It's in the original. I'll venture a marked edit.

Looking for colour versions of the graphics. Any assistance would be appreciated.

-mt

Climate change and its associated controversies are deeply interesting to me on a personal, not professional level.

I find Guy McPherson's self-promotion and assertion of an 'inevitable extinction of humanity by 2030' to be disturbing in its doom-mongering and encouragement of passivity and inaction even as he asserts that he is promoting 'love' and the pursuit of 'excellence' in our daily lives to compensate for the fact that we will be 'finished' as human beings by 2030.

Obviously we know the issues are very real and threaten us, but his videos and assertions are gaining traction through youtube. Psychologically, the effect is one of 'We can't do anything' and how anybody can give him credibility for coming up with dates as if they are set in stone is beyond belief.

I wonder if he has some association with certain elements of power and privilege who can afford to buy up water resources in South America, for example, or have the money to pursue if not actually be able to achieve objectives such as going to other planets through super technology. The psychological message echoing through his pronouncements is surrender to the inevitable.

The answer to such pied pipers of inaction and surrender is to actively promote the the actions anybody who cares about this planet can take at any level. The challenges are huge but the do nothing but accept extinction mentality of Guy McPherson is redolent of somebody with mental issues or a clever psychological operative.

Check out Dr Ajit Varki on origin of denial in the evolution of our species.

Psychology of climate change denial
- http://envisionation.co.uk/index.php/nick-breeze/196-climate-psychology-alliance-facing-difficult-truths.

- David Spratt Climate CodeRed https://vimeo.com/109577970 "The Paris voluntary national commitments would result in emissions in 2030 being higher than in 2015 and are consistent with a 3°C warming path, and significantly higher if the warming impacts of carbon-cycle feedbacks are considered. Unless dramatically improved upon, the present commitments exclude the attainment of either the 1.5°C or 2°C targets this century without wholly unrealistic assumptions about negative emissions." (http://www.climatecodered.org/2017/10/policymakers-need-to-look-at-real.html)

- Dr Suzanne Moser: I found a useful approach by Susanne Moser in her keynote lecture (Conference on Communication and Environment), "Hope: A Bridge without Railing":https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3N-IupSicAY&feature=player_embedded. Hope (the word) can be used to describe a continuum from passive optimism (pollyannism)thru active heroic, passive skeptical to active skepticism or grounded hope. If we live in a stuck place between the impossible and the unthinkable, hope of the grounded variety gets us out of bed to do our utmost in spite of great odds. www.susannemoser.com/documents/Moser-Berzonsky_Hopeinthefaceofclimatechange_reviewdraft_6-24-15.pdf

- Dr Ajit Varki. http://cmm.ucsd.edu/varki/ is his homepage.
He co-wrote a seminal book in 2013 titled Denial: Self-deception, False Beliefs and the Origins of the Human Mind.
Listen and read transcript at http://www.ecoshock.org/2017/01/climate-denial-is-human.html.
There is a public talk about the theory in March 2017, archived
https://carta.anthropogeny.org/events/awareness-death-and-personal-mortality-implications-anthropogeny
-

Now, taking a step back, by way of example, I once was watching four men attempt to load a large, tallish object into a van. I tried to explain how to do it based on the perplexed looks on their faces, but was shushed as a stupid woman - what do I know? After the four men concluded it was impossible and stopped talking - and finally listened to me - it was loaded in a minute or two. Why? Because I happen to excel at Solid Geometry.

So, going back to learning about exponential growth in the early 1990s - I was immediately alarmed and in my own projections of the data, estimated about 2030 was it for humans if we didn't change. I only found this Guy P. online last year and felt like 'finally' a smart person.

Yes, many scientists out there are far too optimistic. Why does everyone focus on where we will be at the END of the century?

What about RIGHT NOW? Why don't the people around me in this community change at all? Ever? Why am I ridiculed still in 2017 BECAUSE I DON'T DRIVE FOR ETHICAL PURPOSES?

Well, at least now my father is with me - a born again christian. He is open minded and now sees what I tried to tell him so long ago. But he still drives and eats meat! Again - as do all around me.

Now I am even in financial distress as I thought my long term plan would work well while in fact where I live has become even more entrenched in their (literally) murderous lifestyles and even more car-focused if that is possible! And only care about themselves it would seem. (I am not currently residing in an ‘informed’ sort of place, like a Portland or Boulder, as I realize other places might be and I know exist.)

After a decade of banging my head against a wall, being ridiculed privately and publicly by family, friends, acquaintances when mentioning why we need to change - give up the nonstop meat eating, airplane flying, and car-driving - and finally even writing a book on how we might actually change with some ease, including economically - just because there were no seemingly sane or rational people around me - I just frankly STFU, found a place where I could live by my principles and at least hope to be some sort of hopeful example that life could still be good without these things that are associated with externalities that are detrimental to the globe at large.

If the US doesn't split in half from an earthquake along the New Madrid fault line soon (as in the next few years) - which looks even more likely now with hurricanes spewing gobstoppers of water on the land, thus increasing said probability - then we can look forward to a global lynch mob coming for the selfish country that consumed without apology a disgusting amount of global resources for really no apparent good reason but for the selfish profit motive. A country full of people who refused to think for themselves and as a result has probably caused far, far more catastrophic damage than a hitler ever could.

In 2017, I am still made fun of for not owning a car or eating meat.

I've given up on the humans. I started using plastic again in 2016 since the oceans are already screwed and we are too. Doesn't matter.

Yeah, hopefully we get those few extra years still till 2030.

Gee, I am SO PROUD to be ‘AMERICAN’

I have a Ph.D. in atmospheric and oceanic sciences if that helps.

I do doubt however if one could easily get a total feedback that is negative so I would think it might be difficult to go below 1C. Mosher showed a reference that proves its possible to get quite close to 2C. Mosher asserts that that model matches real data very well.

I don't think GCM's are useless as weather models as I said above. I do doubt their utility for long term climate simulations. I also do not believe they are real "scientific" evidence concerning the real ECS of the system. They are giant machines with hundreds of control knobs. They do relatively sell on Rosby waves and seemingly quit poorly on convection.

Leaving aside the stuff I don;t understand about BI health etc. I'd like to focus on "current GCMs could be easily tuned for low ECS"

This goes exactly to my point.

If GCMs are as useless as people (including you) posit, my position is that this would be the case, while if they embody real skill, it would not.

So if it is so easy, please do it! Really. I'd love to have some basis to change my mind about all this.

Have you read the recent big GCM tuning article or Helds latest? These are actually good signs that the GCM modelers themselves are going to do better than turbulence modelers in the future.

Then why isn't there one?