On 03/04/15 23:21, 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 is a good place to start to see what climate models the IPCC is
using for it's reports.

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf

Plenty of detail about the models. Some are open source so you can
download the model and source code and compile and run it for yourself.