217 replies to this topic

[biknut]

Global warming my ass!  [tung]  (j/k)

HaHa, you're freezing your ass off aren't you. I know, that's proof of global warning. We been freezing our asses off here in Texas this winter too. If it warmed up tomorrow and we didn't have another cold day it still would be a colder winter than we've had in a number of years. That's proof of global warming too lol. Everything is proof of global warming.

[xanadu]

This reminds me of all the studies done by the tobacco industry showing that cigarettes are not harmful. It's funny how scientists not paid by big tobacco found exactly the opposite conclusions. Same with global warming and it's causes.

[biknut]

This reminds me of all the studies done by the tobacco industry showing that cigarettes are not harmful. It's funny how scientists not paid by big tobacco found exactly the opposite conclusions. Same with global warming and it's causes.

The difference between me and you is, you believe everything you've read about global warming hook line and sinker. I on the other hand remain open minded.

I don't trust what's being said by anybody. Most of the money is on the side of global warming proponent's. Many scientists are afraid to speak out against global warming. Oil company's are offering money to scientists that will, but they're not telling them what to say. What do you expect oil company's to do when they are the ones being attacked as the main cause of global warming.

Based on the winter we're having in America, I think global warming is going down the drain.

Here's a question. If CO2 is such a big time greenhouse gas, why is Mars so cold?

[jackinbox]

The difference between me and you is, you believe everything you've read about global warming hook line and sinker. I on the other hand remain open minded.

I don't trust what's being said by anybody. Most of the money is on the side of global warming proponent's.

Then, why you keep posting articles if you don't trust anybody?

Many scientists are afraid to speak out against global warming. Oil company's are offering money to scientists that will, but they're not telling them what to say.

Yeah, that's credibility...

Based on the winter we're having in America, I think global warming is going down the drain.

The temperature in your backyard is pointless in this debate. This winter is much warmer than the average this year in Quebec and it has nothing to do with global warming. Sadly, this argument is used by ignorants from both sides. Only long-term, large scale temperature mesure can assert about global warming. Anyway, in a previous post you recognised that the earth is warming.

Here's a question. If CO2 is such a big time greenhouse gas, why is Mars so cold?

Mouhahaahaha. Don't you know that Mars is more than 50 millions km farther from the sun than Earth?

[DukeNukem]

>>> Here's a question. If CO2 is such a big time greenhouse gas, why is Mars so cold?

Very thin atmosphere. Also, far less light reaches Mars vs. Earth.

Let me clarify my position:

o I do not know for certain that global warming is caused by man.

o But I strongly suspect that it is, based on everything I've read in the last year, since I've really begun to pay attention to this issue. (Note: Mostly on ScienceDaily.com, which I thoroughly read daily -- it's a one-stop site for important research findings.)

o The US should be among those countries leading the way to find out for certain.

o And if it is found to be reasonably certain, the US should be among those countries leading the world in greatly reducing the causes.

Done. Next.

[biknut]

Anyway, in a previous post you recognised that the earth is warming.

For millions of years the earth has been both warming and cooling. Some people want to blame the latest warming on man. You are convinced of it. Isn't that right? I would just point out that a lot of times things are not as they seem. I think a lot more research needs to be done. The earth was warmer and cooler than it is now, long before there were any people around.

How many years do you think need to be counted to tell if there's global warming? One or two isn't enough for you, but 40 or 50 out of millions is???? Right!!

[jackinbox]

Anytime scientists say they're 95% sure of anything, you know they're probably wrong
....
I think a lot more research needs to be done.

You want more research to be done but you don't believe in scientists doing them...

[biknut]

This is probably the real reason for global warming, and it 's not what you think.

"It was long thought that clouds were caused by climate change, but now we see that climate change is driven by clouds.

"This has not been taken into account in the models used to work out the effect carbon dioxide has had.

"We may see CO2 is responsible for much less warming than we thought and if this is the case the predictions of warming due to human activity will need to be adjusted."

Check this out, with pictures too.

http://www.telegraph...2/11/warm11.xml

[jackinbox]

This is probably the real reason for global warming, and it 's not what you think.

"It was long thought that clouds were caused by climate change, but now we see that climate change is driven by clouds.

"This has not been taken into account in the models used to work out the effect carbon dioxide has had.

"We may see CO2 is responsible for much less warming than we thought and if this is the case the predictions of warming due to human activity will need to be adjusted."

