1001;

Inside a climate model is everything that Mainstream Climate Science knows/deems necessary to predict climate future. Yet they fail time and time again. Even when validated by hind-casting, run them forward and there is a clear and consistent bias. Has it not occurred to you that there is something wrong with current MCS, something perhaps fundamental? If it has not then, against all evidence, your zeal is leading you astray. Ironically, in my opinion, the exact same problem that MCS suffers from.

Or you are just a troll - I'll keep an open mind on that one.

1001 you're quite cross aren't you? Why? All those people out there who believe in AGW and you come and rant at us. Surely we don't make a difference? Why not exhort the believers to put their carbon footprints where their mouths are? Or is that too hard?

Here's a question, open to all who say they understand this. What gets warmer, and what is actually heating it? Easy, isn't it?

1001: Nothing traps heat, it's a fundamental law of physics. You can prove it to yourself by putting boiling water in a vacuum flask and leaving it for a week. It will be colder. You could even fill the vacuum with CO2 and it would still be colder. CO2 "trapping~" heat is part of the lexicon of panic "trapped" heat gives the impression it's here to stay.

interesting you mentioned night temperatures in the desert though, because they fall by 30 - 40C, yet there is same CO2 in the desert as there is in the tropics where temperatures fall by just a few degrees in the night. Why do you think that is? They both have the same quantity of CO2 in the atmosphere don't they?

There's nothing wrong with not having qualifications so don't let yourself be cowed by TBYJ's three degrees, if you were a little less histrionic and certain of your knowledge you would almost certainly learn something from him.

Richard Drake might very well say that we will see more of these "AGW refugees" here over the next couple of years. They see they are losing, so they come here to see what they're losing to, and fire off a few rounds of frustration across our bows. They are to be pitied more than anything.

I wonder if Richard would try to befriend him. Has he tried on any other threads?

"Michael Hart, you probably need to re-read the SoD article you linked to if you think "stratospheric cooling by CO2" is relevant. Perhaps start with some of the introductory articles."

Thanks for the invitation, but I already have read plenty of the other articles. The comments are often as valuable as the articles. I actually posted the link for your benefit, in case you really were interested, or wanted to learn something. My mistake.

Ssat, something wrong with climate models? Probably true. Something fundamentally wrong with the broad understanding of CO2 being discussed here. Very unlikely.

TinyCO2, cross? Not really. Amused, for sure. I just asked a simple question

Aug 24, 2013 at 2:10 PM | 1001: "Carbon dioxide traps heat". Are you bothered by the concept? It's not new.

Aug 24, 2013 at 2:14 PM | Mike Jackson: Not new, 1001; just wrong. We've moved beyond that hyper- simplistic explanation and there are plenty of threads on this site and elsewhere that explain why.

Aug 24, 2013 at 5:35 PM | 1001 ... You have moved beyond basic physics - what does that mean? You and Martin-A don't think CO2 traps heat in the way that has been understood for a century? Or what? I don't understand whether you think the 'greenhouse' action of CO2 should not be taught as a fact or just that you think it doesn't hold the answer to life the universe and everything (which nobody would dispute).

There is no controversy about the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere, yet all I get is a mish mash about 'trapping' when taken literally not being quite as accurate a term as people would like, followed by someone with three "science" degrees (could include domestic science for all I know) promising: "scientifically, we will eat you for breakfast, lunch and dinner."

Later it turns out that some of the "we" are so thoroughly confused about the properties of atmospheric CO2 that if they had to rely on their scientific knowledge to obtain breakfast, lunch or dinner they'd go hungry.

Rhoda, the Earth, the Sun. Yes, easy.

Geronimo, though probably not meaning to, you put your finger on it. The obsession with a simple word reflects a determination that nothing give the "impression" that increased heat from higher CO2 levels is in any way permanent. Nothing to do with science!

1001 amused? Why? What’s funny about people not cutting CO2? If you think we don’t understand AGW then why not try to improve the message? “Carbon dioxide traps heat. Are you bothered by the concept? It's not new” you wrote. Well apart from it being a very vague and unscientific claim, the answer is clearly “no, we are not concerned”. Unfortunately for you, neither is anyone else. Doesn’t that point to the weakness of your grand claim? TheBigYinJames started the thread by writing that the scare stories were dwindling, and so they are. Everyone’s so bored with the subject that people like you have to hunt sceptic threads for anyone who will even listen. It’s hard being green.

