-1=e^ipi

I am not sure I understand your question. Are you asking about the magnitude of human greenhouse gas emissions on global temperatures, or are you asking what proportion of recent warming has been due to humans? Wrong about what exactly? You haven't defined for me exactly what they may or may not be wrong about. Using a very rough calculation (assuming average annual increase in CO2 of 2.11 ppm per year, using a TCR of 1.5, and assuming that warming over this period will be roughly proportional to the TCR times the fraction of doubling of CO2 over this period), I get ~0.2 degrees warmer than today by 2030. Of course, lower aerosol emissions, increased CH4 emissions and increased N2O emissions would increase this slightly, but that will likely be offset by the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation.

No. So you admit that an IPCC best estimate no longer exists. Good. You are mixing up bias of an estimate with uncertainty of an estimate. Yes because some people are continuing with their confirmation bias to get biased results. The instrumental data and Pleistocene ice-core data both exclude an ECS greater than 3 C at the 95% confidence level if you properly take into account all the main factors that cause changes in global temperature. Some climate scientists are using new evidence (such as the two papers by Bjorn Stevens) to get more reasonable estimates of climate sensitivity (ECAM6 gets an ECS of ~2.2C, down from 2.8C after taking into account the Lindzen Iris effect for example). Interestingly, everyone was all fine with energy budget calculations when they were getting median sensitivity estimates of 3.0 C, but now that they are getting estimates about half that with updated aerosol data, suddenly energy budget calculations are no longer good. Anyway, Nic Lewis has recently come out with a new paper (http://climateaudit.org/2015/06/02/implications-of-recent-multimodel-attribution-studies-for-climate-sensitivity/) that shows that some of the papers used in AR5 (Gillette et al. 2013, Jones et al. 2013) give overestimates of climate sensitivity due to their usage of subjective Bayesian priors. Because understanding the magnitude of warming is relevant to trying to understand what is the best policy response to the issue of climate change. Wow, no. ECS is the equilibrium temperature response expected due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 when only taking into account 'fast' feedbacks (i.e. excluding ice-albedo, ocean-albedo and vegetation-albedo feedbacks; so only including feedbacks with decay times of about 100 years or less). For one, we haven't doubled atmospheric CO2 yet, and secondly 6 decades is no where near enough time to reach the ECS even if we did. That is even a lower timescale than what is used to calculate the transient climate response (TCR), and again we haven't doubled CO2 (we've done about half a doubling), so recent warming due to CO2 is going to be less than half the TCR, which is what is observed. No that doesn't imply that. Read my comments about simultaneously overestimating climate sensitivity, the effect of aerosols and underestimating the AMO to get a set of claims that appears to explain the instrumental data. I've already expressed my reasons for doubting how Gavin Schmidt interprets Figure 10.5. It only looks at changes in forcings, so doesn't take into account the fact that warming is delayed; it is misleading to just look at forcing changes over a period and expect that the proportion of forcing changes over that period is identical to the proportion of temperature changes caused by the different factors; in particular it would ignore the fact that increase in solar irradiance from 1700-1950 would cause some of the observed warming from 1950 to present. And again, there is the issue over overestimating the effect of aerosols to simultaneously overestimate the effect of greenhouse gases. Radiative forcing is power per unit area (example: W/m^2), not temperature (such as Celcius). Again, the recent paper by Bjorn Stevens shows that the lower bound on this estimate of aerosols is too low. What's their methodology for determining this? Because it needs to adequately take into account the delay in warming, not just look at changes in forcing. Would you like me to use my results that I got when I tried to estimate a Van Hateren impulse response function from the Instrumental and Holocene Paleoclimate data to try to quantify this for you? Again, I'm waiting for you to define 'nearly all'. More than 95%? More than 90%? Because if you accept that figure by Gavin Schmidt, then you should accept that we are not 95% certainty that 'nearly all' recent warming is due to greenhouse gasses (unless your definition of nearly all is greatly divergent from mine).

