“Or course you are entitled to your own opinion (of my opinion).”

Your lies. LIes is the word you need when you refer to the statements you make. You are lying about the science — repeatedly. I get that that is your only talent, but still.

But are you for or against trying to narrow the range of CS?

You should be aware right now, as I posted about this awhile back whilst you were active here, an article that discusses the shifting nature of CS over time. Narrowing the range is meaningless on its own if it does not take consideration of that shift, currently to higher values.

I do not believe that 100% or more of the warming from pre-industrial is due to humans.”

You are extremely tiresome with your continued wilful ignorance.

Unfortunately for the future of life on Earth what you believe matters not a jot for nature is doing what it does – responds to forcings.

Aerosol Cooling Versus GHG Warming. Recent studies
concluded that it is very likely23 (90% probability) or extremely
likely21 (95% probability) that GHG-induced warming since
the mid-20th century has been larger than the observed
warming. This is not surprising, considering that the radiative
forcing from GHGs (in 2005 compared to 1750) amounts to
about 140% of the total forcing. AR4 was more conservative
regarding attribution, stating that GHG forcing alone would
likely (>66%) have resulted in greater than the observed
warming if there had not been an offsetting cooling effect from
aerosols and other forcings.

Source from page G (or 7 of PDF)

Or course you are entitled to your own opinion (of my opinion).

But are you for or against trying to narrow the range of CS?

Are you for or against trying to expand nuclear power capacity?

Because if you are for either or both of these, than we share the same opinion(s) and that would seem to be worth something.

This is all just the personal opinion of a lay person. So feel free to take it for what it is worth.

Your repeated lies and distortion of science are worth nothing.

I agree with you J.A Coutts.

Of course, I do believe the established science as far as the finding that the Earth is warming (in the range of .9C to 1.2C above pre-industrial).

Where I think the science is inadequate is how MUCH of the warming is due to humans. I do not believe that 100% (or more) of the warming from 1950 to present is due to humans. I do not believe that 100% or more of the warming from pre-industrial is due to humans. I believe that less than 100% of the warming is caused by humans, over both periods. As evidence of that I rely on the 2015 el nino, which added .2C to global warming, and then dropped .2C over the next year or so – which was 25% of the total warming from pre-industrial. So depending on when you measure the global temperature, 25% (at least) can be caused by natural causes. I tend to guess that 50% is natural and 50% is caused by humans – but it is just a guess.

Until science has advanced to where we can reduce the range of climate sensitivity from a range of 1.5 to 4.5C (plus or minus 1.5C) to say plus or minus 1.0C or even 0.5C, I do not believe any of the projections of the climate models.

The very fact that the models provide so many different projections shows that the science needs more work to narrow CS to a value that is useful. I do not think that ensemble results narrow uncertainty of the value of CS (but admit that I am not a statistician). An average of a bunch of guesses is not the same thing as an average of a bunch of actual measurements (in my opinion).

So in the meantime, my solution to the problem of CO2 emissions is to advocate for boosting our nuclear power from 20% of the electricity we generate in the USA to 60 or even 80%, and leave the remaining 20 to 40% as renewable and hydro. We know we can do that with current technology and it will lower CO2 emissions. 100% renewable is physically impossible, in my opinion. Nuclear can also handle the tripling of electricity we will need for all the electric vehicles and electric heating we will use to replace some of fossil fuels.

I hope that the as a country we get over our irrational fear of nuclear power and get going on the only solution we currently have in hand. We should be able to add 100 nuclear power plants (fourth generation passive cooling and much safer than the existing plants) every 5 years, and so could solve this problem in 15 years or 20 years.

Without drastically increasing our nuclear power capacity, the promise of zero emissions by 2030 is just a pipe dream (in my opinion).

This is all just the personal opinion of a lay person. So feel free to take it for what it is worth.

Even though I have serious doubts about the extent of anthropogenic climate change, I still view it as a legitimate theory that has yet to be verified by alternate methodology.

So you don’t trust established science. Interesting.

J.A. Coutts

Some simple facts: the mean US surface temperature has increased by 0.14 degrees per decade since 1901; the warmest years were 2012 and 2015; eight of the ten warmest years since 1901 occurred after 1998.

Heller/Goddard is wrong (of course). The fact that he uses different names for himself and doesn’t publish in the primary scientific journals is proof along with his shoddy science that he is a crank. Only scientifically illiterate deniers admire him. Nobody else.

I was told by Jeff Harvey to; “Keep going Swallow. You have so far plugged 3 of my papers. Only 199 to go.” With an invitation such as that, why not show more of Jeff’s work and then try to determine if it has any importance in the real world when compared to actual problems that do exist for humanity because of insects. This is a gruesome disease that afflicts many in East Africa and its vector is blackfly species. I will list some of the main points about African River Blindness and then search some of the 199 papers that Jeff Harvey is associated with to see if this is of any importance to him to try to find a solution to keep more people from going blind due to this insect caused affliction of going blind. I will so the same for a multitude illness where insects are the vector and see if Jeff Harvey has given any of his time and energy to finding solution for these horrible problems that humans encounter that can be traced to insects.
“River Blindness
A major cause of blindness and poverty – especially in Africa
Onchocerciasis is caused by infection with the filarial parasite Onchocerca volvulus, which is transmitted by the blackfly species. It mainly affects communities living near rivers where the blackfly live and breed.The filarial worm is transmitted through the bites of infected blackflies of the species Simulium. These flies carry the immature larval forms of the parasite and transmit it from human to human. In the human body, the larvae form nodules in the subcutaneous tissue, where they mature to adult worms. After mating, the female adult worm can release up to 1000 microfilariae a day. These move through the body, and when they die they cause a variety of conditions, including blindness, skin rashes, lesions, intense itching and skin depigmentation.
Onchocerciasis is endemic in 30 countries in Africa, Brazil, Venezuela and in Yemen; the vast majority of the infected people live in West, Central and East Africa.
Currently, about 300 000 people are blind from onchocerciasis. Control measures entail larvicide spraying of blackfly breeding sites and treatment of endemic communities with the microfi laricide Mectizan® (ivermectin). Mectizan relieves the agonizing itching that accompanies the disease and halts progression toward blindness. Administered once annually, Mectizan is well suited for mass distribution in remote areas by community health workers. It is the only well-tolerated drug known to halt the development of river blindness.”
https://www.iapb.org/knowledge/what-is-avoidable-blindness/river-blindness/