-1=e^ipi

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" - Orwell What about equal rights for men or for non-binary-sex-identifying individuals? Even your wording is sexist. Why not say 'as long as they support gender egalitarianism'? Again the focus is always on women being perpetual victims so male issues get ignored, which means society is not as close to gender equity as it could otherwise be.

WestCoastRunner, you never answered my question about transwomen. Well some feminists hate men. Feminism can mean anything from gender egalitarianism to misandric hate ideology. And the perception that myself and others have is that male gender issues are being ignored by society.

Yes. They all tell me that I should be discriminated against based on my race and sex. Apparently I have to be a scape goat for social justice so that more privileged people can have a false sense of moral superiority. No. Men's issues are related to the topic of this thread. You ask why some people are uncomfortable labeling themselves feminists. The tendency of feminists to ignore men's issues or gender issues that are discriminatory towards males is one of the contributing factors. As a result, many people, including myself, view mainstream feminism as incompatible with gender egalitarianism.

90% of homeless people are male (and only 50% of homeless services are offered to males). 92% of workplace deaths are male. Male suicides outnumber Female suicides by 4 to 1. Males make up half of victims of domestic abuse, but there is basically zero support for them. In the event of a domestic dispute, police will almost always side with the female. The life expectancy gap still remains but society doesn't seem to care. Breast cancer funding far outweights prostate cancer funding. Females are far more likely to get custody of children in the event of a divorce. Males make up 77% of murder victims. Males are more likely to be assaulted. There is basically zero support for male victims of rape and often government definitions of rape will exclude 'forced penetration' from the definition of rape. Society mandates that males should not hit females, but if females hit males it is 'girl power'. Females make up 60% of university students and this percentage is growing. While I don't exclude sexism as a factor, there are other factors that help explain this 4%. Females are more likely to choose to take time off work to take care of children, which reduces their work experience and can make females on average less valuable to the employer. Biological factors that influence behaviour and cognitive ability may also play a roll. It is well established that the IQ distribution of males is more spread out than the IQ distribution of females. As a result, males make up a disproportionately higher percentage of intelligent people. I never said that I don't have a problem with that or that discrimination doesn't play a role. But I cannot agree with ignoring other factors or hiring people based on their sex. A better solution is to change societal attitudes towards gender roles to reduce discrimination and to try to reduce social gender conditioning that may bias life decisions of individuals. Yes, this is sexism. Out of curiosity, where do transwomen fit into this? If I decided to get a sex change operation, would I now be more 'oppressed' and therefore should have better employment prospects? Women make up the majority of the population. Women are not a minority, men are.

I had a male friend that was interested in entering nursing. He was singled out out of hundreds of students for being the male and it was strongly implied that nursing was a female profession. But misandry doesn't exist! *sarcasm* Feminist dogma 101: Women are perpetual victims and men are perpetually privileged. Therefore, implementing quotas to help males will only increase male privilege and oppress women.

Because it is sexist. How hard is that to understand?

You mean like how alarmists do ALL the time. Yeah, it is very common. On the question on what the IPCC's position on expected sea level rise over the next century, I referenced chapter 13 of the IPCC's AR5 report (which is on sea level rise). How is that trumped by some journalist reporting on the IPCC report? I referenced the source directly. Confirmation bias and appeal to authority fallacy.

So nothing I have done in this thread counts as studying science? Anyway, nice dodge on avoiding acknowledging the existence of positions outside of the false dichotomy. So apparently some journalist (and it's not like journalists are biased or anything...) apparently trumps chapter 13 of the IPCC's AR5? And apparently we are suppose to throw confidence intervals out the window and perform rounding error to overstate sea level rise?

How am I a 'naysayer'? Although I understand why you try to label me as such. Maintaining the belief in a false dichotomy is one of the primary mechanisms by which alarmists maintain their absurd belief system. To acknowledge the existence of a position outside of the false dichotomy would be committing blasphemy. What's your source? Mine is http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter13_FINAL.pdf. This is the range of the 95% confidence intervals from RCP 2.6 to RCP 8.5. The IPCC may be biased, but they are not orders of magnitude wrong. For example, they have a tendency to overstate climate sensitivity, they use GCM models such as CIMP5 (which gives a mean climate sensitivity estimate of ~3.2C) to make climate predictions, and they use emission scenarios that tend to overstate expected GHG levels over the century (RCP 8.5 is complete nonsense for example). However, they have to maintain some scientific accuracy and they do contribute to human knowledge on climate change.

