Still avoiding the point, SR.

Basically, your last post is correct. A few quibbles but what the hell.

But you original blamed "you lot" aka 'deniers' for the 20/40 error. And that was wrong, as per your own summary. The author got it wrong, or at least claimed he got it wrong, and others simply took him at his word. Pure and simple.

That you can't just own up to having got the story just as wrong as LEGO is all very pathetic.

MHAZE,
I haven't spent 2 years trying to prove anything because it's already proved and out there. I simply got bored of this forum and got busy with life. In fact, I had forgotten you even asserted they couldn't "do the math" a few years back. I know it's hard to imagine but I had forgotten all about you!

It only resurfaced recently when I repeated something about they had "done the math" and you tut tutted and highlighted a 2 year old argument! Sensitive, much?

2 years ago you insisted they had not 'done the math' to come up with an approximate number. Again, the IPCC HAS actually done the math.

A: It involves the known warming of an estimated 1.2 degrees per doubling for the raw increase in CO2. That's the physics + math bit.

B: Then it involves thousands of paleo climate models to establish Climate Sensitivity, and there are so many with so many likely variables they plug in they came up with the probability (that you insisted didn't exist!) http://tinyurl.com/uwzl8ct

That gives them their 66% probabilities and depending on methodology you get the rough unmoderated probability figure of 420GT on one and 570GT on another.

Then, because paleoclimate must use proxies you end up with further ranges which if they ALL GO BAD and we add them all up against us, could mean we must stop burning fossil fuels OVERNIGHT because we’ve already blown the carbon budget!

OR if they ALL GO GOOD FOR US they might give us double the carbon budget giving us about 30 years instead of the 12 years the ‘average’ highest probability carbon budget can give us.
http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_spm_final.pdf

Hi Steelie. I would like to congratulate you for finally looking at the page of graphs I have been trying to make you look for a long time now.

The first thing I would note is that even I agree with alarmist scientists that ice core samples are local and should not be considered global. But I would like to point out that the temperature optimums displayed Greenland ice cores from the last 10,000 years almost exactly match the temperatures optimums on the graphs displaying global temperatures for the last 10,000 years. This seems to confirm the accuracy of the Global temperature graph.

The site you directed me to seems to be saying that ice core samples can not be used to determine present day temperatures because it takes a while for snow to become ice before it can be cored. It furthermore accuses Don Easterbrook of fudging the figures because his graph which purports to display present temperatures can not do so because of the reason mentioned above. I don't know who is telling the truth here, because the alarmist and the sceptic sites I have visited have never mentioned whether ice cores provide valid temperatures for the present day.

Getting back to CO2. What do you make of this graph showing that CO2 has had no causal relationship to global temperatures for 570 million years?

http://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNTFQ6N_yYfXwAtl0Gb8--ISlWoVWQ:1579759552251&q=images+CCO2+versus+global+temperatures+570+million+years&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiU3sT3hpnnAhVUOSsKHU6JC_8QsAR6BAgKEAE&biw=2021&bih=1085#spf=1579759554166

Furthermore as the first (black) graph on the same page of global temperatures clearly shows, the earth cooled from 1940 to 1970, despite plenty of CO2 being belched out. This seems to prove that CO2 causes temperatures to fall. This was the beginning of the first climate scare, when climate scientists claimed we were returning to an ice age.

http://harpers.org/archive/1958/09/the-coming-ice-age/

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11643-climate-myths-they-predicted-global-cooling-in-the-1970s/

And you know why climate scientists thought we were returning to an ice age? They used a graph similar to the ones linked below displaying regularly occurring global warming periods over 10,000 years, to deduce that given the temperature drop 1940-1970, that our present warming period was over.

http://www.google.com/search?sxsrf=ACYBGNT7uyVn46BcSBL68_NKYYZrWsUo5g:1579761855037&q=images+10,+000+year+temperatures&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwio3MvBj5nnAhXizDgGHQXADBcQsAR6BAgKEAE&biw=2021&bih=1085#spf=1579761856697

"Then, because paleoclimate must use proxies you end up with further ranges "

Yes there is no one answer. There is a range. A very big range. Just as I said from my very first post on this.

Thank you. You finally got there.

MHAZE,

Here’s the deal.

1. These probabilities involve lots and lots of papers that all involve lots and lots of physics and math. How you can say they didn’t do the math because it’s impossible to do the math is beyond me, and quite juvenile.

2. Do you really want to bet our entire civilisation on a vanishingly small chance that maybe, just maybe, we get to burn fossil fuels for 30 years when:-

A: WHO says the stuff kills 3.5 million people a year
B: It’s going to run out one day ANYWAY!
C: About half way through the reserve it peaks and goes into decline, which will bankrupt economies still dependent on any resource that has peaked and is ever rising in prices.
D: Exporting nations can be especially vulnerable to faster peaks and suddenly having trouble with not maintaining their current accounts as the export value collapses. History shows exporting nations can become importing nations very quickly, messing up economies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_Land_Model
E: Nuclear power can replace coal for electricity and a mix of EV's and hydrogen and synfuel can replace oil. Especially if we get into better more attractive New Urban or Ecocity town planning around better trams and trains and trolley buses.
F: Australia is the Saudi Arabia of uranium!

With too many self-important and quite delusional climate deniers LEGO and Individual and yourself, I'm starting to think we’re stuffed. Your well documented psychological process makes you think YOU'RE the climate expert, and everyone else just MUST be wrong. It's simply TOO BIG for you to admit to yourself. You're actually scared. http://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/denying-the-grave/201901/climate-change-denial

If we get unlucky with the Climate Sensitivity (EG: should have stopped by now) and keep burning fossil fuels for 30 years, we may just cook up 12 degrees. That's actually uninhabitable for most of the land on earth, unless we start burrowing underground and living like Morlocks.

Dear mhaze,

No I wasn't wrong at all. Since the correction the 20 years figure has continued to be bandied about including on this forum without any reference to the doubling of CO2 either.

However you were most certainly wrong saying the author changed the figure because of pressure exerted since the Salon interview which is obviously a falsehood given you now accept my timeline.

Dear Lego,

Pretty easy mate, just overlay this graph on top of yours. Note the years are in reverse order;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level#/media/File:Phanerozoic_Sea_Level.png

You happy with sea levels 10s of meters higher?

Leaving that aside CO2 levels were forced by temperature in the past. Now the gas has become a significant driver because humans are pulling vast quantities of CO2 intense stuff out of the ground and putting it in the atmosphere. These are two quite different scenarios. CO2 levels found new equilibrium under differing temperatures regimes in the past depending things like on ice extents etc. Now the temperature is instead being forced to find a new equilibrium under an increasing CO2 regime.

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?.