Dear Col Rouge,

Once again thanks for the amusing read. Quiet enjoyable.

I have to ask though, I have seen you slamming the big Al repeatedly on OLO but I would have thought he was your kind of guy.

He didn't shirk his Vietnam service unlike many at Harvard. In fact he was only one of a dozen out of the 1100 in his year who went to Vietnam.

Despite being opposed to the war he went because he didn't want someone with less advantages than he to go in his place.

While at Harvard he studied under Roger Revelle, one of the word's first climate scientists to examine global warming and who had a huge impact on Gore. He didn't just pick this up and run with it for electoral gain unlike some of our Coalition politicians before the last election.

His contributions toward getting the internet to where it is today are well documented without which we would be unlikely to be having this online conversation.

He was one of only 10 Democrats to support the first Gulf War.

Rather than being referred to as a snake-oil salesman I would have thought the guy (granted a politician) might have deserved a little respect even if his world view differed dramatically from your own.

BTW while “should get their hand out of their shorts and find something useful to do with it like picking their nose or ear or other orifice.” isn't quite vintage Col Rouge it was still good for a laugh.

Dear Hasbeen,

The good ol 31,000 scientists petition has been pretty well sliced, diced, and dispatched with. The petition was conducted in 1999 but by 2001 a random sample (obtained by Scientific America) of those reputed to have climate expertise already had 20% saying they would not sign it again. With new evidence constantly reinforcing the GW position I would venture to that figure would be far higher 9 years on.

Hasbeen,

Disappointing.

You promised me some research that showed how atmospheric water vapour declined as CO2 built up. That would have been interesting because I would expect water vapour to ENHANCE rather than the mitigate climate change. As the air gets hotter it is able to hold more vapour. As ocean temperatures increase we have more evaporation. Result more, not less, atmospheric water vapour.

Instead of showing me what promised to be interesting research you come up with an outdated petition!

R0bert,

I agree. Never before have so many behaved so badly – on both sides. I am totally opposed to an ETS.

Col Rouge,

I see you prefer ad hominem attacks to an OBJECTIVE discussion of basic physics.

Kalin1

I was not discussing temperature time series but the physics underpinning global warming. If Arctic and Antarctic temperatures are included then 2005 was probably the hottest year. It will be interesting see what next year brings now that we appear to be back in an El Nino phase.

We are going through a solar sunspot minimum. For reasons nobody has explained satisfactorily these appear to be linked with colder temperatures. (Google maunder minimum little ice age). In this case temperatures did not decline as much as expected which is a bit of a worry.

A global ETS would be the worst possible outcome.

JBowyer

Heat "dissipated" – as you put it – by evaporation returns when the water condenses and falls as rain. Higher temperatures should lead to more evaporation and more release of latent heat when the water condenses possibly driving stronger storms.

I am not discussing IPCC reports but basic physics.

Examinator,

AGW is actually a nefarious Zionist plot (NZP). We want to deprive those poor misunderstood Arabs of their oil revenue.

ALL:

Here are some interesting links that explain certain aspects of the BASIC PHYSICS of climate change. If you understand second year university level physics you should be able to follow it.

http://eesc.columbia.edu/courses/ees/climate/lectures/gh_kushnir.html

http://www.slate.com/id/2182564/

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1110_051110_warming.html

TRTL

Will respond to your points when I am able to post again.

csteele, good post

Stevenlmeyer “I see you prefer ad hominem attacks to an OBJECTIVE discussion of basic physics.”

No

I simply feel you have presented a topic in a manner loaded to invoke a certain response

and I simply delivered back the response which your loading deserved.

Pontificator “Col,

I challenge you give us your proof on the topic (put up or shut up).
Or is picking sundry orifices the source of your inspiration and what you find the sum total of your reasoning.”

I don’t jump to your command and I don’t have to prove my “sincerity” on any topic whatsoever.

This is an opinion forum,

I am here to express my opinion.

What you or anyone else considers as my “sincerity” is neither here nor there.

Like I said previously “someone who is “prudently sceptical” lacks “sincerity”, when it comes to the “hype” generated by the “three ring circus & road-show” promotions and proclumations of Al Gore and other assorted pseudo-scientists, “world economists” and bulldust infested doom-sayers”

My professional training taught me to be sceptical of what people say and rely more exclusively on what people do.