Reread post #343. In equilibrium global precipitation equals global evaporation and warmer air can hold more moisture. The result is that global warming should make the continents overall wetter even after accounting for increased evaporation due to the increased moisture transfer from oceans to continents. Solution: Build a dam. Even beavers understand this. Half a metre isn't extremely optimistic. It is the mainstream scientific position. The IPCC's 5th assessment report, for example, suggests that sea level rise for the 21st century will be 26-82 cm. Yes, and a glacier doesn't melt overnight. It takes time, a long time (enthalpy of melting ice is 333.55 kJ/kg). The universe we live in appears to obey conservation of mass-energy.

If one of your main concerns about global warming is its effects of golf courses, then you really are out of touch with most of the people on this planet. Why not? Precipitation fell on the glacier in order to sustain the glacier. If the glacier melts, why would precipitation suddenly stop falling on the place where the glacier used to be? Half a metre of sea level rise by the end of the century is hardly the end of the world. It is significant and should be considered in any evaluation on what should be done with respect to global warming, but please be realistic about the magnitude of the problem that sea level rise represents.

Guess I have to spell it out for you. In the long run, the amount of precipitation on Earth equals the amount of evaporation on Earth. As the Earth gets warmer, global precipitation and evaporation will both increase (roughly exponentially via the Clausius-Clapeyron relation). The existence of a glacier doesn't somehow mean that there is more water available in a certain location. The primary function that the glacier serves is as a water reservoir that can help smooth water consumption throughout a year; a dam, as TimG points out, can serve a similar function. Global weather patterns tend to transfer moisture from air over oceans, to air over land. So some of the moisture of the precipitation that falls on, say Calgary, is coming from land (North America) and some of it is coming from ocean (Pacific Ocean). As temperatures increase, the ability for air to hold water increases roughly exponentially (Clausius Clapeyron relation). As a result, the rate of moisture transfer between oceans and continents increases. Thus continents will become on average wetter due to global warming, not drier, even after taking increased precipitation into account. This is why deserts were far more widespread during the last glacial maximum, and there was less rainforest.

That exponential rate of increase is breaking down. Over the next half century, CO2 emissions will increase roughly quadratically, not exponentially. The release of CO2, CH4 and N2O from oceans, permafrost and glaciers due to a given temperature increase can be inferred from Pleistocene ice core data. The 2C target is an entirely political target with no scientific basis. Of course there will be ice at the end of this century. It is called winter. Or do you mean a polar ice cap? No, it would take infinite time to reach the 'full impact'. Trying to describe climate change in terms of how long it takes to reach 'full impact' is nonsensical. A better question would be how long will it take to reach a certain percentage of the 'full impact'. This isn't how physics works. In equilibrium, dissolved oceanic CO2 follows Henry's Law and is proportional to atmospheric CO2. The oceans aren't going to some day decide to stop absorbing CO2, the rate of CO2 uptake will be roughly proportional to the difference between atmospheric CO2 and Henry's constant times the Oceanic concentration of dissolved CO2. The rate of ocean uptake of atmospheric CO2 divided by anthropogenic CO2 emissions is slightly less than half. However, in equilibrium, the oceans will absorb roughly 85% of Human emissions (this follows from the properties of Ocean water + Henry's law, see earlier posts). Of course the decay time towards equilibrium between Ocean dissolved CO2 concentrations and atmospheric CO2 concentrations is greater than a century. The oceans will continue to take up ~half of anthropogenic CO2 emissions annually for the next century; it follows from physics (+ emission scenarios). Here's a plan: implement a global tax on CO2 emissions where the level of taxation is equal to the marginal social cost of CO2 emissions (which is determined from a cost-benefit analysis).

No we aren't. The patriarchy is an unfalsifiable flying spaghetti monster and does not come close to accurately describing Canadian society. I'm not ignoring it. Hiring men because they are men is sexist. And hiring women because they are women is sexist. The non-sexist solution is to flip a coin.

On Guard for Thee, do you understand the concept of conservation of mass? If a community is getting water from a glacier, where is the glacier getting its water from?

