Mhaze. I stand by my claim as NASA as the source of my claim of our sun being in a cyclical waning phase since the mid-seventies. And because I read on their page will keep reporting it as coming from them as my source.

You can split all the hairs you want, obfuscate all over the place to claim solar activity is slightly lower and then try to make our record temperatures over months and decades etc, fit a lower solar activity?

As Will Robinson's robot Robbie would say, it just doesn't compute!


And what is the problem with vastly increased economic activity produced by the MSR's and associated infrastructure we'd need to build to decarb our economy, and what is the problem with energy prices lower than 3 cents PKWH (Professor Robert Hargraves, economist and Author of, Thorium, cheaper than coal)

Simply saying that NASA doesn't know what they are talking about is hardly convincing, in fact, complete bereft of credibility.

Prize-winning investigative journalist and science writer, Richard Martin is another source you should look at in his book, Thorium, Super Fuel, subtitled, green energy!

I'd understand your objections if transitioning to a nuclear-based economy would harm us economically or harm the environment! But given all I have proposed would do the exact opposite!

Always providing we do not ever privatise our decarbed energy market!

What your actual problem, possible reduced coal sales?

Is your position, we haven't burnt down enough farms homes and flora and fauna.yet and people and should keep burning and selling coal to whomsoever will buy it and the devil take our children's future!
Alan B.

Alan B wrote:"Simply saying that NASA doesn't know what they are talking about is hardly convincing, in fact, complete bereft of credibility."

I'm not saying that NASA doesn't know what they're talking about, I'm saying you don't. There is no way NASA ever said the sun's been in a waning phase since the 1970s. You've never offered any evidence for that assertion. Now I'm prepared to accept that you honestly think you saw it somewhere, but you're wrong. The claim that the sun's been waning for the past 50years is bunkum and NASA never said it.

Alan B wrote:"And what is the problem with vastly increased economic activity produced by the MSR's..."

The only thing wrong with that is its a fantasy. There has never been a single watt of commercial power generated by a MSR device. Never. The Chinese are furthest down the road on working toward such a device and they say the earliest they'll have a commercial station is some time in the 1930s, if ever. Your assertions that we could transition now if it wasn't for politics, is a fantasy.

Speaking of fantasies...Will Robinson's robot wasn't called Robbie. It was just always called robot. Robby (not Robbie) was from Forbidden Planet which of course starred Anne Francis' legs.

See how little errors of fact lead you down the garden path? Read something about the sun, get it wrong and convince yourself NASA is on board with the error. Read or see something about some fictional technology and convince yourself its real. Get your automatons mixed up and confuse Will Robinson with Anne Francis.

Oh MHAZE,
you asserting someone is wrong is just funny these days! Like you on CARBON BUDGET MATH:-
You continually crow about some amazing victory over me a few years ago. "Careful there Max. Remember the last time you started down this "do the Math" rubbish. I did the math...and showed you to be an utter nong" http://tinyurl.com/stx7b74

The journal Nature has said:
"Here we present a new emergent constraint on ECS that yields a central estimate of 2.8 degrees Celsius with 66 per cent confidence limits (equivalent to the IPCC ‘likely’ range) of 2.2–3.4 degrees Celsius. Our approach is to focus on the variability of temperature about long-term historical warming, rather than on the warming trend itself."
January 2018 http://www.nature.com/articles/nature25450

MHAZE said: "“The highest point isn't more probable than those around it, it just had more simulations run on it.”
I showed NASA's statement:- "This pattern (statisticians call it a “right-skewed distribution”) suggests that if carbon dioxide concentrations double, the probability of very large increases in temperature is greater than the probability of very small increases." http://tinyurl.com/utnn2du

MHAZE said "No one did the maths. You just made it up. JUST MADE IT UP" http://tinyurl.com/uwzl8ct
I linked to the IPCC which showed the math and the range in gigatons and it's even MORE serious now at 420 GT!. http://tinyurl.com/w298py9

Max,

This has already been litigated elsewhere and you were found wanting. You made claims about the maths that determined how much fossil fuels we were allowed to burn before we all die or something and then defended those claims as best you could. You even went to the extent of making up stories about how the maths was done.

And then, when you finally were forced to realise that indeed no maths had been done, you now try to redefine the issue by saying that the running multiple simulations is the same as 'doing the math'. All your previous assertions about how the numbers were determined are forgotten and a whole bunch of new assertions inserted with nary an acknowledgement of the change. You keep pretending that you were always right even though all your original claims have been so debunked that even you no longer defend them. Instead you pretend they didn't happen.

