I was actually talking about clouds, but ok. Perhaps the heat reflected by the clouds remains trapped in the atmosphere or is mainly absorbed by the clouds anyway.

And when I talked about limits, I wasn't talking about values. It surprises me that it is interpreted in this way. I was talking about theoretical limits to the (balanced) model, and I do hope that we can talk about the limits of the model since its so central in the debate about what the causes are about global warming.

Anyhow, I posed this earlier:

>I am actually convinced that global warming is real. The movie which started this thread of, actually acknowledges global warming also. I'd like to state one of its conclusions here: Al Gore, in 'an inconvenient truth,' shows how there is a strong correlation between global warming and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. That's real data, and I think its relatively trustworthy. However, what the 'great global warming swindle' remarks about the relation between global warming and levels of CO2, is that we should look at the direction of causality. According to that movie, CO2 development lags behind global temperature, indicating that a warmer earth causes more CO2 in the atmposphere, not the other way around. The lag is a couple hundred of years.

>I find that a highly relevant finding.

>Another finding is that, according to the same models which are used to predict the future climate, changes in the temperature of our earth (I mean overall increases in climate) should be observed most drastically in the higher regions of our atmosphere, which is where the larger amounts of greenhouse gasses are supposed to trap more sunlight. Measurements of temperature at these heights have been conducted for ages, by means of simple weather balloons. 'The great global warming swindle' argues that the measurements are in conflict with what the climate models predict.