Check this out, with pictures too.

http://www.telegraph...2/11/warm11.xml

Why would you believe this scientist instead of the majority? Global warming is a complex issue. Its analysis involve information from different fields of study, computer models, etc. That's the reason they created organisations like the IPCC to look at it.

[biknut]

Why would you believe this scientist instead of the majority?

Because I'm not part of the herd, and I'm good at spotting bull siht. I'm not saying I think this scientist's theory is exactly right, or even the whole story. A few posts back I posted about a Russian scientist that is claiming our solar system is entering a energized galactic cloud that will take about 3,000 years to pass through. He claims that is the cause of the increased output from the sun. What's happening on the sun may be happening on the Earth too. Still, I think we need to find out what's going on, but I don't think we're there yet.

It's going to be interesting to see how much traction, if any, this cosmic ray theory of global warming will get in the coming months.

[Mind]

Here is Here is another article about the cosimc ray theory

The fellow (Svensmark) proposing this theory (not the first by the way) has data and experimental results on his side. He predicted the gradual cooling over the last couple of years and the earth has cooled for 2 years in a row (I wonder why the IPCC did not mention this in their report...maybe that accounts for the 90% confidence instead of 100%). Also, it is true that people who propose alternate theories on climate change are shunned and publicly ridiculed. Even though Svensmark had experimental proof that cosmic rays can create cloud condensation nuclei, it took almost 2 years for him to get published. Here in the U.S. Nuremburg Style trials have been proposed for AGW skeptics. Television broadcasters (myself included) have also drawn ire. The Weather Channel's top climate scientist has proposed stripping the AMS seal from anyone who raises any questions about AGW. That is not how science works. It works by always asking questions. No theory is perfect and must constantly evolve to become better.

[biknut]

President of Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus,

Calls Man-Made Global Warming a 'Myth' - Questions Gore's Sanity. HaHaHa,
so do I.


Oh god, this guy is good!!! I guess he must own a oil company or something.

Czech president Vaclav Klaus has criticized the UN panel on global warming, claiming that it was a political authority without any scientific basis.

In an interview with "Hospodárské noviny", a Czech economics daily, Klaus answered a few questions:

Q: IPCC has released its report and you say that the global warming is a false myth. How did you get this idea, Mr President?•

A: It's not my idea. Global warming is a false myth and every serious person and scientist says so. It is not fair to refer to the U.N. panel. IPCC is not a scientific institution: it's a political body, a sort of non-government organization of green flavor. It's neither a forum of neutral scientists nor a balanced group of scientists. These people are politicized scientists who arrive there with a one-sided opinion and a one-sided assignment. Also, it's an undignified slapstick that people don't wait for the full report in May 2007 but instead respond, in such a serious way, to the summary for policymakers where all the "but's" are scratched, removed, and replaced by oversimplified theses.• This is clearly such an incredible failure of so many people, from journalists to politicians. If the European Commission is instantly going to buy such a trick, we have another very good reason to think that the countries themselves, not the Commission, should be deciding about similar issues.•

Q: How do you explain that there is no other comparably senior statesman in Europe who would advocate this viewpoint? No one else has such strong opinions...•

A: My opinions about this issue simply are strong. Other top-level politicians do not express their global warming doubts because a whip of political correctness strangles their voice.

• Q: But you're not a climate scientist. Do you have a sufficient knowledge and enough information?•

A: Environmentalism as a metaphysical ideology and as a worldview has absolutely nothing to do with natural sciences or with the climate. Sadly, it has nothing to do with social sciences either. Still, it is becoming fashionable and this fact scares me. The second part of the sentence should be: we also have lots of reports, studies, and books of climatologists whose conclusions are diametrally opposite.• Indeed, I never measure the thickness of ice in Antarctica. I really don't know how to do it and don't plan to learn it. However, as a scientifically oriented person, I know how to read science reports about these questions, for example about ice in Antarctica. I don't have to be a climate scientist myself to read them. And inside the papers I have read, the conclusions we may see in the media simply don't appear. But let me promise you something: this topic troubles me which is why I started to write an article about it last Christmas. The article expanded and became a book. In a couple of months, it will be published. One chapter out of seven will organize my opinions about the climate change.• Environmentalism and green ideology is something very different from climate science. Various findings and screams of scientists are abused by this ideology.•

Q: How do you explain that conservative media are skeptical while the left-wing media view the global warming as a done deal?•

