/cont
Look Max, I get that you really, really want the 565gt figure to be true because you've go very little of value to say other than this screeching that we have to stop burning fossil fuels. And I get that you really don't understand where the number comes from and how dodgy it is. And I get that you try to reconcile that by just making stuff up which you hope might pass muster. But it doesn't.

But I really am done here. There's an old Latin phrase...Qui vult decipi, ergo decipiatur which roughly means "Let he who wishes to be deceived, be deceived."

mhaze rest we all do it post in the wrong thread
Monckton, what a complete fool, but to be honest if someone pays me what he gets to deliberately lie, you betcha there in a flash
Still [600 posts ] not getting many who and why answers but the one I did get was huge fun
Hope this is a great Christmas for all on the site regards all

MHAZE, I guess we should be very precise when talking about sensitivity. You're drawing attention to a statement about ECS now, which asks how the system settles down over thousands of years. I don't care about thousands of years from now. I want to know if we're going to lose a quarter of our grain crop in 30 years!

I should be careful to use the correct terms and say I'm talking about TCS and SMS — the more immediate warming of climate change. Which makes sense: I'm talking about the imminent crisis where we really need to do the math on how much more we can burn.

MHAZE said: “The graph you think is a probability curve is in fact a histogram of simulation outcomes.”
True-ish. NASA explains: “To understand how uncertainty about the underlying physics of the climate system affects climate predictions, scientists have a common test: they have a model predict what the average surface temperature would be if carbon dioxide concentrations were to double pre-industrial levels.”

MHAZE said: “The highest point isn't more probable than those around it, it just had more simulations run on it.”
That’s an outright lie, or at least a statement from ignorance.

“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/

BOOM! Hurts to be you right now.

DO THE MATH MHAZE!

MHAZE said: "No one did the maths. You just made it up. JUST MADE IT UP because you needed to explain the inexplicable. Show me anywhere were your claim is supported. Another way of saying you just made it up is to say you lied....QED."

NO ONE DID THE MATH? I JUST MADE IT UP?

Oh MHAZE, as that reporter said of the Hindenburg: "Oh the humanity!"

Crash and burn baby, crash and burn.

An update on AR5 from the IPCC:-

________________________________________________________
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

We'll see how the longer term ECS plays out over time and what the IPCC and broader scientific discussion (peer review process) makes of the NATURE contribution with an ECS estimate of 2.8 degrees. http://www.nature.com/articles/nature25450 

But as I said before, ECS is over 1000 years. It's interesting, but we might have such an advanced space industry in 500 years that we can effectively control the earth's climate and maybe even the weather from space. (Mirrors bouncing light away from where we don't want it and concentrating it where we do.)

My concern with climate change is the problems we could face this century and even over the next three or four decades.

The IPCC agrees with you. That old 565 GT number is out! ;-) It's now 420 GT at 66% probability, which pleases me no end. It justifies my concerns with the IPCC's 565gt that I discussed nearly 3 years ago!

BOOM, I'm right again! ;-)
(OK, that routine is even starting to annoy me! ;-)

Hey Josephus,
disprove this
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/