Yeah, for example, in the vast majority of jobs I have applied for over the last couple of years, I am told in the application that I will be discriminated against for my gender, my race, my ethnic background and my linguistic background. I have to be a scape goat for 'social justice' so that people such as you can have a false perception of moral superiority. In 2013, I assure you that I was maximally contributing to the reducing all sorts of 'wage gaps' as me being unemployed is maximally socially just. Of course your opinion doesn't matter. You are at the bottom of the social justice hierarchy. That's how social justice works. Your opinion only matters if you agree with the 'progressive' position. Hiring the most qualified individuals isn't sexist regardless of if those individuals are all male, all female, all non-gender binary, or anything in between. Hiring people based on their sex is sexist. Keep trying to delude yourself that institutionalized sexism isn't sexist if you want.

The word 'feminism' is not gender neutral enough. And here I thought feminism was supposed to be all about gender neutral words such as policeperson instead of policeman. It is not inclusive. Gender egalitarianism is far more inclusive and includes females, males and non-gender-binary-identifying persons. Yes, you are wrong and without a doubt a sexist bigot.

Yes. CO2 emissions have not fallen. Ocean acidification occurs due to CO2 being taken out of the atmosphere and being dissolved in the oceans. So there is a tradeoff here. The more ocean acidification, the less global warming. Ocean uptake of atmospheric CO2 has a decay time of on the order of centuries. Current ocean pH is about 8.14. By 2100, it might be like 7.82 at worst. A significant change but not the end of the world. Ocean pH has been far lower in the past when atmospheric CO2 levels were many times greater than they are now and ocean pH was even lower, yet life thrived. They aren't in decline due to fossil fuel emissions. Why wouldn't it matter? If climate sensitivity is say 30% lower than what the IPCC is claiming, then that means there will be 30% less warming, which means that the appropriate policy response can be quite different. And the IPCC claims and any mainstream climate science position of climate sensitivity is still orders of magnitude lower than what idiot alarmists like Obama think it is. "The planet will boil over" Let's take a very high climate sensitivity (say 4.5C, the upper range of the IPCC's confidence interval). 'Pre-industrial' atmospheric CO2 is roughly 278 ppm (and temperature global 'pre-industrial' temperature is roughly 14C). So in order to reach a global average temperature of 100 C you would need 2^((100-14)/4.5)*278 = 1.57*10^8 ppm. In other words, you would need 157 atmospheres of CO2 (not 157 times current CO2s but 157 earth atmospheres that consist entirely of CO2) to reach the boiling temperature of water. But this wouldn't be enough to boil water because as atmospheric pressure increases, the temperature at which water boils increases. So to actually 'boil' the Earth, you would need to reach a temperature of ~374 C, which would require 2^((374-14)/4.5)*278 = 3.36*10^26 ppm, or 3.36 * 10^20 atmospheres of CO2. Realistically, you can't go beyond 21% atmospheric CO2 because only 21% of our atmosphere is O2. And you could even get close to 21% because there simply is not enough fossil fuel reserves. My understanding is that there might be enough fossil fuel reserves to maybe reach 2000 ppm (or 2% CO2), which is significant, and would have devastating consequences to the environment, but is orders of magnitude different from what some 'environmentalists' would have you believe.

