Past & Future Climate Change - pt 4 of 4

[goog2k]

WHAT COOLING??? LOL!!!

MARCH was the HOTTEST March in the UAH 32 year satellite record.

UAH (Univ. of Alabama, Huntsville) is run by Dr. Christy, the well known AGW denier.

Global temperatures for FEBRUARY were 2nd WARMEST February in 32 years.

Global Temperatures for JANUARY were the HOTTEST January for UAH in 32 years.

LOL!!

[goog2k]

BTW, the new NASA GISS website is quite impressive.

If you wish to see it, google "Climate Change: Key Indicators"

And guess what? 11 of the last 12 years were the hottest in history since 1860.

[captlightyear]

Here we are, months after this video was made. Solar cycle 24 is still not with us and the Earth is cooling.

[SauceMystery]

"The average rate of warming of 0.1 to 0. 2 degrees Celsius per decade recorded by satellites during the late 20th century falls within known natural rates of warming and cooling over the last 10,000 years."

--excerpt from "Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations"

by 100 Prominent Scientists (Freeman J. Dyson, Antonino Zichichi, Richard Lindzen, Bob Carter, Vincent Gray, David Kear, et al)

-Dec. 13, 2007

[darrellmellissa]

100 Is averysmall percentage.

[SauceMystery]

"In particular, it is not established that it is possible to significantly alter global climate through cuts in human greenhouse gas emissions."

--excerpt from "Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations"

by 100 Prominent Scientists (Freeman J. Dyson, Antonino Zichichi, Richard Lindzen, Bob Carter, Vincent Gray, David Kear, et al)

-Dec. 13, 2007

[SauceMystery]

Antonino Zichichi discovered nuclear antimatter.

And Michael Mann has done what?

[SauceMystery]

".....despite computer projections of temperature rises, there has been no net global warming since 1998. That the current temperature plateau follows a late 20th century period of warming is consistent with the continuation today of natural multi-decadal or millennial climate cycling."

--excerpt from "Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations"

by 100 Prominent Scientists (Freeman J. Dyson, Antonino Zichichi, Bob Carter, Vincent Gray, David Kear, et al)

[SauceMystery]

heres some stuff from scientists who are far more credible than Michael Mann and James Hansen--and far more educated.

"Leading scientists, including some senior IPCC representatives, acknowledge that today's computer models cannot predict climate."

--excerpt from "Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations"

by 100 Prominent Scientists (\f0 Freeman J. Dyson, Antonino Zichichi, Richard Lindzen, Bob Carter, Vincent Gray, David Kear, et al)

[SauceMystery]

"In 1995, David Deming, a geoscientist at the University of Oklahoma, ... wrote: "....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 Mediaeval Warm Period.'"

--excerpt from Apocalypse Cancelled, Lord Monckton

[raymondbe]

If you google "realclimate What does the lag of CO2 behind temperature in ice cores tell us about global warming?" you will find out why this "FACT" (very reliable data) in the paleoclimate record does not disprove anthropogenic climate change.

[SauceMystery]

RealClimate--that would be Michael Mann's blog, wouldn't it?

[SauceMystery]

"With respect to methods, the committee is showing reservations concerning the methodology of Mann et al (refering to the Mann Hockey Stick graph).. The committee notes explicitly on pages 91 and 111 that the method has no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero (meaning : "usually considered useless")."

--NAS Panel Report (on the Mann Hockey Stick Graph)

[SauceMystery]

"Thus, the public perception that the hockeystick as truthfully describing the temperature history was definitely false.

We find it disappointing that the method of Mann et al. was not sufficiently described in the original publication, and thus not peer-reviewed prior to publication, and that no serious efforts were made to allow independent researchers to check the performance of the methods and of the data used."

--NAS Panel Report (on the Mann Hockey Stick Graph

[raymondbe]

I wasn't talking about Mann's hockey stick. Read my post again. The reference was regarding the temperature lag behind CO2.