I'm not sure I agree. Sea level rise reaches equilibrium over a very long time scale (decay rate to equilibrium is like 400-500 years so it takes ~2000 years to reach equilibrium. As a result, there is more certainty over expected sea level rise then expected change in temperature over the next century. It is expected that we will see ~0.5 m of sea level rise by the end of the century (with the 95% confidence interval under a large variety of emission scenarios being from about 0.3 m - 0.8 m according to IPCC AR5). We also have a Paleoclimate estimate of the change in sea levels due to a change in global temperature thanks to the Eeemian (last interglacial, which was warmer than today). The equilibrium change in sea level due to an increase in global temperatures by 1 C is about 3 m. Why? More paleoclimate data on climate change over the Holocene and better instrumental coverage of places like Africa, the Arctic Ocean, Antarctica, Northern Australia and other locations on Earth where data is sparse would be nice. I think you are mixing up deforestation with CO2 emissions.

Ominous music while showing annual ice melt during the summer (which happens every summer) can be very misleading. I wouldn't consider Inconvenient Truth to be a scientifically accurate portrayal of climate science. There is plenty to debate. For one, what is the scientific definition of 'doomed'? I'm also not sure I would consider the Earth to be destroyed due to sea level rise. The ice caps have melted before and the Earth wasn't destroyed (actually for most of the past 500 years the earth has had no glaciated polar ice caps). With respect to the Dust Bowl in particular, a lot of it had to do with human agricultural practices in North America, but that is not the same thing as human greenhouse gas emissions. With respect to the unusually warm temperatures during that period & drought, that was primarily natural. Off the top of my head, current global temperature are about 0.5-0.6 C warmer today due to human emissions.

TimG has already substantiated his claim, but thought I would provide this link as well to a recent study. http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/study-on-74-million-deaths-cold-weather-kills-20-times-more-than-heat-does/ Also in response to the claim provided by TimG: My understanding is that the frequency of tropical cyclones is expected to decrease due to increased greenhouse gases because these greenhouse gasses reduces the availability for tropical adiabatic instability, which allows tropical cyclones to exist.

