The effects on the world’s weather, environments and wildlife could be devastating

Like they were back in th 40’s and 50’s Damien? OPEN WATER at the North Pole when the USS Skate surfaced there on March 17, 1959

Like or Dislike: 1  0

“…the oceans are not continuously warming—a conclusion not consistent with the idea that the oceans may be harboring “warming in the pipeline.” Douglass further notes that the team found no correlation between the shifts and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration.”

From: http://www.physorg.com/news169472486.html

Original Source: University of Rochester

How many clear examples of counter factual evidence is it going to take to put the AGW (aka man caused Climate Change)fraudulent fear mongering down for good?

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Damien: “I disagree with the premise of a signature… ”

I say: Read the report from the CCSP. The word “fingerprint” (same meaning in this context) is used 50 times in this chapter. It’s in their own words. The fingerprint of greenhouses gases includes warming in the upper trophosphere.

The link:
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap1.pdf

The discussion is on this page http://joannenova.com.au/2008/10/26/the-missing-hotspot/

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Damien writes:

Hi Jo, I am sorry for calling Mr Evans “dishonest”. I disagree with the premise of a signature but I certainly admit I could have worded it more diplomaticaly! And I’m willing to choose my words more carefully in future if you reconsider blocking my posts.
But also, it is only fair that the others are made to toe the line as well. That would be appreciated.

Oh by the way …

Sunday 26 July 2009
Revealed: the secret evidence of global warming Bush tried to hide
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jul/26/climate-change-obama-administration

Photos from US spy satellites declassified by the Obama White House provide the first graphic images of how the polar ice sheets are retreating in the summer. The effects on the world’s weather, environments and wildlife could be devastating

Regards,
Damian

Like or Dislike: 0  1

No more posts from Damien without a sincere apology.

After many baseless irrational claims from someone dominating discussion with at times nonsensical positions you have reached your limit.

We are here for honest conversation using Aristotelian principles of logic. That means we expect people to acknowledge good answers, concede points where they are wrong, and apologize unreservedly for baseless insults.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

Like or Dislike: 0  0

They say a picture is worth a thousand words, well here are two pictures for clarity.
Global Humidity levels.
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/DerekJohn_photos/climate%20stuff%202/GlobalRelativeHumidity300_700mbMarc.jpg

Global temperatures.
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g43/DerekJohn_photos/Haave%20and%20Alker%20Mar%2009/HAChart7-jpeg.jpg

So in the Upper tropopause the water content has been decreasing, whilst temperatures increase………

You quaintly continue,
” You can’t increase the water content of the atmosphere without causing rain to fall out of the atmosphere somewhere else. ”

Does that make sense. ?

You then follow with,
” Water vapour can therefore only amplify (or limit) an increase in temperature. ”

You appear to be trying to suggest water vapour can only be a positive feedback,
without taking latent heat, and convection movements (up and down) into account, this is plainly a very blinkered and unrealistic view.
Water vapour can have a strong positive and negative feedback effect, the workings of which, and net “sign” of is very poorly understood at present, AT ANY ALTITUDE IN THE ATMOSPHERE, or how it varies over time and with weather conditions.

Daemon you end with these false statements of your percieved version of “climate facts” that is opposite to the actual, observed, and empiracal truth,
“What is increasing the temperature? The increase in CO2 mostly.”

Would you (Daemon) care to justify these plainly WRONG statements, because,
1) Global temperature is not rising, it is in stasis, or decline, since the turn of this century.
2) You assume CO2 is causing the temperature rise that is NOT occuring, so you have shown yourself to be wrong.

THE QUESTION IS why are global temperatures in stasis, or rather decline over the last ten years, yet CO2 levels continue to rise (for whatever reason). ?

How much of a part did CO2 play in 1998, and 1999 global temperatures……..
However large a part you assume for CO2, it was dwarfed by the oceans.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

There’s the Damien we’ve all come to know and love. If you meant “in general terms” you should have stated that. We can’t be held accountable for your inability to express yourself precisely. To the best of my knowledge I have only asserted that Al Gore was at worst dishonest and at best ill informed in his little presentation by omitting these facts. Therefore I won’t be chasing your goal posts by demonstrating that IPCC denies/accepts there is a historical lag.

