-1=e^ipi

Arthur Smith seems to think that my calculations are fine. That is good to know. https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2015/01/13/224-therefore-einstein-is-wrong/#comment-45710

Yeah, I know what you mean. In a field that I worked in 3 years ago as a graduate student, I saw lots of people making ridiculous claims in order to get funding. In my research I saw those around me throwing out 95% of their data that did not agree with their predetermined conclusions in order to get the conclusions they wanted and publish them. I also saw terrible methodology and even blatantly untrue claims published in scientific journals. Because of that experience, my career path has been seriously sidetracked.

Perhaps the US and Canada should just become a single country. Single currency, greater labour mobility, less restrictions in trade, economies of scale of governance, etc.

I wanted to correct myself. HadCRUT4 data suggests that 2014 has the highest measured global temperature on record (not 3rd as I suggested before), but it is still statistically tied with many other years so it is uncertain if 2014 is the hottest year on record. http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2015/01/hadcrut4-equalling-slightly-besting.html

It's not even that much... I read far more than that every day. Edit: Also, no one is obliged to read it. If people want to read it, they can. If scientific illiterates that refuse to even acknowledge the basics of cellular respiration and photosynthesis do not, then so be it.

Pretty sure that 'reply' breaks forum rules.

Okay, so I decided to delve into some more extreme ‘low sensitivity’ estimates. This time the claim of an equilibrium climate sensitivity of 0.58 K that Christopher Monckton has made (he’s the semi-climate-change-denalist guy with the googly eyes that appears on conservative talk shows and ‘skeptic’ conferences). http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/monckton/climate_sensitivity_reconsidered.pdf Wow does it have some major holes. It makes a few reasonable criticisms such as climate alarmist James Hansen rounding up his calculations and then other alarmists taking Hansen’s calculations and rounding them up, and so on. But overall this paper is nonsense. The first hole is that Monckton decides to confuse the forcing effect of CO2 with the overall anthropogenic forcing effect (so includes things like aerosols) in order to magically ‘lower’ the forcing effect of a doubling of CO2 from Δf = 3.71 W/m2 to Δf = 3.41 W/m2 (so magically makes 9% of the warming disappear). Then he goes on further and arbitrarily divides the CO2 forcing by a factor of 3. He claims this is justified because the ‘anthropogenic fingerprint’ of the mid-upper tropical troposphere warming ~2.5x faster than the surface the tropics, which is predicted in 4 general circulation IPCC models, is ‘missing’. He then refers to an MIT paper by Lindzen to justify slashing the forcing by a factor of 3. http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/230_TakingGr.pdf There are a few problems with slashing the forcing by a factor of 3. For one, Lindzen’s paper suggested that recent warming has only been 1/2 to 1/3 anthropogenic, yet Monckton purposely chooses the lower value to obtain the lowest estimate of climate sensitivity. Secondly, recent warming being 1/3 anthropogenic is not the same thing as CO2 forcing being 1/3 the value of what the IPCC thinks it is. Thirdly, the ‘fingerprint’ is not just predicted from increasing atmospheric CO2, but from other forcing effects as well (such as an increase in solar irradiance warming the earth, which increases water vapour, which makes the mid-upper troposphere more opaque to the Earth’s radiation, particularly in the tropics, which causes the mid-upper tropical troposphere to warm faster than the surface); so the absence of the ‘fingerprint’ does not imply that the IPCC is overestimating CO2 forcing. Rather it shows that better climate models are needed. Fourth, there is some evidence of this ‘fingerprint’ in the empirical data, it is just not as pronounced as expected; or perhaps the data set used is not a good data set because the interval of change is small and natural variation is not accounted for (1998 was an El Nino year). Fifth, an alarmist might look at the lack of this ‘fingerprint’ and go ‘omg, the lapse rate feedback is not as strong as we thought it was! Therefore, climate sensitivity is even higher than predicted!’. Why would Monckton’s interpretation that climate sensitivity be slashed due to the lack of this ‘fingerprint’ be more valid than the alarmist interpretation? Without further information, I see no reason to modify the Δf = 3.71 W/m2. Furthermore, Monckton includes the CO2 feedback effect when trying to determine equilibrium climate sensitivity for CO2, which does not make sense. As a result, he over estimates the feedback parameter b as 2.16 W/m2/K instead of 1.91 W/m2/K. His criticisms of the IPCC’s overestimation of the climate sensitivity parameter κ might have some validity. However, it was explained earlier in this thread that the non-feedback climate sensitivity should be about 1.15 K for a doubling of CO2 (see post #14). If the CO2 forcing effect is 3.71 W/m2, then this would imply that κ = 1.15 K/3.71 W/m2 = 0.310 Km2/W. This is higher than the 0.242 Km2/W used by Monckton, but lower than the 0.313 Km2/W used by the IPCC. Mockton claims that κ should be lowered by ~10% due to non-uniform latitudinal distribution of incoming solar radiation and his supporting evidence is that Dr. Evans told him in an email; but without any proper justification or source, it is difficult to verify this claim. In any case, if one goes with 0.310 Km2/W, then this means that the feedback multiplier is f = 1/(1-bκ) = 2.4516. If you put all this together, then the overall equilibrium climate sensitivity is Δf*κ*f = 3.71 W/m2 *0.310 Km2/W *2.4516 = 2.82 ⁰C. This seems consistent with the 2.95 ⁰C estimate I got from making corrections to the Loehle paper (which I have admitted might be a slight overestimation due to assumption of constant decay rate to equilibrium).

