I hear you put a lot of store by ALBEDO. Why did the Arctic ice come back this winter after such a LARGE albedo change??

Maybe for the same reason that even though CO2 has such a LARGE POSITIVE FEEDBACK affect the temps dropped precipitously last year even though CO2 is ALLEDGEDLY at historically record levels??

Maybe you can also explain why the galloping glaciers in Greenland have suddenly slowed back down to a trot??

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

One paper, even if peer reviewed, is not PROOF that hurricane strength is increasing. Try again.

Glaciers have been melting since the 1800′s. Try again.

.2 deg C per decade has been seen before. Try again.

Where is the ocean temp increase. According to recent paper using the unmanned buoys there has been none since 2003. Try again.

Where is the upper trop temp increase greater than surface and strat. Try again.

NASA just announced PDO flip. Along with the solar TSI reduction I guess WEATHER will COVER UP AGW AGAIN??

….

By the way, have you gotten any SINGLE model to actually match temp parameters with a reasonable accuracy??

I really get a kick out of alledged adults trying to act like a SUITE of Models with numerous FUDGE FACTORS have ANYTHING to tell us about climate!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Certainly, it is clear from this blog that the debate about climate is not over. I would expect “Scientist” would say “Only the f@#$ing deniars, full of s*%t and ignorance are debating”, but considering other things where the debate IS over (the Earth is round, etc.) we find no debates. Even if it is a significant group of non-scientists debating the issue, there IS debate. And debate is healthy, though I am concerned that I might catch some sort of digital dysentery from “Scientist”‘s comments…..

I’m sure any readers who have kids know that the ones that are yelling and screaming profanities, are usually wrong.

Stevo, you’re a patronising cunt. Fuck off.

I don’t think you can expect the evidence of mind-changing to be so obvious. The best you’ll likely get is that he stops arguing on a particular topic and ignores the question. I would assume that if he had a good answer he’d use it, so a sudden silence is possibly meaningful. Although he may just have got bored of it, or wants to concentrate his attack on what he perceives as the most vulnerable parts. It’s hard to tell.

I’m sure he’d tell you that for him to change his mind he’d have to be wrong, and that he isn’t. That has certainly been the attitude so far. He never concedes on anything. It gives a fascinating insight into a particular sort of mind set commonly found in Believers of various sorts. I’ve been having a think about the psychology of the phenomenon, although I don’t want to contaminate the experiment by talking about it. But I will be interested to see if even on an easy question on a point he himself raised, he can be coaxed into providing proper, unassailable evidence. He exhibits an interesting character, well worth a little study.

By the way…it is not strictly matter of politeness. A good argument is a good argument even when expressed rudely. The trouble is when rudeness is a substitute for arguing. One has only so much willingness to exchange views with somebody throwing toys out of the pram.

But the pattern I’m seeing is that you make a claim and then can’t seem to back it up. You instead demand that I back it up for you.
I’ve had a very quick look just now, and can’t see anything definitive. But I have here someone who has the information I’m interested in – who has clearly seen some evidence that modern GCMs now use 3D radiation code. It makes sense to ask, surely? Here’s your big chance! I’m actually asking for your contribution, seeking your expertise. Isn’t this what you’ve always wanted? Which GCMs use what methods and since when? It’s an easy enough question.

You misread, as ever. Your reference spoke of plane-parallel GCMs. These are not the only type of GCM. One doesn’t always need the most sophisticated model available to investigate a problem. There really is a very consistent pattern here, that you only read so far as you think you need to to confirm your preformed opinion.

Thanks for the reference, but it doesn’t seem to say which of the models use 3D radiation codes. Is that the link you intended? Whereas my reference did say that they used 1D codes. Although I suppose it’s possible that it’s only NASA who are behind the times. References do have to be relevant.

“This warming cannot be natural.” Excellent! Even the IPCC only give it 90%, but I’m clearly talking to a real expert here. Go on then. Prove it.

falsifies the claim that such warming cannot occur without anthropogenic input – strawman yourself. ‘Such’ warming can occur naturally. We understand this. This warming cannot be natural.

You think oceanic oscillations explain it all, do you? Please give us links to the work on that.

according to some researchers – and who might they be?

they used 3D models to generate parameterisations for the 1D models they used in GCMs – again, simple, basic misunderstandings. You just don’t understand where things are at. Try reading something basic, and try to learn rather than just assuming.

Apart from the first and last paragraph, that was almost civilised – you’re a complete fucking twat, Stevo.