On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 23:11:35 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 18/11/15 20:49, mcp wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2015 09:38:27 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 09/11/2015 23:19, mcp wrote:

Conclusions:

(1) CO2 doesn't play a major part in determining climatic temperature.

Unless someone's repealed the conservation of energy, Planck's law or
changed the transmission spectrum of CO2 it definitely does.

No it doesn't.

The alarmists have had to introduce forcing factors into their models to
get the results we see. In other words the CO2 doesn't make a
significant contribution, its claimed to make other effects worse which
is not the same thing.

There is little known about these forcing effects and why they exist
other than that they have to be in the model to get the results.

Then there is the other problem, the models have been unable to predict
the future so the forcing effects used have never been correct. This is
because they don't understand them.

However don't let facts get in the way just continue to believe^W insist
its CO2 that's the problem and bend everything to ensure its CO2 that is
the problem. If it doesn't fit in five years time just come up with some
scare stories and bend something else.

Things like water vapour has the biggest effect on climate is a good
fact that you may like to investigate.

Of course water vapour has the biggest radiative effect but the amount
of water in the atmosphere is driven by temperature. I love the way
this fact always gets trotted out as if it's some kind of relevation.


Try and learn to read and write, dear boy.
Revelation.

Of course the issue is does water vapour make the world warmer or
cooler, and what happens when it rises*above* the bulk of the CO2 laden
atmosphere and turns into ice and snow..releasing huge amounts of energy
to space and reflecting back even more sunlight energy before it gets here..

Not in the models? Oh dear oh dear.

Of course it's in the models,