Any system with such high net positive feedback that an input of 1.6 is amplified to a response of 6 is a system with no inherent stability. It might duplicate the oscillations of the Ice Ages, but it cannot possible duplicate the last 8,000 years of relatively stable climate. Even 3 is pushing into the unstable region. Much higher than that is not just unlikely, but mathematically impossible. Any variation in the sun or a dozen other factors would have already pushed it into a runaway increase or decrease.

Lower than 3 is much more likely, and net negative instead of positive feedback fits the known record (such as it is) much better.

Nor would I consider 3 as an unbiased estimate in the first place, since I have seen the efforts of various AGW true believers to bias it.

Please, be specific. What data? What OFFICIAL site? Which charts, graphs, summaries, etc?

“I’m fairly sure that will not happen, however…”

Based on your BELIEF in those same scientists who have been gaming the system!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

“How do you know this? Did you do original research that challenges their findings?”

Nope, all I have to do is use the data that is avalable to everyone through the OFFICIAL sites!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Similarly, I conclude differently from you. I see the costs as rising exponentially, and we cannot afford the solution, as the time for the effect of the catastrophy decreases. I see you agree with the cost increase. I think where we may differ is about adaptation, and the low probability of a mega catastrophy, and perhaps the time it would take for such an event. Thus I think that weak climate science does argue for weak CO2 constraints. I understand your point. I don’t subscribe to it. Perhaps by putting it out there as Weitzman has, will bring some discussion and work to determine whether more uncertainty should mean more CO2 constraints. In one sense it does seem to be a supportable position.

I think that climate science is not necessarily that inept or that severely biased. I think the range of temperatures that are listed as most probable means adaptation is a supportable alternative for the short term. How long that term may be, varies by a large margin. I did some analysis for myself using a simplistic approach, and the changeover date for when mankind should start spending on more mitigation than adaptation, and got around 2150 AD. Of course, this was a low probability scenario. I did it as a comparison to the opposite stance where we see 10C or so claimed.

The cost is that I have to accept such criticisms from others directed toward my field. It’s only reasonable.

What I belittle is shallow dismissal. I do not dismiss economists when I question economics. I try to be as tentative as possible. I say “it seems to me that you have not accounted for…” and “in systems with which I am familiar it happens that…”. I do not say “I don’t understand what you are saying therefore I don’t believe it”, or “I don’t believe what you are saying therefore you are lying”, and it is to this sort of rude dismissal that I object.

As for your question about “stiffness” that miscategorizes the problem. If the objective is to tell you the weather on February 6 2060, the system is hopelessly sensitive to initial conditions. But nobody is trying to do that; your question about stiffness amounts to a sophisticated version of the “they can’t predict next week’s weather, how can they say anything about fifty years hence”.

The argument attributed to Weitzman is actually a point of contention for me. I have been making exactly Weitzman’s point for almost twenty years; you can see it in the usenet archives. I thought it too simpleminded a point to be worthy of publication. Weitzman’s getting famous for it ticks me off a bit, though to be sure he went into more detail than I did and took the trouble to dress it up for peer review.

But the way I make it these days is ripe for another Weitzman to, um, purloin, and is a little bit elaborated. It says that the less you trust the maturity of climate science, the more vigorously you should be arguing for CO2 emissions restraints, not the other way around. If you do not think the error is biased, a sensitivity double the consensus value of 3 C is as likely as a sensitivity of half. The cost goes up very quickly, becoming infinite at 50C per doubling where business as usual boils the oceans and kills everything or near enough everything as not to matter.

So arguing for weak climate science does not argue for weak CO2 constraints. It drives me crazy that everybody on both sides gets this wrong.

To argue for weak (or small enough that zero becomes reasonable because of the utility of doing nothing) constraints, you have to argue that the climate science is both severely inept AND severely biased. Perhaps that is on the table from where you are sitting. I just want you to understand that either alone does not suffice.

Waldo it was your claim it was jargonistic crap, not mine. I was not trying to bulldoze the reader. One item was a joke, though true. I have 17 years expierence in risk management. There is utility in doing nothing. It is supposed to be considered in risk management. The IPCC has presented to the world its risk assessment of climate change in their discussions of mitigation and adaptation. I think that makes it worth discussing, and many people agree. Several of us challenge what is claimed. But that does not mean we stand in their way. Scientists should be familar with the requirement that the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. MT brings a lot to the table. That is probably why you find so many directing their comments to him. But it is also why I challenge him. I want his opinion, and I want to know why he has it. This does not mean I agree or disagree. I find such discussions interesting.

