<div>Though I indicated I was done for the day, given my four posts already, an error in the following post should be corrected. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>These estimates on climate sensitivity from Barton Paul Levenson are not "all over the board," as you wrote. Not one indicates a reduction in temperature from a doubling of atmospheric CO2. .If they were "all over the board" some would show negative feedback(s) that more than overcome the radiative forcing of CO2, resulting in a temperature reduction. These studies all show temperature increases from doubling atmospheric CO2.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Also, I study the skeptical scientific theories on anthropogenic climate change, and have presented many of them to Vision2020 (Pielke, Lindzen, Easterbrook, et. al.) Why you think I need to be reminded there are skeptical scientific arguments regarding human impacts on climate based on "good sound science," I have no clue...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You conveniently have ignored, or perhaps never bothered to study, the recently posted to Vision2020 scientific work on human impacts on climate, from MIT, which indicates more profound probable increases in temperature from human impacts, than <strong><em>the average of the studies</em></strong> I referenced from Barton Paul Levenson.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I posted information on this MIT study again today...</div>
<div> </div>
<div>You might take the work seriously... On the other hand...<br>------------------------------------------</div>
<div>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br> </div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote">On 6/21/10, <b class="gmail_sendername">Paul Rumelhart</b> <<a href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:</span></div>
<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span> </div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid"> The link you posted on climate sensitivity shows values that are all over the board, from 0.26 to 5.5 Kelvins. There doesn't seem to be a trend that shows them converging on a final number, either. Since 2000, the range is 0.75 to 4.5 Kelvin.</blockquote>
<div> </div>
<div> </div>
<div>The list of studies of climate sensitivity I posted</div><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">Ted Moffett wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="PADDING-LEFT: 1ex; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid">*/Please refrain from distorting my carefully worded statements. You are misrepresenting what I wrote./* I will quote from my first post on the record Arctic sea ice decline for the month of May, in 2010:<span class="q"><br>
"...*/they may need/* to construct more powerful confirmation bias<br>filters,*/ if 2010 trends continue as they have./* We are on course in 2010 to<br>set a new warmest annual average global temperature year, and Arctic sea ice<br>
also is on track to tie or exceed the previous record low of 2007.<br><br>Of course, these trends */could change substantially."/*<br>------------<br>This quote does not indicate that I think the trend for the 2010 Arctic sea ice to be the lowest surface area coverage on record, to be "set in stone," as you wrote (I state that the trends "could change substantially").<br>
I was only pointing out that if the 2010 trends so far, both for average global temperature, and Arctic sea ice area decline, */continue,/* it will be evidence against the claims of some anthropogenic climate change skeptics, who have insisted global warming is not progressing in the global temperature record since the record high years 1998 and/or 2005, and that the Arctic ice has "recovered" from the 2007 record low.<br>
But one way or the other, the confirmation bias prevalent among many of the anthropogenic climate change skeptics will result in them dismissing a record warm average global temperature for 2010, or record low Arctic sea ice extent 2010, as not very important. Greenland could slip into the ocean, and Manhattan rendered a loss due to flooding, and many of the anthropogenic climate change skeptics would insist these were natural climate change events.<br>
They employ their confirmation bias to dismiss the overwhelming evidence from the numerous studies of climate sensitivity (increase in global average temperature from a doubling of atmospheric CO2), one of the most important questions in climate science, that have been conducted since Arrhenius in 1896, that demonstrate climate sensitivity to be significant; and that the radiative physics/mathematics regarding CO2's operation in the Earth's atmosphere is well established science, demonstrating that human sourced CO2 emissions are significantly warming the Earth's climate:<br>
<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ClimateSensitivity.html" target="_blank">http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ClimateSensitivity.html</a><br> <a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm" target="_blank">http://www.aip.org/history/climate/Radmath.htm</a><br>
-------------------------------------------<br>Vision2020 Post: Ted Moffett<br></span><span class="q"> On Sun, Jun 20, 2010 at 9:31 AM, Paul Rumelhart <<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a> <mailto:<a onclick="return top.js.OpenExtLink(window,event,this)" href="mailto:godshatter@yahoo.com" target="_blank">godshatter@yahoo.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
<br> My main reason for responding to Ted was based on his comment<br> that skeptics will have to beef up their confirmation bias filters<br> to not believe that sea ice will fall below 2007 levels. I wanted<br> to point out that those kinds of conclusions are not as set in<br>
stone as he thinks. <br> <br></span></blockquote><br><br></blockquote><br>