Dear GrahamY,

I think the notion of a runaway greenhouse effect has been a product of climatologists such as David Archer using Mars and Venus to illustrate how the mechanisms work. While they take a scientific approach in not entirely ruling it out it is hardly something they tout with vigour. It is more those outside the field who have admittedly over-hyped the likelihood of something so drastic happening.

I admit feeling a little sorry for the climate scientists. An unexpected set of warming data comes across their desk and as any scientists worth their salt they look for reasons why. What else is showing a positive or negative trend? They find CO2 and methane then do the physics to see if these gases could indeed be the answer. The results said yes, quite possibly. They then do modelling to see the possible repercussions for the future and they are of concern. When asked what might be done to lessen the impact their answer is to limit GG increases. All perfectly reasonable in my book.

Modelling has a proud history. The planet Neptune was discovered only because mathematicians had worked on the perturbing of Uranus and asked the astronomers to train their telescopes to a certain section of the sky and there it was, within a degree of their calculations.

I have not found anything yet that undermines David Archer's physics or conclusions although I've not finished the lecture series and so should refrain from passing judgement until I do. If CO2 and methane are indeed doing temperature forcing then we are we not in unexplored territory compared to any other part of the Vostok data?

GY

Have you put your concerns to Real Climate in the form of a question? If not why not? The collective resources are there.
If you have or you have the science to 'repudiate' (JH's legacy)Q&A's answer then post it.

Your comment about him c&p was obfuscatious at best.i.e. Counter the the explanation (the science involved) not how it arrived.
Do you have a scientific rebuttal?(after all, you said you wanted to debate the *science*.

As a side issue, IMO Q&A's 'attack' was as lacking in relevance as was yours.

It seems to me, that either you have access to science we aren't aware of (except perhaps Q&A)that is colouring your views or you are playing a *political* oppositional role similar to Shadow Minister.
Implying that a single factor therefore invalidates *All* the science.

My reading of the models indicate that they are fundamentally sound but the results are due to the miss match of statistical assumptions and actual raw data.i.e. what do we leave out? how do we compensate?

In truth the science analysis is a learning curve and is more valid that the black art of economics the major parties put so much faith in.

If I were to choose to back either a 20 year economic forecast V a AGW one, I know which I would back the one with more actual science. That doesn't mean there isn't a risk.

csteele: "I currently have around equivalent of 25mm of liquid water in the column above my head in the form of water vapour, equivalent to 25kgs/m2. That appears to be increasing by around 0.4kgs per m2 per decade."

Hmmm. That is one hell of a growth rate.

csteele: "Evaporation has the effect of cooling the Earth by moving heat from the surface to the atmosphere so temperature increases are taken care of by this mechanism."

I have come up with a list of ways this could work myself. Most are probably harebrained. The bottom line is I don't have a clue. I am going to have to find the time to look at that lecture series Q&A posted.

Q&A, GrahamY,

I trust you are inflicting this display on us some good reason. At the very least I hope you are both enjoying yourselves.

Should you decide to take a break from the current hostilities some links to help csteele and myself out here would be real nice. Plots of model data for historical times versus reality would be good. In fact even just raw numerical predictions from the models and the equivalent historical data would be OK. It would not be hard to do the plots myself.

i for one am glad grayham has a thick skin...it helps us know the believability of our fellow posters...many have stated they dont read my posts for egsample...so my name lets them know...what im likely to be saying

but i have the same thing with other posters

but back to topic
if you believe in modeling
read this
http://www.prisonplanet.com/economists-are-trained-to-ignore-the-real-world.html

it has many links proving every point

if you want to know why..read this
http://www.prisonplanet.com/health-care-bill-is-a-huge-tax-heist.html

if you need to know why
http://www.prisonplanet.com/#

its important to see globally govt is sucking us dry...deliberatly/systematiclly..by the on going scares/beatups...they have had ever since they gave away the fed/bank..and the rights to issue govt s own money..

so the fed bankers could steal our gold then silver then our copper...now soom even our nickle...and the iron/copperplated coins

think who pays for govt's generous super..
think who needs ever more taxes to pay off our public service...serving their buddies

try to wake up that we are being tricked/decieved..its time we found out by who..and told them ...no more lies...switch off the haarp and the chem trails..[and stop controling/tweaking..the weather...]

yes the sun does the heating...
but we been controling the weather for years..
if you dont know that...stay asleep

rstewart

"So far Q&A has eliminated one major complication - the clouds."

Nope, they are still a complication - BUT, we are 'understanding' them a lot better.

This is not to say people like Roy Spencer should stop looking for some large but elusive negative forcing.

Have a good Christmas everyone.

Btw: my apologies, I am human after all :)

rather than study fraudulent and confusing science detail

go to a real scientist
who explains it a little better than a deciever

http://www.weatheraction.com/pages/pv.asp?p=wact10&fsize=0

no expensive volumous downloads..in 19 parts
to decieve you into accepting a new tax

but that wouldnt destract..
like this thead has destracted

if the bulky ''science'' hasnt explained it clearly...
you just gotta think why not..

thats if you can still think..through all that deciet..your trying so hard to comprehend...the basics dosnt take that much study..only lies need to decieve and make it complicated