Try overlaying it with funding from Saudi Arabia as well.

TimG, I am not in disagreement in what you wrote in your last post. I just think that the way you framed arguments in your earlier posts is incorrect. If you think certain cost-benefit analyses are flawed, or that the UN is flawed, or whatever then just say that rather than claim that doing a proper cost-benefit analysis or whatever is impossible.

Properly is difficult to define completely, so I will list some of it's properties. It should be made without confirmation bias and the approach should not be dogmatic. It should use the best scientific literature (that is without confirmation bias or dogma) for the best estimates of how the climate will change in response to CO2 emissions. It should use a reasonable and empirically derived discount rate that is justified well. It should try to take into account and monetize all costs and benefits associated with climate change. It should look at various alternatives such as geoengineering. And so on. With respect to people making assumptions that may not be true, that is necessary, the question is if the assumptions are justified (in the paper I referenced in the original post, I argued that 3 assumptions were not reasonable). I would argue that when one runs out of a priori information then Occam's razor should be invoked to select the simplest model that agrees with the a priori information and the empirical data. They might represent truth, you don't know they don't, much like you don't know that there exists a flying spaghetti monster. But seriously though, you are arguing against the existence of models. Isaac Newton's theory of gravity was a model, and this model was false, yet it still was useful and made reliable predictions. Well it's more of a confidence interval, but whatever. That's what people are supposed to do in science, they indicate their uncertainty. Because people aren't doing proper cost benefit analyses. As I said before, just because you have people producing absurd SCCs doesn't mean that doing this properly can't yield a good estimate of the SCC to make policy decisions. Yes, that is dogmatic. And it is wrong. But people doing wrong things doesn't refute anything that I wrote. And yet Christianity's stranglehold on Europe was eventually broken. I agree it is difficult to use reason with people that treat climate change like a religion (as we have seen in these forums). But I don't think it is impossible to sway public opinion to reason in the long run (like over decades). Yet most countries have an income tax which has a significant economic impact. Why weren't they 'no-go zones'? Many countries have consumption taxes as well. Many countries have taxes on tobacco. Actually, it is more insane than that. Germany has gone so solar that they have made nuclear unviable even without the crazy anti-nuclear lobby since nuclear plants can't turn on and off quickly enough to deal with the change in solar output during the day. They are even making hydroelectric energy unviable to an extent. Coal is the only thing that can turn on and off quickly enough to be viable in combination with solar panels. http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/germanys-solar-failure Germany didn't willfully abandon its CO2 commitments. The idiot environmentalists obtained so much power and imposed such stupid laws that they made hydroelectric and nuclear unviable. Why not? Imposing a global pigouvian tax equal to the scc would yield roughly an optimal response (obviously there are other problems like non-competitive markets and imperfect information). If the optimal thing to do (according to a properly done cost benefit analysis) is to impose a tax which just slows emissions slightly, then what is wrong with doing that?

