Of course I could be wrong and actually it's ALL rubbish.

MJ - and rather transparently manipulative too...

"I have no relevant high level qualifications and I have insufficient time to read, let alone understand, enough of the many scientific papers on climate-related topics that I would need to come to my own informed conclusion on the science. Hence I have to trust the opinions of others. The real question then is who am I going to trust - cos I sure don't trust myself?"

"You confuse me and I think you are confused yourself. Do you believe that CO2 causes an energy imbalance or not? If you do, then do you really doubt that most of the resulting accumulated energy goes into the oceans? You won't have trouble finding graphs that show increasing OHC but you claim there has been no increase. As by your own admission, you are not that knowledgable, you are presumably relying on someone else to tell you that OHC is not increasing. Do your sources have any more idea on the subject than you?"

Pure ad-hom from the Jackson. There's a surprise. Actually HaroldW is one of the more reliable commenters here (and not in the little-g geronimo sense).

splitpin (I presume you also insist on a little-s), manipulative? I don't get it. If you are going to trust someone on something it makes sense to trust someone who is in a position to know, not someone who is just loud and opinionated. I would never suggest Maestra2014 trust my opinion on anything related to climate science, nor yours, nor geronimo's, nor Andrew Montford's or his favourite dog astrology journal, nor Watts, nor the potty peer (especially not) etc. She should read what people who know and study climate write and think (and not in the Jacksonian, journalistic, sense of the word "study").

I guess I am barking up the wrong tree to expect consistency from anyone here. It is clearly a core skill of the pseudoskeptic to accept for example that there is an energy imbalance and yet deny that the oceans are warming; or to deny what we know about present global temperatures but be certain about climate of the last 10000 years and write fairytales about individual blocks of ice drifting through the Fram Strait.

Martin, a nice summary of the process.

You missed out;

6) Another one turns up out of the blue and starts the whole charade over again.

One might almost think it was coordinated somewhere.

Martin, the common thread missing from your timeline is that in each case a highly inteligent 'troll' is confronted by crass ignorance and stupidty and in the face of numerous insults descends to the level of the baying crowd.

Well, maybe I'm projecting too boldly from a rather poor sample size (of 1), but I am comfident my hypothesis is robust.

On imbalances, it is of course dificult to guess what any of you really believe from day to day. I think it changes depending upon the hour and the argument. That is my conclusion from the ability of many here to express apparently conflicting views of the science. For what it is worth (and I admit that may not be much) I took as my starting point the unreliable word of little-g (Page 1. Jan 27, 2014 at 8:03 AM | Unregistered Commentergeronimo) that

> "Increased carbon dioxide will increase temperature. True"

a belief that he ascribes to "most people in the sceptical camp", to which nobody that I noticed objected.

> The only reason for believing there is an imbalance is
> that this has been indicated by climate models.

My understanding is that CO2's properties as a greenhouse gas are well understood and that increasing quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere are the source of the imbalance. That view seems to be universally agreed by text books and learned people outside your small community and indeed, unless I have misread, is shared by the author of Science of Doom, a website that I seem to remember you have complimented for its unbiased presentation of the science. If you disagree, maybe you should outline your reasons at SoD - I'm sure you will get a sympathetic audience if you express your misgivings in the same measured tone I have seen you use there.

Chandra, think laterally,

If "Increased carbon dioxide will increase temperature" = true
If "An energy imbalance exists" = not true

Are those statements mutually incompatible using standard physics?

A yes or no will suffice.

ssat, your question makes me think you don't really even understand the first of those statements, let alone "standard physics". Ask yourself why increased CO2 would increase temperature and you are half way there.

Chandra, really, stop digging. You already admitted you don't understand this stuff but just blindly believe the "experts" whose work most closely supports your worldview, you don't have to keep proving it.

You know what guys, this is masstra2014's thread, and we've all been complicit in letting a Buffoon ( with a capital "B"), derail it. Apart from distorting everything that's said to him, he ignores the corrections and questions and persists in a juvenile attempt to get people to lose their temper. It is a credit to you all that you've dealt with this annoying Cretin (with a capital "C") in measured tones attempting to reason with him, but to no avail. I'm not a psychologist (practising that is) but there seems to be an extremely flawed human being under this Chandra title. The sort whose curtains twitched in days gone by and who wrote anonymous letters to the council accusing their neighbours of miscellaneous crimes and misdemeanours. So let's leave him to masking his self-doubts with shows of spite and contumely (add that to your vocabulary along with "cogent") and give the thread back to masstra2014.

NW, I differ from many of you in that I don't try to pretend to know more than I do. If I have been mistaken in what I have written, please correct me, I'd be glad to learn. But I don't appreciate people who know no more than me (and I think there are a lot of them here) waving the laws of thermodynamics like a dirty handkerchief or lecturing me about "standard physics".

More pure ad-hom, this time from the little-g man. He and journo-Jackson make a good pair. I can picture then both sitting in their comfy chairs in their cardigans with their tea and Chocolate Hob Nobs, wiping the spit of their laptop screens. Get back to reading about dogs and their starsigns, boys.

Chandra, you appeared in this thread to challenge my understanding of the "issues" as I understand them. I have remained relatively quiet as I am very fond of the phrase, "don't bring a knife to a gunfight." I'm not in any position to tell you that you're right or wrong regarding your claims. Not my job. However, from a simple position of decorum, you've only served to underscore my original purpose for coming here to ask for feedback. I grew so tired of the badgering, browbeating and accusations I witnessed from the AGW camp. Here's my question: if you are so adamant that you are correct, and if that feeling brings you contentment, then why bother coming here, apart from being a malcontent? I don't think your current approach is a particularly successful one, so on those grounds alone I've tuned you out. A pity, as I was willing to give you a fair shake. But, as we say in the States, "I'm over it."

masstra2014 welcome back. As I explained before we may be wrong on this site, so do look elsewhere. However keep this in mind, the arguments about energy imbalances, arctic sea ice, OHC, the temperature records, missing heat, extreme weather events and the myriad other side issues which deflect normal people from thinking about the issues are interesting, but not informative. The one thing you need to believe in this whole shambles is that there are people around who can foretell the future. Believe that and you're a warmist. Me? I think if they could really foretell the future they'd probably have spent their time winning money at the tables in Las Vegas rather than trying to frighten us all with scary scenarios. But, of course, I don't know for sure.

maestra2014, have you caught little-g syndrome? You came here as Maestra2014 but I think you are not who you once were. My guess is that you are now little-g himself, whoever you were before.

You (little-m) asked me for some "cogent" (a word favoured by little-g, who fancies himself as a wordsmith) refutations and I gave you some. little-g thanked me for my reply, which seemed odd, if you had asked the question. And now you berate me, rather than being critical of the many who attack me rather than what I said.

If you really do think what I said was incorrect, I'd like to hear why. Go on, don't be shy, explain your reasoning. If on the other hand you have no idea which of us is right, you will fit right in here - you can start right now slagging off climate models (always an easy target) accusing the whole scientific world of fraud or fabrication or whatever and of course don't forget to gen up on items of sports equipment. I suggest you work on your ability to believe several contradictory "facts" at the same time, remember never to contradict a fellow know-nothing when they say something obviously ignorant and take out a subscription to the dog astrology journal - essential reading for those at Bishop Hill. Go for it!

Martin, SoD's 7'th part of its series on CO2 says this in conclusion:

We can have a lot of confidence that the calculations of the radiative forcing of CO2 are correct. The subject is well-understood and many physicists have studied the subject over many decades. (The often cited "skeptics" such as Lindzen, Spencer, Christy all believe these numbers as well). Calculation of the "radiative forcing" of CO2 does not have to rely on general circulation models (GCMs), instead it uses well-understood "radiative transfer equations" in a "simple" 1-dimensional numerical analysis.

There's no doubt that CO2 has a significant effect on the earth's climate - 1.7W/m2 at top of atmosphere, compared with pre-industrial levels of CO2.

If I understand you correctly, because these 1-d models are 'unvalidated', we can ignore the decades of study that has led to the current understanding of CO2.

> I acknowledge that nothing I say is likely to change your outlook

No you are wrong. I promise to admit defeat and proclaim myself skeptical of what I have believed to be true if you can convince SoD that the following statements from part 7 and 8 of the CO2 series can be fairly regarded, in your words, "as a form of theology", and as "faith, not science":

"There's no doubt that CO2 has a significant effect on the earth's climate - 1.7W/m2 at top of atmosphere, compared with pre-industrial levels of CO2." is untrue,"

"Doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels will lead to an increased "radiative forcing" of around 3.7 W/m2, and this part of climate science at least, is well understood."

Oops, delete the is untrue," from the 2nd to last paragraph.

Martin A: You're wasting your time, he thinks he's brilliant and we're dickheads, so whatever you say he ignores, because he's got SoD on his side and that's telling him that CO2 increase will cause an increase in radiative forcing therefore the temperature must go up. Moreover he believes he's found an inside track that we're unaware of that CO2, all other things being equal, will cause the atmosphere to warm.. Eventually, you have to hope that he'll turn the page on his "Janet and John Do Climate Science" text book and discover the difficulties, not to say impossibilities, of predicting the behaviour of a coupled non-linear chaotic system. Well according to the scientists that is. TAR WG1 14.2.2.2. for what the scientists think.

I wonder what SoD has to say about the pause, a rise by 5% of CO2 with no concomitant atmospheric warming?

Chandra, at the moment there is a trickle of people looking for detail on climate change. They come looking for more than the two dimensional, dumbed down, lowest common denominator, trust me I’m a scientist version of the situation. They want, no need, as much relevant information as possible. They don’t want just half the story. Yes, sceptics mostly highlight the doubts but then they don’t need to go through the main stream stuff, that’s everywhere. Your side needs a more grown up version of the science than Al’s crappy movie, so use some of the huge sums thrown at CAGW and produce a decent attempt at explaining things. It needs to be accurate and up to date. It should be honest about the issues because it doesn’t take much effort to find them on the internet. If you skate over the problems with the science, people will see that as a weakness or even deliberate lying. Your side needs to get its act together fast because the trickle will become a flood and at the moment your side has nothing to point people to that isn’t vastly over simplified or incredibly complex and stuck behind a pay wall.

You also need to address your attitude. You made a very good demonstration of the consensus treatment of those asking questions. You were, and continue to be, rude and arrogant. You have not offered better explanations or links than those presented here. Yes, I know that you’re just one person (probably) but if you only have limited time then tackle one issue and do it well. If you don’t understand the science well enough to defend it properly then that just proves my point about the public version of the science being too simplified. You forget that your side is asking an immense amount. The idea that people will drop all the benefits of fossil fuels on the say so of a few scientists and their computers is ludicrous. You guys need humility for what you’re asking and an eagerness to help people understand. You are a typical consensus messenger and if CAGW is real, that’s sad, because you’re your own worst enemy.

I differ from many of you in that I don't try to pretend to know more than I do.

No, you insist that we don't know more than you do.
It is evident that this is incorrect.

Basic physical properties are fundamental to the climate system, as they are to everything. They are not however sufficient on their own to explain or predict it, which is why the models fail. Scientists as a body do not have a complete understanding of complex physical processes. You need a certain amount of knowledge of and in the field to understand how limited that understanding actually is.

Excellent words, NW. That gets to the core of the issue.