Protagoras, Thanks for the info. and your efforts, much appreciated. Will take your suggestion onboard to contact the sources. I guess I have to spend some time formulating the right question in order to get an answer that I might understand.

tbc.

Spindoc

Like Protagoras, I would defer to those with more expertise in things ‘carbon.’ It would seem more appropriate to actually ask the experts at the CDIAC.

My simple take on it is that humanity is pouring Gt’s of ‘carbon’ into the atmosphere, oceans and terrestrial biosphere at a rate that these systems cannot absorb as quick. As a consequence, the Earth’s systems try to equilibrate (using a suite of complex biological, physical and chemical processes) and results in both spatial and temporal changes. In other words, 'globing warming' is a symptom of human activity.

I can understand what you are saying about various “models”. However, they are getting better all the time (some GCM hindcasts are frighteningly accurate, demonstrating their predictive capacity).

Nevertheless, I do have my own concerns about some IPCC modelling (not the GCM’s per se) in that they revolve around the Special Report on Emissions Scenarios. As you may well know, there is a significant component of economic (and ideological) assumptions input into the IPCC projections – I do not think econometricians have a clue about the economics of the present, let alone the future. This is why I see the 'problem' as mainly political, social and economic, not scientific.

The IPCC’s next report (AR5) will address some of these issues

Odo says ‘end’ so no reply is warranted?

Since 1901, scientists (from many disciplines) have been judging the “German one” from many angles. As technology developed, the proposition was able to be scrutinised in much deeper detail, to such an extent that now the “German one” has become extremely robust – due to the rigor of the scientific process, which Odo clearly does not accept.

Put another way, since 1901, independent individuals and groups, in various cognisant and expert fields, by way of independent methodologies, using observations and empirical findings, with the aid of the world’s state-of-the-art super-computers, all agree that there is something real and significant about AGW.

Nevertheless, this does not constitute the “proof” that Odo is so desperately searching for. No more than he can prove E = mc^2 or that the tides will rise and fall tomorrow. We can derive these physical concepts using the tools of mathematics, but we cannot 'prove' them as we could 1 + 1 = 2

I’ve provided a list of papers that demonstrated the link between [CO2] and temperature and also papers demonstrating the derivation of climate sensitivity. I had twice as many but word limits prevented me from including them. For every one that I gave, I could have easily provided 10 others.

And they are not “the usual collection of modeling discussions” – they were sourced with a cursory perusal of Google Scholar on attribution and climate sensitivity ... it really is not that difficult.

Odo (and anyone else) can question the science all they like, but I would recommend not behaving like raving banshees if they don’t like the answers, particularly when they cannot comprehend the science, or understand the scientific process itself.

Here comes the facetious bit for Odo ... I suggest he goes to Mass on Sunday and listen to the religious dogma and watch the faithful, then observe the difference when he then attends a physics lecture at university.

Odo

I imagine if a medical doctor advised, after analysis, that the wart on the end of your nose was in fact a melanoma caused from sun exposure, you’d scream “liar” and seek a second or third opinion from specialists. Despite the likelihood of a medical consensus of opinion and unlike the more prudent in our society, you would still scream “liar.”

Fortunately the more enlightened in society will respect a “consensus of opinion” (despite the unknowns) from relevant experts in preference to the rants of a screeching ninny.

Your persistence in rubbishing the assessments of reputable climate specialists is curious. Just whom do you believe can provide you with a more accurate assessment on climate?

Q&A has been most generous in providing this information for your benefit and to him, "I dips me lid." Despite his generosity, your sneering continues unabated.

As a result, I request that you substantiate your refutations by providing us with the evidence in your possession. In other words, simply put your money where your mouth is – put up or shut up or forever be discredited.

Thanks Protagorus, I often wonder if its worth the effort though.

As to your challenge to Odo, he seems to have picked up his ball and gone home.

I hope Spindoc can get back to us on his question (and response) to CDIAC. I was a bit baffled by his query (I am a water-man) so he is better off going directly to the source of his concerns.

Spindoc mentioned earlier in the thread Ian Plimer's new book. I have no doubt many people will extol it as the 'nail-in-the-coffin' to AGW, and Plimer himself as the messiah to the 'deny-n-delay' brigade.

Books are a great way of ensuring an income stream into retirement, particularly if they are 'popular' and targeted to the audience. However, they primarily thrust a collection of the author's thoughts out there, right or wrong.

I think Plimer would have been better off writing a scientific paper and getting it published in a reputable science journal (Nature, Science, Climatology, Climate Dynamics, Geophysical Research Letters, PNAS, etc) to be reviewed and critiqued by his peers - no money in that though.

Anyway, here is a link to Barry Brook's take on it.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2009/04/23/ian-plimer-heaven-and-earth/

It does give an opposing view, so even Odo should have a geezer.

I'm going to be having a break for a while (personal things to catch up on). Hang in there.
Cheers
qanda