1) Risk Management points out that we can trust none of the data-manipulating scientists in the IPCC (somewhat cliche at this point, and largely unproven) and those people who work in the monetary field understand how difficult it is to model complex systems. Think we’ve heard these before.
2)Michael Tobis reads Mr. Pittman’s posting as a call to restrain cost until a better overall analysis is at hand – more or less (that’s kind of a poor paraphrase). Perhaps a good point which only time will tell.
3) And the estimable Mr. Pittman himself defends the use of “words that have definitions” that he as a “professional” utilizes to somehow keep himself out of “jail” (?????) – which means, I think, a professional argot or nomenclature for risk management professionals – in other words, jargon. I hope you will forgive me, Mr. Pittman, but it does sound to me like you were trying to bulldoze the population of the last blog by throwing a lot of jargon and management specific language at the screen. You do have an extraordinarily dense and largely incomprehensible style (No offense, an honest observation:I’m not sure your post above makes any sense at all).

In any event, everyone here seems to be concerned with the role of experts in their fields and, as Mr. Pittman writes, their “limits.” Which is exactly why it is so important that we, the lay people (even the risk management “experts” who presumably do not do climate physics or observation) step out of the way and let the scientists hash out what is happening with the world’s climate.

I’m fairly sure that will not happen, however…

Either way this little diversion is now completely pointless.

http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=STANDARDS&p_id=9760

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Risk_management so you understand why there are these jargonistic statements.

http://www.epa.gov/oem/content/rmp/

These ought to keep you busy, Waldo, for about 5 years 10hrs/7days like it did me, if you do for a living. Enjoy.

Of course there is more than just risk management. That is the nature of professional, that MT seems to keep coming abck to.

A couple of points: First to Waldo who said “Well, I “didn’t like it” because I don’t think he writes anything of any merit. He babbles on with a lot of jargonistic crap about a matrix he claims he developed (but offers no proof of) and I cannot figure out why you would be at all enthralled by it.” It was correctly pointed out I did not claim that I developed it. And if I did state that, it was definitely a mistake that should of been understood from the context. I figure this is a good explanation. Second to Waldo, those jargonistic crap words you complain about are words that have definitions. I am a professional in which defintions and meanings are not jargonistic; they are literally the difference of being considered as acceptable, or being considered for a possible jail sentence. That AGW have entered this world and do not understand it, I say “Tough s##t”, get over yourself. Waldo if you have a probem, I suggest you read two links that M Tobis posted at Lucia’s, and as Lucia says, and M Tobis is proclaiming “put on your big boy pants.”

To the gentle readers of this site, I was ad hommed and my position misrepresented without notice except for John M.. M Tobis, yes I am opaque. However, if you have read the link at Lucia, that Contrarian posted, your point of veiw was claimed by the author to be the first (in the sense he expressed it) to consider it in an article. Your conclusion that my point is second order is supported by the link. This is not what the IPCC have said, as the link has stated, and is not necessarily generally accepted, which is my position. Your position is just now starting to get support. I stated that my position was typical per IPCC.

To M. Tobis who said “”Now, the models are being asked to do a difficult task, extrapolation under very rapid forcing changes. The reliability of the predictions may or may not be bounded by the spread of model predictions. But to claim that the best bet is **well outside that spread**, which seems ot be what you believe, requires much fancier argument than shrugging and saying “well, my models suck so yours must too”.”" You have just restated one of the points I was making. Please remember, it is you vs the IPCC who is extrapolating the reliability of the predictions (projections per IPCC) past the bounded model’s MEAN (of the IPCC) when you claim the relevance of catastrophic climate change. In that you have belittled those who question experts, when outside their expertise, the burden of proof is on you to show why you are right and the IPCC is wrong. Yes, I admitted my expertise was cookbook. It does not mean I have no expertise, it means I understand my limits. You appear not to have the same understanding of your limits(I know you have not claimed to be a risk analyst.) You also say “Despite its enormous number of moving parts it seems to behave reasonably well under most of the tests we put it to.” I have a question how stiff, and how well defined are your equations? Need help MT, ask Dr. Browning. I did. Waldo want something to read for my POV? Look this up G. Browning and H.-O. Kreiss (1982) and later publications. If you can explain, please help me understand their work. I spent dozens of hours and still need help. Thank God the jargonistic risk analysis is easier.