What is the correct value of Climate Sensitivity?

[-1=e^ipi]

Afraid so. Ever heard of the permian, triassic, or mid cambrian periods...

Those weren't runaway global warming scenarios. They were warmer, but not 'runaway'.

[eyeball]

Because it's easier to be vague and never actually put forward any clear arguments. That way you can just claim people are committing the strawman fallacy, when really they just have no idea what the hell you're on about because your arguments are incoherent.

Well the incoherence must stem from a fundamental basis of ignorance otherwise how does one explain why people use the fallacy claim so improperly?

There's nothing like trying to be disingenuous and cocking it up to utterly shred one's credibility.

[On Guard for Thee]

Those weren't runaway global warming scenarios. They were warmer, but not 'runaway'.

They dont have to be runaway to take us out.

[-1=e^ipi]

They dont have to be runaway to take us out.

So you admit that runaway is not possible? Good, we are making progress.

[On Guard for Thee]

So you admit that runaway is not possible? Good, we are making progress.

Don't agree at all. But what does it matter if it whatever degree we are creating makes the place uninhabitable for us. Not that I really care as I wont be here, but I guess I do feel some responsibility as a sort of custodian of the place.

[-1=e^ipi]

Don't agree at all. But what does it matter if it whatever degree we are creating makes the place uninhabitable for us. Not that I really care as I wont be here, but I guess I do feel some responsibility as a sort of custodian of the place.

So you disagree with the IPCC and the mainstream scientific community. Okay.

[On Guard for Thee]

So you disagree with the IPCC and the mainstream scientific community. Okay.

Well the IPCC says fossil fuels must be gone by 2100 or we hit the tipping point. Like I say, I wont be here.

[TimG]

Well the IPCC says fossil fuels must be gone by 2100 or we hit the tipping point. Like I say, I wont be here.

Please provide a cite to the IPCC WG1 report (i.e. the one based on science) that makes such a claim.

If you can't/won't do this then you should admit that you are just making an unsubstantiated appeal to authority.

Edited May 12, 2015 by TimG

[-1=e^ipi]

Well the IPCC says fossil fuels must be gone by 2100 or we hit the tipping point. Like I say, I wont be here.

There is no 'tipping point'

[On Guard for Thee]

There is no 'tipping point'

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/un-climate-change-report-offers-stark-warnings-hope-1.2821093

[-1=e^ipi]

You realize the article you linked to does not contain the words 'tipping' or 'runaway', right? And the article refers to the IPCC 5th assessment report; the IPCC has the position that "a 'runaway greenhouse effect'—analogous to [that of] Venus—appears to have virtually no chance of being induced by anthropogenic activities."

You really don't like conceding anything, don't you? Regardless of if it's the existence of a 'tipping point' or the basics of cellular respiration and photosynthesis.

Maybe we should try to agree one more basic scientific facts. Do you agree with the Stefan-Boltzman law? Do you think the ideal gas law is a good model for how gas behaves in our atmosphere? Do you accept that the acceleration due to gravity on Earth is roughly -9.81 m/s^2?

[-1=e^ipi]

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).

[Keepitsimple]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/un-climate-change-report-offers-stark-warnings-hope-1.2821093

Talk about ambiguous. Here are three statements - two directly from your article, the other from one that it linked to.....the first two say it's definitely all human.....the third says it's starting to look like the human factor outweighs the "natural cycle". Is it any wonder there are still skeptics?

Climate change is happening, it's almost entirely man's fault and limiting its impacts may require reducing greenhouse gas emissions to zero this century, the United Nations' panel on climate science said Sunday.

.....................................................

The IPCC was set up in 1988 to assess global warming and its impacts. The report released Sunday caps its latest assessment, a mega-review of 30,000 climate change studies that establishes with 95-per cent certainty that nearly all warming seen since the 1950s is man-made.

"The evidence is getting stronger and stronger that the climate is changing, and many aspects of that changing climate can be attributed to human activities," Flato said, noting that this certainty is BEGINNING to outweigh evidence the changes are due to the Earth’s "natural cycle."

Edited May 31, 2015 by Keepitsimple

[On Guard for Thee]

Talk about ambiguous. Here are three statements - two directly from your article, the other from one that it linked to.....the first two say it's definitely all human.....the third says it's starting to look like the human factor outweighs the "natural cycle". Is it any wonder there are still skeptics?

There will always be skeptics. Many benefit from the status quo so it suits them to be, regardless of what the science shows. Luckily it seems more and more of the highest levels of governments around the planet are heeding the evidence and taking steps to deal with it.

[TimG]

regardless of what the science shows.

