Dear rstuart,

Thanks for the response. I'm going to have to do a revision of my notes to see exactly what he says on the subject but I don't feel he had the time to give us the detail I would have liked.

Obviously low clouds are going the have a cooling effect because of their albedo during the day.

I found this graphic instructive.

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greenhouse_Effect.png

Basically it shows that only 1/6 of the radiation emitted into space comes directly from the surface. The rest comes from heat and energy in the atmosphere. In a way a low cloud acts like a polar ice cap.

So I think you are right to focus your attention on the high cirrus clouds which do have a warming effect. Obviously being higher they have a far better chance of capturing some of the 195W/m2 heading into space from our atmosphere.

Something I have come across which struck me as counter intuitive was that drier air has a greater density than moist so when it loses its moisture through rain falling from it the parcel of air then sinks.

This is another wikipedia graphic that thanks to the lectures I can sort of get my head around.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png

The different blips in the CO2, water vapour and methane graphs I think relate to the different ways each molecule can vibrate and therefore what part of the spectrum they capture. It is worth noting that the bulk of the water vapour effect (blips) is in the thermal radiation (outgoing) range, those in the solar radiation (in coming) wavelength are not saturated yet.

Cont

Cont

The point Graham makes is a valid one, not to the extent that it makes the models rubbish as he claims, but as the latest New Scientist puts it “When the IPCC says doubling levels of carbon dioxide will probably raise the temperature by 1.5C to 4.5C most of the error bar is a result of uncertainty over clouds.” I feel the frustration will continue for a while.

The article does go on to say that new work released in July by the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research “showed global warming is resulting in fewer clouds over the oceans – boosting warming.” Why on earth that would be is anyone's guess.

In Lecture 9 David talks about the water vapour in the air being controlled by the hydrological cycle. Rain and evaporation have a stabilising or negative feedback on it. But temperature is different in that vapour concentrations increase with temp (through increases in GGs) which in turn have a positive or amplifying effect on temperature.

Perhaps the question about where does it stop lies in the spectrum graph. Should we be asking at what point, if ever, do the increases in water vapour concentrations begin to have a greater effect on the solar radiation side of the spectrum compared to the thermal side?

The agreement also gives the green light for carbon trading markets, which as we have documented are all owned by climate kingpins like Maurice Strong and Al Gore, to be more heavily financed and expanded.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/research-reports-obama-intimately-tied-to-phony-environmental-movement.html

Many elements of the final text have been watered down and the agreement has little teeth in terms of enforcing national limits on CO2 emissions, which is why many in the skeptic camp are celebrating the apparent failure of the conference.

The Club For Growth organization said that Obama’s failure to get developing nations to agree to more draconian measures has “probably saved thirty million jobs” in America.

“I am greatly relieved that the last-minute agreement President Obama negotiated is being widely described as ‘meaningful.’ When politicians call something ‘meaningful,’ that means it isn’t,” states their press release.
http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=12216

However, Copenhagen delegates have already promised to convene another series of meetings next year to strengthen what is spelled out in the final agreement. Globalists are persistent and they will continue hammering away until they get what they want, not because the environment is on the verge of collapse, but because their agenda for world government is stalling as more people find out the true agenda behind the global warming scam.

This is why we need to be more vigilant than ever and keep the elite on the back foot. While it’s true that the globalists have failed to achieve the entirety of what they set out for, they are still moving forward with their agenda by taking baby steps rather than giant leaps.

We have slowed the juggernaut of global government, but it continues to grind forward, which is why we need to continue to awaken more people so that we can have greater strength in pushing back and resisting the tyranny that the globalists want to enforce by taxing and regulating the very life-giving gas that we all breathe.

Read the final version of the Copenhagen Accord here (PDF).

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/science/20091219-climate-text.pdf

http://www.tagesschau.de/klima/aktuell/kopenhagen190.html

100 REASONS WHY GLOBAL WARMING IS NATURAL

http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/146139

global warming ’caused by sun’s radiation’

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ear.....ation.html

http://youpi.me/realindex.html

Although the final Copenhagen agreement is largely being dismissed as a failure..by both the mainstream media..and climate skeptics,..it does establish the framework for a global governmen.. which will control climate finances via taxes on CO2 emissions,..as Lord Monckton warned on The Alex Jones Show this week.

