[GeraldCortis]

Oh and whoops, I changed usernames there, but I am the Chocolate Addict. Apologies.

I was going to try eating your avatar until I saw this one.

[GeraldCortis]

Well, I can think of at least one other reason.

spanner for hire..
free if you supply B&B

[Triiooman]

You know there's a "Reply with Quote" button. I personally think it delineates the post better and makes it easier to read.

I'm not interested in the opinions of scientists. I'm only interested in what evidence the data brings

When we have multiple streams of data I'd be interested in the opinions of the experts as to which one is good and which one is bad. I might not always agree but I'd always be very interested and, unless I have a good reason not to agree I'd take their word for it. It is their field of expertise after all.

The models predicted negative lapse rate feedback. This is the opposite of what has occurred.
The models predicted a hot spot in the mid troposphere. This has not occurred.
The models predicted an increase in mid tropospheric water vapour. This has not occurred.

There have been many models of the years. I merely said I believed positive feedback was a big part of the currently accepted ones, you said it had been discredited.

We have reached the 3/4 mark for the equivalent of a doubling of co2 (the 160% increase in CH4 accounts for this) but we have only seen a 0.8C rise in temp. According to the strongly positive feedback scenario due predominantly water vapour feedback, we should has had a temp rise of around 1.8C.

The missing heat?

Why are you asking me? I'm not an expert. I just said I believed that the currently accepted models, the ones that have most accurately model the past, have positive feedback as a big factor.

[escolubtessen]

Well, I can think of at least one other reason.



Yes; keeping reasonable, factual & knowledgeable views that contradict your own agenda from being transmitted & heard by the masses.

[escolubtessen]

There have been many models of the years. I merely said I believed positive feedback was a big part of the currently accepted ones, you said it had been discredited. well presently the atmosphere is not acting the way there models say it should.

Prior to about a million YBP, ice age cycles occurred on a 40,000 year cycle. When the cycle changed to 100,000 year cycles, the extremes between glacial - interglacial became much greater.

Its still unknown why the length of cycle changed, but scientists know that the orbital (Milankovitch) cycles of the Earth did not change (not the cause).

Their models cannot account for it. & the model hind casts that say small forcing (orbital cycles) strong positive feedback (glacials) are programmed to come up with that conclusion based on the hypothesis.
Clouds can account for glacial cycles http://www.ras.org.uk/news-and-press...arth-to-thrive
Just as they can account for the faint sun paradox

[GeraldCortis]

well presently the atmosphere is not acting the way there models say it should.



Their models cannot account for it.

So you have another postulation other than.. it falls back to us?

[escolubtessen]

So you have another postulation other than.. it falls back to us?
You can blame the entire 0.8C rise in temp on CO2 (the IPCC doesn't) if you want.

Because the 0.8C rise represents a sensitivity of 0.33C per 1W/m2 increase in radiative forcing.

That represents the Planck response.

[chechokancho]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/thedrum/polls/

Do you think the ABC should have aired the documentary I Can Change Your Mind About... Climate?

[VovTortki]

Last Saturday The Science Show had an introductory item to this topic. I was going to quote one part, but I'll pop the full paragraph in and highlight the bit I feel is important. Doesn't matter the quote was made by an economist speaking about a totally different subject, it's a quote I like because I try to apply that to many aspects of life and the world. (rest of transcript available at the above link).

Robyn Williams: I know it's risky to quote John Maynard Keynes, especially before a federal budget, but I'm sure you've heard this one from the mathematical genius and economic don from King's College Cambridge before:'When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?' People seem to lock themselves into a position and then hold that position doggedly, even when other evidence, facts and ideas are put to them (and that's not just in this argument, or from only one side either).

I missed the show last night and only managed to watch half of it today on iView, so I'll watch it all as well as the Q&A episode that followed before I make too many comments. Only thing I will say is I can't see that having people like Anna and Nick as the main character in the story does much good, just more confusion and noise that people like me who don't have much of a science background get screwed around by. I'd rather here what a scientist has to say than an locked-in environmentalist (Anna) and a Liberal party hack (Minchin).

Last comment I'll make until I've watched it all and had a think is I'm surprised that someone like Nick Minchin, who was once the Federal Science Minister, seems unaware of something called the "precautionary principle".

[RooxiaNof]

In the show I think it was mentioned that climate scientists had received death threats. Apparently there is no presented evidence of this and no police investigation either, there wasn't even a complaint filed from the university concerned. Hot heads or hot air?

Climate scientists' claims of email death threats go up in smoke.