[SauceMystery]

RealClimate is Michael Mann's blog. It cannot be trusted.

[SauceMystery]

anything on RealClimate has been crafted to mislead

[SauceMystery]

co2 lags teperatures, it is not the other way around.

Michael Mann's work has been discredited.

[raymondbe]

Yes in the past it did... in the southern hemisphere only that is... read the reference I quoted and you'll see why that doesn't apply to the current instance of climate change. I know you won't though cos you're obviously paranoid about anything anyone says about human induced climate change.

[SauceMystery]

you are not catching what i am saying.

Michael Mann's 'science' is wrong. His blog cannot be trusted. RealClimate is his blog.

Please think about what I just said here before telling me once more about things you find on RealClimate.

[raymondbe]

ok then, look up the c02 lag issue at skepticalscience com/argument.php. You can also find info in the hockey stick there.

[SauceMystery]

come on dude, even the IPCC dropped the Hockey Stick. Even they couldn't defend it.

[SauceMystery]

what do you think of the Urban Heat Island Effect? That issue is always a good litmus test to see which side someone is on.

[raymondbe]

oh boy, now you've put your foot in it. read what skepticalscience com/argument.php has to say about the urban heat island effect. there are so many counter-arguments. in particular, ocean surface temperatures also show a warming trend.

[SauceMystery]

Who cares what some blog says--regardless of its name--im not going to waste time on blogs

You and this blog say there is no Urban Heat Island Effect? Who cares?

If you want to believe these blogs--good for you, i wont try to convince you otherwise.

[raymondbe]

no one said there's no urban heat island effect. if you read my reference you would see that. the effect is well known and more than compensated for in the most temperature analyses. there are other non-urban sources of temperature data that have shown warming trends. read the reference it's not 'just another blog'. How is it any less relevent than the sources you use to backup your paranoid biases?

[SauceMystery]

"ocean surface temperatures also show a warming trend."

this isnt a counter argument--only for the weak minded it is

[SauceMystery]

ray

is warming still happening?

[TheRealArchAngel]

**what do you think of the Urban Heat Island Effect? That issue is always a good litmus test to see which side someone is on**

It's absolute rubbish as is Average global Temature Trends of only 40 wwaether stations to represent the "Whole World" against CO2 measurements only from Muana Loa on the rise to "prove" Humans are causing "Glo al Warming" by burning fossil fuels.

Why?

1) Prove that Co2 rise is from burning fossil fuels

2) Prove CO2 causes AGT rise(a fucken statistical figure)

[SauceMystery]

"human induced climate change."

you can find proof for 'human induced climate change.' in blogs, UN reports, and climate models.

But it doesn't exist in the real world.

[SauceMystery]

"read the reference"

i'm supposed to read the opinion of a lone scientist and disregard the findings and also opinions of 1000's of others?

[SauceMystery]

"that doesn't apply to the current instance of climate change"

i know--we're supposed to throw out all previous science and just believe Al Gore, Michael Mann, and James Hansen. These men are your gods. What they say is scripture.

But not for me.

[raymondbe]

nope, nothing to do with them at all.  read the arguments. you're too hung up on the personalities of these people.

[SauceMystery]

"you're too hung up on the personalities of these people"

so, you think the Hockey Stick is good science?

[SauceMystery]

"nope, nothing to do with them at all. read the arguments"

how can who they are, their education, body of work, etc., have nothing to do with what they claim?

[SauceMystery]

"With respect to methods, the committee is showing reservations concerning the methodology of Mann et al (refering to the Mann Hockey Stick graph).. The committee notes explicitly on pages 91 and 111 that the method has no validation (CE) skill significantly different from zero (meaning : "usually considered useless")."

--NAS Panel Report (on the Mann Hockey Stick Graph)

[SauceMystery]

"Thus, the public perception that the hockeystick as truthfully describing the temperature history was definitely false.

