On Dec 11, 8:01*am, Bill Ward wrote:

Failure to understand is not a credible rebuttal.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bill, I could say exactly the same. You feel that you are the only one
that really understands and you show that through your occasional
writings in this newsgroup. Over the last century so many physicists
have looked at this and the basic physics have not changed. CO2
absorbs IR radiation - OK, a complex spectrum (though not as complex
as H2O) - but it absorbs energy, re-radiating it, in all directions,
to warm the atmosphere. You seem to have a different solution and
you'd like to dismiss anyone who doesn't talk the same language as you
do.

I can't be an expert on everything and I don't claim to be. Nor can
anyone else. Nor are you. I read papers by others better qualified
than me. You do too. However, I am good at assessing probablilities
and likelihoods. The probability of you being correct and almost all
other scientists that have been involved in atmospheric physics being
wrong is highly unlikely. If you can't see that, it shows that you are
a long way from having any kind of understanding of probability.
Hence, it is highly likely that you are wrong and thus highly likely
that the view held by the vast majority is correct. (Never, ever,
would I call your views outright wrong, though the likelihood is that
they are).

I'm still not seeing any decent explanation of why the atmosphere is
not colder, given that the oft-quoted "natural cycles" are presently
in a state which ought to mean that it should *be* colder at present
and not the last 6 months sitting on the record as being extremely
warm compared to the last 130 years (and remember, my original
analysis of monthly temps went back 5 years - 30% of months being in
the top 2 warmest in 180 years - and I could extend that back 30-50
years, and show similar results - that's why the graph of temp against
time curves upwards).