A: It is not quite exactly divided to the left-wingers and right-wingers. Nevertheless it's obvious that environmentalism is a new incarnation of modern leftism.•

Q: If you look at all these things, even if you were right ...•

A: ...I am right...•

Q: Isn't there enough empirical evidence and facts we can see with our eyes that imply that Man is demolishing the planet and himself?•

A: It's such a nonsense that I have probably not heard a bigger nonsense yet.•

Q: Don't you believe that we're ruining our planet?•

A: I will pretend that I haven't heard you. Perhaps only Mr Al Gore may be saying something along these lines: a sane person can't. I don't see any ruining of the planet, I have never seen it, and I don't think that a reasonable and serious person could say such a thing. Look: you represent the economic media so I expect a certain economical erudition from you. My book will answer these questions. For example, we know that there exists a huge correlation between the care we give to the environment on one side and the wealth and technological prowess on the other side. It's clear that the poorer the society is, the more brutally it behaves with respect to Nature, and vice versa.• It's also true that there exist social systems that are damaging Nature - by eliminating private ownership and similar things - much more than the freer societies. These tendencies become important in the long run. They unambiguously imply that today, on February 8th, 2007, Nature is protected uncomparably more than on February 8th ten years ago or fifty years ago or one hundred years ago.• That's why I ask: how can you pronounce the sentence you said? Perhaps if you're unconscious? Or did you mean it as a provocation only? And maybe I am just too naive and I allowed you to provoke me to give you all these answers, am I not? It is more likely that you actually believe what you say.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash.htm

[Mind]

Like I said earlier in this thread, I am not a big AGW skeptic, but a small one. I think we might be adding to "some" of the warming that has occurred recently but by no means is it all caused by humans.

[jerpoint]

So, Mind.....

As a fellow mid-westerner from the frozen north, are you sure that global warming is a bad thing?

[Athanasios]

25mil Prize for way to remove greenhouse gases

http://environment.n...as-removal.html

A prize of $25 million for anyone who can come up with a system for removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere was launched on Friday. It is the biggest prize in history, claims its sponsor, Richard Branson.

The head of Virgin Group said at the launch in London, UK, that the prize was not for removing emissions from power plants before they reach the atmosphere and storing them deep underground – an existing technology known as carbon capture and sequestration.

Instead, the brief is to devise a system to remove a "significant amount" of greenhouse gases – equivalent to 1 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide or more – every year from the atmosphere for at least a decade. It was inspired by the £20,000 prize for developing a way of measuring longitude won by 18th century clockmaker John Harrison, and recounted in the book Longitude. The $10 million X-Prize for private human spaceflight, won in 2004, was also an inspiration.

The initial closing date for Branson's Earth Challenge is 8 February 2010. If the judges deem that no design submitted by that stage is worthy of the prize, it will re-open for two more year-long phases.

[Mind]

Ha ha. It sure has been cold the last couple of weeks. Where I live, we are on pace to set the record for the coldest February on record.

Seriously though. On the macro-scale humanity (and nature by association) has fared well THUS FAR. The 0.70 degrees that the earth warmed up over the last 100 years has not changed things all that much.

Consider this: from the time of the last ice age the sea level has risen 240 feet and during this time the human population has risen from barely noticeable to over 6 billion. It would seem another 12 to 20 inches in sea level rise over the next 100 years would not pose a grave threat.

Anyway, if there is a "grave" threat and the earth is going to hell in a handbasket, like so many media reports claim, then the best way to find our way out of the mess is not to stifle progress with onerous regulations and taxes, but through scientific progress, new energy technology, and more efficiency.

Stop progress and we will all be in a world of hurt real quick-like.

[biknut]

This is funny.

HOUSE HEARING ON 'WARMING OF THE PLANET' CANCELED AFTER ICE STORM

HEARING NOTICE
Tue Feb 13 2007 19:31:25 ET

The Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 14, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. in room 2123 Rayburn House Office Building has been postponed due to inclement weather. The hearing is entitled “Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?”

The hearing will be rescheduled to a date and time to be announced later.

DC WEATHER REPORT:

Wednesday: Freezing rain in the morning. Total ice accumulation between one half to three quarters of an inch. Brisk with highs in the mid 30s. North winds 10 to 15 mph...increasing to northwest 20 to 25 mph in the afternoon. Chance of precipitation near 100 percent.

Wednesday Night: Partly cloudy. Lows around 18. Northwest winds around 20 mph.