This is a meaningless statement for a number of reasons. For one, AR5 has no best estimate of climate sensitivity. In AR4 they had one (3.0 C for ECS), and claimed that climate models, radiative balance calculations using instrumental data, and paleodata were in agreement. Yet now that's not the case, why do you think that is? Confirmation Bias. People start with a belief (CO2 is the main cause of observed warming) and then see if the belief is plausible based on the evidence, rather than try to obtain the best estimate of the magnitude of the effect of CO2 based upon the evidence (while including other factors that cause climate change). This has resulted in upward biases of the estimates of the magnitude of climate sensitivity, and now we are seeing the estimates being lowered. For instrumental estimates, increases in GHG forcing is very strongly correlated with increases in negative aerosol forcing (due to coal) up until about the 1970s (when the clean air act was introduced). However, since the 1970s, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation has been on a warming trend (arguably PDO and ENSO play a role here to). So one can make a plausible case for a high climate sensitivity which appears to fit the instrumental record if one simultaneously overestimates the effect of anthropogenic aerosols and underestimates the effect of the AMO; but while plausible, it would be a biased upward estimate because one is not looking at the best estimate based upon the data. For paleo estimates, often they will conveniently ignore factors that have caused climate change in the past and falsely attribute this climate change to CO2 (since CO2 is a positive feedback, it is correlated with these other factors). In particular, paleoestimates that look at changes over the Pleistocene often completely ignore the effects of Milankovitch cycles (which are the ultimate cause of the ice ages) and don't take into account the non-uniform distribution of the effect of the ice-albedo effect (which is higher in polar regions, so not taking this into account will underestimate the relative strength of this effect to changes in GHG forcing due to the Stefan-Boltzman law). For estimates that use data before the Pleistocene, often they do not properly take into account the affects of the changes in the positions of the continents, and often they neglect the effects of N2O and CH4, which means that the estimates of climate sensitivity again have an upward bias. For climate models, they all involve a number of parameters that need to be chosen using some a priori information, and it is difficult to evaluate whether the choice of these parameters biases the estimates and often it will cause climate models to be over-confident in their predictions. Furthermore, the construction of models and the choice of these parameters (and subsequent changing of the parameters when they don't meet expectations), means that they are very vulnerable to confirmation bias. In particular, if the climate models are generally overestimating the effect of greenhouse gases, overestimating the effect of aerosols and underestimate natural variability then they can appear to be reasonable based on instrumental data, but give very biased predictions (as we have seen in the fact that climate models over greatly overestimated the expected warming over the past decade). Two recent papers by Bjorn Stevens are relevant here: one that greatly reduced the upper bound on the effect of Aerosols (which when taken into account reduces estimates of climate sensitivity http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/19/implications-of-lower-aerosol-forcing-for-climate-sensitivity/),and one that showed evidence for an 'Iris effect', which basically all climate models are not taking into account. A second reason why this statement is a bit meaningless is is that often estimates of climate sensitivity don't simultaneously determine the impulse response function, which means they can't properly evaluate the fraction of warming caused by greenhouse gases. So that leaves only climate models (although there are a few exceptions such as Van Hateren 2012) that are being used to evaluated the fraction of warming, and these models are again subject to their own biases and are generally giving estimates of climate sensitivity much higher than the instrumental data suggests (CIMP5 models have a median climate sensitivity of ~3.2 C). They take a very specific claim about being more than 95% confident that more than 50% of observed warming since 1950 is due to greenhouse gases, and spin that to mean 'nearly all' recent warming is due to greenhouse gases. That's spin. What is 'nearly all'? More than 95%? 1. This is using biased estimates of the effects of greenhouse gases and Aerosols. One thing to look out for is that the IPCC uses subjective Bayesian priors in the determination of their pdfs, which means that many of their pdfs are biased (http://climateaudit.org/2015/04/13/pitfalls-in-climate-sensitivity-estimation-part-2/). 2. It appears to me that this is just looking at forcing changes over this period (correct me if I'm wrong), which won't properly take into account the fact that the temperature response is delayed. In particular, solar irradiance has has a relatively flat trend since 1950, but from 1700-1950, it was increasing by a fair amount. Since the temperature response is delayed, some of the warming since 1950 should be attributed to changes in solar irradiance, yet the median of the 'estimates' of NAT and internal variability are zero... Even if I were to accept this figure, which I do not, the figure suggests that we are not 95% certain that at least 90% of warming since 1950 is due to human activity (I wonder if aerosols are being excluded from this definition of 'human activity'). So again, the claim that the IPCC is very certain that nearly all warming since 1950 is spin, and arguably scientifically inaccurate. Of course, I still don't have a precise definition of nearly all, so could you provide me with one? What percentage of warming since 1950 has to be anthropogenic in order for it to be considered nearly all?

That's a very difficult question to evaluate or answer because 'strange weather' is not very well defined, plus weather is chaotic. I don't think it's possible to attribute a single strange weather event to human-caused climate change, regardless of how the media may portray a single hurricane or blizzard to global warming, because weather is chaotic. A better way to think about how climate change affects weather is to look at how it affects the probability distribution of weather. So if you observe a tornado in southern Ontario, you can't say 'this is clearly due to climate change' but you can say 'global warming is expected to increase the frequency of tornadoes in southern Ontario'. Not sure I agree with this statement. I've seen some literature that suggests that rainfall patterns have changed slightly (even after taking into account natural climate variation) and should be expected to change based on paleodata, for example.

Yes but on a long timescale. There are 3 Milankovitch cycles, precession (changes in whether the Earth is closest to the Sun at winter or summer; has a 21000 year period), obliquity (changes in the tilt of the Earth; has a 41000 year period) and eccentricity (changes in how 'oval' the shape of the Earth's orbit is; has a 100000 year period). All 3 Milankovitch cycles have been moving in the direction of a cooler Earth since the Holocene optimum about 8000 years ago (the Earth was on a gradual cooling trend until human greenhouse gas emissions). Obliquity and eccentricity will continue to move in the direction of a cooler Earth, although precession is starting to move in the direction of a warmer Earth. If humans don't intervene then the Earth will plunge into another ice age in ~3000 years. So yes, Milankovitch cycles matter, but the time scale is very large. There are more immediate sources of natural climate variation. I calculated that the ice-albedo feedback has a decay time (the time it takes to move within 38% of equilibrium) of about 500 years at the poles; although not all glaciers are at the poles and some climate models I have looked at suggest a decay time of about 400 years. Yes, the sun probably caused the majority of the global warming from 1700 to 1950. Although since 1950, solar activity hasn't changed much and human greenhouse gases have caused the majority of global warming. Solar activity is now in decline and the without human intervention would cause another little ice age in a century or two. But the effect of increased greenhouse gas levels should dominate declines in global temperatures due to lower solar activity.