I can't generalize # of muslims by country to western countries even though western countries are in the list... what? Or are you trying to say that I am generalizing that the type of Islam practices globally represents the type of Islam practices in western countries, which I haven't done? Typical Ben Affleck deflection tactics. If facts are presented to you that you don't like, ignore them, strawman the other person and call the other person names.

Yeah, because it's not like we have any idea of the number of muslims by country in order to estimate the percentage of muslims globally with certain views... *sarcasm* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_by_country

There are methods. A cost benefit analysis can calculate the social cost of carbon dioxide emissions (not carbon, please call it carbon dioxide emissions). The fact that many people are making dubious assumptions (that are often politically motivated) in their cost benefit analyses does not make the approach of cost benefit analysis incorrect. It just has to be done properly. So are you saying just because the effect of a policy is small that it should not be implemented even if it is of net benefit? And the fact that Canada has a high per capita emission level does not refute anything. It's called being a cold, empty, developed country. The fact that the demand for fossil fuels is highly inelastic is not an argument against implementing a tax. If there is a negative externality then in a competitive market one of the ways to solve this issue is to implement a Pigouvian tax equal to the marginal effect of that externality. If that results in only a small reduction in fossil fuel emissions then that is still the socially optimal policy, it is just taking into account the inelastic demand for fossil fuels (which it should). You are confusing 'what is an optimal policy' with 'what is likely to occur due to the nature of politics'. This doesn't refute what I wrote. As for no one 'acknowledging' a benefit, if no one acknowledges a benefit then why believe that it exists? Or are you saying just the majority of people don't acknowledge it but at least 1 person does, in which case you 'scenario' is flawed/misleading. Why not just refute the ridiculous assertions that the scaremongers are making and change public opinion via reasoned argument? I get the stranglehold that the 'progressives' have on the media and that it would be difficult, but I can't agree that it is impossible. I already did. Canada is a cold, empty, developed country. Uh, no. Even without alternatives there is a reduction. What do you mean it's not politically viable? We have Obama delaying keystone XL for ~7 years, we have Germany going full on solar to the point of insanity, we have Portugal mass subsidizing solar, we have Denmark going wind (which is very viable given their location), we have Ontario going insane with this green trend to the point of having the highest electricity prices in North America and the loss of many jobs, etc. It's completely politically viable. It's all the rage! You really think the insane politically accepted policies in countries such as Germany is negligible? No, Mitigation - noun - the action of reducing the severity, seriousness, or painfulness of something. A carbon dioxide emission tax reduces emissions. Therefore it is a mitigation policy.

Who, the Canadians? So because a survey doesn't include one country it becomes invalid? Maybe because that's where the majority of muslims live... Uhh, 39 countries from all over the world isn't world wide enough for you? Do you think they can just walk into every autocratic country like Saudi Arabia or Iran and report on anything that might appear to negatively reflect the country? I could link you to various other polls such as here: http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/opinion-polls.htm But something tells me that you are a 'progressive' cultural relativist like Ben Affleck and no amount of evidence will convince you to change your baseless beliefs.