[Grail]

Ever seen "The Day After Tomorrow"? However dramatic, it does point out that the effects of global warming are not confined to things warming up. The way the weather works, one thing warming up can mean other things cooling down, more storms/hurricanes etc.

[biknut]

First posted by mike250

This article blows the lid off the lies about Global Warming

http://www.telegraph...lit/nwarm05.xml

Climate chaos? Don't believe it

In 1995, David Deming, a geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma, had written an article reconstructing 150 years of North American temperatures from borehole data. He later wrote: "With the publication of the article in Science, I gained significant credibility in the community of scientists working on climate change. They thought I was one of them, someone who would pervert science in the service of social and political causes. One of them let his guard down. A major person working in the area of climate change and global warming sent me an astonishing email that said: 'We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.' "


The Antarctic, which holds 90 per cent of the world's ice and nearly all its 160,000 glaciers, has cooled and gained ice-mass in the past 30 years, reversing a 6,000-year melting trend. Data from 6,000 boreholes worldwide show global temperatures were higher in the Middle Ages than now. And the snows of Kilimanjaro are vanishing not because summit temperature is rising (it isn't) but because post-colonial deforestation has dried the air. Al Gore please note.

Scores of scientific papers show that the medieval warm period was real, global and up to 3C warmer than now. Then, there were no glaciers in the tropical Andes: today they're there. There were Viking farms in Greenland: now they're under permafrost. There was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none.

constant repetition of wrong numbers doesn't make them right. (except around here maybe)

Removing the UN's solecisms, and using reasonable data and assumptions, a simple global model shows that temperature will rise by just 0.1 to 1.4C in the coming century, with a best estimate of 0.6C, well within the medieval temperature range and only a fifth of the UN's new, central projection.

Why haven't air or sea temperatures turned out as the UN's models predicted? Because the science is bad, the "consensus" is wrong, and Herr Professor Ludwig Boltzmann, FRS, was as right about energy-to-temperature as he was about atoms.

[biknut]

Here's some questions I have about what Monckton is saying.

The UN's second assessment report, in 1996

1. They gave one technique for reconstructing pre-thermometer temperature 390 times more weight than any other (but didn't say so).

True of false? This may be hard to prove

2. They said they had included 24 data sets going back to 1400. Without saying so, they left out the set showing the medieval warm period, tucking it into a folder marked "Censored Data".

True or false? This should be easy to find out.

3. Scores of scientific papers show that the medieval warm period was real, global and up to 3C warmer than now. Then, there were no glaciers in the tropical Andes: today they're there. There were Viking farms in Greenland: now they're under permafrost. There was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none.

True or false?

4. UN slashed the natural greenhouse effect by 40 per cent from 33C in the climate-physics textbooks to 20C, making the man-made additions appear bigger.

True or False? This should be easy to prove. Look in the book.

5. The UN said its climate models had found lambda near-invariant at 0.5C per watt of forcing.

Lambda's true value is just 0.22-0.3C per watt.

True or False? This should be easy to prove.

[biknut]

This is a good one. Go to the site and check out the graph.

http://www.co2scienc...s/V10/N5/C1.jsp

A Significant "Hole" in "Unprecedented" 20th-Century Global Warming

Reference
Kunkel, K.E., Liang, X.-Z., Zhu, J. and Lin, Y. 2006. Can CGCMs simulate the twentieth-century "warming hole" in the central United States? Journal of Climate 19: 4137-4153.
Background
Citing the work of Folland et al. (2001), Robinson et al. (2002) and Pan et al. (2004), the authors note there was a lack of warming throughout the central and southeastern United States over the course of the 20th century, which phenomenon was dubbed a "warming hole" by the latter set of investigators.

What was done
For an area they denote the Central United States (CUS), which they describe as "one of the most agriculturally productive regions of the world and roughly defined around what is known as the 'Corn Belt'," Kunkel et al. used a data set of 252 surface climate stations with less than 10% missing temperature data over the period 1901-1999 to construct the CUS temperature time series plotted in the figure below, where mean global temperature as determined by Hansen et al. (2001) is also plotted. Then, for comparative purposes, they examined 55 coupled general circulation model (CGCM) simulations driven by "modern estimates of time-varying forcing," plus 19 pre-industrial unforced simulations, all derived from 18 CGCMs.


Figure 1. Twentieth-century Central United States and mean global temperature anomalies, as described in the text above. Adapted from Kunkel et al. (2006).

