-1=e^ipi

Magic! The magic of cognitive dissonance and belief! If people believe hard enough that everything is magically better than the NDP then it will happen... in their minds.

There are number of issues with this sentence and how you are trying to use it. 1. As far as I know, this 'best estimate' does not exist in AR5; they don't even have a best estimate of ECS. You could correct me if I am wrong by pointing me to this 'best estimate'. Stuff on Gavin Schmidt's blog is not in AR5 so does not count. 2. Similar is not the same thing as 'nearly all'; similar isn't very well defined either (what percentage range counts as similar)?. 3. This statement says nothing about confidence in the claim. It doesn't say that the IPCC is at least 95% confident that the human contribution to warming is similar. So the claim by the journalist is spin and/or factually incorrect. 4. The implication of the probability distribution function of Gavin Schmidt is that we are not at least 95% certain that 'nearly all' of warming since 1950 is anthropogenic (provided that the definition of 'nearly all' is somewhat reasonable). Peer review has numerous issues that would take too long to get into now. Some terrible papers pass peer review (example: Christopher Monckton papers), some good papers do not. What matters is the quality of the content of the paper and the science in it, peer-review or not. But I don't expect you to understand this since you only care about using appeal to authority to use conclusions in papers to dogmatically justify your pre-determined conclusions. My understanding of climate sensitivity is based upon empirical evidence (both instrumental and paleoclimate). In the literature, there is a discrepancy in climate sensitivity estimates between estimates that use empirical data and most climate models; this leads to the question of why. Given that the largest uncertainty in radiative forcing changes during the instrumental period comes from anthropogenic aerosols, some people have speculated that one reason is that people are overestimating aerosol forcing, which results in overestimating climate sensitivity since anthropogenic aerosols and greenhouse gases are strongly positively correlated over the instrumental period; people were speculating about this long before the Bjorn Stevens paper. Furthermore, in AR5 the IPCC dropped their estimates of aerosol forcing relative to AR4 (which again came well before the Bjorn Stevens paper; the concept that past estimates of aerosol forcing were overestimated is not new). As for pre-determined conclusions. If you read the thread on climate sensitivity, you will see that for a while I had the belief that ECS was roughly 3 C (best estimate of AR4) and that ECS was very unlikely to be less than 2 C due to simple radiative physics arguments. My belief changed when I couldn't get the empirical data to agree with an ECS of 3 C or higher. Ultimately, I follow the empirical data. So are you saying that Nic Lewis is a 'denier'? Thank you for finally providing the link to the source of your claims so that I can see the methodology. As far as I can tell they are starting the forcing data at least by 1860 (probably earlier) and are including solar, so my previous suspicions were false. However, now I have seen the methodology. That figure, and Gavin Schmidt's conclusions, are all based on CMIP5 computer models (actually, a lot of AR5 is, including their temperature projections under nonsense emission scenarios). There are a few problems with their methodology and/or CMIP5: - The methodology involves running CMIP5 computer models multiple times using radiative forcing data over the instrumental period and seeing if the temperature projections are consistent with the instrumental record. This can demonstrate that the set of claims made by CMIP5 is consistent with the empirical data, but that isn't the same thing as obtaining the best estimates from the empirical data. In the case of the instrumental record, greenhouse gas radiative forcing, human aerosol radiative forcing and solar irradiance are all correlated over this period; so it is relatively easy to overestimate greenhouse gas forcing and over/under estimates other forms of radiative forcing that are correlated with it and still get temperature runs that appear consistent with the empirical data. As a result, the resulting estimates cannot be considered unbiased (in the statistics sense). Edit: I'll give a simple analogy for the less scientifically/mathematically inclined. Suppose that you have a mouse and an elephant on a scale and that a priori you believe that both animals weight 2000 +/- 10 kg. If your belief is true then both animals should weight 4000 +/- 20 kg. You then read the scale and find that the animals weight 3990 +/- 10 kg. Does this confirm your belief? Or perhaps the elephant weights much more than the mouse even though the hypothesis that both animals weight 2000 +/- 10 kg seems to be consistent with the data. - One problem with using one set of climate computer models to estimate a parameter and determine it's uncertainty is that there are a large number of a priori assumptions that go into the construction of computer models, and the uncertainty of these assumptions is not taken into account in the estimation of the uncertainty of the parameter. As a result the uncertainty is underestimated because the specification error of the computer model is not being taken into account. - With respect to CMIP5 in particular, CMIP5 computer models consistently give climate sensitivity estimates that are in contradiction with the empirical data. The median estimate of ECS using CMIP5 computer models is 3.2 C (and as I explained in the other thread, the empirical data excludes ECS values greater than 3 at the 95% confidence level). If CMIP5 isn't good enough to be the 'best estimate' of ECS in AR5, why are you convinced that it is good enough to be a 'best estimate' of the percentage of warming since 1950 due to human activity? CMIP5 models are greatly criticized in the climate science community, but of course conveniently give the ideologues in the IPCC the conclusions they want, so are used. - CMIP5 has 30 W/m^2 zonal oscillations in solar insolation! http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2015GL063239/abstract That's far more than the increase in solar insolation since the Mauder Minimum. Yet you expect me to believe that CMIP5 is supposed to be reliable in determining how much warming since 1950 was due to changes in solar irradiance? CMIP5 models are nonsense and conclusions made from CMIP5 are nonsense.

