muso wrote on Jan 30^th, 2010 at 11:54am:



An overestimation in an interview which was subsequently picked up and eagerly pressed into service because it fitted the political agenda to 'influence' governments.

You can't make people panic if you are all cautios, empirical and disinterested like -  whaddaya call 'em? - scientists.

Add zing - lose credibility, "it's as simple as that" as you like to say. Beddington is waking up. He and the rest have slept in til mid-afternoon, as it were, but a least they are now stirring.

Soren wrote on Jan 30^th, 2010 at 10:56am:


Not at all Soren, I think it is a great idea.
Now if you can get the requests through to the great almighty to send through the empirical data from the identical, (except for each possible contributing factor, and combination thereof) parallell universes, we can see the results of empirical testing.
If you can post the results from the parallell universe where you still listen to reason, then that would be entertaining as well.

Soren wrote on Feb 5^th, 2010 at 7:33am:


I've made the case for this before, but there are a number of ways in which the hypothesis has already been verified. You, for some reason choose to ignore these.

The decreasing temperature trend in the lower stratosphere, and the measured decrease in long wave radiation from the Earth as measured from space provide abundant evidence.  If stratospheric temperatures were rising, it would falsify the hypothesis. If Long Wave radiation were actually increasing with time, it would falsify the hypothesis.

Of course they support the hypothesis.

Soren wrote on Feb 7^th, 2010 at 8:44pm:


Sigh. It is actually and I've explained it before ad nauseum. Please continue to live in denial though.

Quote:



Muso, this is post-modern, activist science journalism. Unwittingly,  you are undermining your own case in the rush to be seen as as knowledgable. That kind of rerversability of cause and effect, if applied to warming, would mean that the increased CO2 is not due to human activity. So going with Chatelier's Priniple, you would have to revise the A in AGW.

But then we would have a completely different issue and the question would be: how to respond to natural climate change? I would hazard a guess that the existing shake-down principles would continue to apply but at least humanity would not be fingered as the casuei

Fair enough points Paella, but the fact is that most responses are not given in a vain attempt at penetrating the intransigent attitudes of the deniers, but rather to not leave false ideas, and false premises left unchallenged.

Soren wrote on Feb 8^th, 2010 at 5:43pm:


er no - It's a bit more verbose than that. See the sticky threads.

muso wrote on Feb 9^th, 2010 at 10:42am:



And when was the climate in 'natural equilibrium'?

More importantly, you came up with the Chatelier bizo to show how cause and effect can be interchanged to explain away the hoistorical sequence of warming followed by increased CO2.
Applying equilibrium principles to the climate, it would mean that even though in the past Gaia increased her CO2 output in response to warming, now she is increasing her temperature in response to CO2. For the first time ever.

You are saying that by way of Chatelier's Principles of chemical equilibrium, since 1920, the after-effect of previous warmings (CO2) can become the cause of warming. At last, a 'retrospective cause'.

Because as every schoolboy knows, it's really a balance of warming and CO2 when you sit on the climate see-saw, it's only these two things that need to be in the equation. One way or another, it's gotta be that 8000 gigatonnes of CO2. That's an awful lot of lollies, even if it only means less than 0.05% of the total atmospheric gases.