-1=e^ipi

No, they can just raise oil prices.

0.5 m over the next century. Oh the horror! *sarcasm*

You say that, yet, I think that significant progress has been made. Progress that may eventually lead to publications.

There are many, many threads on climate change here: http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/forum/26-health-science-and-technology/

It's too bad people can't build sea walls. *sarcasm*

Screw 'both sides'. There are more than 2 positions to take on climate change and the 'both sides' you refer to (deniers and alarmists) are idiotic and dogmatic.

Can you please stop convoluting the existence of climate change with whether mitigation is justified. Alarmists. It gives them a cause for their religion. Especially if their understanding of the magnitude of expected climate change is magnitudes larger than even the IPCC's largest predictions. And many have a confirmation bias where they try to dogmatically justify their belief, that it will cause the end of the world, in order to obtain a false sense of moral superiority. And when dissenting opinion appears, you can pretend that they are just deniers, even when that is not the case.

You are screwed. Maybe move to a different country; Australia or the USA might be decent options.

The null hypothesis is the simplest. Okay, prove that god doesn't exist. If you can't prove this, then we should just go along with that belief, since the majority of people believe in god. See the problem? LGM-Holocene Optimum temperature difference is 4.0 +/- 0.8 C (95% confidence interval from annan and hargreaves 2013). Of course we are arguably about 0.3 C warmer than the Holocene now. That doesn't follow, especially given that our current climate is clearly better off than the last glacial maximum. Why do you think it was only after the LGM that agriculture took off? Or would you prefer the world look like this: All that warming has given us less desert, less tundra, more forest. Clearly warming is a bad thing! *sarcasm*

Yeah, it's not like it's due to other reasons... https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/mideast_islamic_state_96569489.jpg

In terms of the effect of AMO on hurricanes, sure. But with respect to AGW via greenhouse gases, the increase in surface temperature which causes increased water vapour in air is pretty much exactly offset by the lapse rate feedback. The main difference is that global warming reduces the radiative imbalance between the surface and the tropopause, which means there is less adiabatic instability to cause hurricanes.

Actually for Canada, it looks more conclusive than the world at large. Canada pretty much benefits from any realistic scenario over the next 100 years.

Belinda Stronarch would have made a better PM than Harper. But the moderates have basically all been pushed out of the Conservative party, so whatever. I guess if you want the CPC to win, a woman would make sense, purely due to the extra votes, but I don't see why the CPC winning is desirable.

Really, you are going to continue with the convolution of consensus argument?

I'm not sure what jimmies are but I would have preferred Martha Hall Findlay as our pm, or are you referring to the cpc? Sex shouldn't matter.

I'm not sure what you mean by outlandish, but the burden of proof lies with the less simple position not the less popular position. That's why things like Occam's Razor, preference for the null hypothesis and Akaike's Information Criterion exist in science. Moving goal posts. Demonstrating that climate change is a net negative (let alone justifying mitigation policy) is not the same thing as demonstrating the existence of climate change.

Come on Tim. The flying spaghetti monster totally exists, and the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise. Ramen.

Go see the 2013 DICE manual by Nordhaus.

I know, right? Common thought is that the Earth was magically in a pristine condition before humans came along, and then that darn talking snake had to tell Eve to eat that magical fruit! Now the sinful humans are defying god's wish for us to not change the environment. I'm sure judeo-christian mythology and other mythology hasn't caused any bias in society's perception on the issue of climate change. *sarcasm*

Okay, Marshall Burke's email is [email protected]. Come on Waldo, email him about your discovery. If people are more aware of your discovery it could influence the Paris negotiations. Think of all the good you could cause! You should totally email Burke for the greater good!

Hey Waldo, I have an idea. Email Burke et al. about your discovery. I'm sure that they would be super pleased that their study somehow accounts for the CO2 fertilization effect.

Like I said, the correlation isn't that great. Also, over this time period, AMO and CO2 are highly correlated, but that correlation breaks down outside this period, which means pretending that the CO2 and AMO relationship will hold till 2100 will greatly bias results. Let alone the fact that the study deals with local temperatures. So 400 ppm would corresponds to a different temperature in say Ottawa compared to Miami. Which means that you can't infer anything about the CO2 fertilization effect from the Berke et al. 2015 study.

Yeah, I think the conservatives have pretty much used up all their political capital on negativity. They'll have to campaign on new policy and try to explain why they would make a more effective government. Also, in 4 years time I doubt the 'not ready' narrative will hold.

Based on results of integrated assessment models, 4 C would actually be reasonable. Unfortunately, alarmists are committed to the 2 C target, which has no scientific or economic basis. Some like Hansen are fitting nonsense exponential sea level rise models (actually, not even fitting, rather choosing parameters without basis) to try to justify that the world is doomed if we warm by more than 0.7 C relative to today.

The correlation isn't that great over the time period and really I think they should have stuck with cross-section data. Also, given that CO2 concentrations aren't measured in Celcius, you can't infer anything about the CO2 fertilization effect from the results of temperature on productivity, other than the fact that they didn't control for CO2 level, which suggests a slight underestimation in the productivity effects (although an overestimation for other reasons).