What was learned
It is obvious, as shown in the figure above, that the Central US 20th-century temperature series is vastly different from that of the globe as a whole, at least as it is represented by Hansen et al. In fact, rather than the final temperature of the 20th century being unprecedented over the past two millennia, as climate alarmists typically claim, the final 20th-century temperature of the Central US was more than 0.7°C cooler than it was a mere 65 years earlier. In addition, Kunkel et al. report that "the warming hole is not [our italics] a robust response of contemporary CGCMs to the estimated external forcings."

What it means
In the words of the researchers who conducted the study, "the warming hole indicates that anthropogenic forcing of the climate system can be accompanied by a regional temperature response different than expected," which fact "has important implications for impacts assessments." Indeed, it suggests that such model-based assessments can be radically wrong. It is also of interest to note that "during the period of most significant greenhouse gas buildup over the past century, i.e., 1930 and onward" - as we repeat issue after issue in our Temperature Record of the Week feature - the bulk of the United States, whose 20th-century CO2 emissions exceeded those of all other nations, experienced no net warming.
References

Folland, C.K. and Coauthors. 2001. Observed climate variability and change. In: Houghton, J.T. et al. (Eds.), Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, pp. 99-181.

Hansen, J., Ruedy, R., Sato, M., Imhoff, M., Lawrence, W., Easterling, D., Peterson, T. and Karl, T. 2001. A closer look at United States and global surface temperature change. Journal of Geophysical Research 106: 23,947-23,963.

Pan, Z., Arritt, R.W., Takle, E.S., Gutowski Jr., W.J., Anderson, C.J. and Segal, M. 2004. Altered hydrologic feedback in a warming climate introduces a "warming hole." Geophysical Research Letters 31: 10.1029/2004GL 020528.

Robinson, W.A., Reudy, R. and Hansen, J.E. 2002. On the recent cooling in the east-central United States. Journal of Geophysical Research 107: 10.1029/2001JD001577.

Reviewed 31 January 2007

[niner]

Uh huh. CO2Science.org... a denialist site, run by the Idso family. On their homepage, they advertise videos:

Is carbon dioxide a harmful air pollutant, or is it an amazingly effective aerial fertilizer?

Explore the positive side of the issue in two half-hour documentaries -- The Greening of Planet Earth and The Greening of Planet Earth Continues.

From the above Idso article:

"during the period of most significant greenhouse gas buildup over the past century, i.e., 1930 and onward" - as we repeat issue after issue in our Temperature Record of the Week feature - the bulk of the United States, whose 20th-century CO2 emissions exceeded those of all other nations, experienced no net warming.

Do they think that CO2 doesn't diffuse? Like it stops at the border? These guys make Monckton look like a genius.

[maxwatt]

FWIW, there was an expose of the global-warming denial industry in the Guardian, and admitedly left-leaning journal, but one that does usually get its facts right.

http://environment.g...1875762,00.html

It names some names, so you can probably tell if a site or organization is funded by industry. Curiously, the tobacco/cancer denial publicists are the same people being paid to be in denial and to fog the issue.

[biknut]

I think this guy knows a little bit about spotting Communism when he see it. He's making a good point. This is what is what I think GW is really about. New world order. Don't allow yourself to be fooled.

The forces that want to fool us into believing in man made GW are becoming more desperate because lately their case is getting weaker and weaker. More information comes out everyday that shows GW is not caused by man.

Czech Pres: Environmentalism is a religion

WASHINGTON, March 9 (UPI) -- Environmentalism is a religion that is based more on political ambitions than science, the president of the Czech Republic warned Friday.

Speaking at the Cato Institute, a public policy think-tank, President Vaclav Klaus said that environmentalists who clamor for policy change to combat global warming "only pretend" to be promoting environmental protection, and are actually being driven by a political agenda.


"Environmentalism should belong in the social sciences," much like the idea of communism or other "-isms" such as feminism, Klaus said, adding that "environmentalism is a religion" that seeks to reorganize the world order as well as social behavior and value systems worldwide.


As for government spending on global warming studies, the former finance minister and of the Eastern European nation and trained economist said that such efforts were a "waste of money," adding that there was already sufficient scientific evidence for those seeking policy change to back up their proposals.


Meanwhile, he pointed out that those seeking to protect the environment could do a great deal under the existing political framework and with existing technologies, such as importing less goods from far-flung regions that require enormous jet fuel use.


