Hi Bully,

In the weather section in today's newspaper, there is one 'highest maximum' over the past decade across eight capital cities, and no 'lowest minimum'. That's about average.

What would one expect, across sixteen decades of records if there were no global warming, let alone AGW ? That there would be, on average, one reading (highest high or lowest low) during each decade, across the eight capital cities, each with their own max max and min min, i.e. sixteen readings per day.

So a fairly consistent average of one highest maximum each day, out of the sixteen readings, might be almost significant, and lead an intelligent and knowledgeable person such as myself to conclude that yes, there might be a slight trend towards global warming (or at least national warming).

I would have preferred, say, four readings per day of highest highs - and no lowest lows - so that I could be confident, even complacent and Schadenfreudelich, that AGW was a dire threat (serves them right ! I said they'll be sorry !) to humanity.

As it stands, it seems more like the threat posed by walking barefoot on a beach and risking getting a fish-hook stuck in your toe. Very disappointing. Surely humanity deserved worse than that, from a dark-Green point of view (b@stards!) ?

Cheers,

Joe

Give it up cSteely. We all know what side of the Great Divide you stand. What a pity there's only hot air under your feet. On this post, especially, you have just made a big left wing, Greenie, Touchy feely, Blinkered PC fool of yourself. You lose.
G’nite & thanks for the fish.

csteele,

Please leave the lights dimmed for a little longer.

I've just bought another bumper carton of popcorn, refreshed my drink and made myself comfortable. I've put on my 3D glasses and the guy in the row in front has taken off his cowboy hat...

I think I've already seen this movie - the weedy guy regains consciousness and with one more ill-fated action, he manages to.....

CSteele,

WRONG AGAIN!

This is your take:
<< Here is an article warning that the historical records show that climate modeling might well be underestimating by half the potential impact of increased CO2 levels on global temperature>>

Here's a quote from the article

<< something other than carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM. "Some feedback loop or other processes that aren't accounted for in these models>>

Here it is again in case you missed it.

<< something OTHER THAN carbon dioxide caused much of the heating during the PETM>>

Stop fantasizing about Jacky Chan.
You're more like Sgt Schultz: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34ag4nkSh7Q
"I see nothin" "I see nothin" (other than what my party tells me to believe)

If they ever do a remake of Hogans Heroes try out for the part of Sergent Shultz --you're natural!

Dear Poirot, lol, and here he is right on cue, you've been watching too many of these types of movies.

Ah my dear SPQR, what on earth are we going to do with you?

We had Hasbeen earlier in this thread deride the climate scientists for overestimating the feedback mechanisms in their modelling that have them predicting temperature increases well above what the physical addition of CO2 alone would give us, in fact he even said the feedbacks would be negative. Your article has them doubling the temperature.

Perhaps you should give Hasbeen a visit at the retirement village for washed up fighters and if you can pull him away from his telescope the two of you could have a little confab, and get your story straight.

I have a deepening suspicion you really don't understand even the basics of this climate issue, though I suppose your over reliance on links was a bit of a give-away.

Far be it from me to put Hasbeen up as any kind of expert because he isn't, but between the two of you I think you ought to let him take the lead.

CSteele,

<<We had Hasbeen earlier in this thread deride the climate scientists for overestimating the feedback mechanisms in their modelling that have them predicting temperature increases well above what the physical addition of CO2 alone would give us>>

And as far as the above statement goes he would appear to be right.

<<Your article has them doubling the temperature>>

Yes , but only after other factors –other than CO2- are allowed for.

The point , my dear, which you seemed to have willfully missed (though perhaps not, given the standard of your other attempts at reasoning) is that you were asserting (up till two posts ago) that the article was maintaining it was all to do with CO2. Now, having been caught out, you are trying to wiggle away from that.

I seem to recall that earlier in the thread when *you said* Jayb had been caught misrepresenting things.You got on your high horse and demanded she admit her "mistake":
“And JayB got caught out badly on this occasion, there is no way to spin it otherwise… he needs to take ownership of it and face the consequences.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5123#138179

Well, my dear, we're all waiting on you to take you own medicine, now.