rstuart
"No. Weather models are sensitive to starting conditions. Climate models aren't."

Look, where have you been? Climate models most certainly are. I stopped reading your riposte at that point. Go to the IPCC site, and read the stuff they have on climate models. They admit this point, and its always been the case. Some of the latest crop of models don't have to worry about starting conditions but they have some other trade-off which I don't recall. I dunno how seriously to take your claim about building models given your coments, but climate models to date have had to be run repeatedly with different starting conditions to get a stable result. Go and read the stuff on the site.

rich2
Peer reviewed? You're joking right? You haven't heard of this stuff before. Look, search on NASA and PDO. I also wrote about this in some detail on this site as Mark Lawson see
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=11563&page=0
where I talked directly to the scientists concerned (a revamp of an earlier feature I did as a journalist). This talks more about rainfall, where everybody agrees that the PDO is a factor, rather than temperature. For more of a taste of the debate on climate search on Don Easterbrook a Professor at Western Washington University. also look for Mojib Latif, New Scientist, 9 September 2009, 'World will cool for next decade'.. He's a well known modeller. or Noel Keenlyside 'Advancing decadal-scale climate predictions in the North Atlantic, Nature, letters 1 May, 2008'.. most of that is about the AMO sadmittedly, but it should give you enough to go on with..

Leave it with you guys..

Mr Golis writes, "In our climate, water vapour concentration is closely tied to temperature. A reduction in temperature reduces water vapour concentration, which reduces the effects of clouds more than the greenhouse effect so the temperature goes up. A rise in temperature increases water vapour, which increases the effects of clouds more than the greenhouse effect, and the temperature goes down again".

I'm not sure what climate Mr Golis is living in, but it's not the one that I'm in, or have studied and taught for decades. Not only that, but there seems to be a lot of confusion getting about lately regarding air temperature and water vapour so I'm going to rewrite his paragraph to conform with the climate that I and the rest of us Earth dwellers live in.

Here's how the story really goes - In our climate, water vapour concentration is closely tied to (air) temperature. A reduction in (air) temperature increases relative humidity, which has no effect on clouds or greenhouse effect, so the (air) temperature is not affected. A rise in (air) temperature decreases relative humidity, which has no effect on clouds or greenhouse effect, and the (air) temperature is not affected.

Now that's how that paragraph should have read.

However, in addition, in any given parcel of air, should the relative humidity reach or exceed 100% then water vapour will condense out of the air as water droplets, appear as a cloud or fog, experience a change of physical state, and release heat energy to the air. The water droplets will be cooler than the water vapour and the air will be warmed by the equal amount of emitted heat energy. Nothing mysterious will take place.

So folks, I don't want to read any more nonsense about increasing air temperature causing increases in water vapour concentration. It simply isn't true. Just because it's stinking hot on a desert day, doesn't mean the air is chock-a-block with water vapour. There is no fixed relationship between air and water vapour concentration. You can have hot dry air and cold soggy air. Think about it.

@Curmudgeon: Go to the IPCC site, and read the stuff they have on climate models.

Notice I gave and quoted an IPCC link? Good. Notice I asked you for a similar link? Well perhaps not, as you didn't give one. It would be helpful if you did, so I have a clue what you are talking about.

To put this request into perspective, did you notice many people have made all sorts of claims right here on this thread, and once even the simplest of background checks were done on them many of them were done they turned our to be flat our wrong? Did you notice I did look up some of the statements you made, every link returned made you look wrong? You should have, as I quoted a few, but obviously not.

This is why I am asking you to link to references for your facts. In the circumstances it is not a big ask.

Three small points:
• The story of Drs Warren & Mitchell was to demonstrate that consensus is not equivalent to scientific proof despite the claims of Labor politicians.
• The 2006 Report Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere by the US government's Climate Change Science Program is a document trying to prove anthropogenic global warming as are all its other reports. However if such a document says the models and the data conflict you have to take notice. The report alludes that the data may be in error. Me, I am a simple soul. My 25 years in venture capital have taught me that if the model and data conflict that it is not the data but the model that is usually wrong.
• Finally I should state my background. My first degree was at Cambridge where I read Part I Natural Sciences and Part II Economics. For my two year Part I, I majored in Chemistry with minors in Mathematics, Geology, and Experimental Psychology with only moderate success (I got a 2.2 now known as a Desmond). However if there is one institution that teaches you the scientific method and evidence based methodologies, it is Cambridge with its 88 Nobel Prize Winners

EQ (and others)

I invite you to have your say here:

http://bravenewclimate.com/2011/06/24/clearing-up-the-climate-debate/

Cheers

"Keiran, on 1 September 2008 at 10:40 AM said:
Barry, it is indeed a most incomplete list that exposes a glaringly obvious monumental anthropocentric bias. From the very first posting i have ever made on climate years ago is this constructive point. “One of the glaring oversights with these high priests of humans causing global warming is an assumption that our largest plasma discharge formation the sun doesn’t do anything and that it is just perfect, regular and constant. Just how terribly wrong can one really get to be unable to see outside the earth’s troposphere?”

All i can say is if we open our eyes and mind a bit we would understand that the universe is just full of material constituents that PUSH each other ….. it’s a universe full of pushers. The over-riding question here relates to what drives changes creating derivatives. Just what are the biggest pushers and what becomes a derivative or product of the process? Most science groups you mention in your article about yourself cannot see outside the troposphere and hence see only the product. The biggest pusher in our part of the world is good old sunnyboy and various cosmic processes.

My question, Barry, is why solar and astro physicists are not top of the list when it comes to understanding our climate. Secondly, why you have somehow completely been blinded to this essential science?"

Bonmot, Is this what you want us to read on the AGW supporting and your referenced site?"