We find it disappointing that the method of Mann et al. was not sufficiently described in the original publication, and thus not peer-reviewed prior to publication, and that no serious efforts were made to allow independent researchers to check the performance of the methods and of the data used."

--NAS Panel Report (on the Mann Hockey Stick Graph)

[cordiacobra]

thank you for smoking? any one seen that movie this really has the same feel about it oil propaganda from a liberal bias view.

[Bushvision]

feelings are not relevant! It`s the facts and the logic that we should make decisions upon. The world temp was 0.7 decgrees C lower last year according to 4 different centres - something to think about in the light of David Archibalds info.

[cordiacobra]

but to justify living beyond our means and harvesting all the worlds resources for this generations benefit seams slack to me i want my grandchildren not to be fighting for resources like we seem to be doing now, that can easily be replaced by technological advances and gas fields in our own backyard through proper government regulations we can better ourselves and not live such wasteful lives. per capita Australian s are the second most wasteful country in the world just behind the usa.

[alcedias0]

Yet to see anyone counter argue the SCIENCE in this vid...

[XPLAlN]

Let's start with his use of 5 (yes just 5!)rural stations, all crowded into South Eastern USA for his data that he uses to pretend the Earth was hotter in the 1930s. It's not even close to credible.

This presentation is one of the least credible of all sceptic pieces out there. It even lacks the redeeming features of Bob Carter's presentation in that it isn't even entertaining.

[raymondbe]

Temperature and solar activity data have actually diverged since 1980 so although there was a correlation in the past it's now clearly not the case. Solar activity continued to fall after 1980 while temperature kep rising sharply. See video titled "Global Warming Swindle Debate Pt2".

[vsaluki]

Baghdad Iraq has just had snow for the first time in 100 years. The locals had never seen snow before in their entire life.

[jffryfnt]

hmm, climates are a changin' eh?

[jffryfnt]

Are you a thinker, or a parrot? I'm having trouble making the distinction.

[gerjanp]

"Are you a thinker, or a parrot? I'm having trouble making the distinction."

It's ironic I'm having the same trouble with you.

[jffryfnt]

Duh.

[gerjanp]

Duh.

Now there is the most intelligent remark that you've made in a good while. You do Homer Simpson proud.

[gerjanp]

Red Eye Who should have won the Nobel Peace Prize?

Yes I'd go along with that.

[gerjanp]

Red Eye Who should have won the Nobel Peace Prize?

Thanks I have to leave for work now so I'll look when I get home.

[gerjanp]

Al Gore Debates Global Warming

on You Tube

enjoy

[gerjanp]

Great instant peer review by Bob Carter.

[jffryfnt]

A very narrowly focused presentation and shortsighted.

[gerjanp]

A very narrowly focused presentation and shortsighted.

short sighted is good at least he'll still likely be alive when we know he's right or wrong.

Unlike the others.

[jffryfnt]

You don't realize how much information he conveniently ignores, i.e. climate sensitivity.

[gerjanp]

"You don't realize how much information he conveniently ignores, i.e. climate sensitivity."

and talking about climate sensitivity:Please show us the physical basis for assuming that doubling of CO2 leads to ~3k increase in temperature as claimed by IPCC. Give us a good mathematical formula based on sound physics

[jffryfnt]

Start with the simple Stephan-Boltzmann constant and work out the temperature of the Earth based on the perfect black body equation. From there you can elucidate the effect of greenhouse gases. This isn't a mystery you know.

[gerjanp]

Start with the simple Stephan-Boltzmann constant and work out the temperature of the Earth based on the perfect black body equation.

Sorry but black body calculations only work for black bodies they don't work for filtered light and the IR red radiated is filtered by the atmosphere. Some heat remains a little longer but how do you determine how much a given amount of energy raises the temperature of a body?