Okay, so I thought I would try looking at a different time period (the Holocene) to see longer term effects of climate change. So I'll use the Marcott Holocene temperature data: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2013/03/07/339.6124.1198.DC1/Marcott.SM.database.S1.xlsx Over the Holocene (before per-industrial times) there are primarily 3 factors that explain temperature changes over this time period. Greenhouse gases, changes in solar irradiance, and the effect of the Milankovitch cycles. For greenhouse gases, CO2, CH4 and NO2 are the only relevant ones. Over the Holocene period, greenhouse gas reconstructions from Ice Core samples in Dome C, Antarctica seem to be the most accurate. CO2 data: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/antarctica2015co2.xls CH4 data: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc-ch4-2008.txt N2O data: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/icecore/antarctica/epica_domec/edc-n2o-2010-800k.txt I cubic interpolate each GHG for each of the years of temperature reconstructions and then calculate the greenhouse gas forcing. For solar irradiance, I use the 9400 year Steinhilber reconstruction. ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/steinhilber2012.txt For Milankovitch cycles, I get eccentricity, obliquity and precession data from http://biocycle.atmos.colostate.edu/shiny/Milankovitch/. I interpolate for eccentricity, obliquity and precession data for each of the years of temperature reconstructions. Using this I can calculate the daily direct solar irradiation for any latitude for each year at any latitude and at any time of year. Using a matlab code I wrote, I obtain 3 parameters that I will use to represent the effects of Milankovitch cycles: - Average Annual Solar Irradiance for Earth. This is proportional to 1/sqrt(1 - eccentricity^2). If the Earth has a more eccentric orbit it receives more sunlight in a year. - Standard Deviation in Average Annual Solar Irradiance. This depends primarily on obliquity; as the Earth's axis becomes more tilted, the poles receive more sunlight and the distribution of sunlight is more evenly spread over the surface of the Earth. A more even spread of sunlight should lead to a higher global temperature. - A factor that represents the difference in summer insolation between the Northern Hemisphere and the Southern Hemisphere. This depends primarily on precession. As the Northern Hemisphere is more sensitive than the Southern Hemisphere, this factor should have a positive effect on temperature. The temperature data is one measurement per 20 years. As a result, I should avoid using decay times much shorter than 20 years. In addition, The Earth reaches Earth System Sensitivity equilibrium in roughly 2000 years (this is what I gather based on various papers I have read), so I should avoid decay times much longer than 1000 years. So following the approach by Van Hateren, I'll go with decay times of 16, 64, 256 and 1024 years for the impulse response function. I should avoid the post industrial era as other factors explaining temperature become relevant and I should avoid overlap with my monthly data that starts in the 1870's, so I'll use 1860 as my last data point. The solar data beings 9400 years ago and I should leave at least 1024 years between the beginning of the solar data and the first data point I use in my estimation of climate sensitivity since 1024 years is my longest decay time. Therefore, I'll use -6120 as my first data point. Year -6120 is during the Holocene optimum, so is arguably roughly in equilibrium, and this gives me 8000 years of data in total.I'll use an earlier point in time for the start of the forcing data (the interpolated solar forcing data starts in -7440 and I'll start the GHG & Milankovitch forcings in -9340). My model is: T(Y) = Sum(s = 1 to 4; γs*((Sum i = -6120 to Y-1 using 20 year intervals; dGHGi*ρs(i,i) + ... + dGHG-9340*ρs(i,-9340)) + β1*(Sum i = -6120 to Y-1 using 20 year intervals; dSi*ρs(i,i) + ... + dS-7440*ρs(i,-7440)) + β2*(Sum i = -6120 to Y-1 using 20 year intervals; dM1i*ρs(i,i) + ... + dM1-9340*ρs(i,-9340)))) + β3*(Sum i = -6120 to Y-1 using 20 year intervals; dM2i*ρs(i,i) + ... + dM2-9340*ρs(i,-9340)))) + β4*(Sum i = -6120 to Y-1 using 20 year intervals; dM3i*ρs(i,i) + ... + dM3-9340*ρs(i,-9340)))) + β0 + errorY It's basically the same model I had before, except using longer 20 year time intervals, omitting all variability indices, and using 3 Milankovitch 'forcings' (M1, M2, and M3) and no Aerosol forcings. Note that the estimate of climate sensitivity I get from the above model should correspond to the Earth System Sensitivity, which is larger than the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity. Anyway, computing the model gives me a 95% confidence interval of [0.60,7.63]C with a best estimate of 2.14 C.

Yes. Defiantly there is a confirmation bias to want to obtain models that agree with the predictions made by other models.

If the instrumental data excludes equilibrium climate sensitivities above 3 C, then this leads to the question why the GCMs are consistently overestimating climate sensitivity. Two possibilities are 'Just Cause Corruption' and 'Confirmation Bias'. With respect to 'Just Cause Corruption', look at what Rachendra Pachauri, the IPCC chair from 2002-2015 said in his resignation letter: "For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma." http://judithcurry.com/2015/03/03/ipcc-in-transition/ So the chair of the IPCC viewed climate change as a religion...

I'm wondering if it is possible to reconcile these low estimates (say 1.5-2.0C) with what I said in post #14: The next main feedback is the lapse rate feedback, which is negative (and amplified by the positive water vapour feedback). From what I have read in the literature, a lapse rate feedback of -0.5C is plausible. After that, there is the cloud albedo feedback, which might be negative, but most indications suggest it is slightly positive. I guess if your main feedbacks are water vapour and lapse rate, and that all other feedbacks are negligible on the order of 100 years, then an equilibrium climate sensitivity as low as 1.5C might be plausible.

My latest result for the 95% confidence interval for equilibrium climate sensitivity is [1.09,2.27]C with a best estimate of 1.57 C. This is using the monthly data from 1871-2012 and with decay times varying between 0.5 years and 128 years. I've pretty much exhausted all possible explanations/excuses for why I might get such a low estimate of climate sensitivity. I estimate a much lower level of relative solar forcing to GHG forcing than Van Hateren (which I argued should be the case since the effect of solar forcing is greater in equatorial regions) and I properly take SO2 aerosols into account. I detrend ENSO and AMO in a way that avoids much specification error. It is a bit strange to get a lower sensitivity estimate than Van Hateren despite having a lower estimate of relative solar forcing (to GHG forcing), but there might be 2 possible reasons. Van Hateren starts his forcing data in 1800, where as I start my forcing data in 1700; solar irradiance and greenhouse gases increased slightly from 1700-1800, which means that some of the warming observed from 1870-2012 is due what occurred in the 1700s; Van Hateren doesn't take the 1700s into account. Another reason is that I have a longer data set (1870-2012 vs 1880-2005); the 1870s were relatively warm and the last decade was relatively cool, thereby giving a lower estimate of climate sensitivity. I'm just going to conclude that I don't see a climate sensitivity greater than 3C in the instrumental data. I've tried to see it, I've tried to account for all relevant variables, and I've tried many model specifications. But as far as I can tell, an equilibrium climate sensitivity greater than 3C is excluded by the instrumental data. This means that the upper half of the IPPC's climate sensitivity range is excluded by the instrumental data. Interestingly this upper half is what is predicted by the GCMs, which the IPPC then uses to calculate warming based on emission scenarios.

Yesterday, I finished compiling a data set that covered years 900-2012 and have forcing data that went back to year 0. I won't go in the details on the methodology because you guys keep telling me that my posts are too long. Anyway, I could not get statistically significant results and my estimates of climate sensitivity were consistently less than 1 C. Perhaps I should give up on trying to use a combination of paleo and instrumental data and just stick with the instrumental. One more thing, maybe my models need an autocorrelation term for temperature to account for thermal inertia. In many cases my residual appears to possess autocorrelation (and the assumption of the statistical model is that the errors are uncorrelated); an autocorrelation term will help eliminate this problem. Edit: One of the reasons I might not be able to get good results despite my attempts is because the numeric precision of double floating point numbers is not good enough. I'll see if I can use quad floating point numbers. Edit 2: Actually, there was a slight error in my code, so I still might be able to get decent results with the 900-2012 time series. Although computational rounding error is becoming a big enough issue that I may want to avoid longer time series.

That could be problematic. Perhaps it is better to do a separate time series analysis for each temperature data set, rather than try to combine them and just use weighting techniques. Auto-correlation doesn't imply chaotic temperature variations that are significant on the order of centuries. The rate at which the Earth tends to equilibrium seems to me to be too fast for that (the deep oceans seem to warm up relative to surface temperatures on the order of decades). Yes there is a positive feedback, but ice ages are ultimately caused by Milankovitch cycles. The ice ages aren't a result of chaos. I was actually trying to point out a similar thing to some alarmists on a blog last week. They were convinced that the James Hansen's Paleoclimate estimates of climate sensitivity were indisputable and unbiased. I tried to point out some basic things such as Hansen doesn't take into account Milakovitch cycles during the Pleistocene estimates, doesn't take into account the effects of plate-tectonics during the Cenozoic estimates, and does other things like arbitrarily rounds numbers up for more alarmisty conclusions or performs handwavy non-existent statistical analysis. Anyway, some social justice warrior without a science background game along, accused me of libel and started deleting any further posts I made(she could do this since she was a 'happiness engineer' with the blog company), so I gave up that conversation. Well your longest timescale of variation for ocean cycles is probably the 70 year Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation. And from my regressions and fourier analysis, the ~70 year AMO cycle seems to be more than just autocorrelation. And the impact of AMO is at most ~ +/- 0.1 C. I don't really see any chaotic variation on longer time scales with higher magnitudes.