I meant with respect to greater emphasis on family reunification. I don't really trust the liberals on this with respect to properly eliminating FPTP. Either the liberals want the status quo, or they want to introduce STP because it would benefit them (and judging from comments by people like Trudeau or Garneau; they don't feel a referendum on the issue is necessary). STP would basically create eternal liberal governments and parties like the green party would have an even harder time obtaining representation. The NDP's position is far more reasonable (referendum first, then try to move towards proportional representation). One option is to simply leave the country. Then you can both satisfy your curiosity and not be greatly harmed by the economic policies. It's win-win.

They don't have to be 100% consistent with the books, but they can't deviate too far. And they only have 10 episodes per season so can't show anything. Sending Sansa to winterfell was just convenient since then they don't need Jeyne Poole. There are other merged characters in the TV series such as Gendry.

Apparently they are looking for the following actor for Season 6: Pirate, man in his 40’s to late 50’s. He’s “an infamous pirate who has terrorized seas all around the world. Cunning, ruthless, with a touch of madness.” He’s a dangerous-looking man. A very good part this season. So if we are lucky, we will get Johnny Depp?

Actually, this season took place primarily in 6 locations: King's Landing, Winterfell, the Wall, Dorne, Bravos and Mareen. This seasons choice of cities in the introduction was unusually relevant (I think by default they have to have King's Landing, Winterfell and the Wall, even if they weren't very relevant in previous seasons). So where will most of the next season take place? Surely the Iron Islands, the Vale and Oldtown have to become relevant next season.

What about being consistent with the books? They only have 10 episodes per season, so they have to make compromises. They probably set up the wedding arrangement because they wanted to give more time to Ramsay & Bolton this season to introduce them more to the audience and explain their conflicts. They needed to do something with Sansa so it was easier to have her to go marry Ramsay rather than introduce the completely new character of Jeyne Poole. This also sets up next season to focus more on politics within the Vale and the Iron Islands (which we didn't really see this season); plus we will see more of Bran (+ children of the forest) and maybe Oldtown (as Sam is going to it).

SJW != liberal, unless you completely pervert the meaning of liberal (which many have).