[jffryfnt]

BLACK BODY, BLACK BODY, BLACK BODY, what part of that do you not comprehend. BLACK BODY is synonymous with the Ideal Gas Law.

The black body temperature ASSUMES a perfect absorber and emitter of the radiation it receives. Start there, get that little bit of information digested first, THEN you can add how other factors AFFECT the black body temperature.

[gerjanp]

"BLACK BODY is synonymous with the Ideal Gas Law."

Nope! A black body is a perfect absorber/radiator of light or radiant energy. A perfect radiator and or absorber does not have filters that block some of the radiation.

[jffryfnt]

START with the black body temperature. That's the fundamental basis for calculating the effect of greenhouse gases. When you know the black body temperature, and the current average temperature of the Earth, there's your greenhouse effect. There's your climate sensitivity figure, which is also very well constrained because we can reproduce past climates with very simple calculations.

[gerjanp]

There's your climate sensitivity figure,

So connect it physically to CO2.

[jffryfnt]

The black body temperature of Earth is approx -5*C. But as we know, that's not the average temperature of the Earth now is it?

[gerjanp]

The black body temperature of Earth is approx -5*C.

Since when is the earth (or any planet for that matter) a black body?

Two problems with the idea first one is a black is isothermal which no planet is. Secondly the radiation is filtered which is also not blackbody in the same breath you want to talk unfiltered filtered radiation - an oxymoron.

[jffryfnt]

DUDE....you stupid idiot. Black body temperature is a TOOL based very simple physics. There's much insight to be learned from this very simple calculation. It tells us that if you hold a light bulb a certain distance from an object, a black one for simplicity of calculation, with respect to the amount of radiation it receives from that bulb and what amount of that radiation it re-emits. It provides a fundamental basis for understanding the effects of GHGs.

[gerjanp]

"There's much insight to be learned from this very simple calculation."

Indeed that All EBMs presented so far are funamentally wrong and they do not in general make a sane connection to CO2 in the atmosphere.

[OvoidCranium]

a black is isothermal

Don't you mean a black *body* is isothermal?

Earth (like most planets and satellites) is a dappled, coloured body. Suns I expect resemble black bodies fairly closely but then there are still those Fraunhofer lines.

[gerjanp]

"Don't you mean a black *body* is isothermal?'

Yes thank you!

"dappled, coloured body."

Yep like the description.

The Fraunhofer lines will modify energy calculations, assuming and emissivity of 1 otherwise. However we can still use Wein displacement to measure temperature. This proves difficult on earth though as the peak is at times throuhgout the range in the the 15 micron absorption band. This is just one problem with using Planck's law.

[gerjanp]

average temperature of the Earth

Temperature is an intensive property and an average temperature is as physically meaningless as a sum on temperatures which you must obtain to get to the average. Furthermore the relationship between energy and temperature is non linear calculating an energy budget based on it is incorrect. (see Holder inequality)

[jffryfnt]

We can measure the radiation we receive, and the radiation we emit. We CAN measure temperature. And we CAN estimate the effects of forcings. We understand the Earth more than what you take for granted. Energy and temperature are in the simplest system, linear, but when you consider feedbacks, then you're talking 2nd order to 3rd order differential equations, with a teaspoon of predictable 'chaos',a product of feedbacks from long term equilibrium mechanisms which have been operating for millenia.

[gerjanp]

And we CAN estimate the effects of forcings.

So you can't provide a physical basis for assuming that doubling of CO2 leads to ~3k increase in temperature as claimed by IPCC. Give us a good mathematical formula based on sound physics.

So what do you think the feedbacks are and what they do?

I think I've asked you this before in a slightly different form.

[jffryfnt]

If you want to know the physical basis for how the doubling of CO2 leads to a 3*C increase in average global temperatures, then read the scientific basis in the IPCC AR4. Read the science before you resort to ad hominem attacks on the IPCC.

