No I am rightWRONG!
One single example?Hilarious, you accuse me of being dishonest but can't find one single example.
I've got an easy one for you:
You keep trying to dishonestly compare surface temperature projections against troposphere measurements, where there is a 40ºC difference in temperature.
Dishonest.
Your have soooo many to would take to long to list them (30,000 posts filled with inaccuracies , misrepresentations and lies + an unknown number when you were Groggy)
Lets just go with your repeated attempts to misquote me and your despicable character assassinations on honest scientist when you do not understand the science at all
Here is another perfect example of your rotten to the core, despicable dishonestly
You were asked to explain your ridiculous statement "water vapour is only a feedback effect and CO2 a forcing effect on the climate."
Your responseOriginally posted by JohnLarue
The forcing effect is absorption of infrared radiation by water Vapour and Co2
simply explain what other forcing effect CO2 has that water vapour does not
You can not explain it because
1. You do not understand any science. period
2. There is no other forcing effect other than the absorption of infrared radiation
A complete dishonest and evasive answer to an extremely relevant questionIts irrelevant to why water vapour is a feedback effect and CO2 a forcing effect on the climate.
Its not worth discussing.
You made a false statement which you claim is a scientific fact
You have been asked to prove this and you say is not worth discussing
This is a dishonest and evasive as it gets
answer the damn question
The truth of the matter is your statement is false and you know it is
Prove me wrong and explain the physics behind your lie
1/3 of the warming of the IPCC models proving the models are junk and the climate change hysteria is unjustifiedThe latest chart from Christy/Spencer shows warming in the atmosphere.
End of argument.
0.38 of a degree over three decades is also well within any natural viability of temperature records on any time scale
.
But you think Saying "Cuz that where the peoples is " is a scientific argument?????Using kindergarten level taunts isn't making a scientific argument, larue.
Too funny
You are scientific know-nothing and prove this with each post
No enough to justify the hysteria or to justify scaring the living hell out of childrenThere is warming in the atmosphere, as shown.
End of argument.
Really??When testing a hypothesis you don't substitute measurements from another source, that's how science works.
You should tell that to the IPCC
1. Their measurements of atmospheric CO2 are a combination of ice core samples up until the mid 20th century and actual measurements afterwards
2. Their surface temperature records are a mix-mass of data sources combined together with all kinds of assumptions and adjustments
3. Michael Mann's fraudulent hockey stick was a series of weight proxies designed to erase a thousand years of temperature history . A big portion was based upon one tree ring sample
It seems to me you had no issue with the use of proxies when defending his fraudulent attempt to mis-present history
1. We have firmly established the greenhouse effect occurs in the atmosphereThe IPCC projects warming surface temperatures but you and Christy substitute troposphere temperatures as tests, that's not science, that's bullshit.
So if it ain't warming there , then end of argument
2. Why did you post a up-to-date picture of John Christy's / Roy spencer's work?
Because you thought it proved something.
Too bad it proved the IPCC models are junk
Oh boy. Did you think one could not see this coming?The IPCC projects 0.2ºC warming per decade on the surface and Christy/Spencer show 0.13ºC warming in the clouds, or troposphere, where there is a 40ºC difference in base temperatures.
The Christy/Spencer UAH measurements are lower than measurements from RSS satellite measurements, which show 0.14ºC more warming over the same period.
https://www.carbonbrief.org/study-why-troposphere-warming-differs-between-models-and-satellite-data
The rest of the article can be found hereComments on the New RSS Lower Tropospheric Temperature Dataset
July 6th, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
It was inevitable that the new RSS mid-tropospheric (MT) temperature dataset, which showed more warming than the previous version, would be followed with a new lower-tropospheric (LT) dataset. (Carl Mears has posted a useful FAQ on the new dataset, how it differs from the old, and why they made adjustments).
Before I go into the details, let’s keep all of this in perspective. Our globally-averaged trend is now about +0.12 C/decade, while the new RSS trend has increased to about +0.17 C/decade.
Note these trends are still well below the average climate model trend for LT, which is +0.27 C/decade.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/07/comments-on-the-new-rss-lower-tropospheric-temperature-dataset/
BTW 1.25 degrees over 40 years is not 0.2 degrees per decade as you claim
The IPCC models are clearly broken
No they do notThose RSS measurements show as much warming in the troposphere as the IPCC projects for surface temperatures.
End of argument.
why do you have this relentless need to lie
A proper test??????A proper test of this hypothesis is to judge projections of surface temperatures against measurements of surface temperatures.
As done here:
End of argument.
The planet is theoretically warming and the theory dictates this warming is caused by a phenomenon occurring in the atmosphere
And you insist the atmospheric temperatures do not matter
Nope
1. We have firmly established the greenhouse effect occurs in the atmosphere
So if it ain't warming there , then end of argument
2. The surface record is incomplete and is tainted by the urban Island heat effect