Dear Hasbeen,

First things first. You spoke of a paper “published by NASA telling us that all those computer models of the IPCC & their fellow travellers are totally wrong”.

All I could find was something from an ex-NASA climatologist one Roy Spencer. But since this was not published by NASA it couldn't be the one you are referring to. His was published in journal Remote Sensing. Anyway Dr Spencer is an avowed climate change sceptic, writes for the Heartland Institute who gain a large slice of their funding from Exxon-Mobil and other large oil companies, and is an intelligent design believer. Hardly an impartial participant. Not that that should disqualify his results, but since he isn't the one you were referring to you might want to steer me in the right direction.

You said “Physics tells us that doubling CO2 in the atmosphere could increase the temperature by about 0.7 C.”

And I say Hallelujah! Finally got one of you blighters to commit to a figure. Hasbeen I'm proud of you, see that wasn't so hard was it.

To your 0.7 C. Where might you have got that from? Let me guess, it was a bloody CLIMATE MODEL! That's what models do, they make bloody predictions! They can be modified for sure as newer information comes in but in the end it is best guess stuff.

The way you and your ilk have been slandering climate scientists is disgraceful. I would have been hauling them over the coals if they had been quiet on the issue yet it would have been hard to blame them if they had known the crap they were going to face.

Cont...

Cont...

Anyway the physics says that a doubling of CO2 is likely to be responsible for 1.7 to 2.4 C rise in temperature but since I went highball to get the debate going why should I pick on you for going lowball. As I said in my first post to you there are Infra Red band width constrains and certainly in the lower atmosphere they are practically full. Not so for higher up of course but this is why the temperature effect of CO2 is logarithmic rather than linear.

I'm pretty happy with the radiative forcing figure of nearly 4 watts per m2 for a doubling of CO2 concentrations. The physics of CO2 says as the oceans warm they will not be able to absorb as much of the gas. It is possible this is showing up in the recent figures from Manuna Loa where average concentration increases from 1990-2000 were around 1.5 ppm/yr, 2ppm/yr in the last decade and 3ppm/yr in the last year.

People shouldn't be hung out to dry for doing the best they can with the data they have access to as long as it is done competently. As new data becomes available they should be allowed to adjust their positions without cries of incompetence, or scam, or revenue grabbing, or corruption.

I believe the vast majority of climate scientists still believe that the doubling of concentrations remains a very grave concern and deserving of action by our governments. I have yet to find a convincing argument to dismiss this.

CSteele,

<< That's what models do, they make bloody predictions! … in the end it is best guess stuff.>>

Yes. But they are often wrong . The finance industry can afford to hire the best & brightest: the crème de le crème of math’s & science, yet THEY STILL GOT IT WRONG!

“On Wall Street, they were all known as "quants," traders and financial engineers who used brain-twisting math and superpowered computers to pluck billions in fleeting dollars out of the market. Instead of looking at individual companies and their performance, management and competitors, they use math formulas to make bets on which stocks were going up or down. By the early 2000s, such tech-savvy investors had come to dominate Wall Street, helped by theoretical breakthroughs in the application of mathematics to financial markets, advances that had earned their discoverers several shelves of Nobel Prizes.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704509704575019032416477138.html

And we can see –or, at least those of us who are not one eyed can see --that all is not well with the climate models & predictions.

<<In 2005, Flannery predicted Sydney's dams could be dry in as little as two years because global warming was drying up the rains, leaving the city "facing extreme difficulties with water".

Check Sydney's dam levels today: 73 per cent. Hmm. Not a good start.

In 2008, Flannery said: "The water problem is so severe for Adelaide that it may run out of water by early 2009."

Check Adelaide's water storage levels today: 77 per cent.

In 2007, Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused "a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas" and made the soil too hot, "so even the rain that falls isn't actually going to fill our dams and river systems ... ".

Check the Murray-Darling system today: in flood. Check Brisbane's dam>>

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/it-pays-to-check-out-flannerys-predictions-about-climate-change-says-andrew-bolt/story-e6frfhqf-1226004644818

Gee hope hasbeen and his supporters can inform the EEC!
They believe,and have laws to cut emissions.
Seems likely more than half the world,more than 90% of scientists.
Believe,the lie telling bloke gets around!

CSteele,

I am not one to play the man/woman rather than the ball, but since the warmists have made it something of a fine art –its seems only reasonable to respond in kind.

It is interesting and revealing that you discount anything that Alan Jones and Gina Rhinehardt might be associated with. And to be “funded” by The Heartland Institute is for you a kiss of death.

Yet it seems that being funded by GreenPeace or GetUp or championed by the ABC or The Greens is quite OK.

And looking at your posting history on OLO. It seems you are more than willing to accept testimony from the Taliban and other colorful characters:

<<So was the woman acting unreasonably when she became upset about having to lift her veil? Probably not. Did she loose her 'nanna'? Obviously! >>
http://www.news.com.au/national/muslim-woman-accused-of-making-false-police-statement-avoids-jail-over-identity-doubt/story-e6frfkvr-1226078884650

<<I find “Drones? lets have many more.” distasteful and I accept it as your opinion but don't ask me to respect it nor a right to it, because I most certainly don't.
Lets see - “gutless hidden bombs” compared to missiles from drones piloted remotely from thousands of miles away – tell me the difference in their cowardness quota?
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4206#106193

There is certainly some method in your madness –but I don’t think it is related to saving the planet

“gutless hidden bombs” compared to missiles from drones piloted remotely from thousands of miles away – tell me the difference in their cowardness quota?
SPQR,
That comparison is purely idiotic. The drones were designed to fight the insidiousness of the wrong. No moron bombers, no drones. Quite simple.
You lot never see the picture, you only criticise the painter. If people would refrain from heinous activities then there would be no need to produce new weapons to fight these morons.