Anthony, with all due respect - stick to your day job.

Sarnian,

'Oh dear, what will it take to make you see the light?
Maybe the sea rising over your favourite beach or a cyclone devastating Sydney?'

Respectfully, yes, that would do.
When is your prediction for those 'extreme weather events'? .

'Eventually it will become so obvious that global warming is a fact that even humans will accept it.'

Does this indicate that you think it is only 'super' or 'sub' humans who can currently able to accept 'global warming'?

If it is I'd agree with you. Only elitists and/or cretins ... hmmmm interesting?

Rhoasty,

tell me all you know about the fabled North West Passage.
Did you know it was discovered in the 19th century and was then navigatable by tall ship sail boat

Nowadays, it is navigatable by modern motor/sail boat for only a 4 week window each year.

Hint; goggle Baffin Island for useful info.

I intend to undertake a NW passage by sail boat and have been advised to have sufficient fuel on board to complete the passage as the winds are light during the ice free period.

You should assess the climate, in that region, in light of the impact of the current weather facts. ie Ice expanding and receding anually, likely warmer/cooler temps of water, and consequent air temps and consequent light winds.
Then read historical accounts of NW Passage attempts. I'd be interested in your intrepretations. I'd be shocked if they were different to mine, but I'd learn something or confirm something ... for sure.

"stick to your day job."

A good day job would be waiting for you to say something relevant to supporting AGW.

I linked to Dr Weinstein and the discussion about the pressure contribution to Venus's temperature, csteele is off genuflecting to a picture of his God, Hansen, so it is all up to you bonmot; do you agree with Weinstein, or SOD or Arthur Smith? If you don't agree with Weinstein then can you explain why AGW is now focusing on Stratospheric cooling as a result of the CEL for CO2 expanding upwards due to increased CO2 and CO2 emitting at a higher level therefore cooling the Stratosphere, and why this isn't happening?

Dear Cohenite,

Now I'm feeling more than a bit embarrassed for you. I was going to quote the adage 'when you find yourself in a hole the first thing you should do is stop digging', but that wouldn't quite do justice to your last post.

Perhaps a better metaphor is when you have been dakked (for our overseas readers 'dakked' - having one's strides pulled down to the ankles by another) the best course of action is to pull them straight back up and rescue some dignity by blaming the offender. We would have had a laugh but recognised it wasn't all your own fault. What you don't do is promptly strip off your jocks and reveal just how little you have been playing with.

I mean did you even pause a moment before making the statement? “Venus is temperature stable; if it were being warmed by a Greenhouse effect it would keep getting hotter; it isn't so it isn't.”.

How can we now look at any of your future offerings with any sense that you know what you are talking about?

This is exactly why a background in planetary atmospherics such as Hansen's is such a strong grounding for studying our own global climate. What do you think the likelihood of him making such a fundamental error as your two?

In fact it was the global warming calculations of Venus where Carl Sagan cut his teeth. You trot out a couple of obscure German's to challenge and dismantle the work of greats such as he and don't think you might get tripped up?

I think bonmot is wrong saying you should stick to your day job because that is actually exactly what you are doing. There aren't too many lawyers who will throw their hands up in court and say my case is hopeless and I give up. They will divert, bring in irrelevancies, challenge minor points but in the end they are usually done and dusted just as you are now my friend.

Who's next?

"This is exactly why a background in planetary atmospherics such as Hansen's is such a strong grounding for studying our own global climate."

You are full of it and so is Hansen; after all Hansen has concluded that Earth will end like Venus due to the Greenhouse effect; he's called it The Venus Syndrome:

http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com.au/2008/12/james-hansens-agu-presentation-venus.html

Even Humbert thinks this is nuts:

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/28/more-views-on-global-warmin-and-arctic-methane/

Humbert says:

"I think that Jim Hansen is demonstrably wrong in his assertion that a Venus-type runaway greenhouse is a virtual certainty if we burn all the coal; he is right about almost everything and I greatly admire him, but he is wrong about this."

There you go, Humbert thinks the sun shines out of Hansen's orifaces yet still thinks he's wrong about Venus on Earth.

For the benefit of csteele, who is increasingly looking like a troll, I'll clarify the issue:

If the Greenhouse is still operating on Venus and sunlight in the form of UV is penetrating the atmosphere and heating the surface but IR is being prevented from leaving the surface by the ~96%CO2 concentration in the Venusian atmosphere then why isn't Hansen right about a runaway effect, not on Earth, but on Venus?

Can csteele and bonmot, or anyone, please sort this out for the poor deluded fools who are trying to make sense of this.

We are producing more co2 than nature can support, so we are creating a green house effect, and gaining momentum.
Extreme weather events right around the globe.
Floods in qld two years running, why not three.
A dry winter in the south, drought is predicted.
On track for another record ice melt.
Greenland melting faster than ever.
It all points to nature being compromised, and out of control.
Time for argument has expired.