And even now we find you making stuff up. "it's even MORE serious now at 420 GT" you say based on the IPCC's AR5 SPM. But that's not what they say at all. They have a range of numbers and a range of uncertainties.

From the same report...." Uncertainties in the size of these estimated remaining carbon budgets are substantial and depend on several factors" and "mitigation in the future could alter the remaining carbon budget by 250 GtCO2 in either direction". Indeed, based on just that report the so-called carbon budget could be in excess if 1000gt.

Max, I get that for you all these numbers are too confusing and that you want it all boiled down to one easily understood number. And I get that you're going to defend that number to the hilt irrespective of how insane that may be.

But I'm not following you down that rabbit hole. You've demonstrated both a complete lack of understanding on this and a range of other climate issues and really aren't worth my time and effort any longer.

Oh MHAZE,
The backpedalling is just hilarious! Now you try and divert everyone’s attention to what you *think* I was claiming and when, blah blah blah. But you just repeat the same silly claim you started with nearly 3 years ago that range is a real problem for doing the math. http://tinyurl.com/ulnfnlh You also said: "No one did the maths. You just made it up. JUST MADE IT UP" http://tinyurl.com/uwzl8ct

But no matter how much you whine and lie and obfuscate, the IPCC HAVE done the math. The most advanced math there is, of feeding paleoclimate proxy data into advanced computer models and working back from that how much we can afford to burn. The fact that there is a RANGE in those models is not significant as probabilities narrow the range.

BECAUSE you are against probability narrowing your precious RANGE down at all, you ranted:
“Now you're on this "highest probability" rubbish. Again you completely misunderstand the science and the maths. Nowhere does anyone say they took the "highest probability", because they didn't because no such thing exists. Again, you just made it up although its probably you just failed to fathom the truth. The graph you think is a probability curve is in fact a histogram of simulation outcomes. The highest point isn't more probable than those around it,”
http://tinyurl.com/uwzl8ct

“The pattern that emerges from these types of tests is interesting. Few of the simulations result in less than 2 degrees of warming—near the low end of the IPCC estimates—but some result in significantly more than the 4 degrees at the high end of the IPCC estimates. This pattern (statisticians call it a “right-skewed distribution”) suggests that if carbon dioxide concentrations double, the probability of very large increases in temperature is greater than the probability of very small increases. Our ability to predict the future climate is far from certain, but this type of research suggests that the question of whether global warming will turn out to be less severe than scientists think may be less relevant than whether it may be far worse.”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/what-if-global-warming-isnt-as-severe-as-predicted/

See? NASA themselves explain that 'range' graph has having huge probabilities, and that the models they ran show vastly greater likelihood of danger ahead than not.

The IPCC adopt the range, and I spelled it ALL out in my original post to you. http://tinyurl.com/w298py9 Rather than trying to hide anything, I'm PROUD of their integrity in this!

You're on record as saying there were no probabilities or math. But that's all I can see below! ;-)

________________________________________

C.1.3 Limiting global warming requires limiting the total cumulative global anthropogenic emissions of CO2 since the preindustrial period, that is, staying within a total carbon budget (high confidence).13 By the end of 2017, anthropogenic CO2 emissions since the pre-industrial period are estimated to have reduced the total carbon budget for 1.5°C by approximately 2200 ± 320 GtCO2 (medium confidence). The associated remaining budget is being depleted by current emissions of 42 ± 3 GtCO2 per year (high confidence). The choice of the measure of global temperature affects the estimated remaining carbon budget.

Using global mean surface air temperature, as in AR5, gives an estimate of the remaining carbon budget of 580 GtCO2 for a 50% probability of limiting warming to 1.5°C, and 420 GtCO2 for a 66% probability (medium confidence).14

Alternatively, using GMST gives estimates of 770 and 570 GtCO2, for 50% and 66% probabilities,15 respectively (medium confidence). Uncertainties in the size of these estimated remaining carbon budgets are substantial and depend on several factors. Uncertainties in the climate response to CO2 and non-CO2 emissions contribute ±400 GtCO2 and the level of historic warming contributes ±250 GtCO2 (medium confidence). Potential additional carbon release from future permafrost thawing and methane release from wetlands would reduce budgets by up to 100 GtCO2 over the course of this century and more thereafter (medium confidence). In addition, the level of non-CO2 mitigation in the future could alter the remaining carbon budget by 250 GtCO2 in either direction (medium confidence). {1.2.4, 2.2.2, 2.6.1, Table 2.2, Chapter 2 Supplementary Material}
http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf