Happening in Antarctica : Lenticular Clouds in Antarctica?

Are there lenticular clouds in Antarctica? I recall seeing them hugging the top of Mt. Erebus, so evidently they are present. This suggests the possibility that surface topography influences climate. I wonder if climate models take this topographic-cloud effect into account? Well, actually, clouds are an embarrassment to climate modelers. The climate crisis may come and go long before the problem of clouds is solved.

Well lets make a few climate runs. Interesting... runaway global cooling. Oh ... That should be a minus sign. Okay, now. Run this again. Wow ! Runaway global warming. There seems to be some undesired feedback, so let me fix that term to a constant. Oh, time is up. Damned computer is slow. I need to write my abstract. What should I say? To be safe, I must say my model seems to indicate runaway climate warming! And we have a definite need for more powerful computers.

In my post of February 6th entitled "Happening in Antarctica : Climate terror!", I indicated :

Right from the beginning the problem of the climate was linked to the problem of clouds. Who could predict them? What causes them?

In the February 15th issue of Science, p. 889, In "Another Side to the Climate-Cloud Conundrum Finally Revealed" , Richard A. Kerr says (as if to respond to my blog and in a politically sensitive manner induce the community to consider clouds) :

Clouds have always given climate modelers fits. The clouds in their models are crude at best, and in the real world, researchers struggle to understand how clouds are responding to—and perhaps magnifying—greenhouse warming. As a result, cloud behavior is the biggest single source of uncertainty in climate prediction.

I tried to consider Dr Kerr's model, and to make it work I let the ground heat up before the cloud rolled over. I assumed, you know, that the cloud would form. And I found, I believe, the ground heating will dissipate the cloud slightly faster without the CO2. But this really does cause one to pause and reconsider...

Scientists and politicians are not fooled about the Man-Induced Climate Warming (MIGW) Hoax : not really. Who is fooled? Possibly Bush, the Hindus and the Chinese, right? We, as scientists must learn to say these things sincerely, and convincingly, if we have not already. I am worried though, about NAS and NRC giving the president a bunch of bull, and then in the future, if it should ever happen that scientists need urgent consideration, that we will not believe them.
I would say their credibility is in the toilet. They have dishonored themselves. We were hoping for innovation. I wonder if the global scientific community actually believes it is really the end of science, we having reached the limits of knowledge. If so, why are we wasting our money?

When the president needs the word on global warming, we all know who he goes to : John Marburger and Ed Gillespie. With this new cloud information, John and Ed, we are turning the corner here. Even so :

John Marburger refuses to stand up to big polluters and act to reduce dangerous greenhouse gases, the cause of global warming. Despite overwhelming consensus in the scientific community, John Marburger denies that the "science is in" on carbon emissions causing global warming and instead repeats right wing propaganda funded by oil and gas companies.

Can you believe it? He says the models are not good enough. That'll be a few carbon demerits for him. He better pad the budget to improve those models, right? It is the least he can do.

Let me see now. Scientists should tell local people about global issues like global warming, so they will write their Congressman to increase their science budgets. That is like giving your job to the Chinese, skimping on petrol so the Chinese can use it, and then thanking the scientist for telling you to do this for yourself. In this way, we the US, can promote slave labor, and aggressive Communism. What do they take us for? Why not do the opposite and request a budget reduction of about 50%, to separate the wheat from the chaff?

There are scientists also considering that the US scientific community take a loyalty oath, and I'm all for that. The sooner the better.