On Friday, 3 April 2015 23:21:58 UTC+1, Alastair wrote:
On Friday, April 3, 2015 at 8:19:05 PM UTC+1, RedAcer wrote:
On 03/04/15 12:11, Alastair wrote:
On 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.

They are not all wrong. The some sceptic scientists are half way there, but citing them would not go down well with the establishment.

It is unlikely that I will win the lottery tomorrow but someone will. In fact someone has just won £1,000,000 twice. So the fact that it is unlikely does not mean it is not possible.

But the people who are investigating the climate system are meteorologists, physicists and mathematicians. I am a retired system engineer so have a better insight into systems than them.

My original question at the start of this thread was in effect does any else think that the scientists are defending the indefensible. Despite the modellers being unable to predict the growth of Antarctic sea ice, or the current hiatus they are still OK, because if not someone would have shown them to be wrong. But none of them is going to tell them they are wrong because they are all sure they are correct. That was my advantage. As an ex-programmer I knew that programmers make mistakes.

This posting is quite surreal. You say you have a better insight into systems than the meteorologists. Meteorology involves more than just systems - physics for example. It's just possible that they have a better insight into meteorology than you - they ought to, with no disrespect.
Pack this up - you're in danger of becoming a laughing stock.

Tudor Hughes, Warlingham, Surrey.