[gerjanp]

"If you want to know the physical basis for how the doubling of CO2 leads to a 3*C increase in average global temperatures, then read the scientific basis in the IPCC AR4."

Sorry it's not there there is a bit hand waving by Houghton in TAR that does not really cut it.

[jffryfnt]

Right, and I trust your credentials to scientifically assess the information.

[gerjanp]

"Right, and I trust your credentials to scientifically assess the information."

Have I ever asked you to?

[jffryfnt]

Feedbacks:Warming of Earth->decreased albedo due to melting of snow/ice cover, positive feedback. Melting of permafrost->release of CO2 and CH4, positive feedback. Warming of oceans->less oceanic uptake of human produced CO2, positive feedback. Increased surface temperatures->acceleration of the hydrological cycle/water vapor, positive feedback.

[gerjanp]

positive feedback.

Do you know what that is?

What it does to a system?

What it looks like?

I'd reckon not, because if you had a clue you wouldn't have said it. However I'm not surprised because that is what the blogs of ignorance say.

There is no net positive feedback in the system.

[jffryfnt]

You're puking ignorance. Evidence your words. What part of decreasing albedo is a positive feedback do you not understand? It's really simple.

[gerjanp]

What part of decreasing albedo is a positive feedback do you not understand?

more to the point What part of "There is not net positive feedback" do you not understand?

[jffryfnt]

Apparently there is. Disprove the evidence of melting glaciers, disappearing land and sea snow/ice cover, migration of species to higher latitudes, etc, etc, etc.

[gerjanp]

Disprove the evidence of melting glaciers,

look at New Zealand's glaciers the ones on the east are receding the ones on the West are advancing. The current prevailing moisture laden winds are from the West they dump their load on Western glaciers. Now do you think it possible There is another cause? I do. Antarctic is accumulating ice. You need to take a balanced view.

[jffryfnt]

What's your beef, is the Earth warming, or is it not? Are you denying that it's warming? Are you attempting to counter that notion with evidence? There's no question it's warming, the climate deniers don't deny that. Pick your arguments and stick with it. And lately it seems you are struggling with the scientific knowledge about how CO2 can force climate. Get a textbook on the subject, take the bite in the wallet, it will be well worth your time and effort.

[gerjanp]

Are you denying that it's warming?

Look at GISS and HadCRUT over the past few years (since 98 will do) and you tell me!

[jffryfnt]

consume the information in not such a narrow point of view but over the long term (hundreds of years, thousands), what do you see happening?

Nonetheless, think about heat capacity. Think about the amount of energy that goes into melting an ice sheet. What about the Arctic ocean? Something of an unprecedent nature is occurring there, you see?

[gerjanp]

consume the information in not such a narrow point of view but over the long term (hundreds of years, thousands), what do you see happening?

The earth is in a rather cool period of it's history.

[jffryfnt]

there's help that you can seek in that respect, it's a sure cure of selective information seeking and ignorance, it's called...READING and understanding through OBSERVATION and EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. Check it out.

[gerjanp]

"And lately it seems you are struggling with the scientific knowledge about how CO2 can force climate."

I'm not struggling with it at all - 'tis bullshit.

[jffryfnt]

because you don't comprehend it, that's why.

[gerjanp]

because you don't comprehend it, that's why.

I comprehend it quite well thank you very much. Now why don't you be a good little boy and google yourself some more answers.

[jffryfnt]

I have a degree in Earth system science, it's not necessary. :-)

[jffryfnt]

So...you just shed a little insight there...is that what you do? just google whatever you think is supportive of your unsubstaniated opinion?

I learned it in a much different environment, son..with the researchers themselves. You can do the same, if you so choose.

[gerjanp]

So...you just shed a little insight there...is that what you do? just google whatever you think is supportive of your unsubstaniated opinion?

Projection is such poor argument.

[jffryfnt]

I just returned exactly what you did to me you stupid idiot, so in essence, you're remark is aimed at yourself inasmuch as it is aimed at me. Got logic?