And the amount of warming (the consequence) depends on climate sensitivity. Thus climate sensitivity is not irrelevant. Even if there were zero alternatives (no nuclear, no hydro, no solar, no wind, no geothermal, no tidal, no geoengineering), if the marginal effect of increasing atmospheric CO2 is negative then there is a negative externality associated with the burning of fossil fuels that is not being internalized by the market. In that case, it would still make sense to implement a pigouvian tax on CO2 emissions equal to the negative externality associated with those CO2 emissions (assuming that the effect of the tax exceeds implementation costs). The size of the externality depends very much on the amount of warming expected for a given increase on CO2, which depends on climate sensitivity. Assuming that other effects of increasing CO2 such as the CO2 fertilization effect and ocean acidification are dominated by the temperature effect, then doubling the climate sensitivity from 2C to 4C means that the externality roughly doubles, which means that the optimal Pigouvian tax roughly doubles as well. That is unreasonable. Your position appears to me to be basically "As long as someone is worse off for policy X, we should not do policy X". This gives irrational preference to the status quo. For example, if we applied this to the recent free trade agreement with South Korea, because Ontarian manufacturing and South Korean beef farmers are worse off, then the free trade agreement would have not been allowed to go through despite the FTA being of net benefit to both countries. If a policy is of net benefit relative to alternatives, then it should be implemented. That is the whole point in doing a cost-benefit analysis. No, but it still make sense to restrict its emission via a CO2 emission tax. Of course it will. Every molecule of CO2 makes a difference. If you reduce CO2 emissions then you slow the rate at which the climate changes. Proof? And why can't adaptation also include a CO2 emission tax? Yet earlier you were going on about if someone is harmed from climate change and if CO2 emissions cost nothing then humans should eliminate CO2 emissions. Your going well beyond claims about mitigation being a viable policy option. Which requires equilibrium climate sensitivity, which you think is 'irrelevant'. So because it doesn't make sense to completely eliminate CO2 emissions, no effort should be taken to reduce CO2 emissions. Did I get that argument correct?

How about, use the evidence directly and don't use appeal to authority fallacies when deciding what is true with respect to the Earth's temperature record? I have already explained why this claim is nonsense in the other thread. http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/21713-ipcc-exposed/page-6 http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/2014-annus-horribilus-climate-alarmists

http://www.pewforum.org/files/2013/04/worlds-muslims-religion-politics-society-full-report.pdf Mainstream globally. Mainstream in Canada? That is harder to tell since Canada has a much higher percentage of liberal muslims than muslim-majority countries.

They are not only surviving, but pushing back. Do you really think that the Kurdish territories in Northeastern Iraq would fall to ISIS without the west? I can see the Kurdish territories in Syria such as Kobani falling, but not the mountainous stronghold in Northeastern Iraq along Iran's border. Yeah, it's not like the Iran-Iraq war ever happened... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War Of course they do. And they are also autocratic, with a lot of money and the 4th most powerful military in the world. Proof? The arabs did manage to conquer quite a lot of the world over the past 1400 years... Yes, but that doesn't also mean that many of the 92% don't also think that there is nothing wrong with the Saudi Arabian government, and that the Saudi Arabian government is true to the word of Islam. Both ISIS and the Saudi Arabian government are Wahhabi Islamists and they don't really differ that much. The main point of contention is that ISIS thinks that monarchies are unislamic, which puts the Saudi Arabian government in a difficult position. Of that 92%, how many are going to side with ISIS over the Saudi Arabian government, especially given media censorship and the autocratic control that the government has. And even if the majority of the 92% sides with ISIS, the Saudi Arabian government are the ones with all the oil money and the expensive weapons. At worst, you would have a civil war in Saudi Arabia. In which case you have the possibility of the Islamists exhausting each other out, such that many the few liberals might be able to obtain some power. I'm going to agree with Tarek Fatah on this when he says that a conflict between ISIS and Saudi Arabia 'would be the best thing.' http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/featured/prime-time/867432237001/dont-mourn-the-saudi-king/4007890424001 There doesn't need to be. As long as the monarchists have control of the weapons.

What about Iran, or the Kurds, or Saudi Arabia? With no western intervention, it is unlikely that ISIS could take over all of Iraq (specifically the Northeast kurdish territories or the Shia majority territories from Bagdad to the South East), thought they might be able to drive things into a stalemate? Saudi Arabia is the 4th post powerful country militarily in the world. They are constructing a giant wall along their border with Iraq. If ISIS ever did try to take Saudi Arabia, it would be very bloody and probably lead to a civil war, but I can't see ISIS coming out on top given the vast difference in military strength. You mean like the Saudis? ... Oh wait, but you just implied that the Saudi's would get overrun by ISIS without western intervention.

