G'day Dan,

Can't resist while I was visiting. To your very logical last post, what about clouds? What about reflection, refraction etc? What about the simple truth to greenhouses. Any "greenhouse" effect relating to retaining radiation is grossly more than cancelled out by the fact that less radiation gets in in the first place.

But really, what about clouds? One could argue about CO2 only having an effect in specific wave lengths or that in the past there has been much higher concentrations of CO2 and at the same time a major cooling even has occurred but its clouds I'd like to see you address.

You're right, you can't repeal the laws of physics but just which law says that CO2 actually warms the planet? So what that it MIGHT trap thermal energy, so does water vapour, about 35 times the moderating thermal effect of CO2, yet water vapour also REDUCES the world's temperature by reflecting solar radiation straight back out into space over various latitudes of the earth, prevents the tropics from overheating, increases the temperature of the upper latitudes because of refraction etc etc.

So just where are the calculations that include clouds?

I don't expect a sensible answer but for those that actually like to think about the science that interests them, this question does deserve decent consideration.


Regards


Richard

Sane=fits in. Unreasonable=world needs to fit to him. All Progress requires unreasonableness