1. Call a spade a spade. Humans cause human-caused climate change & the source of all humans is DNGW or dirty Nappies Global Warming.
To call it AGW and identify CO2 as the only culprit is pandering to women.

That's not surprising as most scientists are NERDS whose only hope of getting laid is to get FAMOUS by coming up with new ways to deceive the public with distorted statistical lies. The chief lie revolves around the concept of global uniform CO2 concentrations and thus a uniform greenhouse heating of the Earth. NONSENSE. The SThn Hemisphere is demonstrably patchy when it comes to CO2 concentrations. This is why the Antarctic is slower than the Arctic to melt. It is also why many IPCC predictions are false - because they are based on untrue assumptions.

The reality is if the IPCC called for women globally to have only one child per lifetime then they would solve climate . But they would have to cut their wrists because then they would NEVER get laid.

That friends is WHY we have Bullsh$t global warming theories coming out our ears.

That is why human contributions to climate changes are not called DNGW as should rightfully be the case.

That is why women keep crowing that it takes two to make a baby so two must be responsible. They don't want the world to know that it takes two to make a baby but only ONE person to have it. Because when the one child axe comes down as it inevitably will, women want a barbed weapon of words to still have more children. The fact that WOMEN bugger the climate, environment and biodiversity of the planet is not a THEIR concern because in their opinion THAT is something men must traditionally go to war and get killed over.

Misogyny? If I were responsible for an entire planetary-train-wreck and someone couteously pointed that out and explained how I could reverse my erroneous ways I would thank them and regard the as my friends. NOT someone I thought hated me. But then I'm not a woman...

Bonny,

You continue to post me this link which you call "particularly good".

http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/pub/seager/Seager_Naik_Vecchi_2010.pdf

Yes, it's a very nice little piece of imaginative speculation in 2 dimensions. Until the 3rd dimension is input, the tropopause, convective currents and adiabatic cooling, it remains just that. Agreed that the paper does acknowledge this omission.

"Much work remains to be done to unravel the relative importance of these, and probably other, processes in determining the causes of the changes in circulation in response to global warming", Seager et al write.

Massive understatement!

And no arguments here with the Clausius-Clapeyron equation. That's real science. And that's exactly why the tropopause is such a significant factor in the thermodynamic and dynamic mechanisms in the hydrological cycle. Such an omission is alarming.

This Seager et al paper is an extrapolation not even based on sound scientific credentials, but on make believe - "the 2046-65 simulations used the 'middle of the road' emissions scenario - Special Report on Emission Scenarios A1B(SRESA1B)," it states.

Speculation based on speculation. Come on bonmot, that's not true science and you must know that.

But I do like this bit - "Acknowledgments. This work was supported by NOAA Grants NA03OAR4320179 and NA08OAR4320912, and NSF Grant ATM-08-04107.(sic)"

I hope NOAA was pleased with their investment.

And BTW, I don't frequent online forums 24/7. I do have a life which does involve many other activities.

As for a passion for science? I think you've got to have it to understand it and why. I certainly don't like seeing it degraded by profiteers, high priests and lying politicians, who seem to make up much of the AGW brigade.

Re "Bonny"

Well voxy, you are beginning to sound like the rest of the 'rat-pack' - expected so no surprises there.

@ >> You continue to post me this link which you call "particularly good" <<

Actually voxy, I posted it only once before:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12268#212165

you completely ignored it and went MIA - I expected so much so no surprises there.

Voxy, please feel free to submit a refutation to the paper - you can start here:

http://www.ametsoc.org/pubs/journals/submitmanuscript.html

Not on OLO voxy, for obvious reasons.

Voxy, just because you have a "passion for science" doesn't make you understand it, particularly the nuances in a field outside your area of expertise. Ergo, a tiny bit of knowledge can be dangerous.

Comment there and we can have some meaningful dialogue. My guess? You can't and you won't.

Adieu