wxman03’s Recent Comments

• Click here to view comment in original post

  ah

  Thanks for clearing that up Gary. I did mean to say ENSO can change the way the atmosphere uses water vapor such as the amount of clouds and the level at which they form. On There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence posted 2 years, 6 months ago 78 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  well

  "Thats almost meaningless because more evaporation has virtually no influence on the amount of water vapor in the troposphere.

  There's a huge surplus of water vapor in the surface atmosphere, and it only enters the troposphere if the troposphere warms up.

  And the troposphere won't warm up unless there's some external factor causing the warming.

  _

  Now it could change the amount of clouds, but that doesn't appear to be what you said.

  "Atmosphere" is a rather generic term when you're talking about the science specifics."

  So what you are saying is that -PDO phases do not cause cooling because la ninas do not cause cooling? Hm...On There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence posted 2 years, 6 months ago 78 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  um

  "The PDO seems to becoming much less cyclic and more erratic lately.

  PDO basic, no, it is just a sign or symptom of global climate change.... the hydrology cycle does oscillate due to lag.

  The earth's hydrology cycle is in trouble, and it has nothing to do with carbon dioxide.

  Please show how carbon dioxide can have any bearing on the PDO.  Thanks"

  Co2 and PDO are not connected. PDO is caused by ocean circulations.

  "Frankly, this is actually a good example.

  The specifics of the of the PDO cycles are not well scientifically understood.

  Saying "Theres the potential that we can find evidence to prove one side of an arguement"
  Is not the same as actually having conclusive evidence."

  We know what the PDO phases do and what effect they  have on ENSO. We also know what ENSO does (el nino and la nina). Most meteorologists will agree with me when I say we are entering a negative PDO phase and this will cause more la ninas in the future causing less water vapor in the atmosphere which is by far the biggest positive feedback CO2 has. CO2's negative feedbacks could even be bigger than its positive feedbacks in -PDO periods.On There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence posted 2 years, 6 months ago 78 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  ok

  "My arguements are based on scientifically reproducable evidence.

  Yours aren't."

  Somebody needs to go back to school. One of the most basic, natural cycles that Earth goes through is the PDO and I've explained this in my posts. If the PDO is not scientifically proven, I dont know what is.On There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence posted 2 years, 6 months ago 78 Responses

• Click here to view comment in original post

  wow

  <So in short wxman03<p> Your entire arguement rests on the supposed influence of cosmic rays.

  Despite the fact that Svensmark's work is continously wrong, shows clear signs of data manipulation, and has never been reproduced.

  Thats about as much credibility as the guys who designed cold fusion.>

  wow have you not read what I have been saying? I think I count 6 factors that I have linked to this warming. Also, you ignore the fact that the cosmic ray theory does not have to be correct in order for solar activity have to an effect on global temperatures.

  Your entire arguement rests on the fact that CO2 has risen from 280 ppm to 380 ppm and that it has increased 1.6 w-m2. And that we should just throw out all of the other factors that have increased MORE w-m2 in the same time frame. Hmm, sounds firm to me. On There is no proof in science, but there are mountains of evidence posted 2 years, 6 months ago 78 Responses