I agree with the IPCC's statement. But more than half != nearly all. The use of 'nearly all' in the article is spin. Milankovitch cycles amplified by the positive greenhouse gas and albedo (ice, sea level rise, vegetation) feedbacks.

I found Daenerys' comment about the Great Houses being spokes on a wheel particularly interesting. So she want's to break the wheel. Does that mean she wants the complete destruction of the feudal system? Other characters may want the same thing, in particular Petyr Baelish and Varys who are not of noble blood. Maybe even the many faced god or the faith-militant have similar goals.

Or melt.

That's not the dominant reason. The main reason is the Clausius-Clapeyron relation and moisture transfer between oceans and continents. Another reason is the CO2 fertilization effect, which increases vegetation cover. SL rise has an effect to, although that occurs on longer timescales.

Nearly all = at least 50%? The way the alarmist media spins things is amazing. Except the Earth will become on average wetter due to global warming. I already explained this in this thread.

Been thinking a bit on how to deal with the issue of computational accuracy because double-floating point precision doesn't seem to be sufficient when I'm inverting matrices in my estimation of climate sensitivity. I could try to go to quadruple-precision, but there are very few inbuilt functions in any language that deal with quadruple-precision numbers. Although there are some options, some of which cost money: http://www.advanpix.com/ http://mpmath.org/ This discussion is interesting: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/15322686/alternatives-or-speedups-for-mpmath-matrix-inversion Maybe I just need to perform a few iterations of Newton's method X = X*(2I - A*X).

No, people of all races commit violence. I'm just not convinced there is anything disproportionate about 'white crime'.

Which makes this thread dumb. You haven't demonstrated the existence of this problem. I can't answer your question if I don't agree with the premise of the question.

So you don't care about per capita values? In this case, your claims and nonsense and meaningless. China has a higher absolute crime rate than Fiji. Maybe having a far larger population has something to do with it... Or maybe we need to eat more coconut oil.

So does this mean that you think women shouldn't be allowed to have abortions if they chose to have unprotected sex? Where does rape fit into this?

Then give it to women as well. So if a girl gets pregnant and doesn't want to be a parent, but the father does, then the mother has the legal option to not be the legal parent.

Meant tyrion.

So maybe in the book, the other bastard will become king, but in the show they combined 2 characters. Not necessarily. Tommen could simply get demoted to leader of the Westerlands and heir to the throne. And there is still Tyrion, Jaime, Kevan, the Mountain, and Bronn.

But the show has sort of caught up to the books. Has the faith-militant conflict been resolved in the books? If not, it is a possibility. Ned Stark knew who he is. It's not unlikely that Petyr knew who he is. But wasn't Lancel going to do that anyway, since he's a religious zealot?

I know what MH is referring to by using the word independent. MH is the one purposely misinterpreting me in an attempt to do a 'gotcha'. I suggested to Hernanday that his perception of higher white crime might be due to confirmation bias, and perhaps he should test his hypothesis by performing a regression where crime is the dependent variable, and various other factors such as race, income, education, etc. are independent variables. From there, Michael just kept trying to misinterpret me. Except he isn't talking about endogeneity, but multicollinearity. Michael's under the impression that you can't have 2 independent variables in a regression that are correlated with each other. And having 2 independent variables cause each other in a regression doesn't cause endogeneity. He's trying to do some sort of 'gotcha' by misinterpreting what I write.

You realize I'm not advocating the abolition of abortions, right?

Here is how a woman can avoid having children without resorting to an abortion: A. Abstain from sex. B. Have tubes tied. C. Ensure that her partner has taken the necessary precautions (Wears a condom). There you go. Mission accomplished. Can we abolish abortions now? Do you see how ridiculous your statement is now?