Equilibrium climate sensitivity is a very important 'number' that is very relevant. If climate sensitivity were 100 C then 'the Earth will boil over' due to human emissions as Obama claims it will. Of course I would argue that equilibrium climate sensitivities over 4C are unrealistic unless we are talking about the middle of an ice age. But seriously though, the value of climate sensitivity is very relevant. If we both accept that there exists an 'optimal' global temperature, above which the marginal effect of increasing the global temperature on humanity + the environment is negative and below which the marginal effect of increasing the global temperature on humanity + the environment is positive, and if we both accept that the 'optimal' global temperature is slightly above 15 C (which I think we both do, correct me if I am wrong) then how much warming one gets from emitting CO2 is very relevant because eventually global temperatures might reach a point where the marginal effect is negative. Plausibility of other options such as mitigation or geoengineering would require performing a cost-benefit analysis. But in any proper cost-benefit analysis you will need estimates of climate sensitivity. Why would that necessarily change your mind? If the marginal external effect of CO2 emissions were positive, and fossil fuels were still economically viable with alternatives, then what reason would there be for a 'change'? Your statement doesn't even take into account cost of different sources either, just if it can be deployed everywhere. Are you implicitly accepting the alarmist claims about the environmental impacts of CO2? As an aside, I have been reading various blogs and scientific papers in my spare time recently. This one is relevant for this subject because it gives some more credability to the 2C estimates: http://www.cato.org/blog/current-wisdom-even-more-low-climate-sensitivity-estimates I also recommend this related one on CO2 social cost estimates: http://www.cato.org/blog/closer-look-epas-determination-social-costs-carbon

Sorry, I should have written 'basically zero' rather than 'less than zero' in my earlier comment. With respect to cloud formation being an overall negative feedback, I agree (as I have stated earlier in this thread and despite the fact that many climate change studies suggest or assume that clouds are a positive feedback). The lapse rate feedback is also a significant negative feedback. However, there are also positive feedbacks such as an increased albedo feedback due to less glaciers, higher sea levels and changes in plant cover, CO2 and methane being released from the ocean as it warms (though the CO2 feedback should not be considered when trying to evaluate the effect of climate sensitivity), and a reduction in the latitudinal temperature gradient from global warming resulting in a lower amount of blackbody radiation being emitted by the earth to space than would occur if the latitudinal temperature gradient remained constant. I have a hard time believing that the combined effect of all these other feedbacks is either basically zero or negative, which is needed to get these low climate sensitivity estimates. In any case, if you look at the corrections I made to the 1.99 C equilibrium climate sensitivity paper in the original post and post #18, you will see that 2.95 C is a better estimate of equilibrium climate sensitivity when some of the assumptions made by Craig Loehle are relaxed. You have said in the past that you trust empirical evidence more than computer models, have you not? Well here I have shown that the empirical evidence suggests a climate sensitivity of 2.95 C. Does this new evidence not change your perception of the Earth's true climate sensitivity (to one that is higher and closer to the mainstream scientific community)? 2.95 C is still slightly on the low-side and, as I have mentioned earlier, the assumption of constant decay rate may bias this estimate upward slightly.

All of what you wrote above, even if correct, does not contradict anything I wrote regarding the history of the relationship between the Middle East and 'The West' and how your 'it's all about oil' hypothesis fails. Slaves taken from Western Central Africa to the Americas have little if any relevance with respect to the 'it's all about oil' hypothesis.

Did you not see the pew research results? The MAJORITY of muslims world wide think that homosexuals should be killed and that apostasy should be a crime. I know, right! 'An eye for an eye' would be an improvement over MAINSTREAM Islam, which lacks the concept of recprocity and treats non-muslim as subhuman. Not to mention, 'an eye for an eye' is probably above the current pope's moral system (see his comments on Charlie Hebdo and punching people).

Maybe you do not understand the meaning of the verb minimize... We do not 'need to do this'. You are just using the issue of islamism to somehow justify your eco-socialist agenda. False premise. Do you not understand what burden of proof is? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof