Dear Alison Jane,

I sat through 26 hours of MIT lectures on Climate Change over 10 years ago now in order to get my head around the physics of global warming.

I know about the 4 normal modes of vibration of the CO2 molecule compared to the 3 for water. I know the contribution of CO2 to the total green house effect of earth and I know the differing impacts at different layers of the atmosphere.

So how about answering my question instead of doing the obfuscationists trick of continually answering questions with questions.

As for Lego I cut that bloke off a while ago because of his attitudes toward women on the forum and because he had nothing to say that held any interest for me. No biggie.

So where did you go for your brain washing SR?

soft Steel Rednuts... " I sat through 26 hours of MIT lectures on Climate Change over 10 years ago" is that it?, so my 40 years of working in academia, industry and Government can be replaced by 26 hours on 10 year old video lectures! Wow. Well at least you probably have studied more than Grimacing Greta, but then that doesn't say much. Go and slug down another 3 bottles of Buckfast Tonic wine.. I believe its Greta favourite, which she starting drinking in Glasgow. Hasbeen, you and Lego are to kind to SR.

Dear Alison Jane,

You asked and I answered but then instead of doing me the courtesy of addressing the question I put to you you blather out a rambling resume and deliver not an iota of substance.

The empress truely has no clothes.

You really have nothing do you.

From your dismissal of the impact of CO2 you show just how bereft of understanding of the role of the molecule you have.

Either put up or put a sock in it.

Most of the infrared in our atmosphere is not the incoming solar radiation, but the back radiation produced by the ground after the solar radiation heats it up.
Most of the gases in our atmosphere are transparent to infrared, but CO2 and other greenhouse gases absorb and reemit it in a random direction, which means more of it is going down towards the ground than otherwise would be. This, of course, causes more heating at ground level.

Scientists have no doubt whatsoever about this. It's very well understood, and (in case you think this is all a conspiracy by scientists) CO2's status as a greenhouse gas has even been confirmed by Mythbusters! So I'm quite baffled as to how you you can still doubt that human induced CO2 has any effect upon climate at all. Are you unaware that the burning of fossil fuels has increased the atmospheric CO2 concentration by 50%?

We have an observed rise in temperature, and we have a phenomenon that we know causes temperature to rise. And yet denialists want us to believe either that something's preventing the latter from causing the former, and either something else is responsible for the temperature rise that the HIGW could be expected to cause but didn't, or temperatures aren't really rising (despite overwhelming evidence). Which is it in your case?

The atmosphere is a very complex system, so the idea that something else was responsible for the warming had some credibility in the 20th century. But scientific understanding has moved on from then, and we now know that other factors that can result in warming have made a much lesser (and in some cases, negative) contribution to the warming we've experienced.

To Steelredux.

Alison Jane is a woman and I am shocked at the way you are treating her. I think I will cut you off