Back again, steven, still with no science to show any measurable effect of human emissions on climate. You say the empty words’ the science underpinning AGW”.

What science is that, Steven? In your chatty little post you make no mention of it. Being “astonished” if it doesn’t exist, is not science, just a peculiarity you have.

Why not have a look at Murry Salby’s research? When validated it will disprove AGW conclusively.

“Salby’s argument is that the usual evidence given for the rise in CO2 being man-made is mistaken. It’s usually taken to be the fact that as carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere increase, the 1 per cent of CO2 that’s the heavier carbon isotope ratio c13 declines in proportion. Plants, which produced our coal and oil, prefer the lighter c12 isotope. Hence, it must be our gasses that caused this relative decline.

But that conclusion holds true only if there are no other sources of c12 increases which are not human caused. Salby says there are – the huge increases in carbon dioxide concentrations caused by such things as spells of warming and El Ninos, which cause concentration levels to increase independently of human emissions. He suggests that its warmth which tends to produce more CO2, rather than vice versa – which, incidentally is the story of the past recoveries from ice ages”.

As to your assertion that AGW is established fact you might consider this scientist’s comment:

“Anyone who thinks the science of this complex thing is settled is in Fantasia.”

http://judithcurry.com/2011/08/04/carbon-cycle-questions/

Scientists are deserting the sinking ship of AGW in their thousands, Steven, why not join them and stop making a fool of yourself.

If I was a Green I'd resent being called "slimy", "self-righteous" and "loathsome". I don't even use that kind of language for minimifidianists, who are much more deserving.
Any sensible person has at least some sympathy for a Green thinking, whatever that means.
I admire scientists too, but they're advocates for the State by default; otherwise they'd be coming out and saying that market-based solutions can never work. Tim Flannery is accordingly one Green whose position I despise.

Hasbeen old son,

Let's have a reality check here.

Firstly, like you I'm a hasbeen or, if you like, these days I'm an armchair scientist. I still have a lot of friends and acquaintances in the scientific field and we talk a lot, preferably while sipping the Glenfiddich. I've kept up my subscriptions to the various scientific publications. Occasionally someone has a student who needs help with statistics and if it's on a topic that interests me I volunteer my time. But I am not in a position to bring you the results of any field work.

Secondly it is not realistic to ask me to explain what is known about an extraordinarily complex topic on a discussion board in 350 words! I cannot offer a concise proof of AGW in the sense that I can prove Pythagoras' theorem.

Finally all I can rely on is peer reviewed evidence that others have gathered. If in your heart of hearts you believe AGW is a beat up perpetrated by idiots who cannot "work out the change from $10 for a bus ticket" then you will discount any evidence, in the form of published papers that I cite. So what's the point?

Here's the reality. There is nothing that it is feasible for me to produce on a discussion board that will satisfy you. No offence intended but I have a feeling that's the way it is.

All that being said I will offer the following:

For an understanding of the physics underpinning AGW I recommend

Global Warming: Understanding the Forecast by David Archer

See: http://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming-Understanding-David-Archer/dp/0470943416

The book is divided into two parts. The first part, which explains the physics, is excellent and largely uncontroversial. The second part, which looks at the evidence, is now a bit dated.

To get a feel for the evidence browse the Scientific American website.

You might also browse the realclimate.org blog

But, once again, if you think they're all a bunch of crooks morons what's the point?

Squeers

A correction:

I wrote:

"…that ABC popinjay Garnaut!"

I meant to write:

"…that ABC popinjay FLANNERY!"

For the rest see my post addressed to Hasbeen

Leo Lane

LOL

If you truly believe "Scientists are deserting the sinking ship of AGW in their thousands" then you are delusional. It ain't happening.

NB: When I say "scientist" I mean someone who actually does research and publishes in peer reviewed journals; not merely someone with a science degree. I have science degrees but would not consider myself a scientist.

I have not said the science is "settled" because nothing in science is ever settled.

Here's what I actually wrote:

>>Can we be certain what we observe is due to AGW and not some natural climatic variation? No we can't but the preponderance of evidence points in that direction.>>

What evidence you say?

See my post addressed to Hasbeen.

You might also look at the IPCC reports. Yes they have had some bloopers but, when these were pointed out, they were withdrawn. This is in marked contrast to Plimer who continues to punt his error ridden book. (And "error ridden" is putting it kindly)

Again, no offence intended, but I suspect that there is nothing it would be feasible to produce on a discussion board that would convince you.

Hasbeen again:

>>There is also plenty of genuine evidence to show that convection has much more effect than radiation in cooling, & add in evaporation, & radiation becomes the country cousin in the cooling of the earth.>>

Again, no offence intended but this is irrelevant. Convection and evaporation are near-surface effects. Convection redistributes heat – eg from equatorial regions to the poles. Evaporative cooling at the surface is counterbalanced by the release of latent heat when the vapour condenses back into liquid form.

Neither has any effect on the overall heat balance of the planet which is purely a matter of radiation. This graphic illustrates the earth's radiation budget. The actual numbers are out of date but it demonstrates the principle.

http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Atmosphere/images/earth_rad_budget_kiehl_trenberth_big.gif

stevenlmeyer refers to the Keihl and Trenberth cartoon purporting to show the radiative fluxes on earth and therein the proof of AGW; steven is VERY out of date and the K&T cartoon has been disproved:

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v5/n10/abs/ngeo1580.html

>>This graphic illustrates the earth's radiation budget. The actual numbers are out of date but it demonstrates the principle.<<

The principle that incoming solar radiation (at 342 watts per square metre) is neatly balanced by outgoing radiation (reflected solar radiation and outgoing longwave radiation at 107 and 235 watts per square metre respectively)? That doesn't leave any watts for warming.

Where is the energy to heat the planet coming from if the incoming solar radiation is in balance with the outgoing radiation?

Cheers,

Tony