I'll start with a few basic questions for you-
What is the hydrologic cycle and what is the amount of energy released during the phase changes?
If you didn’t understand these terms, you could have just asked for an explanation rather than devising this ruse and pretending that you are an expert. If you understood the terms, you would have simply stated them without fear that you would be wrong and be corrected in public.
The hydrologic cycle is the cycle of water. Evaporation, followed by precipitation which in turn either evaporates again, or seeps into the earth and become ground water. Most groundwater either finds its way back into streams, rivers and oceans or is transpired back into the atmosphere via plants.
With regards to energy and phase changes, there is not always an energy release. The more proper question would address the utilization of energy during phase changes since energy release, or energy absorption all depends upon which phase the water begins in and which phase it is moving to.
And this very question leads to the reason that climatology is a pseudoscience and not an actual science. The atmosphere is too complex by orders of magnitude and too dependent on various factors such as geothermal energy, oceans, and radiation from the sun to be reduced, even in part, to single causes like the utilization of energy during the phase change of water. And as I pointed out earlier, while climatologists know that the bulk of the atmospheric energy budget exists in no other form but latent heat, they really don’t have any real understanding of how this latent heat circulates in the atmosphere or even what its key role in climate change is and they are a very long way from understanding how energy conversions into it and from it effect the global climate.
If they had any real understanding of the mechanics of this movement and transfer of latent heat, the knowledge could be used to accurately predict weather months or years out instead of hours out.
How does the Greenhouse Effect work with regards to ozone, water vapour, methane, carbon dioxide and how does it affect the upper troposhere winds?
First off, ozone, methane, and CO2 are minor greenhouse gasses. The major greenhouse gas is water vapor and it accounts for as much as 90% of the greenhouse effect. It should be noted that none of the computer climate models presently in use factor water vapor into their calculations since climate pseudoscientists have no real understanding of the role of water vapor on global climate. Presently, the study of the greenhouse effect on upper tropospheric winds are studies of “total clear sky” greenhouse effect studies because they have no real understanding how varying amounts of water vapor fit into, and effect the overall equation.
Once again, this exposes the pseudoscience of climatology. Climatic calculations of the greenhouse effect that neglect the gas that has the most profound effect are of little value and until there is a thorough enough understanding of how varying amounts and densities of atmospheric water vapor influence the entire troposphere, “clear sky” studies of greenhouse effects on any part of the troposphere (or atmosphere for that matter) are simply trivia and have no real value with regard to the actual global climate.
What is a carbon sink, and what is the most effective kind?
A carbon sink is any environment that captures more carbon than it releases. And what is the most effective kind? This question once again exposes the pseudoscientific nature of climatology. There is no clear consensus on what is the most effective. There are those who say that the ocean (particularly the north atlantic) is the most effective carbon sink but since warm water can’t hold carbon as well as cool water, and the earth is in a natural warming trend, its ability to hold carbon is being diminished. Then there are those who say that forests and vegetation are the most effective carbon sinks but they are vulnerable to fire and will release enormous amounts of stored carbon if they catch fire. Then there is the idea of substances like soil char which results from the partial burning of field crops, for example, being the most effective carbon sinks.
The entire CO2 discussion is somewhat pointless however since rising CO2 levels are the result of the warming of the earth and not the cause. We know from ice core data that CO2 levels lag behind rising temperatures and never preceeded a temperature rise. One more example of the pseudoscientific nature of climate science and its inability to hold itself to rigorous standards.
The very fact that you ask such questions in the belief that their answers will prove that climatology is not a pseudoscience is a clear indication that you not only don't understand the science, but you don't yet understand how much you don't know.
You are kidding, right? The hockey stick was blatant fraud. It could not be replacated using the data set provided with it. 
