MHAZE, aaaaaaahhhh, now that I've outed you it's time to link to the original? Aha? Did you even read it?

Again:

“Therefore, we conclude that global temperature has risen from near the coldest to the warmest levels of the Holocene in the past century. Further, we compare the Holocene paleotemperature distribution with published temperature projections for 2100 CE, and find that these projections exceed the range of Holocene global average temperatures under all plausible emissions scenarios.”
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/03/response-by-marcott-et-al/

If you can't understand how utterly dopey and illiterate you look right now, I can't help you! Now look who's running away with their tail between their legs! (I wish!)

Just for this post [do not want to divert the subject] I want to talk about the implications of climate change
Our recent election, seems someone has nutted out why we voted as we did, Labor lost on the economy [and our leaders unpopularity] but won the climate change issue
A lot of independents won , highlighting voters are leaving both majors
But a ONE SEAT majority was the outcome plus those independents
Right now, so soon post that election, climate concerns are growing
And our federal government is sticking to its true belief there is no man made climate change
And in doing so? dancing with its own defeat next time
It seems clear world wide, ignore climate at you peril

Oh no! It takes a few decades, the a multiplying effect kicks in!

"Greenland's ice sheet melting seven times faster than in 1990s"
...Ice is being lost from Greenland seven times faster than it was in the 1990s, and the scale and speed of ice loss is much higher than was predicted in the comprehensive studies of global climate science by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, according to data.

...That means sea level rises are likely to reach 67cm by 2100, about 7cm more than the IPCC’s main prediction. Such a rate of rise will put 400 million people at risk of flooding every year, instead of the 360 million predicted by the IPCC, by the end of the century...

The scale and speed of the ice loss surprised the team of 96 polar scientists behind the findings, published on Tuesday in the journal Nature. The Ice Sheet Mass Balance Inter-comparison Exercise comprised 26 separate surveys of Greenland from 1992 to 2018, with data from 11 different satellites and comparisons of volume, flow and gravity compiled by experts from the UK, Nasa in the US, and the European Space Agency...

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/dec/10/greenland-ice-sheet-melting-seven-times-faster-than-in-1990s

BUT OF COURSE AS WE ALL KNOW, ALL THESE SCIENTISTS ARE JUST IN IT FOR THE MONEY! ;-) It always makes me laugh when the tintoil hatters claim that one. An oil CEO earns more in a day than a climatologist does in a year. If a smart math geek wants to make money, they go start a google or work for an oil company as a geologist, NOT as a climate scientist! Ha ha ha, their tinfoil hats must be on too tight.

Oh MHAZE...

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 

Oh, so you're a climate scientist are you? You've done the math? Please, do tell! Except all you did was bring up the well known outer ranges of extreme possibility in climate sensitivity.  You correctly stated the range was "1.5 to 4.5 degrees" per doubling of CO2. Wow, I must be utterly defeated! http://tinyurl.com/ulnfnlh

Yup, the sensitivity is important because the raw physics says the CO2 only warms the planet about 1.2 degrees. The rest comes down to various feedback loops. But while that 1.5 to 4.5 degrees sounds like a HUGE range, what did you purposely omit? Oh yeah, the probability! This isn't an even probability but a bell curve. The studies cluster in the middle which gives a high probability of 3 degrees and only extreme outside odds on anything lower than 2.  http://tinyurl.com/jfcm5tv So based on that, Bill McKibben did the math on the highest probability and asked how much carbon we could continue to burn to stop at 2 degrees. Now the IPCC has changed it to 1.5 degrees because the climate seems MORE and MORE sensitive the more we study it. 

The journal Nature has called it:
"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 
You left with a final unjustified gloat http://tinyurl.com/un62q7o and that was it. The only REAL scientific thing you said was "1.5 to 4.5 degrees" which you did not seem to comprehend.

The facts and lies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_8xd0LCeRQ&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR3HpwflXyxC--z35-AviAptDXS22bgljnXR753RdhzKyYeKTU8KdkPHh74

Max Green you are pushing that wheelbarrow up a steep hill the *there is no climate changers* do not want to agree
Truth for them is foreign
News papers full of concerns about the bush fires smoke and even a NSW Minister puts it down to climate change time is on our side
Truth too
regards