Shub: Just to be ultra-clear. The US currently has an average energy consumption of 10 kWy/person (which is maybe twice that of the average European). My statement means that I want everyone in the world to enjoy access levels similar to or greater than these.

BBD

So the next glaciation will be in 50 thousand years (at the earliest) which means that this interglacial will be 6 times longer than any in the last 750,000 years?

Philip

your ~3C "mainstream" box starts to look distinctly empty.

Only in your rather idiosyncratic parsing of the literature. You will find - and I say will advisedly - that the likely value is ~3C.

Had a look at those Annan links yet btw?

Favourite quote, although I am pretty sure there will be a sympathiser on this thread.

I'm not adept enough (totally inept) with excel to do this now as no-one who knows how to is here.

What you have to do is to take the numbers in column C (the years) and then those in D (the anomalies for each year), plot them and then work out the linear trend. The slope is upwards. I had someone do this in early 2006, and the trend was upwards then. It will be now. Trend won't be statistically significant, but the trend is up.

Phil Jones

Dung

What do you think? And have you bothered to google for information? Do you think I exist to do you homework for you?

On reflection Philip, I've decided that I'm fed up with your rubbish about me misrepresenting your comments.

You will now provided clear, unambiguous, detailed examples.

matthu

Yesterday, you accused me of racism. Despite my calling you out repeatedly on this, all you did was run away.

The fact that you have turned up on this thread again as though nothing happened beggars belief.

The only charitable explanation I can come up with is that you are basically just a kid who doesn't know how to behave. Either that, or you suffer from some sort of mental disorder which has reduced your social competence.

In either case, you need to understand that what you did was unforgivable, even by the debased standards of blog exchanges.

Now piss off.

"Only in your rather idiosyncratic parsing of the literature"

Please explain how you "parse" the following statements (from the Royal Society) as constituting support for your position that climate sensitivity is ~3 C.

Climate models indicate that the overall climate sensitivity (for a hypothetical doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere) is likely to lie in the range 2 C to 4.5 C
...

Observations are not yet good enough to quantify, with confidence, some aspects of the evolution of either climate forcing or climate change, or for helping to place tight bounds on the climate sensitivity.

"You will now provided clear, unambiguous, detailed examples."

Good one, BBD. You are sounding more and more unhinged, as well as rude. I imagine you have no need of my help in tracking down clear, unambiguous, detailed examples.

BBD

I am not asking you to do homework, I am ridiculing statements that you made. Did you not understand that?

Good one, BBD. You are sounding more and more unhinged, as well as rude. I imagine you have no need of my help in tracking down clear, unambiguous, detailed examples.

So you can't actually provide examples of my misrepresenting your comments. Why not just admit it and apologise for claiming that I had done so?

It's your characterization of the mainstream view on climate sensitivity that I've questioned. It's wrong, if you accept the Royal Society statement.

Nov 23, 2011 at 6:59 AM

I wryly note your use of the word "disputes", but even so you are wrong. The summary document (which I linked earlier) is intended to represent the society's position on climate change. It simply affirms that climate models indicate the AR4 estimate and states that observations are unable to help in placing tighter bounds on the value.

Nov 23, 2011 at 2:34 PM

The RS postion statement (2010) provides the cannonical range of 2C - 4.5C (median 3.25C) from AR4. It states that diffiulties in simulating clouds in AOGCMs are a barrier to further constraint of this value.

Annan & Hargreaves (2006) and Hansen & Sato (2011) explore empirical approaches to resolving this uncertainty, and both studies (though employing different methodologies) arrive at a result of ~3C.

Curry's 0 - 10C is nonsense (nobody buys the high figures or the low ones) and as usual, one is left wondering what the hell she thinks she's doing.

Dung

I am not asking you to do homework, I am ridiculing statements that you made. Did you not understand that?

Why? Are you saying that they are incorrect? Please do elaborate, in the spirit of scholarship and all that.

The only charitable explanation I can come up with is that you are basically just a kid who doesn't know how to behave. Either that, or you suffer from some sort of mental disorder which has reduced your social competence.

In either case, you need to understand that what you did was unforgivable, even by the debased standards of blog exchanges.

Now piss off.
Nov 23, 2011 at 3:50 PM | Unregistered Commenter BBD

Quack quack!

Pants on fire!

Now THAT sound a lot like an adolescent girl.

How about you stop playing the victim and grow up a little.

Curry's 0 - 10C is nonsense (nobody buys the high figures or the low ones) and as usual, one is left wondering what the hell she thinks she's doing.
Nov 23, 2011 at 4:29 PM | Unregistered Commenter BBD

Can you remind us what your PhD was for and where we might access your dissertation please?

BBD

I wish to establish that you are predicting that the next glaciation will be in 50ky which will make this interglacial 6 times longer than any interglacial in the last 750,000 years.

When someone seek to undermine another person's argument on the basis of some irrelevant fact about him, that is argumentum ad hominem.

When someone seeks to undermine another person's argument, not by seeking to refute the content thereof but on the basis of his nationality e.g. the fact that he is Chinese, then plainly that is racism.

One Chinese paper by authors no-one's heard of

Have you worked out why a misleading 'literature review' by some unheard-of CHINESE authors has popped up... just before Durban?

You are trying to discount the content of a scientific review by impugning the motive of a scientist based solely on his nationality and without any regard to what he is actually saying. (Too bad that the author just happened to be a world renowned scientist - that simply underlines the fallacy of your argument.)

Don't dig yourself in any deeper.