However, 10 out of 10 for inventing a new daft simile for CAGW. Though I thought people trapped in a submarine was a little melodramatic and might lead people to think that it was the CO2 in the sailors breath that imperilled them. I think they might run out of oxygen before the CO2 trapped heat killed them.

I wouldn't feed the troll with the humanities degree, if I were you.

"Social Studies And Gender Politics at Loughborough with a Specialism in Whining" is my guess.

Those three hard science degrees at a Russell Group uni really REALLY hurt him.

Geronimo, you beat me to it... must be that shared North Wales water

1001 complains that BigYin's thought experiment is invalid, because the sun going out is impossible. So how about this - we construct a giant sun shield at L1 (first Lagrange point). What would be the resultant average surface temperature of the Earth? (in your answer ignore Lunar reflectance).

Here's another one: what would the effect of doubling atmospheric CO2 to 0.08% be in the dry desert on daytime surface temperature, night time surface temperature and average surface temperature?

1001: Did you ever give any consideration to the fact that the diurnal temperatures in deserts can vary by 30 -40C while in the tropics with the same CO2 they only vary by 3-6C?

OK everybody listen up. The poster TheBigYinJames has three degrees. Yes that's right three. He has them hanging on his wall to give him moral support when he posts here, a sort of silent confirmation of how clever he is. Did I mention there are three of them? And from a good university too, not some tarted-up poly, he'll have you know. He doesn't say which science but you can be sure it was hard! Damn hard! Well he found it hard anyway. Hopefully everyone knows now how very silly it would be to say anything that he disagrees with because, with 3 (three) degrees he is certain to know much more than you do. About anything! He has the whole of science covered, leave it to him and busy yourselves with something else. Got it? Three degrees.

TinyCO2, maybe people here would not see the humour. Self awareness and self-parody are more associated in my mind with humility and self-deprecation. These are not characteristics likely to be dominate on a blog that considers itself to know better than the climate science community. Arrogance is more de rigueur here.

"Doesn’t that point to the weakness of your grand claim?" - what grand claim would that be? That CO2 traps heat? You confirm that yourself, as does the 'Bish' (or so I read in the 97% thread). Oh you won't call it 'trapping' but substitute 'delaying for a very long time' and you're there.

Geronimo, the temperature profile of deserts obviously fascinates you, but it is a red herring. CO2 is not the only influence on temperature. Nobody ever said it was.

We are in a waiting game. As TBYJ started this thread, things have gone quiet. Both sides are waiting for nature to make the next call. There will be another ripple of enthusiasm when AR5 comes out but it's been so pre-empted by leaks from both sides that there's very little heat to be generated from it. What can either side do but take pot shots? 1001 being here is proof that we're winning. He/she would rather sneer at our understanding of the CO2 temperature relationship than try and tackle the public's lack of support. Of course they're influenced by the greatest sceptic of all, Gaia. Silly thing can't have read the IPCC reports.

What will happen next? This winter is going to be interesting. The release of the report in September is obviously timed for peak hurricane season and minimum Arctic ice. That might prove to be a tactical error. LOL. Another cold and snowy winter might be the sort of straw that breaks the media camel's back. Will it happen? Dunno. Unlike the climate scientists I've never had the err "Self awareness... self-parody... humility and self-deprecation" to be able to predict the climate future.

"TinyCO2, maybe people here would not see the humour. Self awareness and self-parody are more associated in my mind with humility and self-deprecation. These are not characteristics likely to be dominate on a blog that considers itself to know better than the climate science community. Arrogance is more de rigueur here."

Every had a discussion with a proponent of CAGW? Self-awareness, self-parody, humility (that one is a missing a self) and self-deprecation. Selfless in every way. I never knew.

Or would you need to look in the mirror for that, admire the halo?

Your criteria for differentiation of rough and ready bloggites contributing here, and the implied saintly predispositions of the opposition are very interesting. May I assume you place yourself in the second group?

Another tail-puller. We had one like that. He left. He was far better at it than you.

I don't actually have my degrees up on the wall, they are in a drawer somewhere, been a few house (and country) moves since I got them. I pointed to them as a figurative gesture to let the troll know that I wasn't about to be intimidated by a humanities grad coming here to tell us about the wonders of science. It was the equivalent to the Haka the All Blacks do before a match, I didn't think it would actually scare the troll quite that badly.

Richard Drake seems in a particularly bad mood today.

Sounds like you've been through the mill a bit during my hiatus, Richard, sorry to add to it, albeit accidentally.