Rob Weathers said on March 1, 2012 at 5:49 p.m. There is little doubt among scholars that climate variation exists and has existed for, as evolutionists would argue, millions of years. To take a 100 year climate snapshot through our myopic weather eye and proclaim that the current variation is based on human development would be equivalent to observing sunlight for a blink of an eye and insisting that nightfall ceases to exist.
Where is the intellectual honesty?
Spartacusisfree said on Oct. 12, 2011 at 7:23 a.m. Oh Dear! In 2007, modeller Jeff Kiehl summarised nine climate models and concluded that in time the CO2-AGW signal would rise out of 'aerosol noise'. Yup: there's absolutely no experimental proof of any net CO2-AGW.
As any professional engineer or physicist will confirm, 'back radiation' is really 'Prevost exchange energy' and can do no thermodynamic work. And the 'cloud albedo effect' cooling supposed to hide CO2-AGW is imaginary too, a mistake by Carl Sagan. Correct it and the sign reverses for thicker clouds.
In 2004 after NASA knew there was no experimental proof of the level of this cooling needed to prove 'high feedback' it claimed clouds with small droplets reflect more sunlight. There's no such physics. Look at any rain cloud and they're dark underneath because the droplets are large!
Two other errors; the amplification of TSI increase at the end of ice ages starts >2000 years before any CO2 rise and the cloud albedo heating effect, the real GW/AGW, is what triggers that process; we presently have c. 9K greenhouse warming, the IPCC's 33K is a deception because it includes lapse rate.
This 'science' is probably the biggest scientific fraud in History.