On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 8:39:50 PM UTC+1, Lawrence Jenkins wrote:
On Friday, 3 April 2015 20:19:05 UTC+1, RedAcer wrote:
On 03/04/15 12:11, Alastair wrote:
On Utter idiot
Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 7:30:18 PM UTC+1, RedAcer wrote:
On 02/04/15 17:19, Alastair wrote:
On Thursday, April 2, 2015 at 2:53:39 PM UTC+1, RedAcer wrote:

That's just simple physics. 'If' the planet is in equilibrium
with the incoming solar energy then 'energy in' = 'energy out'.
However it's not quite true and the energy out is less due to
the GHE and the planet is warming. It will however arrive at a
new equilibrium commensurate with the amount of CO2 in the
atmosphere.

Agreed.

This is well understood at the thermodynamic level even if the
exact details of heat flow through atmosphere are more complex
and need to modelled.

It is the heat flow through the atmosphere that I say is being
modelled incorrectly. Absorption in the CO2 bands is saturated,
see Zhong and Haigh (2013). Therefore the OLR (outgoing
long-wave radiation) does not change and so cannot be responsible
for AGW.


There is a good explanation here, by climate scientists Spencer
Weart, and Raymond T. Pierrehumbert:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/


They increase CO2 by a factor of four to get a noticeable effect,
which does not explain why with only a 40% increase we are seeing
changes in the climate.

It is just another case of the models being shown to be wrong but the
scientists explaining it away.


and he
http://www.skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm

This is the argument that if we increase CO2 then the emission to
space will be made from higher colder altitudes but if the absorbed
radiation is saturated then so too is the emitted radiation.
Increasing the concentration will not alter the radiation emitted.


It is possible that all the climate scientists and physicists are wrong
about the way CO2 acts in the atmosphere and you are right. That seems a
bit unlikely to me.

Surely the issue is how potent is the extra co2, is a slightly warmer world such a disastrous thing and how many other factors are driving the climate. Lets hypothesise that Co2 is not known to change climate but the world was either warming or cooling -who would be held to blame , would there be such a huge bandwagon and would there be the same hysteria. I doubt it very much.

They global cooling scare of the seventies didn't catch fire so to speak, like AGW did why? Well I believe the difference was with global cooling the left had no one to blame but with AGW it was the perfect weapon with which to bash capitalism and boy oh boy has it done so.

Utter idiot.