For one, the science seems to have passed you by. There is nothing contentious about my statement, nor were any assumptions made. Do I need to remind you of some history.

The greenhouse effect, proposed by Fourier is 1824, advanced by Arrhenius in 1896, is well accepted and is not denied by any climate change contrarians, from Lindzen to Singer. The effect that CO2 is opaque to IR-radiation is confirmed, completely, by quantum mechanics and atomic spectroscopy. Now, increasing the presence of heat trapping gas in the atmosphere, funnily enough, traps more heat in the atmosphere. This effects change in the atmosphere. This has been confirmed by the paleo-record, seasonal variations, and the fact that the Earth is not 255K.

To quote the climate change denier Pat Micheals:

“Scientists know quite precisely how much the planet will warm in the foreseeable future, a modest three-quarters of a degree (C) [in 50 years”

While is disagree with Micheals assessment (he neglects feedbacks and), even the great deniers don’t doubt that increasing CO2 emissions affects temperature. They generally dispute how much.

I stand by my statement. It has nothing to do with “models”. It has all to do with basic physics.

Perseus.

It is becoming clear that you’ve not read the relevant literature. For example:

“These models are routinely run while leaving out one of the main climate "forcing" agents, like water vapour, CO2, clouds, methane etc to assess the significance of each in the scheme of things.”

They are only run in isolation to assess sensitivities. As for predictions, CAOGCMS are run with a full suite of variables. I’ve never heard of, read or noticed “overheating”. Any model run that generated the results you specify would be rejected.

This is all contained in chapters 8 and 10 of the FAR, that is available for download at www.ipcc.ch . There is lots to criticise models on contained there in. Your example is not one of them.

I’ll be fair though and say I would not put a great deal of confidence in model outputs after, say, 100 years.

To better understand the reasons for the pollution and ecological degradation of this nation, and the human health impacts, view the latest news from the Sunday Times in WA:

www.news.com.au/perthnow

Click on (1): "New Fears hit Plagued Port"
................(2): "History Lesson: Mining's Poor Health Record"

Item 2 is a truncated, revelationary account of the disgraceful behaviour and lack of enforcement by our regulatory agencies over some 50 years.

One should tremble for ones children when imagining these vandals may be "regulating" nuclear reactors in this country in the not-too-distant future!

This discussion might progress if each participant were to state the information which is a basis for their opinion. Hopefully then the discussion would be less heated. My opinion is based on the failure of other phenomena to explain recent temperature increase, the isotopic evidence for CO2 increase coming from fossil fuels, the physical basis of CO2 causing atmospheric warming, the failure to demonstrate historical events like the little ice age or medieval warm periods to have either global or temporal correlations, and paleologial evidence for atmospheric CO2 increases associated with significant warming, like the Paleocene Eocene Thermal Maximum. I would change my opinion readily should its basis be shown as false.

Discussion? What discussion? What I see is a bunch of statements from people who know absolutely nothing about what is happening.

Face it, no one knows what the climate is doing, or why. To say you do and know how to fix it is just ridiculous. Just blame that imagineary friend of so many grown ups if you must, God.

Will someone here tell me how you can fight climate? Someone?

You can't except by using an umbrella or air conditioner or heating. That's not fighting actually either, it's using technology to cater for the change.

How about people stop claiming non exisitant expertise and face reality. The weather which can't be predicted even for tomorrow, let alone a decade away. Mosly our so called experts can't even tell us what has happened in the past as we only have a couple of hundred years of real data. The rest is guesswork.

You've been singing that song for years Pegasus, oblivious to the ever growing body of evidence, oblivious to the ever lengthening list of climate realists who think that the IPCC is credible - Swiss Re, IAG, Visy, BP, Origin, Westpac, the Governor of California, Tony Blair, leader of UK Tory party..

Maybe eventually you'll start to doubt your certainty in your own rightness, but the rest of us can't wait. You, Heffernan, and the rest of the dinosaurs can have the ACT, ok?

Liam says "oblivious to the ever lengthening list of climate realists who think that the IPCC is credible - Swiss Re, IAG, Visy, BP, Origin, Westpac, the Governor of California, Tony Blair, leader of UK Tory party"

Liam this is not a good reason to believe in something. This is flock mentality.