As you could imagine, receiving substantial answers from ‘very well known climate scientist’ would be unlikely if the questions were ill-informed.

I am not at liberty to say any more until I have been given permission to publish the exchange in Q&A format.

To be a useful contribution to the debate, the Q&A will be verbatim and any interpretation or conclusions drawn by me will be clearly identified and open for discussion.

Desperation is what you are showing kdkd – trying your old trick of setting exams for me. I would be happy to critique your summary of my arguments.

By the way, I have been talking to a very well known climate scientist and he/she has some very interesting responses to my questions. Receiving responses at all was quite edifying, and when I have some more answers I will seek permission to publish the Q&A from same scientist.

Suffice to say that what I have been writing about in the last two months or so has not been entirely based on my amateur musings.

Your paranoid conspiracy theory doesn’t wash. Edit up what you have to say so that it’s clearer, tighter and less rambling. Otherwise I’ll do it for you.

Your hypothesis may be internally consistent (I lack the skills to determine if it is fully), but when you relate it to observations, and when it becomes clear that you have to use lies in an attempt to support it then it does not concistent with the external evidence.

Another thought: find me an asymptotic function with an analogue in the real that plateaus suddenly and precipitously without warning. This is what you are claiming the climate system has done, or is going to do presently.

I have already engaged Gavin on Realclimate and he won’t come out to play. Same with John Cook.

That is the trick with all these AGW alarmist propaganda blogs posing as sober forums of scientific debate:

When a challenging and well argued post is made (Mr Peter for example), the controllers of the blog – Gavin Schmidt or John Cook is these cases can choose simply to ignore the argument made and not comment.

In this way the blog can be slanted so that only the weakest arguments are answered by the Gavins and Johns, and the tougher questions go through to the keeper or are argued by other bloggers with no particular standing.

Funny that – could it coincide with the current ‘lack of warming’….in fact all we are might now be seeing is the ‘natural noise’ signal on top of a 0.75 degC ‘plateau’?

It’s your lie and you’re sticking to it eh?

The decadal trend suggests that accellerating warming is a possiblity. That fact alone demonstrates clearly that your lie is obviously a lie.

Your alleged (delusional) minimum is clearly not correct as we have already experienced greater warming than that.

Anyway, ultimatum time, put up or shut up.

You’ve lost me. I strongly suspect that there’s an error caused by you injecting a key flawed assumption somewhere that fits your political beliefs rather than the actual evidence. The literature on climate sensitivity suggests I’m right too.

If you don’t write this up and present it somewhere credible with expertise on hand (realclimate is the obvious target) I’m going to do it for you. But seeing as I don’t really understand your work, there’s a strong chance that I’ll end up misrepresenting it.

Consider that an ultimatum. Given I’ve asked you to get someone who knows what they’re talking about a few times, and you’ve ignored the request preferring to spout to the ignoramuses on this board, I think it’s a fair ultimatum.

“Cloud albedo has a low LOSU and wide error bars in the IPCC AR4 Fig2.4 forcing numbers

Your assertion that forcings will approach zero on approach to a doubling of co2 relies on this assumption, and that the effect of this feedback will be at the extreme negative end of the range. You also have to ignore all positive feedback mechanisms to maintain consistency.”

WRONG.

It relies on the proposition that as the planet warms its OLR will increase in proportion to the 4th power of the absolute temperature ie; the Stefan-B Eqan. The change in OLR will be a negative feedback.

The positive forcings – chiefly CO2 GHG forcing is supposed to rise logarithmically and the negative forcing of OLR rises in proportion to the 4th power of absolute temperature.

All other forcings (+ and -) are assumed to remain the same (including cloud albedo).

T^4 beats ln () every time.

“Your house of cards just collapsed because you tried to balance a brick on top of it.”

Even your metaphors are infantile kdkd..

“And this is why I am dismissive of your hypothesis beyond you’ve provided a reasonable “minimum” estimate of climate sensitivity.’

Errr…..*Maximum* estimate of climate sensitivity kdkd – not minimum.

If you want a minimum sensitivity go for 0.4 – 0.6 degC kdkd, and subtract the temperature increase we have already had (0.75 degC) – which means that we have had it all…..

Funny that – could it coincide with the current ‘lack of warming’….in fact all we are might now be seeing is the ‘natural noise’ signal on top of a 0.75 degC ‘plateau’?

Cloud albedo has a low LOSU and wide error bars in the IPCC AR4 Fig2.4 forcing numbers

Your assertion that forcings will approach zero on approach to a doubling of co2 relies on this assumption, and that the effect of this feedback will be at the extreme negative end of the range. You also have to ignore all positive feedback mechanisms to maintain consistency.

Additionally, is assumption of an approach to zero forcings at doubling of co2 sound dubious and are not supported by the paleoclimate record. Doubling is also far too convenient a number and I would say that the risk is high that there’s a spurious artifact in your calculations causing this.

And this is why I am dismissive of your hypothesis beyond you’ve provided a reasonable minimum estimate of climate sensitivity.