But still, you need to think about others point too.

But I *have* thought about RickA’s points. Perhaps more carefully than he did. You can read the results above.

Do we have to consider the point of those who claim pi is precisely the integer 3?

Some points are just plain wrong. And you should think about that point.

So he keeps acting stupid and peddling lies, hoping to manipulate the gullible, looking for science experts to agree with his agenda. (He picked the wrong blog for that.)

This comment makes no sense.”

Correct, your comment made no sense.

It ALSO made no sense admitting it right at the start.

“As to a) – I have the burden of proof to prove I am not lying”

Nobody is claiming that. Except you.

IF YOU ARE LYING, CALLING YOU A LIAR IS NOT A SLUR. IF you want to make the claim you made that we only call you liar because you disagree with us, THE BURDEN OF PROOF OF THAT IS ON YOU.

“AS to b) – I have been called a liar several times in this very thread. ”

No you weren’t. That is a lie.

post#5

RickA: if you do not agree with them, you are quickly labeled a liar.

That is a lie. You are perfectly free to disagree with us…

It is a FACT that your statement was a lie. You weren’t called a liar, the claim you made was called a lie.

Currently about 1.2-1.4C warming and we’re not at equilibrium, and we’re less than a doubling of CO2, so we’re looking at more than 2.4C per doubling based on everything we’ve got as actual hard evidence so far.

Quite how someone can get “as likely 1.8C as 3C!” is only explicable by someone who doesn’t CARE what reality is. Which won’t change even if we get a doubling and see 3C of warming.

Ergo, there’s no validity to their claims AT ALL.

We need more data – like 120 years more.

Bollocks.

Until then, I say ECS could be 3C, but it could just as likely be 1.8C.

More bollocks. You have been told often enough that the most likely value for ECS – derived from multiple lines of evidence – is ~3C. It is very unlikely that ECS is as low as 1.8C, not least because we’ve observed at transient response of 0.9C to 400ppm.

Please remember that the values within the range are a probability distribution – they are NOT all equally likely. You constantly treat them as if they were, and this is simply incorrect. You’ve had this pointed out many times, so perhaps you would be good enough to stop now.

I have already admitted that up to 1/2 of the the warming we have experienced since 1750 is due to humans (black carbon, CO2, land use changes like deforestation and cities).

I just don’t believe that natural causes shut down in 1950.

So, where are they? What natural forcing is driving modern warming (or 50% of it)? Evidence please.

The most recent el nino is a good example.

No, it’s not. ENSO is an oscillation. Oscillations boost and depress surface temperature but over time the net effect is self-cancelling. Oscillations do not – cannot – drive multidecadal trends. We’ve been through this before btw, so why you are still going on about ENSO is mystifying. Are you on drugs? I know they can damage short-term memory.

We have no way of knowing how long ago the heat that the ocean belched up was first put into the ocean. It could be from 30 years ago or 20,000 years ago.

No. If modern warming was driven by a transfer of energy from the ocean to the atmosphere, OHC would be falling NOT increasing sharply as observed.

At least you are now saying I am wrong – and not calling me a liar.

Don’t be so sure. Remember, you can:

1/ admit that you do not understand the above and stop posting ignorant, politically-motivated bollocks about climate sensitivity

2/ admit that you do understand the above and concede that yes, you are spouting shite on this topic and agree to cease

3/ repeat your ignorant and unequivocally-debunked bollocks and demonstrate beyond any doubt that you are a liar knowingly repeating falsehoods for political motives (they cannot be scientific)

You are currently doing (3).

At least you are now saying I am wrong – and not calling me a liar.

That is progress.

I have already admitted that up to 1/2 of the the warming we have experienced since 1750 is due to humans (black carbon, CO2, land use changes like deforestation and cities).

I just don’t believe that natural causes shut down in 1950.

The most recent el nino is a good example.

About .25C was moved from the ocean into the atmosphere in one year (or less). Totally natural. We have no way of knowing how long ago the heat that the ocean belched up was first put into the ocean. It could be from 30 years ago or 20,000 years ago.

But in one year, nature just did 1/4 of the total warming from 1750 (of the atmosphere). That doesn’t count ocean oscillations, or cosmic rays influencing clouds, or the suns magnetic field (which is low at the moment) influencing clouds via the heliosphere, and so on.

So I am waiting and seeing.

We need more data – like 120 years more.

Until then, I say ECS could be 3C, but it could just as likely be 1.8C.

No one knows the answer yet.

Not me and not you.

But if you want to push for a certain policy in the face of our great uncertainty – go ahead.

I don’t know yet what the best thing to do is – other than using nuclear to generate as much electricity as possible – which I consider the right thing to do no matter what ECS turns out to be.

Until we know more – I will continue to read and observe.

The evidence I find interesting is:

1. The warming from 20000 years ago to 8000 years ago.
2. The ocean rising 120 meters from 20000 years ago to present.
3. The climate optimum from 8000 years ago to about 4000 years ago (warmer than present).
4. The medieval warm period.
5. The fact that the glaciers started retreating from about 1850.
6. The warm period from about 1905 – 1945.

1. Orbital forcing, now at minimum – we should be cooling
2. Ice sheet response to orbital forcing
3. Orbital forcing (mainly precession)
4. Not global, synchronous or as warm as the present, but evidence that climate is sensitive to fairly small forcing changes
5. Beginning of anthropogenic influence – could be black carbon as well as CO2
6. Solar and low volcanism – and long gone

Please remember that transient natural variability is not additive – warming from millennia, or centuries or decades ago doesn’t persist. As the climate warms, so it radiates more energy to space and cools down again as soon as the forcing is reduced. When you look at the combined forcings responsible for modern warming, you will see no evidence whatsoever that natural forcings are the main drivers.

So, in summary, you have no evidence to support your beliefs. Why then have you not changed them?