Leo,

".....The current increase in CO2 has not resulted in any warming..."

Alan's reference was to NASA not finding warming in the deep ocean.

The same study found that there was plenty of warming in the "top half" of the world's oceans.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2014/06oct_abyss/

"Coauthor Felix Landerer of JPL noted that during the same period warming in the top half of the ocean continued unabated, an unequivocal sign that our planet is heating up. Some recent studies reporting deep-ocean warming were, in fact, referring to the warming in the upper half of the ocean but below the topmost layer, which ends about 0.4 mile (700 meters) down."

" Scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in Pasadena, California, analyzed satellite and direct ocean temperature data from 2005 to 2013 and found the ocean abyss below 1.24 miles (1,995 meters) has not warmed measurably. Study coauthor Josh Willis of JPL said these findings do not throw suspicion on climate change itself.

"The sea level is still rising," Willis noted. "We're just trying to understand the nitty-gritty details."

Interesting that you take the cue from Alan's article - referencing the NASA study - to run your usual spiel, but ignore the other findings which point to continued warming of the top layer of oceans.

Seems to be that you (and others) like the bits in the study that match your spiel, but are happy to ignore those that don't?

Peter,

Firstly I'd quibble over the 1.3 degree TCR figure. This may be helpful to explain http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/03/scientists-challenge-climate-skeptic-claims-that-un-panel-overestimates-warming/

Whatever, the calculation by the physicist I linked to was not about determining a transient position at 2085 but what the final outcome will be once the total climate system equilibrates. He calculates a 4 degree rise from the beginning of the industrial revolution and I say this is reason enough to act, rather than feeling comfy about where things may stand at 2085.

As an aside, TCR is the increase in 20-year mean global temperature over a 70 year timeframe during which CO2 concentrations, rising throughout at 1% p.a. compound, double. My interpretation of this, and I stand to be corrected, is that the 0.5 degree figure you calculate (I figure ~0.7 with 1.8 TCR) is not a peak figure but a 20 year mean for the years leading to 2085. The average surface temperature for 2085 itself will be higher than the mean.

McKitrick's paper makes use of TCR because T (transient) is the mindset of an economist compared with a physicist's. The former stares at the steering wheel while the latter at the road into the distance.

Lucerface,you are burying the simple facts in a pile of gobbledygook.

"--> 0.91 doublings relative to pre-industrial 280 ppm
--> 4.00 °C temperature rise "

That's an ECS > 4 C (2xCO2). That's not the median value from either the models or the observational estimates, it's outside 95% of observational estimates and near the top 95% of modeller's estimates. So, its a massive cherry pick, exaggeration.

It's also ridiculous to be arguing about effects in >300 years time. Policies are not sustainable for even a decade unless they are economically sustainable.

ECS is coming down. There is mounting evidence that the models are running too hot. The ECS and TCR estimates based on observational data are giving lower estimates than the models and the evidence has been mounting since before the 2007 IPCC AR4 report.

Economists, not scientists, inform policy analysis. Scientists have little understanding about what information is relevant for policy analysis,

It's a sign of motivated reasoning to dismiss paper's like McKitrick's on the basis you don't like what it says. The problem is we've had far too much group-think on CAGW for far too long. We desperately need good analyses from conservatives to give us some rational economic analyses to balance the climate cultists.

I'd urge you to read McKitrick's paper carefully, with open mind and consider the alternative perspective offered. You need to be able to start to recognise why the alarmists are not getting their point across to the 97% of world population who have other priorities than what your cult believes is the most important issue facing mankind.

"That's an ECS > 4 C (2xCO2)" No, it's using 3. degrees 6 based on the Holden paper quoted by the physicist. http://www.mucm.ac.uk/Pages/Downloads/Other_Papers_Reports/RW%20clim%20dym%20probabilistic%20calibration%20GENIE%201%20rcvd%20082009.pdf which roughly concurs with IPCC AR5. The 4 degree calculation sums the T change since the Industrial revolution with the projection using the Holden figure.

"It's also ridiculous to be arguing about effects in >300 years time." It seems more ridiculous not to concern ourselves with catastrophic future outcomes which, BTW, are not guaranteed to come gradually and far into the future.

Further to come (immediately if my post limit allows)

"Policies are not sustainable for even a decade unless they are economically sustainable." Then humanity will pay the price. Action on CO2 is sustainable if the world acts together, which you are highly skeptical about, I know. taht's a different discussion.

"ECS is coming down. There is mounting evidence that the models are running too hot. The ECS and TCR estimates based on observational data are giving lower estimates than the models and the evidence has been mounting since before the 2007 IPCC AR4 report." I'll take my cue from all peer reviewed papers on that (and IPCC analysis), not just those cited by McKintrick (who excludes Holden), whose bias is clear in many parts of his paper, including where he says,

"In a low-sensitivity model, GHG emissions lead only to minor changes in temperature, so the socioeconomic costs associated with the emissions must also be minimal. In a high-sensitivity model, large temperature changes would occur, so marginal economic damages of CO2 emissions must be larger"

Marginal? At what level of sensitivity will he accept catastrophe as an outcome? This is the myopia of the economists. What if a 3.6 degree figure (or higher) is right. Where is evidence of the precautionary principle in economists' thinking?

cont'd

"Economists, not scientists, inform policy analysis. Scientists have little understanding about what information is relevant for policy analysis" A case to listen to scientists more than economists. There's always a gap between the ideal and the achievable, but don't underestimate scientists' abilities to understand economic arguments. Politics needs more scientists.

"It's a sign of motivated reasoning to dismiss paper's like McKitrick's on the basis you don't like what it says" The basic premise is too absurd to read much beyond, grasping at a spurious case for a low TCR, a hiatus, and ignoring the signs the earth continues warming (albeit not currently much at the surface). There is also the rejection of the CO2 hypothesis and AGW buried in there too. Should we ever stop burning fossil fuels?

"The problem is we've had far too much group-think on CAGW for far too long. We desperately need good analyses from conservatives to give us some rational economic analyses to balance the climate cultists." I'll pass on that one, it smacks of motivated reasoning.

"I'd urge you to read McKitrick's paper carefully, with open mind and consider the alternative perspective offered" It isn't written with an open mind, but I've read it.

"You need to be able to start to recognise why the alarmists are not getting their point across to the 97% of world population who have other priorities than what your cult believes is the most important issue facing mankind" The point is getting across, both by observation and argument, and and will better do so when powerful people with vested interests stop running interference.

Peter, you've made got sense to me on several issues, but not this one.

Lucerface,,
""That's an ECS > 4 C (2xCO2)" No, it's using 3. degrees 6 based on the Holden paper quoted by the physicist."

ECS means the temperature rise for a doubling of CO2 concentrations. You said:
0.91 doublings --> 4.00 °C temperature rise "

For that to be correct, ECS >4 C.

Understand now?

This discussion is pointless.