveller won't like the following:

http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/methods-paper-with-appendix-may-14.pdf

http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/uhi-revised-june-26.pdf (see Judith Curry has co-authored)

http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/results-paper-july-8.pdf

http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/berkeley-earth-decadal-variations.pdf

http://berkeleyearth.org/pdf/station-quality-may-20.pdf

Looks like people of your ideological persuasion will now say the once renowned 'A-Team' of the so called "sceptics" are traitors, turn-coats and don't know what the hell they are talking about.

Listen up, closely - see Judith Curry's name there? She's a co-author.

Thanks Bonmot,

So a median rise of 0.92-1.00 degree in a hundred years ? Tasmanians will be annoyed.

And no significant heat island effect overall ? That graph comparing Tokyo and rural Japan over a century did not seem to indicate that, but okay, we'll run with it.

So how much of that one degree is man-made ? How much is due to natural forces ? Give or take ?

And what impact will human intervention - switching to renewables, etc. - have on that one degree per century ?

Hypothetically, if most energy was generated via the latest forms of nuclear energy production, Generation 4 or 5 or 6 stations, what impact might that have over a century ?

Joe