[gerjanp]

I just returned exactly what you did to me you stupid idiot,

Name calling is just brilliant logic now isn't it?

[jffryfnt]

If you think you're so smart then why don't you research it yourself? Why do you have to resort to petty arguments on youtube? If you think you're so smart then you should be able to read the scientific reports. If you really did, you'd find we wouldnt be arguing about CO2 forcing of climate, we'd be arguing about mitigation, refinement, projections...not the basics

[gerjanp]

If you think you're so smart then why don't you research it yourself? Why do you have to resort to petty arguments on youtube?

I'm amusing myself here playing mindless games with fools.

[jffryfnt]

so...you really have no interest whatsoever in really knowing...any science. That explains it all, thanks!

[jffryfnt]

Stop amusing yourself, humoring yourself.

There's much dignity in science and it's self-correcting. Through the scientific method. Read the journals, read the reviews, read it! Stop resorting on your limited knowledge. If you want to beg the question, the information is there. And there are questions to be answered, hence, an open market on science. If you want to be a researcher, then do it!

[gerjanp]

There's much dignity in science and it's self-correcting.

Not where you are concerned.

[jffryfnt]

Really...how would you even begin to understand that? You pretend to know science but seem at a loss when well evidenced data and conclusions is published in the literature is there, and you keep asking where's the evidence? Why are you so bent on fooling yourself??

[gerjanp]

but seem at a loss when well evidenced data and conclusions is published in the literature is there

Not at a loss at all what you call well evidenced data is really interpretation of the data and unless you get the basic physics right your interpretations are going to be wrong. What's more I'm talking basic textbook stuff not bleeding edge maaterial either.

[eemacc]

There's much dignity in science and it's self correcting. Through the scientific method.

True. A correction is happening as we speak. The AGW hypothesis lays in tatters as study after study discounts it. If you truly had any comprehension of the scientific method, you would not answer scientific debate with ad hominem attacks on scientists. You would debate their methodology. You can not, so you do not.

[Kenzofeis]

Science is a garble. Infected by "pro's" dependent on money for budgets and projects and they want to keep status quo "ohh it's SO intricate and.. but VERY interesting and important! We have no real idea, but we will sort it out someday, just keep the money coming". Also, inventing dumb explanations to simple phenomena is popular.

[gerjanp]

not the basics

it's the basics that are NOT supported by well established text book physics.

[jffryfnt]

It's not only physics, and by the way, the physics was established about 100 years ago. Why don't you READ it.

[gerjanp]

It's not only physics, and by the way, the physics was established about 100 years ago. Why don't you READ it.

I did and it was debunked 99 years years ago why don't YOU read it.

[jffryfnt]

it's not because you think it's not supported, it's because you choose not to inform yourself about it.

[gerjanp]

it's not because you think it's not supported, it's because you choose not to inform yourself about it.

You really should stop making assumptions talking of which:

Please show us the physical basis for assuming that doubling of CO2 leads to ~3k increase in temperature as claimed by IPCC. Give us a good mathematical formula based on sound physics.

[jffryfnt]

Why don't you read the research yourself. You don't me to answer that for you. If you think your so resourceful, then read the research!

[gerjanp]

Why don't you read the research yourself.

I have and I will keep on doing so but I have not found a physical basis for assuming that doubling of CO2 leads to ~3k increase in temperature as claimed by IPCC.

You claim it exists so kindly produce it.

[jffryfnt]

In 1979, the US National Academy of Sciences finds it highly credible that doubling of CO2 will bring 1.5 to 4.5*C of warming.

And so much more we know now. And this finding has even more evidence to back it up. Did you read the link I send you? Bother to at all? Dare? Open your mind a little bit. Then read it. Deal?

[gerjanp]

"In 1979, the US National Academy of Sciences finds it highly credible that doubling of CO2 will bring 1.5 to 4.5*C of warming."

