oh Jennifer please tell us that you are a supportive of that paper you posted.

For those of you playing at home this "paper" is so bad it promted a blog

http://wah-realitycheck.blogspot.com.au/2008/09/khilyuk-and-chilingar.html

An interesting read Jennifer although I didn't understand the maths in the paper.
What I really like is you introducing ideas and theories that get the alarmists knickers in a right old twist and I must say it doesn't take very much!

Cheers

Ross

JN & JM said: "Roberts would not purport to be the first to claim the atmosphere cools the surface of the earth that is warmed by the sun."

They proceed to have it with a few 'journalist's opinions'. I am not a journalist.

Quoting Roberts:
"It is basic. The sun warms the earth's surface. The surface, by contact, warms the moving, circulating atmosphere. That means the atmosphere cools the surface. How then can the atmosphere warm it? It cannot. That is why their computer models are wrong."

Is this really a reflection of the scientific knowledge and logic of JN and JM?

Follow closely because Nicol and Marohasy are supporting/agree with Robert's ludicrous beliefs.

1) Hot Sun heats earth surface makes it 'hot'
2) Cool atmosphere cools the earths surface, takes away the heat.
3) A century plus of Climate Science Knowledge must be wrong!

John Nicol physicist (ah?), please tell us what happens when air masses blow across the Antarctic, Greenland, Arctic Sea Ice, the Himalayas and mountains in NZ?

Seriously John and Jennifer, get a life. You are incompetent as climate scientists!

Now you may be stupid and ignorant or simply paid to act that way, but that's no reason for the rest of the planet to dumb themselves down to your level.

But yes you are correct on one thing. I have no respect for either of your qualifications, nor your capacity as operate as "paid shills" with unlimited grandiose egos, nor the content of any of your 'writings.'

You are no body of any importance. However, given your indomitable spirit I think you both (and John Abbot) would make very successful TV Evangelists.

You have all the right qualities necessary and the absence of ethics to make a small fortune by ripping off the gullible, unintelligent and naive of this world.

More info:
http://climatelab.com.au/the-team

http://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPT2xYM2ViOVBwTU0

http://drive.google.com/file/d/0B-M0yAR0UPhPbXkzb1RlVGJaZFU

Peer-review is not he only "quality" pointer. JM's ref was 'Cited by 7' over 9yrs. That means something especially HOW it was cited, agreed or not!
http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?cites=18284820513214899922&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en

Oh the things this PhD Biology Graduate never tells her audience.
-

Wouldn't it be interesting if the global warming alarmist could actually discuss the science involved, rather than refer to academics authority or resort to abuse.

Guess I might as well sink to their level. Useful idiots all of them. Other than the academics. Most of them know damn well the thing is a rort, they use it to fund their institutions.

I'm still flummoxed as to how any engineer can make the statement "How can anything that cools the surface warm it? It can't."

I'd expect every engineer to know that an increase in the temperature of the coolant can warm the surface, as can a decrease in the flow rate of the coolant.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen,

Interesting question.

Obviously the answer at night is no.
Rather less obviously, the answer in the daytime is also no.
Even in the daytime, more of the radiation that the CO2 can absorb is coming from below than above.

Malcolm Roberts has certainly put a lot of time into learning the truth about climate 'change' with none of the rent-seekers' motives. He is certainly going to be a thorn in the side of alarmist, controlling parliamentarians and their urgers and lobbyists.