Damien post 217 “Nope, it will always correlate. The only difference is that if CO2 is driving, there is no lag. So Ray, why is there no lag between temperature rise today and the observed anthropogenic CO2 excursion when there was a near constant lag in the past, and what has changed recently to negate the delay?”

First, “Nope, it will always correlate.”, but in your world they can have a negative correlation and then at another time have a positive correlation because of this “driver seat” concept you have. When I came to this site I thought that there was some causative effect of CO2 but I believed it to be small and mans contribution smaller still. After dealing with your rants over the past few weeks and a bit of digging I have come to the point where I am convinced that the CO2 concentration is just an artifact of rising/falling temperature.

Second, “The only difference is that if CO2 is driving, there is no lag. So Ray, why is there no lag between temperature rise today and the observed anthropogenic CO2 excursion when there was a near constant lag in the past, and what has changed recently to negate the delay?” , it is you that asserts that this presence/absence of the lag is important in some way.
It is completely unimportant to me except to highlight further the independent nature of CO2 vs. temperature (Ocean out gassing/uptake excluded).

Damien post 217 “Ray – For you cause and effect are interchangeable
Nope. Correlation supports the following two hypotheses equally.
1. That temperature rise/fall causes atmospheric CO2 levels to rise/fall.
2. That CO2 concentration rise/fall causes temperature to rise/fall.
Scince only supports the second one, just as science only supports the assertion that Kennedy’s head didn’t cause a bullet to enter a rifle loaded in a school book repository in Texas.
You do know the difference between cause and effect don’t you Ray?”
I don’t think you mean to say that “1. That temperature rise/fall causes atmospheric CO2 levels to rise/fall.” Is false do you? I can find dozens of places where you accept the fact that oceans outgas and take up CO2, just one way temperature can increase CO2. I’ll just be charitable and chalk that up to typing faster than you where thinking.

With regards to “Scince only supports the second one, just as science only supports the assertion that Kennedy’s head didn’t cause a bullet to enter a rifle loaded in a school book repository in Texas.” I did not know that science had a position on bullets, rifles, and presidential heads, thank you for informing me. However you are confusing theory with a fact.

“You do know the difference between cause and effect don’t you Ray?” My grasp of the concept of cause and effect is excellent thank you so much for asking. I have happened upon another cause and effect during these past few weeks of correspondence with you.
CAUSE: Wrangle with Damien for weeks about his now it correlates now it doesn’t who’s in the driver seat, and who’s on first, theory of global warming.
EFFECT: Convince myself beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt that this entire AGW theory is nothing more than a huge steaming pile of horse squeeze.
I want to thank you for that Damien.

What this all boils down too is that you have bought into a theory that is attempting to prove an independent variable is somehow correlated. That is why the theory has to constantly evolve in order to explain why the theory comes up short when its predictions don’t materialize; the missing hot spot is a good example. I have seen this happen in the lab it’s an easy pitfall to fall for, hell I’ve done it. But at some point you have to discipline yourself and fess up, admit you are wrong and start over to find what you missed or misinterpreted. I know all of the above is lost on you Damien because you are a ‘believer’ and your faith is unshakable. It’s mostly meant for other casual readers.

MikeM, thanks for the link very helpful. You might want to give it an objective read too Damien.

Like or Dislike: 0  0

I’ll post that reference again so Damien can look it up and apologize.
No more posts from you until you do.

Quote from David’s missing hot spot paper:

http://www.sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf

Signatures From the IPCC, for 1958 − 1999

The published theoretical signatures produced by the IPCC climate theory that best matches the period of the observed warming pattern (1979 – 1999) appeared in the US

Climate Change Science Program, 2006, Chapter 1,
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap1-1/finalreport/sap1-1-final-chap1.pdf.

It shows six signature diagrams in Figure 1.3, in Section 1.5 on page 25, for the period 1958 − 1999.

Lift your standards Damien.

Like or Dislike: 0  0