However, I also stated that “I have never seen any delta F other than change in CO2.”

Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy – something I have repeatedly had to remind you.

I *showed* you by example that you were wrong. So when are you going to exhibit a modicum of good faith and admit it?

That is why I believe the IPCC states

Dishonest rhetoric. This was NOT about what the IPCC said, it was about the correct technical definition of CS which – as I showed you – is simply response to delta F where F is unspecified.

This is a matter of fact, RickA.

Until you admit that you were wrong about a matter of fact, you will remain a proven dishonest little shit.

There is plenty of room in the numbers for a low CS (less than 2.0C) and the natural variability we see, for example from 950 to 1700:

As for CS and natural variability, I also *showed* you that you were wrong.

These errors of yours are not matters of opinion, they are matters of fact. In both cases you have simply made a mistake. In order to get rid of the dishonest little shit problem (which is NEVER going to go away unless you deal with it) you must admit error.

Respond on the AMOC thread, please.

And delta-F being what?

“However, I also stated that “I have never seen any delta F other than change in CO2.””

Lie. We’d already told you several times that it wasn’t. And, despite all this you continued to insist it meant we had to have one full doubling of CO2.

Which it doesn’t. So we already know your claim of ECS ~<<2.0 is wrong.

"The IPCC defines CS in terms of the forcing due to doubling CO2 because that is the primary human forcing"

But not ONLY to precisely one doubling, NEITHER to precisely being from 280ppm.

BOTH claims pulled from your cloaca and, being so near to your heart and centre of intelligence, you insisted were inerrantly true.

"There is plenty of room in the numbers for a low CS (less than 2.0C) and the natural variability we see, for example from 950 to 1700:"

No there isn't, because we have today to know.

See: http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2017/01/2016-is-hottest-year-on-record-three-in.html

Here I admitted that “the equation for CS uses delta F.”:

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2017/01/06/amoc-amok-global-warming-bad-news/#comment-641533

However, I also stated that “I have never seen any delta F other than change in CO2.”

That is why I believe the IPCC states “It [CS] is broadly defined as the equilibrium global mean surface temperature change following a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration (see Box 10.2). ”

See:

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2017/01/06/amoc-amok-global-warming-bad-news/#comment-641496

The IPCC defines CS in terms of the forcing due to doubling CO2 because that is the primary human forcing, and what is being sought to be controlled (in my opinion).

I simply have to disagree with you about the relationship between sensitivity and natural variability.

There is plenty of room in the numbers for a low CS (less than 2.0C) and the natural variability we see, for example from 950 to 1700:

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2017/01/06/amoc-amok-global-warming-bad-news/#comment-641475

So that is all your going to get.

If these comments don’t satisfy you, then I would suggest that we simply agree to disagree.

Or you could keep waiting.

That is up to you.

I did some research and verified that you are correct.

I was wrong, and going off memory – which is never a good idea.

You were wrong about the definition of climate sensitivity and the relationship between sensitivity and natural variability too.

So why not admit those mistakes as well?

Still waiting.

No, he won the electoral college. That wins him the presidency. Votes are advisory to the EC. Not binding.

He lost the vote. By 3 million.

“Trump has 306.”

Out of 250 million people.

You could say he won the presidency, fair enough. That means the EC allowed him to take it, which they did.

But he lost the vote. By 3 million.

Trump won the election.

I did not say Trump won “the vote”.

That is a strawman you are interjecting.

Whether Trump won the election is a true/false thing – not something which you can have a difference of opinion over.

You count up the electoral votes and if Trump has more than 270 – he wins.

Trump has 306.

So Trump won.

Pretty simple.

And I still say it’s wrong to say that. He won the electoral college. That’s sufficient to win the presidency, but isn’t enough to claim he won the vote.

Which trumpers don’t accept. Because they want so badly to believe that they’re running on what “the people” want. When all they want is what THEY want.The people can go hang if they disagree. You should at least be honest in your disdain for the opinions of others.

And you aren’t.

(ps where’s this “you’re allowed your opinion” crap when you’re defending your incorrect opinion? Not good enough for us to use?)

I did some research and verified that you are correct.

I was wrong, and going off memory – which is never a good idea.

I apologize.

I still say it is wrong to say that Trump lost the election, because Trump got more electoral votes.

But I will agree he got less popular votes, by 2.8 million.