My question is this – do you think we should produce more of our electricity with nukes or not?

If you want to argue about energy policy, then argue about energy policy. Kick the science denial to the curb.

I’ve already said that we need *all* low carbon technology on the table. That means nuclear and renewables. Not one or the other. Please stop forcing me to repeat myself as everybody else (who read what I said) gets bored.

Who really cares.

My question is this – do you think we should produce more of our electricity with nukes or not?

Because that is what I think we should do.

I would rather use nukes than solar, wind or fossil fuels.

Hydro is good – but kind of maxed out in the USA.

So given we are going to keep using electricity and given that we will be using more electricity in the future than we use now, I advocate producing as much electricity as possible with nukes.

No matter what happens in the future with temperatures or sea level, I think producing as much electricity as possible with nukes is the way to go.

Do you agree or disagree.

It is obvious that you don’t understand climate science very well. Most people don’t. It’s complicated. So the rational thing to do is to defer to expert opinion – what the scientists say.

Since it is obvious that you don’t understand climate science very well, you have no basis on which to claim that what the scientists say is wrong.

But you do, endlessly. And you are endlessly corrected but you ignore the corrections and plough on. Either you are a fool or you are essentially dishonest.

If you prefer that I regard you as honest, then I must conclude that you are a fool.

So you convert your statement to a tautology.

It is not 100% of the warming is caused by humans, but merely 100% of the human caused warming is caused by humans.

More than 100% of the warming trend since 1950 is anthropogenic. See AR5 WG1 ch. 8 fig. 8 below.

Bottom line – there is no way to know how much of the warming from 1950 to the present is human versus nature with the data we have at present. The error bars are simply too large and the human signal too small.

That’s incorrect. See eg. AR5 ch 8. Here is a picture worth a thousand words.

By all means – pull out the warming from this leg of the el nino. But don’t leave it in and blame it on humans.

Who did that? Not me, to be sure. And all climate scientists are saying about the current EN is that it is temporarily amplifying the effects of AGW. That’s because there is more energy for it to play with.

Otherwise, this is a mere hypothesis and rather ignores all the other natural oscillations, such as ice ages and such, which occur over different time frames than the 60 year ENSO.

Glacial / interglacial cycles are a climate system response to changes in orbital dynamics – and right now those same orbital dynamics are such that we should be *cooling*, not warming abruptly.

Natural variability doesn’t create energy. It moves it around within the climate system. It cannot drive a century-long warming trend. That requires a sustained radiative imbalance such as an increase in atmospheric GHGs.

As I have said over and over again, your opinion is based on a flawed understanding of the science. Bluntly, you are wrong. But despite repeatedly showing you where and how, you don’t stop repeating your false claims.

Either you are unable to understand the science, in which case you should not be commenting about it except to seek guidance, or you are knowingly disregarding the science in favour of pushing a political agenda.

So you convert your statement to a tautology.

It is not 100% of the warming is caused by humans, but merely 100% of the human caused warming is caused by humans.

By all means – pull out the warming from this leg of the el nino. But don’t leave it in and blame it on humans.

Or alternatively, prove that the non-human effects have actually cancelled out from 1950 to date. Of course, you will not be able to detangle nature from human effects from this direction, any better than it can be done from the other direction.

Otherwise, this is a mere hypothesis and rather ignores all the other natural oscillations, such as ice ages and such, which occur over different time frames than the 60 year ENSO.

Bottom line – there is no way to know how much of the warming from 1950 to the present is human versus nature with the data we have at present. The error bars are simply too large and the human signal too small.

I disagree that over 100% of the warming since 1950 is caused by humans (hello – the recent el nino which is moving heat from the oceans into the atmosphere isn’t really happening!).

ENSO is an *oscillation* (clue in name). It self-cancels over time. It cannot create a long-term trend. It does not create energy – it just plays with whatever is already to hand.

The long-term warming trend since 1950 is >100% anthropogenic. Greater than 100% because anthropogenic aerosols *offset* a considerable amount of anthropogenic warming.

I see the temperature changing about 1.2C to 1.6C from 1880 levels to when we hit 560 ppm CO2, based on actual temperature observations and science (like Nic Lewis).

You are confusing TCR with ECS (see also other thread). What happens *when* we hit 560ppm CO2 is the transient response (TCR). This is generally thought to be about 60% of the full equilibrium sensitivity to a doubling of CO2. So a TCR of 1.6% gives an ECS of about 2.7C per doubling – just a fraction below the canonical 3C best estimate. Many climatologists think that the warming will become increasingly nonlinear over time, so the very slightly (policy-irrelevant) lower value we get from this simple calculation is probably going to be on the low side.

Here’s one: Align public opinion with what Science informs us regarding AGW and produce the necessary political will to form public policies that will mitigate climate change and the high costs that failure to address AGW will impose on society.