Try this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solow%E2%80%93Swan_model

Strawman argument. I never claimed that the IPCC's statement was alarmism. I claimed that a journalist spinning the IPCC's statement that we are at least 95% certain that more than half of warming since 1950 is anthropogenic by replacing 'more than half' with 'nearly all' is alarmist spin. With respect to the 1 sentence in the IPCC AR5 that you are referring to, I said it was meaningless. Gavin Schmidt's blog is not the IPCC. Please stop pretending that calculations made by Gavin Schmidt on his blog somehow was in AR5. I'm very skeptical of Gavin Schmidt's methodology and suspect he is not taking this into account since (as far as I can tell) he is just taking changes in radiative forcing forcing over this time period to get warming due to anthropogenic factors. Unfortunately, you have not provided a link to where on his blog he is making these calculations, so I cannot verify this claim. With respect to increased in solar irradiance prior to 1950 affecting temperature changes after 1950, this follows from understanding the concept of heat capacity. I invite you to boil water in a kettle and observe how long it takes for the water to boil to observe this effect. Number of authors and number of papers is irrelevant. Einstein's papers in 1905 on the photo-electric effect, Brownian motion and special relativity were all single papers by single authors. What matters is the content of the papers and the quality of the science. Unfortunately, I don't think you understand this since you have a tendency to use logical fallacies such as ad populum or appeal to authority. The weight you put on 'findings' should depend on the quality of the content of the paper, not the number of papers or number of authors that make similar claims.

That and it encourages saving/investment which increases long run economic output. Robert Solow didn't win his Nobel Prize for nothing. Plus poorer people generally spend a larger share of their income on essentials (which are usually tax exempt), so their effective tax rate is smaller with consumption taxes.

Yes. Unfortunately, the Liberals, Conservatives, NDP and Greens are all too stupid to understand this. I guess you could come up with worse ways if you tried such as taxing investment, education or health care.

The majority are unlikely to ever 'get it', especially with the social justice warriors infiltrating our education & media.

Which is btw the 'american-style system' (at least comparatively). But don't tell the NDP this, they won't like it. Probably. But are the liberals and conservatives better options? And personally, I'm tempted to vote NDP because it would be interesting to see how much damage they can do. Aren't you curious?

Not sure if Russia is considered a superpower or not but I get your point. Although Russia is nearly twice as large as Canada and has a higher population density (arguably due to historical reasons). If we had a larger population, we could take advantage of economies of scale and have more infrastructure.

The article is preaching to the choir. Nationalism deludes people. There are articles in other middle powers such as Turkey, Japan, Brazil and Pakistan asking if those countries will be the next superpower and the people will read it. Why? Because people believe what they want to believe. Canada will not become a superpower (unless we merge with the United States) for 1 primary reason: population. Tundra won't become fertile soil just because temperatures change. Accumulation of biomass for soil takes time. My guess is that the time scale of decay to equilibrium for vegetation to adapt to the new climate is on the order of several decades if not a few centuries. But let's just ignore the above issue for the sake of argument. The current super power is the USA, so let's suppose for the sake of argument that Canada would need to obtain a comparable climate to the USA today to become a super power. To make things simple, let's just compare the annual average temperature between Winnipeg (3.0 C) and Kansas (12.4 C) (this is probably a bit generous representation of Canada given that Winnipeg is in the south). So Canada would have to warm by ~9.4C. For the sake of argument, let's use an amplification factor of 2 (polar amplification factor is ~2.5, but not all of Canada is that close to the arctic). So global temperatures would have to warm by ~4.7 C for Canada to become a superpower. For the sake of argument, let's ignore the effect of the expected reduction in solar irradiance over the coming decades and the gradual cooling due to Milankovitch cycles so all that matters is changes in greenhouse gases. Only about 74% of GHG radiative forcing changes are due to CO2, so let's suppose that we would only need ~3.5 C to come from CO2. Now the Earth has warmed by 0.8 C since 'pre-industrial' times, so we would need an equilibrium change in temperature since 'pre-industrial' times of ~4.3 C. If we were to use an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 2C, then this would suggest we would need atmospheric CO2 to reach 2^(4.3/2)*280 = 1243 ppm for Canada to 'become' a super power; this is far more than the world will achieve in a century even under the most ridiculous scenarios such as RCP 8.5. So maybe two centuries? But even then it takes time (~200 years) for the Earth to reach the ECS, so maybe in 3 centuries? Although, let's be generous and assume an ECS of 3C (which is the upper limit of what the empirical data suggests the ECS could reasonably be). Then you would need atmospheric CO2 to reach 756 ppm (which it might by the end of this century under a generous business as usual emission scenario), but again you wouldn't reach the ECS right away, so maybe the TCR (~1.5C) is more reflective. In any case, there isn't going to be enough climate change in a century for Canada to become a super power.