Sigh. Please let me repeat yet again ... my position is that I accept the reality of global warming and would like to see decarbonization. Further, I am happy with the current Royal Society statement; I am unhappy with the government's energy policy; I am generally unhappy with the attitude and position of green groups; and of course I want to see cheap energy access for all.

You've repeatedly refused to accept my scientific position, and have tried to label me a "sceptic" despite my protests. The following just from page 17:

"Still refusing to accept that there is no evidence for a low ECS I see."

"There's only one possible interpretation: you endorse the "sceptical" estimates of ECS. After all, you do not even mention the mainstream estimate of ~3C. About which there is far less uncertainty than you pretend. "

"No. I simply do not buy your pretence of neutrality. This thread is ample proof that you are aligned with the non-mainstream. I still do not understand why you refuse to admit this openly. Ultimately it doesn't matter, but I prefer honesty and clarity. "

"You are bloody silly to allow yourself to be manipulated like this."

"As soon as you stop referencing Lindzen, Spencer, Pielke Sr, Koutsoyiannis etc as though they were reliable sources, we will be be able to agree on something. Not until."

All this despite my somewhat despairing request at one point to, "Please accept that I am indeed trying to attack the lies of the energy fantasists, as well as green philosophy in general."

I can only imagine that the reason for your attitude is because I have disagreed with some of your points, or have supported scientific viewpoints I find interesting but you find politically objectionable. Labeling me "sceptic" is then the only reason you can think for someone to take issue with you. But really it is you who is out of line. The mainstream view in climate science is not monolithic. Please refer again to the Royal Society statement for details.

Dung

I am not predicting anything. It's what the experts in the field say. As you could easily determine for yourself if you weren't so lazy.

matthu

Yesterday, you accused me of racism. Despite my calling you out repeatedly on this, all you did was run away.

The fact that you have turned up on this thread again as though nothing happened beggars belief.

The only charitable explanation I can come up with is that you are basically just a kid who doesn't know how to behave. Either that, or you suffer from some sort of mental disorder which has reduced your social competence.

In either case, you need to understand that what you did was unforgivable, even by the debased standards of blog exchanges.

Now piss off.

When someone seek to undermine another person's argument on the basis of some irrelevant fact about him, that is argumentum ad hominem.

When someone seeks to undermine another person's argument, not by seeking to refute the content thereof but on the basis of his nationality e.g. the fact that he is Chinese, then plainly that is racism.

One Chinese paper by authors no-one's heard of

Have you worked out why a misleading 'literature review' by some unheard-of CHINESE authors has popped up... just before Durban?

You are trying to discount the content of a scientific review by impugning the motive of a scientist based solely on his nationality and without any regard to what he is actually saying. (Too bad that the author just happened to be a world renowned scientist - that simply underlines the fallacy of your argument.)

And true to form you also resport to puerilism when you have lost the argument.

Don't dig yourself in any deeper.

Philip

A pattern emerged some time ago.

You do not respond to anything you don't like. You skip comments all the time. Now you are ignoring my comment at Nov 23, 2011 at 4:29 PM. It's boring.

You espouse all sorts of fringe nonsense yet bizarrely will not admit to it yet expect to be taken seriously. Well, that's not how it works.

Next time you accuse me of misrepresenting your comments, you'd better be in a position to back it up.

God I'm fed up with this exchange.

matthu

I made it CRYSTAL CLEAR that the reason I lacked confidence in Fang et al. is because of the Chinese politicking going on in the run-up to Durban. I explicitly linked this with the Chinese derailment of COP15, and used the word 'realpolitik'.

That you twisted this round into an accusation of racism shows a determination to resort to the vilest 'tactics' imaginable. Your behaviour is absolutely unacceptable.

This is getting unendurable.

It is no longer acceptable to say that you don't trust someone because they are German or Japanese. Equally, it is not acceptable to express lack of confidence in a scientific point of view because ... the authors are Chinese.

When you make an unfounded racist attack on a scientific point of view (which just happen to co-include with a consensus that you no longer feel comfortable with) you should expect kickback.

You argument is not being strengthened by further rationalisation.

BBD, Your comment at 4:29 PM .... To be honest, I wasn't entirely sure what your point was. However:-

1/ You summarized some RS statements. Fine, I don't disagree with your summary.
2/ You linked two papers that provide sensitivity estimates of 3 C. Fine, again I don't disagree.
3/ You rubbished at Curry. Equally fine; I predicted that you would.

If I've missed some of your comments that you wanted me to reply to, I apologise. This has been quite a lively thread, and for the most part I've popped in and out. Please point to anything else you want me to respond to.

"You espouse all sorts of fringe nonsense yet bizarrely will not admit to it yet expect to be taken seriously. Well, that's not how it works."

I'm not aware of referring to any "fringe nonsense" as such, although I've certainly mentioned some "sceptical" viewpoints in passing. When a person refers to a view-point, it does not of course imply that they espouse it.

"Next time you accuse me of misrepresenting your comments, you'd better be in a position to back it up."

Excuse me, but how exactly did my reply at 5:01 PM not back up my complaint? It contained five separate quotes from you supporting my complaint, all found on a single page of this thread.

God I'm fed up with this exchange.
Nov 23, 2011 at 5:21 PM | Unregistered Commenter BBD

Quack quack!

Pants on fire!

Poor kid! Spends all her spare time looking up alarmist research papers to quote from and nobody wants to play.

Judith Curry seems to have some interesting things to say, but she is, of course, a real, qualified scientist with decades of experience to draw on.

How about you BBD, had any interesting research papers published and peer reviewed?