You sit around and produce facile posts full of pompous drivel, in which you attempt to “challenge” me.

Which means you are doing nothing worthy enough for me to bother taking up your challenge.

Col(onel) Bluster, Hasbeen and all.
Neither your sincerity or training is at stake here, Just the evidence and your credibility.
An opinion without facts is just a prejudice. You are always big with ad hominem, you are yet to put up OBJECTIVE, up-to-date facts on almost anything.

You must be feeling somewhat hemmed in here especially with James E. Hansen came out last night on 'Lateline' and demolished your stance. With HARD SCIENCE substantiated FACTS (Physics)
(Heads the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, part of the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, Earth Sciences Division. He is also an adjunct professor in the Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences at Columbia University. His specialist

Hansen is best known for his research in the field of climatology and relative transfer science. He has received several prestigious scientific awards etc.)

BTW Hansen, specifically demolished you water vapor furphy scientifically with basic physics, last night too.

Steven
I too have my doubts about an ETS for the reasons I gave on previous posts. Hansen demolished it on Lateline too. To me the answer is in a suite of actions there is no such thing as a magic bullet.
PS. Eliminating Zionists and their nefarious plots are optional, if, preferred ;-) (chuckle).

LOL Col Rouge,

There is a young man called Rouge
Whose ignorance of climatology is huge
Not scientifically literate
His posts still proliferate
From his "opinions" there is no refuge

OK it's not great but with that nick I don’t have much to work with.

Examinator,

Thank you for telling me about the James Hansen interview on Lateline. I don’t usually like Tony Jones – he and Andrew Bolt strike me as opposite sides of the same coin – but this one was worthwhile.

For those who are interested here is a link:

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2764523.htm

James Hansen is always worth listening to.

TRTL,

You are both right and wrong.

The essence of climate change is simple. Increase the blanket of greenhouse gases and, EVERYTHING ELSE BEING EQUAL, equilibrium temperatures will rise. This has been known for over a hundred years. The science is solid and does not depend on anything revealed by hacked emails. A schoolboy can understand it. In fact back in 1957 a 12 year old schoolboy called Steven Meyer did understand it. Yes I really am that old!

But here are the difficulties:

--Everything else is never equal. There are feedback loops some of which will mitigate the effects and some of which, such as added atmospheric WATER VAPOUR, will reinforce global warming. We don't know all the feedback loops.

--Does it matter if the world is a degree or two hotter on average?

--There are other changes such as a dustier atmosphere which cause global cooling.

--On top of all this there is natural climate variability.

It is around these matters that most of the MEANINGFUL debate centres. And they are the difficult issues.

The weight of evidence seems to be saying that we're running an unacceptably high risk by continuing to pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. I'm willing to be proved wrong but it will take solid science, not bluster, talk of orifices and promises of research about water vapour that never materialise.

how do you .. make..a carbon cap?
use silver foil

we heard the media cry wolf too often

recall sadman insane..
and his weopens of mass destraction..
standing in the un …with drawings?

recall the bird fluke..when pigs flew
it seems the latest children overboard media beat up

lets face it the spin merchants test market their proffitable spin
to sell us down the creek…im over their beat ups…if the media cant begin delivering real news…not sport.,,and spin…

and the 50/50 weather..[wether?...for casting..[or is it spinning]…todays talking points…econo-mists giving business certainty…lol…a new tax to rebuild yet more industry

a new cash cow…yes chicken little the moon is falling…maybe tghis time…maybe next time…itr may be true…but then it might be lies /spin and delusion…again

one thing is for sure….the media gets it on the fear side everytime..dosnt attempt to get it right..as the 5 media companies..entertaintment/conglomerates consolidate their powers..into 3…running their spin machine

now for the latest wepons of mass destraction…ho ho ho..yeah its media silly season…still…consumers..driven by fear..from the lackluster panic medium/media…to seek out comfort food…

let us alone…go spin your delusions to your kids…were trying to die in dignity here…from natural causes..if possable…with the air con on full if need be…and the heater..if you got it wrong again