Well somewhere in there we have an admission from SR that he was wrong when he said "various denier websites " were responsible for the 20 year / 40 year 'error'. Not that you'll find an admission since that not SR's style. In SR-land error is a four letter word when it applies to him.

But he's very good at that the admission/non-admission of error. He should be because he has lots of practice. Quite why its impossible to just own up and move on is not apparent.

Of coarse we'll never find out if he was wrong through ignorance or malice. I vote all-of-the-above.

Part of technique is to immediately try to change the subject. So he wants to move onto some other supposed nefariousness on my part. I'll probably address that at some point, but just now I don't want to help his muddy-the-water efforts. Let the 'error' (if that's what it was) dangle there for a while.

Dear Steelie

Planet Earth is undergoing yet another scheduled warming period which occurs in roughly 1000 year intervals, since forever. Anthropogenic CO2 emissions obviously made no contribution to untold thousands of global warming periods for hundreds of millions of years. But today, when the Earth is undergoing it's present scheduled warming period, you and your Hare Krishna cultist friends think that it must all be caused by human released CO2.

Google "Photos, global temperatures, 600 million years" and look at the graph. For 570 million years there was no causal link between atmospheric CO2 and global temperatures. There were times when CO2 was significantly increasing, probably caused by volcanic outgassing, and temperatures were decreasing. And there were times when CO2 was significantly decreasing, and temperatures were increasing.

The only statistically valid relationship between CO2 levels and global temperatures occurs when CO2 levels are at the historically extremely low levels that they are today. Atmospheric CO2 levels have never been so low and plant life on Earth was in real danger of choking had it continued it's downward spiral. Agronomists are now talking about "the greening of the earth" caused by increasing CO2 levels.

The reason why there is a direct relationship between CO2 levels at very low concentrations and global temperatures, is because the oceans hold 50 times more dissolved CO2 than the atmosphere. Cold water holds more CO2, and warm water less. So when global temperatures rise (or fall) because of the four Malkovich factors, or from solar intensity variations, ocean current variables, continental drift, cosmic ray intensities, changes in the earth's magnetic field, or meteor strikes, the warming oceans release more CO2 into the atmosphere.

If CO2 was so important to global temperatures, then when rising temperatures caused the oceans to release more CO2, this would cause a temperature rise. Which would release more CO2, which would cause temperatures to rise again. That is a runaway greenhouse effect. And the fact that it has never happened in hundreds of millions of years validates the idea that rising CO2 levels have little significance to rising temperatures.

I have recently read an article by a scientist that states that the
regular global warming did not occur everywhere on earth.
I have recently read an article by a scientist that states that the
regular global warming did occur everywhere on earth.

Now of course we have J. Kauppinen & P. Maimi saying that the IPCC
models are wrong because wrong weighting given to co2 as not enough
weighting given to clouds.
H. Masayuki & Y. Uena agreeing.
Kauppinen was a expert member of IPCC 24th report.
A real pile on to Kauppinen & Maimi is occurring so it may take some
time for the dust to settle. Sound a familiar technique ?
Just watch this space.

LEGO,
you still have this huge snot-ball hanging on the side of your face.

"Gee willackers, Max, lets look at climate scientists and their predictions."
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=20693#364641

I answered many of the points, and then asked you to clarify which "European scientists" claimed extremist things. As in, where are your links and where is your evidence?
Please respond, or just admit you copied and pasted it all, and don't really know what you're talking about.

MHAZE, long time buddy!
Smug: "No one did the maths. You just made it up. JUST MADE IT UP" http://tinyurl.com/uwzl8ct

Certitude about the Climate Sensitivity models NOT having probability:

"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

Both have the results of the models (math), limits, and probabilities. Indeed, if he’d bothered to even read the climate sensitivity wiki 3 years ago when he pretended to know all about the ECS/TCS debate, he would have seen the link to NASA which clearly shows the ‘right skewed’ probabilities with this great summary:
“…the probability of very large increases in temperature is greater than the probability of very small increases.”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/what-if-global-warming-isnt-as-severe-as-predicted/

Let alone the IPCC spelling the probability range out around a 420 GT highest probability carbon allowance for 1.5 degrees at 66% probability, even as they also allow for a range 100 GT either side depending on how other things go!
http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf

So while MHAZE blusters and lies and tries to divert attention, we can all SEE what's happened here. There's no escaping it MHAZE, no matter how much you want to try and reframe what's happened. We can ALL suffer from overconfidence in things now and then. But we really should be adults and apologise when caught out. Otherwise it just looks bad, like a REAL case of Dunning Kruger's!
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/images/icon_link_grey.gif

So if that's how you judged Climate Sensitivity which is all about how paleoclimate assesses previous changes in the Earth's climate and temperature, how are you going to go this time? ;-)

Oh and just remember: your ally in hating-science LEGO doesn't even seem to have read the wiki on Roman warming which seems to have been a degree cooler than now.

Cooler than now.

Got that?

To Max.

Charming metaphors you use.

"Global Warming May Hit Skiing." (November 2001) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1661704.stm

Which unfortunately for the BBC, was later contradicted by another one of it's January 2018 news reports, which rather strangely does not even mention global warming. (Gee, I wonder why?) Heavy Snow Cuts Off Ski resorts. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42577046

Now, I would like to investigate your sneering remark that I had obviously not consulted WIKI about the Roman Warm Period, and if I had, I would have discovered that the Roman Warm Period was 1 degree cooler than it is today. You were correct that I had not consulted WIKI, so I did so now. I found no reference to The Roman Warm Period being 1 degree cooler than today. But it did say (and I quote) that temperatures during the RWP were "basically the same as it was around AD 2000." Looks like you have some explaining to do?

Furthermore, while I regard WIKI as generally impartial and a source of reliable information, it's claim that temperatures during the RWP equated to today, does not conform with other sources.

Please Google
"Photos, Global Temperature variations over last 10,000 years."

You will find dozens of graphs pertaining to climate data for the last 10,000 years, and some of them are going to make you feel like a Christian Scientist with appendicitis. These graphs will clearly display that the previous cyclical 9 warming "optimums" were in fact 2 degrees WARMER than today. Imagine that? No coal fired power stations. No SUV's. No large scale steel or concrete manufacturing.

If you have any brains at all (debatable) then you can only conclude that human generated CO2 could not possibly have caused the regularly recurring climate changes in the past, and our present, right on schedule global warming is just another one of those recurring events. You could with reasonable validity argue that CO2 could exacerbate our present warming period and make it's temperature optimum warmer, and with reservations I might agree with you. But you can not claim that human induced CO2 is causing our present climate change