Saturday mornings, those who like a bet and a day at the races will know about that feeling.
Trilby on the head, dyed straw usually,form in hand, just a few extra dollars from the cunning kick punters have.
And off to the races, a sure bet.
That empty feeling as you leave the rails,just after your horse has thundered in,last.
Well on again next week!
But not this gamble, if we get it wrong.
So much Certainty ,from both sides, and no foundation at all for SOME VIEWS.
A middle path, moving toward new cleaner fuels,at the cheapest costs,taxing clearly in appropriate users.
Imposing limits on car size and speeds.
Who knows what we could do if we concentrated on the things we agree with not the differences.
Monday Q a A both ex, should be again leaders, a must see.

Bazz, if you can understand the concept of ‘radiative forcing’ you wouldn’t be asking “where is the figure 5.35 derived?”

For what it’s worth, any increase (or decrease) in CO2 (for example) impacts on the top of atmosphere energy balance. Any change to energy coming in and energy going out is a very good indicator of the subsequent change in temperature, even at the surface. A bench-mark study was conducted by Myhre et al (1998) deriving the equation. This may help:

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/222.htm#635

Bazz, the nuance is largely misunderstood, distorted or misrepresented by those claiming to know math.

You say: “No Quanda, I did not mean that the atmosphere was saturated with CO2 or otherwise we would all be dead. I meant that the co2 effect on temperature had saturated.”

No it hasn’t Bazz but even if it were, there is reason to limit the increase:

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/43/18354.full

May I suggest “Principles of Planetary Climate”, R.T. Pierrehumbert, Cambridge University Press, 2010. It is an excellent reference text used by universities to teach undergraduate atmospheric science.

Hasbeen & Bazz,
Maths?? Logic?? Who's got the time or inclination for that. It is far easier to gulp down whats fed to you in small palatable snippets of dogsh^%T.
Isn't it easier to shoot one liners from the hip? It will get you just as far with the entrenched sheep.

I am interested though; lets suppose that humans do infact not play a role in the current changing climate. Does that mean it's a green light to carry on as we are?
Should we be taking steps to reduce our burning of fossil fuels anyway?
Should we be continuing to persue alternative technologies? Or give them away as an expensive bad joke?

ManOfTheLand says:

"Maths?? Logic?? Who's got the time or inclination for that."

Real scientists.

"It is far easier to gulp down whats fed to you in small palatable snippets of dogsh^%T."

Yep, a dumbed-down society.

"Isn't it easier to shoot one liners from the hip? It will get you just as far with the entrenched sheep."

Sad but true, a 'dumbed-down' society.

I would love to understand and know as much as QandA does, too late in life for that.
Man of The Land will do however most answers come from the middle.
We are better for than.

Thanks for the links Qanda, I will read them.
Would you like to have a look at the graphs on this link and comment on them please.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/

Thanks