Yes, Peter, checking the calculation an ECS above 4 is necessary whereas, as I'd read it, a figure of 3.6 was applied together with warming in the pipeline from CO2 already emitted. So, I agree with you on this.

Sorry if the rest is pointless to you. I feel that too when economists see a scale of warming as a continuum to be dealt with on a pay-as-you-go basis, as if we can back up when we choose, while cherry-picking sensitivity studies and ignoring non-surface warming, rather than taking a precautionary, prophylactic approach.

Best wishes

Luciferase
You've already lost the entire argument because you're unable to show any rational basis for your support for climate policy, remember?

That's what you ran away from defending without answering what proves you wrong, remember?

All
We keep seeing Luciferases tactice from all the warmists.

When faced with the fact that they are unable to defend their argument - because they are unable to prove what is in issue - they just leave that thread, and then re-appear in another thread re-asserting what they cannot defend, agitating subsidiary and secondary issues when they knows perfectly well that they can't defend the general propositions on which their entire argument depends.

We have demonstrated over and over again that the warmists have nothing but an endless train of intellectual incoherence. Nothing ever adds up to the chain of reasoning that would be necessary to justify their claims. When confronted, they just pretend that all the issues don't exist, that any doubt automatically counts in their own favour, and that economic scarcity counts on one side of the equation but not the other. When challenged on these double standards, they flee into every category of nonsense, illogic, and evasion imaginable; and just keep endlessly coming up with more of the same bullsh!t.

The whole catastrophic man-made global warming meme is just a stupid and dishonest belief system, and that's the end of the matter.

It continues to exist not because science supports it - (what's not rational cannot be scientific) - but because
a) government support it to the tune of about a billion dollars a day because it suits their interests, and
b) useful idiots support it.

Unlike warmair and Poirot, who have conceded that dishonesty is the basis of their support for the AGW fraud, Luciferase and Agronomist continue putting forward nonsense, rather than face the fact that their assertions are based on dishonesty, and not science.

They can only wait for the next United Nations fraud, to which they can lend their dishonest support.

AGW is dead

Yar, Leo...you're not much better than JKJ.

We can always depend of your "argument" (and I use that term loosely)..which invariably comprises of accusing fellow posters of "dishonesty and fraud".

That's about the size of it from Leo....

Blocks his ears - and sprinkles derision throughout his post.

Voila!....he's proved it's all a fraud.

(Scintillating stuff)

I remember JKJ, and my argument remains unchanged.

At the moment, the surface T hiatus, the sensitivity determinations coming from various papers all in dispute, and even NASA's latest pronouncement on deep ocean T (forget the upper levels are still warming) have deniers cock-a-hoop. (Just an aside here, where is the heat coming from that warms the upper ocean if it's not coming from down below? And for poor old LL, why do skeptics talk of climate sensitivity if the greenhouse effect is false science? Just saying)

The McKitrick piece is typical skeptic stuff, basically saying we should wait and see and pay any cost on the fly should T rise rather than taking a prophylactic approach. Catastrophe is just part of a wider continuum to economists, you just have to throw money at it (once the problem is acknowledged, not the skeptics' strong suite).

And don't oilers love it: https://www.masterresource.org/debate-issues/low-climate-sensitivity-accumulating/ : “But while the IPCC chooses to look the other way, the scientific evidence supporting low equilibrium climate sensitivity continues to pile up…. This is all around good news, for it means that we can focus more on expanding energy access (via fossil fuels) around the world rather than curtail our energy growth.”

Just what if climate sensitivity happens to be at the upper end of the range of ALL forecasts (not just McKitricks chosen few of dozens). Just what if heat building into the oceans finds its way in a hurry into surface T, just as it has done in reverse to bring about the current hiatus? As ocean T and acidity rises it's ability to sequestrate CO2 falls (while causing its own problems). There's a whole lot going on here to which skeptics want us to simply throw money at if/when things turn against us (they already are, but skeptics wont acknowledge it. The rate of T rise over 150 years is unprecedented).

It's a little analogous to the IS problem, will we see the problem and respond before a tipping point is reached? A little prophylaxis goes a long way. A stitch in time saves nine.......

Further too, and this for you JKJ, any cost-benefit analysis must accept a range of ECS and not necessarily just work to the peak in that range. This is because the the greatest costs are at the top of the ECS range

This would need individual CBA's at a the range extremities and number of temperature points within it, followed by interpolation to create a function that can be integrated.

Which range should be adopted? I think we have to look at all the ranges, not just those focused high or low, coming from respected mainstream peer reviewed literature. Otherwise, we might go with IPCC's AR5 range, which leaves everybody's bets on the table.

I'm confident that if a study were done in this way, it would inform public policy by demonstrating a need for global prophylaxis from an economic perspective, not a pay-as-we go (suck'n'see) approach.

Perhaps you could pack your invective