Monckton said that the main goal of Copenhagen was to “establish the mechanism, the structure, and above all the funding for a world government.”
http://www.prisonplanet.com/exclusive-british-peer-copenhagen-summit-has-established-a-world-government.html

“They are going to take from the western countries the very large financial resources required to do that.” Monckton said, adding “They will disguise it by saying they are setting up a $100 billion fund for adaptation to climate change in third world countries, but actually, this money will almost all be gobbled up by the international bureaucracy.”

The final text of the accord states that funds obtained from climate financing will be controlled by a “governance structure,” and that a “High Level Panel” will be appointed to decide where the money will come from.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fl9fESYVFY&feature=player_embedded

In effect, this means that a UN-controlled structure of global governance will override the sovereignty of nation states in collecting and doling out funds obtained under the justification of climate change.

As Monckton explained, these funds will come from a global tax on financial transactions and a tax on GDP. Earlier draft versions of the agreement spelled this out in detail, but the final version leaves it more vague, merely stating the funds will be collected “from a wide variety of sources, public and private, lateral and multilateral.”

As information that was leaked in the first few days of the conference revealed, the money will not even go to the UN,
http://www.prisonplanet.com/final-copenhagen-text-includes-global-transaction-tax.html

but it will go straight to the IMF and World Bank who will then lend it at loan shark rates to poorer countries,..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/08/copenhagen-climate-summit-disarray-danish-text

..thus further indebting them to the global government and advancing climate colonialism.
http://infowars.net/articles/december2009/111209Soros.htm

Frankly Graham, I don’t give tinker’s cuss whether you think I’m a scientist or not ... we’ve been down that track too many times before and you still don’t get it, you never will.

“There is no evidence from the history of earth that there is any sort of a runaway water vapour effect.”

What’s this got to do with anything - I didn’t say there was?

I understand physics very well Graham (much more than you think) – read the posts again.

“Which is typical of your post which essentially says because large scale convection works more or less as understood, then the models must be right - a complete non sequitur.”

The models are not perfect Graham, but they are more robust than you, Joanne Nova, Jennifer Marohassy or Anthony Watts think they are – and they are getting better all the time, whether you like it or not. Perhaps you are the “non sequitur”.

“A major tactic of alarmists like yourself is to denigrate anyone who asks sensible questions and overcomplicate the issue so that people give up trying to understand it and say "whatever". What you've posted here is a good example.”

A classic circular argument from our moderator – it goes like this:

. A scientist provides a ‘simplified’ explanation of water vapour feedback (e.g. put energy into a system, it heats up, if there is water around it evaporates and in equilibration, falls out as rain/snow => warmer and wetter world)

. An AGW doubter states “this begs the question (insert your own) ... and attempts to qualify it

. The scientist explains why the question/qualification is incorrect and provides a more detailed explanation (see my 4 connected previous posts)

. The AGW doubter argues the science is too complex to understand and accuses the scientist of obfuscation , appealing to authority or “whatever”

. The scientist attempts to provide another ‘simplified’ explanation to the doubters rebuttal ... and around and around we go.

Cont’d

Cont’d

Well no Graham, I’m not going to play these games with you – despite the fact you joined the fray with these remarks:

“I'd love to be in a discussion that was purely about science”

One of the most vacuous and disingenuous statements I’ve seen from you, just gold.

I am not an “alarmist”, Graham. On the contrary, I am just an ordinary scientist who just happens to work in a field that you have adopted as your “hobby horse”. Yes, the science is complicated, but following your logic - one may as well say AGW is bunkum, and someone else responds by saying it’s not. Just because you can’t understand the way real science is written (dotting the ‘i’s and crossing the ‘t’s) does not make it any less true.

As far as slurs go, I reply in kind – you have done nothing but denigrate and cast slurs against me ever since I originally challenged you and called you to account on the cells in the Walker Circulation, way back.

Yes, politics and religion does muddy the waters (you have recognised this yourself in other threads). God forbid that ‘Man’ is adversely impacting His creation – they proclaim from the pulpit.

His Holiness is aware of AGW Graham (the Vatican even has a 'seat' on the UNFCCC) - it's a pity the Church doesn’t address the ‘elephant in the room’. Yep, our very own Cardinal Pell is a self confessed 'denier' of AGW and the Mad Monk opposes for the sake of opposing – just wonderful policy. And the US bible belt’s point of view is legendary - but you know all this.

If you do follow this issue “from an empirical basis”, I suggest you take your blinkers off.