Klaus concluded Friday his week-long tour of the United States, having met with a number of senior Bush administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney.

http://www.upi.com/I...9-060020-3030r/

[niner]

I think this guy knows a little bit about spotting Communism when he see it. He's making a good point. This is what is what I think GW is really about. New world order. Don't allow yourself to be fooled.

shoop shoop shoop shoop shoop... Uh Oh, the Black Helicopters are coming!

[Lallante]

  Science must be terribly corrupted…

I wouldn't exactly call it corrupted. The problem is more about if you challenge the establishment, your career goes nowhere so a lot of scientists keep their mouths shut for political (PC) reasons.

Yeah its a massive shame there are no funding or interest groups with a vested interest in AGW being false that are desperate to throw grant money at any scientist willing to deny AGW.


....oh wait!


This old canard is one of the worst - the idea that the global warming lobby has somehow become larger, more powerful and more influential than the industry lobbies it opposes.... lol!


IMO being obsessed with the 'encroachment of socialism' and 'global conspiricies' should be considered a potential warning sign of latent mental illness...

Edited by Lallante, 15 April 2010 - 08:40 AM.

[mikeinnaples]

What cracks me up is the people are still so ignorant that they don't understand that weather does not equate to climate. Just because it is currently cold outside, doesn't mean the world is cooling. It simply means it is cold outside.

This was one of the coldest winters in North America ....at the same time, it was one of the warmest winters globally.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

[donjoe]

OTOH, what cracks me up is how people keep peddling the AGW propaganda even though they have no answers to these key questions on the matter:
1. How do you get from a historical graph of CO2 levels rising later than temperature to the idea that CO2 levels drive the temperature?
2. How do you get from a mere correlation between the upward evolution of temperature and CO2 levels since 1970 to the idea that one is causing the other? (If it's via the logical fallacy of cum hoc ergo propter hoc, the conclusion remains unproven.)
3. How do you get a "prediction" of 3-6 degrees of temperature increase over the next century by looking at a real, measured increase of 0.8 degrees over the past century (which doesn't show any signs of acceleration, like an exponential curve, either)?
4. Where do you get off calling a climate computer model "reliable" when clearly (because of insufficient processing power) it doesn't simulate:
- the most powerful and abundant GHG of them all, H2O (clouds)
- the most important atmospheric heat transfer mechanism, convection
?

It would be lovely to have some actual rational answers to these questions from the climate-catastrophist crowd for once, instead of their usual lies, fallacies and distortions.

---

- After all, Number One, we're only mortal.
- Speak for yourself, sir. I plan to live forever.

[Grail]

1. http://scienceblogs....s-not-leads.php

2. http://scienceblogs....-is-causing.php

3. I think that the answer to this is that temperature increases are not linear. Also, there are other factors which come into account as the planet warms which may accelerate temperature rise. Best read the IPCC material to find out what they took into account.

4. http://scienceblogs....have-clouds.php
"All of the Atmospheric Global Climate Models used for the kind of climate projections reported on by the IPCC take the effects of clouds into account. You can read a discussion about cloud processes and feedbacks in the IPCC TAR."

Re: convection, I'm not 100% sure, but don't Radiative-convective models do this? (http://en.wikipedia....nvective_Models)

I hope that was rational enough. If not, ask away and I or others will fill you in.

I think the reason that a lot of these questions are not being addressed directly, is that the answers are usually already there and freely available. Scientists must get fatigued by thousands of people asking the same questions over and over again, and demanding that they be answered immediately and directly.

[donjoe]

1. http: //scienceblogs. com/illconsidered/2006/02/co2-lags-not-leads. php

Illogical and purely speculative answer. We're asked to believe that when we have two similar trend curves with a lag of 800 years, for the first 800 years of the first curve the cause is X, but suddenly after 800 years when the second curve starts a similar evolution, it becomes the cause of the first curve instead of X. That sounds like total bollocks, a very strained and implausible "explanation", as if natural causative phenomena could instantly switch places or turn themselves on and off to fit some people's preconceived notions of "what the conclusion must be, despite the evidence".
Furthermore, if it were in fact so, we would expect also a change in the shape of the first curve as the second starts rising, because the second is proposed as an additional positive feedback for the first, yet your quoted authorities don't even try to argue that this is the case. Which is of course consistent with their ad-hoc "explanation" being total bollocks.

(More later.)

Edited by donjoe, 20 April 2010 - 11:02 AM.