The trouble is the science does not show what you claim it shows. Climate change activism is a lefty political issue and the only people who care about it are people who are already left wing because they see it as a vehicle to advance their pet policies. It is pure opportunism and has nothing to do with the science. Edited May 31, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

The trouble is the science does not show what you claim it shows. Climate change activism is a lefty political issue and the only people who care about it are people who are already left wing because they see it as a vehicle to advance their pet policies. It is pure opportunism and has nothing to do with the science.

A disappearing glacier, for instance, is neither a left or right issue. But it is an issue, and most mainstream scientists of various types agree the issue is a problem.

[TimG]

A disappearing glacier, for instance, is neither a left or right issue.

The question of what to do about these issues is purely a political question. The reason the left is so keen on mitigation is it plays right into their "big government good - corporations evil" mentality. Any evidence based cost benefit analysis would reject mitigation as a policy choice. Edited May 31, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

The question of what to do about these issues is purely a political question. The reason the left is so keen on mitigation is it plays right into their "big government good - corporations evil" mentality. Any evidence based cost benefit analysis would reject mitigation as a policy choice.

It would appear everything is a political question to you. Perhaps after you have to suffer with drought after that glacier fades away you will change your mind. And BTW, Brightsource Energy, for instance, is a corporation. So that might help allay your fears that wanting to protect the planet is anti corporation.

[waldo]

The trouble is the science does not show what you claim it shows. Climate change activism is a lefty political issue and the only people who care about it are people who are already left wing because they see it as a vehicle to advance their pet policies. It is pure opportunism and has nothing to do with the science.

as before, and... now, and always, why don't you... why won't you (ever), state your interpreted scientific consensus evidence that presents/holds that the relatively recent warming is not (principally) due to anthropogenic sources... that it is, as you apparently claim, some other variant percentage split between natural and anthropogenic factors. And, of course, don't hesitate to state just what your interpreted (scientific consensus evidence based) variant percentage split value is between natural versus anthropogenic attribution.

climate change deniers, like you, purport to frame your variant of denial upon an ever present, every ready, go-to left-right dichotomy... that apparently, to you, no right thinking/aligned persons accept GW/AGW/CC... or if they do accept it/them, they all belong within your Adapt-R-Us-Only camp!

[TimG]

It would appear everything is a political question to you.

I am de-constructing the "its about the science" narrative which you are so fond of. It is rather pathetic hypocrisy for you to keep peddling the myth.

Brightsource Energy, for instance, is a corporation.

A corporation completely dependent on government handouts which makes it tolerable to lefties. Corporations that make money without government help are the truly evil ones.

[On Guard for Thee]

I am de-constructing the "its about the science" narrative which you are so fond of. It is rather pathetic hypocrisy for you to keep peddling the myth.

A corporation completely dependent on government handouts which makes it tolerable to lefties. Corporations that make money without government help are the truly evil ones.

Umm, no its not. While it does have a loan guarantee from the state, it is primarily funded by investors such as Google, BP, Stanley Morgan, Chevron, Statoil. You will notice there a number of rather large fossil fuel based corporations on the list who can see the future, and want on the bandwagon.

[TimG]

Umm, no its not. While it does have a loan guarantee from the state

It depends on a government regulation that requires utilities to purchase renewable power no matter what the cost. This is the same as a direct government subsidy and no one would invest in it without this subsidy. The ones that are investing are only expecting to make money because of the subsidies. Edited May 31, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

It depends on a government regulation that requires utilities to purchase renewable power no matter what the cost. This is the same as a direct government subsidy and no one would invest in it without this subsidy. The ones that are investing are only expecting to make money because of the subsidies.

Oops, wrong again. Their major contracts are with the likes of Pacific Gas and Electric, and Southern Cal. Edison. Both investor owned corporations.

[TimG]

Oops, wrong again. Their major contracts are with the likes of Pacific Gas and Electric, and Southern Cal. Edison. Both investor owned corporations.

The only reason those contracts exist because the government ordered Pacific Gas and Electric, and Southern Cal. Edison to sign the contracts via the renewable mandate. These companies would not have any interest in power from this company if it was not for the government order. Like I say, the left only likes corporations that depend on government subsidies. Edited May 31, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

The only reason those contracts exist because the government ordered Pacific Gas and Electric, and Southern Cal. Edison to sign the contracts via the renewable mandate. These companies would not have any interest in power from this company if it was not for the government order.

I suspect you are blinded by your paranoia you have already pointed out, that anything to do with alternate energy is big government looming. You may want to check out a company who is one of their largest investors NRG energy.