>> I'm on the side of "Question authority" and you seem to be on the side of "Accept authority". That's fine, but I'm not interested in taking conclusions as gospel simply because NASA says so, no matter how many models nor lines of code were used.

> I never said that.

You did quote bloomberg "ModelE2 contains something on the order of 500,000 lines of code, and is run on a supercomputer at the NASA Center for Climate Simulation in Greenbelt, Maryland." that line. If you don't think it was important, why quote it to me? Maybe I was misinterpreting you, but..

> What I've said was:

>> Everybody who has enough knowledge to be able to check the formulas and who has enough integrity to admit what he didn't know, and who doesn't have some hidden agenda would have to come to the same conclusion. Read the pages on his site.

Everybody with enough knowledge has to come to the same conclusion, huh? That's a lot of hubris.

> If you can't understand this:

> http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page20.htm http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page21.htm

> and this:

> http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page8.htm

> just don't ask me anymore for the proofs,

I read through these, and I do understand them.

Basically "http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page8.htm" is modeling a outside radiation source penetrating an outer atmosphere layer which allows 100% of it go through it. Then the earth radiates back to the layer which absorbs and reemits it, half back to earth, and half into space. The forces have to be in balance for the temperature average to stay in equilibrium. The conclusion is that the absorption/emission of the atmosphere at 0% would mean the earth would be a lot cooler 253K, and at 100% would be a lot hotter, 302K, so it must be somewhere inbetween. Therefore there is a greenhouse effect.

I never argued against the fact that there is a greenhouse effect, so although interesting, I don't see how it affects anything at all.

I looked at the other two links from that site, and see that co2 blocks a certain wavenumber band. Fine.

Lets take a look at page 28, however: http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page28.htm

"The intention is to show the logarithmic nature of the relationship between CO2 and surface temperature, i.e., the temperature rises non-linearly with every successive addition of CO2 causing smaller effects. "

So here is the answer to something I suspected. The amount of co2 in the air becomes saturated at greater amounts. If you look at the graph, from 400ppm today, it will take up to 1000 ppm of co2 to increase the temperature effect as from 200ppm to 400ppm. So for we're only talking about a degree or two.

I think that scientists have made a lot of progress modeling the atmosphere because its so simple but the rest of the earth is much more complex and their models are, to put it bluntly, crap. The author agrees with me:

From http://www.barrettbellamyclimate.com/page48.htm :

"There is an absence of nits to pick in the physics of the greenhouse effect, but there are many incorporated in the various models. The fact that the twenty or so models all claiming to incorporate the same physics produce different results for temperature changes, cloud cover and rainfall indicates that something is wrong. These are early days in the development of climate models and it is expected that they will become more believable in the future. "

So what seems to be happening is that because they have this small effect from co2 modeled pretty well, and since it's not enough to explain the larger fluctuations of temperature through earths history, they try and find a way to make it seem as a lever to affect a larger change. I think they are subconsciously doing this... since it is the path of least resistance to finding an interesting, measurable formula by incorporating another rock solid one into it.

I also found an answer to my same question on that page about why temperature seems to precede co2 increases, not the other way around for the last 800k years at least, from co2levels.org . You've been ignoring me on this point for 3 replies now, so I doubt you'll respond, but just to let you know:

"Our comment: There is considerable misunderstanding of the ice-core records that do show that ~800 years after a temperature rise following an ice-age the concentration of CO2 increases. Not even the possibly exaggerated general circulation models can explain the ending of an ice-age by the appearance of large amounts of CO2. They end by various possible mechanisms. A change in the Earth’s orbital characteristics might increase the value of solar input to the Earth. Volcanic activity could deposit material on the snow/ice coverage that alters the planet’s albedo; the fraction of solar radiation reflected by the system. If this is the case the planet would warm up and this would have the consequence of releasing CO2 from the oceans and increasing the amount of water vapour in the lower atmosphere. This would, in consequence warm the system by the greenhouse effect and release more CO2 and water vapour… "

So the author explains it away with volcanos, sun spots and earths distance from the sun. Hmm... sounds a little vague for such large fluctuations, don't you think? Could it possibly be, that even with their complex and conflicting models, scientists don't actually know what caused these fluctuations back then? And further, that a small change in temperature due to co2 does not have a lever effect causing the larger change needed for these disastrous predictions? I suppose it so.

Now, couple that with all the "adjustments" to historical temperature data. Yes, they have excuses, measurements being taken at different times of day from before, older inaccurate equipment, change of environment, etc. I'd accept that if they changed it a couple of times, but they seem to have done it a lot. And there are a lot of other suspicious stuff going on. Why is there a temperature station now between the runways of a heavy trafficked airport (see the first link)?

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2018/01/25/new...
https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/g...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/08/23/australian-met-office...
https://realclimatescience.com/2017/01/systematic-destructio...

Call me a conspiracy theorist if you like, but the temptation is there. Along with the general attitude of trying to suppress skeptics by the liberal media, liberal college bias and liberal institutions.

Anyway, barretbellamyclimate.com is a lot better than I first thought. So thank you for that.

I don't know why you think I need to understand the models that are not predictive in order to form an opinion. I will go through the rest of that site, but I don't think I need to delve deeper into theory that creates models that conflict with each other in order to form opinion on the predictions of the scientists who use those models as their basis.