There were forests nearby. Medieval battles can get very messy / disorganized. He probably fought his way to the forest.

And you still haven't clarified what you meant. Was the second interpretation correct? What does this even mean? You want me to convert the change in solar irradiance that occurred before 1950 into a W/m^2 value that somehow is equivalent to a post-1950 value that somehow takes into account the effect of the delay in the climate response function? That doesn't make sense. Strawman argument. I appeal to the content of the paper.

I try my best to understand what you write, but if you write nonsense then there is only so much I can do. You wrote: I interpreted that to mean you were asking if the recent trend was caused by random variability (which I assumed to mean natural variability). I guess that was wrong. Now that I think about it, a second meaning you could have had is whether the linear trend consists only of random variability (i.e. the residual in the regression model). But this is completely nonsense because for a linear regression, y = A + BX + residual, the trend is A + BX, so by definition the trend cannot contain any residual. So as far as I can tell, what you wrote is nonsense. Maybe there is some alternative meaning to what you wrote, but I don't see it. I gave the probability under the assumption of the linear regression model that the slope of the trend is zero or negative (4.5%). Is that not good enough? So that's how you plan to deal with that thread? Just call it a bible thread like you dismissed my other thread as a 'manifesto' thread? It's unfortunate that you are so scientifically illiterate that rather than read the actual science you have to take out of context concluding remarks in press releases to use appeal to authority fallacies in order to dogmatically justify your pre-determined conclusions. Yes, your continued attempts at strawman arguments or character attacks are well-known to me. Keep believing that if you want. The thread is for all to read if they want to try to verify your claims. It is interesting how you use clearly to write a very unclear statement.

Actually Waldo, I'm starting to think that you don't understand the meaning of confidence intervals based on comments in this thread and the other thread (specifically your comments with respect to how the Bjorn Stevens paper suggests that the lower bound on the uncertainty of Aerosol forcing is too low). Maybe you should do yourself a favour by simply learning the basics of confidence intervals. Websites like wikipedia can help, or if you want me to point you to a book you can get from the library I can do that. Alternatively, you could take an online course or something.

I answered that. It was with respect to the linear regression model of temperature vs time, which you provided. Taking a single data set and performing a linear regression to see if there is a trend over time doesn't tell you what causes that trend (be it CO2, the Sun, El Nino or a giant pikachu). And I'm note sure you understand what you are writing when you are referring to 'the confidence in the confidence interval'. You provided the 2 sigma confidence level, that is all I have used.

I just wanted to clarify whether or not the Cowtan and Way data supports your claim about if the temperature trends since 1998 are statistically significantly different from a pause or not. I'm not sure why you were bringing 'random variability' into it 2 posts ago.

Performing a linear fit to the Cowtan and Way data just determines if there is a linear trend in temperatures over time. It say nothing about what is causing that trend.

Perhaps I should clarify myself. A zero warming trend is within the two-sided 95% confidence interval of the linear regression results. However, probability that the warming trend since 1998 is zero or negative under the assumptions of the linear regression model is 4.5%. 95% confidence level is the most standard confidence level used to determine statistical significant across the vast majority of scientific fields (there are a few exceptions obviously such as particle physics).

This shows that there is no warming trend statistically significantly different from zero at the 95% confidence level since 1998.