Belgarion wrote on Oct 20^th, 2016 at 3:59pm:


Garion, the fact is that it is a myth trotted out by the global warming deniers because it sounds plausible but is simply not backed up by science.

Quote:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3427576/

This is the paper your looking for lee,
Basically it shows that as temperatures increase in the tropical forests plants don't grow as fast (Less c02 uptake) which more than negates any benefit that increased Co2 levels would provide.

lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 8:31pm:


This is according to the climate science that you dispute. again, your stuck trying to use selective  fragments of the huge body of work supporting AGW to support your stated opinion, because you have extremely limited credible science to support your position.

Its also irrelevant. The fact that its getting hotter in the tropics doesn't mean the temperature isn't rising even more in the mid latitudes.  Unless your just trying to confuse people....

I also note that you don't dispute the data source for the increase in temperature over the last 20 years(even though you have disputed this information so many time before)- I would have thought this would be the first bone you would pick at  (NOAA has nothing on Lee!)

Got a lot of obfuscation to do would be my guess, and its just so much work arguing against the mass of evidence supporting AGW.   

lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 9:34pm:


Oh that's cool. You realize that water vapour is actually included in those big long complex scientific studies your so far above right?  For the less well informed water vapor is a powerful contributor to climatic conditions, but it is also very variable.
It is also influenced by other climatic drivers and acts as an amplifier.
If CO2 creates a 1dg increase, That 1 dg increase releases enough water vapour to increase temperatures another 2 dg.
So the 1 dg of warming from CO2 leads to 3 dg of warming overall.
Obviously its easy to get misdirected by the fact that 2/3 of the temperature rise was due to water vapour, but the causative factor is the CO2.

As you mentioned the water vapours levels are rising(as would be expected with rising temperatures) 
What you didn't state was that water vapour levels are rising because CO2 levels are also rising.
If you written a peer reviewed paper or have access to a peer reviewed paper demonstrating that this water vapours, not CO2 levels are the causative drivers behind the current temperature increases please post it. Im happy to post one of the many supporting my position.         

lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 9:34pm:


Can you please define the term "please cite the evidence"
Because it would crash the server if I uploaded a poof-tenth of the data(available data) which has been interpreted by professional climatologists to indicate that the current record setting temperature increases are anthropogenic.

I think its much more reasonable to ask you to provide the peer reviewed literature from which you derive your opinions since you could fit it all on a floppy disc. You could probably text it to me

As temperatures rise the pores on the undersides of leaves close to prevent transpiration of water. This means they cannot absorb CO2.

CO2 is plant food—at levels below present.

Jovial Monk wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 10:25pm:



It is a plant food at levels far greater than current.

lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 11:34pm:


Obviously its positive feedback. That's why the smart people are a wee bit worried.

Also, Irrelevant to scientific proof that supports our stated positions.

lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 11:34pm:


lee wrote on Dec 19^th, 2016 at 11:34pm:



Again, you have Literally nothing to support your argument that could be considered credible.
As ever you demand evidence from the opposing party so you have something to obfuscate, Its an elegant way of losing without having to admit defeat.

Here are four peer reviewed articles examining the relationship between water vapour levels and co2 levels which come to conclusions consistent with the accepted AGW.

http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people-iac/person-detail.html?persid=146272
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI3799.1
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/39/15248.full.pdf
https://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006/techprogram/paper_100737.htm
 
Theory, observations and climate models all show the increase in water vapor is around 6 to 7.5% per degree Celsius warming of the lower atmosphere. The observed changes in temperature, moisture, and atmospheric circulation fit together in an internally and physically consistent way. When you cite water vapour as the most dominant greenhouse gas, you are actually invoking the positive feedback that makes our climate so sensitive to CO2 as well as another line of evidence for anthropogenic global warming.

Now please note how I could produce credible, peer reviewed publications that support my assertions.

And notice how you have literally nothing.
I would love you to provide me something credible that supports any of your assertions that climate change in not anthropogenic, or at least a credible alternate explanation. 

lee wrote on Dec 20^th, 2016 at 12:13am:



Because i'm not as smart as you I like to read papers before I tell people whats in them.
Obviously that's only an issue if you actually have an open mind or appreciate  scientific method, so maybe just forget I said that 

A peer review doesn't mean diddly squat as far as quality, what it guarantees is an  open publication process and the ability for impartial criticism(which really gets boffins nuts off).

This means that people who publish crazy poo can be identified and likewise people who do solid research can be trusted. Is it perfect? no. But its the basis for the scientific disciplines over the last 100 years and its managed to achieve a few pretty cool things(mild understatement).

The fact that you have no peer reviewed articles to support you isn't a comment on the peer review system, rather on the scientific rigor which is practiced by climate skeptics.

After thousands of posts nitpicking the professionals the best evidence you can come up with to support your position is that peer review doesn't mean anything. Pathetic.  Not only that but I have quoted a post from another thread where you criticize someone for being unable to provide a paper supporting their argument. How can you be so hypocritical and still have the gumption to spout off like you know anything about anything. 


The science is frigging obvious to anyone who has a good read. Or if your lazy just trust the people who spend their lives trying to figure out whats going on-you do it with doctors all the time and everything they do is a product of scientific method usually originating in a peer reviewed paper somewhere.

lee wrote on Oct 21^st, 2016 at 3:54pm: