-1=e^ipi

You really can't understand a conditional statement, can you? In the past, I said that if the marginal external effect of CO2 emissions on the environment + humanity is positive and significant then CO2 should be subsidized and if it is negative and significant then it should be taxed. The economic theory that many are using to justify a CO2 emission tax is the same theory that suggests a subsidy may be a good idea if the marginal effect is positive. It remains to be demonstrated to me if the marginal effect is negative or positive; though I suspect that initially it is positive and then at some point it becomes negative once CO2 concentrations get high enough.

So you just scan for a few words and then base what you think off that? Your last post also contains 'climate alarmism religion' in its text, does that sum up everything else at a glance?

Oh wow. No. Do you guys just see the image, ignore the text then replace the text I write with whatever you think should be there to fit your narrative? Look it's not hard. Loehle uses the assumption that the rate of natural warming (due to recovery from the Little Ice Age) is the same from 1850-1950 as it is from 1950-2010. However, if you look at changes in solar irradiance during this time, the rate of increase from 1850-1950 is higher than from 1950-2010. As a result, the assumption used by Loehle results in an underestimation of climate sensitivity, thus the ~3C best estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity by the IPCC is validated by this correction.

@cybercoma - Sorry I just took a random image of google for illustration purposes. Is this better? Also, are you even capable of reading the text that goes with my posts? I was pointing to the fact that Loehle not taking into account the changes in solar irradiance results in an underestimation of climate sensitivity, and therefore there is a good argument that the best estimate of climate sensitivity should be above 2.95 C. But I guess only a true believer in the climate alarmism religion would rather that climate sensitivity be underestimated than admit that solar irradiance has an effect on climate. What 'settled science' am I denying? I see a lot of of alarmists here that deny even the basics of cellular respiration and photosynthesis.

That would be fine with me as well. You could even throw in other developed nations like Australia, Japan or Singapore and I would have no issue with it. It's easy to make nonsense claims. It is harder to back them up. Not to mention economies of scale of government. But protectionists never needed to make sense...

This was an image provided by someone on another site. Apparently past temperatures since 1880 can be very well predicted by only 7 variables using a simple regression (including logarithm of CO2 concentrations, solar irradiance, volcanic aerosols, length of the day oscillations, Pacific Decadal Oscillation and North Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation). So a lot of the 'natural variability' we see in Loehle and other papers can be explained (and thus removed) in order to get more accurate estimates of climate sensitivity.

So you just look at random images and don't read the text that goes with it because text is too hard for you to read? Go back to denying the basics of cellular respiration and photosynthesis. Well if you go from mid-Holocene to mid-Pliocene, you are only going from ~270 ppm to ~400 ppm, so it isn't that bad. Also, the Earth system sensitivity is supposed to include changes to vegetation, albedo and cloud formation (basically all long run effects that may occur over millennia). Realistically, the equilibrium climate sensitivity is a better representation of the maximum temperature change due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions because the time scale at which atmospheric CO2 is reabsorbed by the lithosphere is shorter than the time scale at which one moves towards the Earth system sensitivity. Milankovitch cycles are a bigger issue if you are trying to obtain the Earth system sensitivity from ice-core data in the pleistocene (since the variation in temperature and CO2 is due to Milankovitch cycles). Comparing the Pliocene to the Holocene tends to avoid this since the time scale is much longer. Also, the Pliocene maximum and the mid-Holocene correspond to rough maxima in the overall effect of the Milankovitch cycles, so there should not be too much difference due to this. Continental drift is obviously a big issue, but Lunt et al. seem to take into account some of these changes in their paper (such as formation of mountains). I'm not sure if the formation of Panama around 3 million years ago is taken into account.

Thought I would mention that I think this paper gives a good estimate of the Earth system sensitivity (ESS) to be 4.0-4.5 C. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/40269214_Earth_system_sensitivity_inferred_from_Pliocene_modelling_and_data So Earth system sensitivity is the climate sensitivity in the very long run (so includes all changes to ice sheets and vegetation) and takes millennia to get to. Where as the equilibrium climate sensitivity takes on the order of a few centuries to get to an is primarily due to fast feedback responses. In previous posts in other threads, I may have mixed up Earth system sensitivity with equilibrium climate sensitivity. Comparing the Pliocene to the Holocene is probably a better way to get the ESS than looking at temperature changes during the Pleistocene (which James Hansen seems to like to do to get his crazy 6-8 C ESS estimates). Going from Holocene to Pliocene would represent a warming and higher CO2 levels, where as going from Holocene to a Pleistocene ice-age would represent a cooling and lower CO2 levels. Comparing Pliocene to the Holocene avoids all the complications associated with the Milankovitch cycles that one would need when using Pleistocene data. Using Pleistocene data means you are using ice core data, so you have to decide upon a polar amplification factor to obtain global temperature data (Hansen and most people assume a polar amplification factor of 2 by convention, where as there is a good chance that the polar amplification factor is more than this; so any estimates of climate sensitivity using ice core data are going to overestimate things by whatever factor they underestimate polar amplification). There is also the issue that the correlation between CO2 and temperature is different depending on if the initial forcing is due to CO2 or not, but Lunt et al. seem to avoid this; they even take into account continental changes that one should do when comparing such different points in time. Their result seems to rely on the equilibrium climate sensitivity being ~3.04 C, but the idea that the Earth System Sensitivity is roughly 1.4 times the Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity seems robust.

I had that position ~ 1 month ago. But after doing the Loehle corrections, reading many other papers, and discussing things with people on science blogs I am becoming convinced that the best estimate is close to 3 C. Any reasonable pdf is likely to have slightly longer tails for high sensitivity vs low sensitivity due to the nature of climate sensitivity (you can't have sensitivity less than zero; actually it shouldn't be below the no-feedback sensitivity of 1.15K). But yeah, I agree that this is a big issue that is used by the alarmists to push their data. The 'uncertainty' in climate sensitivity is likely greatly overstated by the IPCC (who's 90% confidence interval is 1.5 K to 4.5K), despite most of the more well done studies having a central estimate between 2.5-3.5K with much smaller 95% confidence intervals. From what I have read, the reason for such a large dispersion in the climate sensitivity estimates in the literature are due to people making incorrect assumptions (most of the higher estimates are due to GCMs overstating things). I think that any reasonable model should be calibrated to the empirical data before making predictions; if it can't properly explain the past then why expect it to predict the future?. Here is an interesting talk on some of the things you mentioned. The issue of the overstated tail at the higher end is mentioned around 4:40. Though most of that yale seminar is beyond my understanding. I hope so. Though the 17 year slowdown sort of makes it difficult for things not to change. The predictions back in say 2000-2001 (IPCC assessment report 5) were way over confident and overpredicted things so much that what has been observed is well outside the IPCC confidence interval. When you look at year ~2000 from a geological perspective, we have roughly a peak in the ~60 year solar cycle, a peak in the ~800 year solar cycle and the effects of the North Atlantic Multi-Decadal Oscillation and the Pacific Decadal Oscillation all converging to make things very warm. The 'consensus' climate scientists attributed too much of this natural warming to CO2 and we now see the result in 2015.

Found another flaw with the Loehle paper. The assumption of a constant rate of 'natural' warming from 1850-2010 is not true and results in an underestimation of climate sensitivity. Look at past solar activity over the past 1500 years as well as expected future solar activity. The rate of increase in solar activity from 1850-2010 has been decreasing and has basically peaked around 2000 (There probably will not be comparable solar activity for another ~800 years). As a result, the rate of natural warming from 1850-1950 should be larger than the rate of natural warming from 1950-2010. This probably dominates the reasons I mentioned why 2.95 C might be an overestimation of climate sensitivity. So should I just go with the 'consensus' position that the best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity is ~3 C?

Why not just buy more bullets or use the money for something that has a better return?

A bullet is small, a rocket is large and travels a larger distance. The bigger the thing is you are firing, the more it makes sense to put all these fancy cameras and computers on it. Putting this fancy equipment on a bullet makes no sense.

Seems ridiculously expensive and unfeasible. You want to put some optics and a computer on a bullet so it can veer slightly as it is traveling hundreds of metres per second? If you want a bullet to veer slightly, why not tell it when and how much to veer in advance before it is fired, rather than put all this expensive stuff on it? Why can't the sniper be the one measuring wind speed, distance, etc.?

So, you are implying that I did not pay attention in history class because I agree with you that the social justice warriors have taken over the education system and are trying to impose this revisionist version of history? What? A lottery is a zero-sum game. Trade and production is not. Bad analogy. What about the Ottoman empire? Or the Umayyads? Or the various Chinese dynasties? Or Japanese imperialism. Or the Mongols? Those are conveniently swept under the rug. Probably because these are non-white colonial powers that do not fit with the social justice warrior revisionist narrative. So... 2 monarchs equal white people?

Are you trolling me?

Can you define that for me?

You must have been through the education system decades before me. Since I have been there it is all revisionist nonsense where Europeans are evil plunderers that are the cause of all of the world's problems. The social justice warriors now control the education system.

So... Someone can't just find climate science interesting on its own? Where wasn't that? Irrational climate alarmism?

Another issue I just noticed. The decay time of temperature response to an initial change in atmospheric CO2 should depend positively on the equilibrium climate sensitivity (I've seen some arguments for a proportionality relationship). This suggests that the ratio between the TCR and the ECS should be lower than the 1.8 that was used in the Loehle paper and my calculations. If this is the case, then that is another reason why my estimate should be lower than 2.95C. There is also a response to the Loehle paper that is going to be published on the 10th of February. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0304380014004876 It suggests that the uncertainty suggested by Loehle is too small (by over a factor of 2) and that the signal decomposition technique was not optimized. Though it does make a mistake in suggesting that Loehle not taking into account CO2 emissions prior to 1950 results in an underestimation of climate sensitivity (when in fact it results in an overestimation).

Decided to do some basic calculations. Density of sodium is about 0.97 g/cm3. Atomic mass of sodium is 23 g/mol. Sodium metal has a cubic lattice. On can calculate the distance between adjacent sodium nuclei from this. A cubic cm of sodium weights 0.97 g so has 0.97/23 mols, or ~ 2.54 x 1022 atoms. The cube root of this is 2.94 x 107 atoms, which are how many atoms you have across and edge of the cube. Divide this by the length of the cube and you get 3.40 x 10^-10 m, which is the distance between adjacent sodium nuclei. Now if you consider two sodium ions separated by 3.40 x 10^-10 m, the coulombic repulsion between these two ions is 8.988 x 109 Nm2C-2 * (1.6022 x 10-19 C)2/(3.40 x 10-10 m)2 = 1.996 x 10-9 N. Given the mass of the sodium atom (~ 23 * 1.675 x 10-27 kg), this means that the acceleration of a sodium ion is on the order of 5.18 x 1016 m/s2. That is very fast.

This sounds like what William Gladstone asked Michael Faraday on his experiments in electromagnetism. To quote Faraday, "Why sir, there is every probability that you will soon be able to tax it". But with respect to this Coloumbic explosion, the main practical benefit will probably be for workers that deal with molten metal (ex. people that work in a smelter/foundry); for example, they found that adding 5 g of hexanol to a litre of water completely suppressed this explosion. Beyond that, I don't really know. It would probably be too impractical/expensive for a weapon. But scientific discovery doesn't need a practical application, extending human knowledge has its own value. It is not every day that people find new physical mechanisms like this.

The video doesn't summarize? Basically, a new type of 'explosion' has been discovered (in this case for alkali metals in water). The traditional explanation for the past 100+ years is that the alkali reacts with the water along the surface of interaction, creating and Alkali hydroxide and hydrogen. Unfortunately, the traditional explanation greatly fails to explain the speed of the reaction and why it is an 'explosion'. The new explanation is that along the surface of the interaction, valence electrons are transferred from the alkali metal to the water. This causes a bunch of positively charged alkali ions to be right next to each other and a bunch of negatively charged water ions to be right next to each other. Since like charges are repulsed, the alkali metal and water along the surface starts to expand in the direction perpendicular to the surface of interaction, which creates new surface of interaction for the process to repeat (more electrons get transferred and further electric repulsion). The overall effect is that you get these explosions that occur on very small timescales.

Been following this a while. Nice to see that it's finally going to be published in nature. It's a good example that shows how the conventional wisdom in science can be wrong for hundreds of years and all it takes is for someone to just buy some basic materials online, explode them in front of a camera, and then wonder why it is concurring in order for the conventional wisdom to be falsified.

Eyeball, I have a question. Do you think I am being a climate change 'denier' in anything that I've written in this thread? Or that my calculations somehow refute the 'concensus'?

I know. It is much more socially acceptable in Canada to view native people as some sort of quaint safari animal, whose habitat must not be disturbed by imperialist white people so that white people can continue to be entertained by these creatures and their quaint undisturbed customs. But advocating for equality? ... That's racist! *sarcasm*