Dear Lego,

The very first image presented by your link is this one;

http://hot-topic.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/easterbrook_fig5.png

The site which had posted it was this one;

http://skepticalscience.com/10000-years-warmer.htm

It completely demolishes Easterbrook's graph. How about you read it and tell me what you think.

Lego, the actual timing of the warming periods could shift back and
forth by an amount I would like to compute.
It would be caused by the fact of multiple cycles of the different
causes.
Each cause is logically ANDed together to produce a warming period.
The sunspot period is 11 years but it needs co-incidence of the
Milanovitch cycles and the sun radience timing cycle.

In their related paper, aptly titled, “No experimental evidence for
the significant anthropogenic [man-made] climate change”, the Finnish
scientists find that low cloud cover “practically” controls global
temperatures but that “only a small part” of the increased carbon
dioxide concentration is anthropogenic, or caused by human activity.

The following is a key bombshell section in one of the studies
conducted by Finland’s Turku University team:

We have proven that the GCM-models used in IPCC report AR5 cannot
compute correctly the natural component included in the observed
global temperature. The reason is that the models fail to derive the
influences of low cloud cover fraction on the global temperature.
A too small natural component results in a too large portion for the
contribution of the greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide.
That is why 6 J. KAUPPINEN AND P. MALMI IPCC represents the climate
sensitivity more than one order of magnitude larger than our
sensitivity 0.24°C. Because the anthropogenic portion in the increased
CO2 is less than 10 %, we have practically no anthropogenic climate
change. The low clouds control mainly the global temperature.

This raises urgent questions and central contradictions regarding
current models which politicians and environmental groups across the
globe are using to push radical economic changes on their countries’
populations.

NB, the conventional CO2 pushers are making attacks on the authors
on various comment columns. It will probably take some time for it
to settle down.

Dear Bazz,

Sigh.

Is the paper peer reviewed?

Is the paper published in any journal rather than just being posted to arvix.org which is used to post manuscripts of studies before they are peer reviewed and accepted for publication by reputable journals?

If not then why are you wasting our time?

Max wrote.."That's a bit different to 100-1000 range you're trying to project,"

In my very first post on this carbon budget malarkey I pointed out that the answer had to be a range and, since they didn't have a range, they hadn't done the maths. That the budget number they propagandised was rubbish. You've spent two years trying to show otherwise.

But all you've done is prove my original point. Yet even now you don't understand it. Your own link shows is that the base budget figure might be 580 GtCO2 or 420 or 770 or 570 depending on the models used. Then they say " Uncertainties in the size of these estimated remaining carbon budgets are substantial and depend on several factors." They list the values of some of those uncertainties...+/-400 due to uncertainties in the climate response to CO2, level of historic warming contributes ±250 GtCO2, future mitigation +/-250.

So if you combine all those uncertainties, they exceed the actual original values by a significant margin. Meaning that, statistically speaking, the numbers are worthless.

So you've spent two years trying to prove a piece of rubbish you fell for and have finally proven that indeed it was rubbish. But laughably you don't even realise it.

So according to SR, when LEGO got the 20 year/40 year numbers wrong (LEGO thought it was 20 yrs when it is conclusively shown it was 40 years) SR thought that that bought shame on "you lot".

But when SR got the 20 year/40 yrs story wrong (he thought the 20 year story was started by "you lot") his view is very different. Its all okey-dokey, nothing to see here, let's change the subject.

Good to know.

________________________________________________________________

"Is the paper peer reviewed?"

SR has more ways to ignore unwanted data than you can shake a stick at. It all comes down to refusing to see anything that might shake his faith. And this is called "following the science".

SR, in your previous post you linked to an article in the climate hysterics bible, SkepticalScience. Was that peer reviewed? No?

Oh well I guess we can all ignore it.

Dear mhaze,

Strewth mate you really need to grow up.

Bob Reiss wrote a book in 2001. In it he related an interview he had with Hansen in 1988.

During an interview with Salon weeks after the book was released he was asked about that conversation with Hansen. His reply was off the cuff and little was made of it until WUWT breathlessly announced in an article dated 2009 titled "A little known 20 year old climate change prediction by Dr. James Hansen – that failed." He was corrected by both Hansen and Reiss so then changed the title to "A little known 20 40 year old climate change prediction by Dr. James Hansen – that failed will likely fail badly".

The facts are that the correct figure was in the book all the time. The author misquoted his own book, corrected the record when he was aware of it and that is where it should have been left.

But here we are with you running this line;

"Actually, that's not true. What actually happened is that the interviewer said 20 years. At the time no one disputed the point. Only when the 20 years was approaching and it was clear the predictions were utterly laughably wrong did the author suddenly realise that he got it wrong and the prediction was 40 years. I imagine someone talking to the author ..."Nice career you've go there..it'd be a shame to loose it. Now was it 20 or 40 years?""

What an utter distortion of the facts. I repeat the details were correct in the book but the author got them jumbled in an interview after the book launch yet you are touting yet another conspiracy theory.

For God's sake get a grip. The world isn't out to get you. You don't have to make this stuff up. Stick with the facts for once.

Incredible.