Then they have proof? So produce it.

you've sent me no link you must have me confused with someone else.

[jffryfnt]

Increased terrestrial CO2 uptake by forests and plants, negative feedback. Increased cloud cover?, negative feedback. Melting of methane clathrates...a potentially devastating positive feedback, etc.

[gerjanp]

Melting of methane clathrates...a potentially devastating positive feedback, etc.

You haven't yet shown that CO2 has a positive feedback.

[jffryfnt]

Because CO2, in this recent warming event, is the FORCER. It is not a feedback.

[gerjanp]

Because CO2, in this recent warming event,

What recent warming event the one in the 30s before the CO2 started seriously rising? Or the one at the end of the Mauder Minimum where temperatures rose nearly 2.2 K over 36 years in the 18t century makes the .6k due to CO2 over the 20th seem rather tame.

[jffryfnt]

How does that discredit what I said, before you chose to quote only a portion of what I said? CO2 is the forcer in the recent warming. That's not saying that the sun doesn't affect climate, it's the primary driver! But it's not independent. There's no analogy to Earth's past versus right now because human influence or fluxes of CO2 didn't exist then. And we're doing it in ways that is completely different from any natural system.

[gerjanp]

How does that discredit what I said, before you chose to quote only a portion of what I said? CO2 is the forcer in the recent warming.

There has been no real recent warming the bulk of it happened before there was significant fossil fuel sourced CO2 in the atmosphere. Then you are only left with the positive feedback hypothesis with respect to temperature driven CO2 variations, and there is no net positive feedback there either.

[eemacc]

And we're doing it in ways that is completely different from any natural system.

Sooo, in your world, the climate can somehow differentiate between CO2 that has released into the atmosphere by human beings, and CO2 that is released in other ways and somehow this causes it to react in ways so different that we can't compare previous climate history. Wow. That is some interesting logic. Any actual proof to back that up?

[gerjanp]

"BLACK BODY is synonymous with the Ideal Gas Law."

I was wondering where you got this bit of nonsense from so had a look around and found on wikipedia:

"the black-body cavity may be thought of as containing a gas of photons"

Not synonymous now is it are you sure you haven't misunderstood?

[jffryfnt]

A slight bit of 'appeal to ignorance' there, don't ya really think??

[gerjanp]

There's much insight to be learned from this very simple calculation.

Not at all just highlighting yours and I asked you a question?

do you have an answer?

[gerjanp]

Correction!

A slight bit of 'appeal to ignorance' there, don't ya really think??

Not at all just highlighting yours and I asked you a question?

do you have an answer?

[jffryfnt]

If you have something to really contend with the science then publish it, if it makes sense. Let it undergo peer-review. See if it stands. If it is good enough to get published, then science itself will determine if it holds water through consequential studies. Until then, you ain't got a pot to piss in.

[gerjanp]

If you have something to really contend with the science then publish it, if it makes sense.

You miss the point ( a logical fallacy ) and you shift the burden of proof (another logical fallacy). The point is no one has successfully followed the path you suggest and elucidated the effect of GHGs if YOU think someone has, and you obviously do, then kindly produce it.

[jffryfnt]

Um, your misusing fine wisdom of fallacies of logic there son. For one, missing the point has little to do with logic. Plus, I hardly missed nor evaded the point. Fact of the matter is, why do you need to ask me these questions? If you are so concerned, then read the scientific literature. Read it. Stay up on it. Stop relying and media and your personal opinions about it. Read the evidence, then make your judgment.

[gerjanp]

"For one, missing the point has little to do with logic. "

Precisely it's a fallacy of relevance.

Plus, I hardly missed nor evaded the point.

You did. If you are so concerned, then read the scientific literature. Read it. (sic)

I have the exposition as far as I can see does not exist you seem to think it does and fail to produce it. See what I mean about missing the point?

Someone makes a claim is it illogical to ask for proof?