Who said "Al Gore=Climate Science"? No-one here.

Um, right:

And you are saying there is no connection between what he was demonstrating and what the 'scientists' (none of whom have yet disassociated themselves from Gore's 'science') are claiming.

Do you now deny that Al Gore is a figurehead for AGW? Nobel Prize recipient?

or that Al Gore's demo goes to the basics of AGW?

On the thread topic of evidence: Al Gore is not a climate scientist. This is false equivalence. The relevant evidence is that from which the multi-disciplinary scientific consensus has emerged over several decades. Al Gore's demo was not a part of that body of evidence, so it is irrelevant.

All we are left with is the loudly unspoken conspiracy theory.

rhoda

I don't see myself as running rings around BBD. On the contrary, I am dug in on my question and BBD is the one going round in circles. If there can be no experimental evidence, just say so. If it is merely difficult to get, say that.

We've been through all this, right here, on this thread. Shall I post a list of every single question I asked that you did not answer?

rhoda

BBD, I am asking a question, not making a case for anything (on this thread). I don't need to answer your questions when they address my motives or are posed as a false dichotomy or straw man. In fact, I don't need to answer them at all. Why did you not take the opportunity to clear up the yes or no to the question in my last comment?

You don't have to answer my questions or admit when you are mistaken but your serial refusal speaks volumes. As you know, even though your fan base is oblivious.

As to the 'experimental evidence' meme; it is misdirection. The radiative properties of CO2 and indeed all atmospheric gasses were thoroughly quantified decades ago. If you *really* want to check, nothing is stopping you. Obviously you do not want to check or you would have done so, which demonstrates that this isn't about a search for knowledge at all. You are in fact making a case.

Misdirections like the 'missing evidence meme' fit in with the generalised insinuation that there's sloppiness, absence of evidence, cover-up, corruption and of course, 'dodgy data'.

There are only two reasons why people engage in this behaviour: emotions and politics. It has nothing to do with science.

But then we both knew that from the off, didn't we?

rhoda

Are you after confirmation of absorption and re-radiation of IR by CO2 or a model of the behaviour of the radiative-convective atmosphere from surface to TOA under increased CO2 forcing? I'm not even sure what you think you want at this point.

And I will not answer what you have plainly posed as gotcha questions.

Trans: I won't answer anything that I can't answer without conceding a point. Christ, I hope you don't rely on that in court.

(Note: standard behaviour when confronted by anything that challenges the dominant memes here is aggressive rejection and repeated attempts to shut that commenter down.)

rhoda

What is stopping me from ttempting an experiemnt? Apart from trivial things such as funding and practical problems with skill and gear, what is seriously stopping it is agreement beforehand that the experimentt is correctly configured to give a worthwhile result.

Since what I wrote is slightly ambiguous, I will take the blame for this. I meant 'check the literature describing the measurement, under laboratory conditions, of the absorption and re-radiation of IR by various gasses, but particularly the validation and subsequent refinement of early work done on the radiative properties of CO2'.

The standard IPCC description of GHE is that it is the result of back radiation from the LOWER troposphere [where CO2 and vapour is at it's maximum concentration] to the surface ie. a very localised effect with absolutely nothing to do with TOA.

Can you link to the html version of AR4 WG1 in which this standard description appears? Since it is radiative disequilibrium at TOA that causes the troposphere and surface to warm, I'm interested to see the reference.

rhoda

(ahem)

Are you after confirmation of absorption and re-radiation of IR by CO2 or a model of the behaviour of the radiative-convective atmosphere from surface to TOA under increased CO2 forcing? I'm not even sure what you think you want at this point.

This matters. Please clarify so we can continue.