Discussion with Pete Ridley #2

Deep down my hope is that some intelligent students read some of these posts, because I've learned that taking the time to answer and hope for a rational discussion with a denialist character like Pete Ridley is a hopeless endeavor.

But, it's not a hopeless exercise if it helps some better understand the types of diversions denialist have honed to a fine art.  Perhaps it'll help some better prepare for the various "debate tricks" and tactics you'll run into if you vocally defend serious professional rational scientists and their findings against the Republican/Libertarian ideologues who see nothing but a political contest to win at all cost with license to fabricate their facts at will.  

Not much else to add.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Pete Ridley said...

Hi Peter,
I refer your readers to my comment http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/spotlighton-psi-acumen-ltd.html?showComment=1404670557121#c3596294334189372811 which I copy here, although I suspect that as for my previous comment, you'll decline to post my comments here. 

PART 1 

You really are struggling with this “greenhouse effect” physics, aren’t you. If you look carefully at the pie-charts (NOT graphs) 

~ ~ ~
Is that a fact? 
Since when aren't pie-charts a form of graphs?
http://www.datarecoverylabs.com/types-of-graphs.html
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

to which I linked, which purport to depict atmospheric composition and the different contributors to the greenhouse-gas component, you ought to recognise that there is a very important greenhouse gas missing!! 

~ ~ ~ 
What's that graph/pie chart at https://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/secc_edu/images/AtmConcentration.bmp supposed to tell me?

Let me remind you again: “ .. Since the industrial revolution, society has increased that {all important CO2} greenhouse-gas component by about a third .. ”
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Any scientist involved in the CACC issue, such as Dr. Jack Barrett or Professor David Bellamy, would spot it immediately but, like me, you are only a layman. I made it easy for you by providing a second link to an article which talks about this very important missing component but it looks as though I have to go even further to educate you. Try this link (https://www.nc-climate.ncsu.edu/edu/k12/.AtmComposition) where you will not only see that same diagram depicting “Atmospheric Composition” but also a significant reference to that all-important missing greenhouse-gas, water vapour.

~ ~ ~
Nice move Ridley - thee 'ol switcheroos
You know I'm talking about the greenhouse gas CO2 - But, Ridley don't want to think about that.  He'd rather change the subject to water vapor and ignore that mankind has increased the important "long-term" atmospheric gas CO2 by a third.

Furthermore Ridley's leaving out that important fact about the amount of water vapor in our atmosphere being intimately linked to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Might I suggest: 

Common Climate Misconceptions 

The Water Vapor Feedback 

Zeke Hausfather  —  February 4, 2008 

http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/02/common-climate-misconceptions-the-water-vapor-feedback-2/ 

"... The answer is that water vapor is indeed responsible for a major portion of Earth’s warming over the past century and for projected future warming. However, water vapor is not the cause of this warming. This is a critical, if subtle, distinction between the role of greenhouse gases as either forcings or feedbacks. In this case, anthropogenic emissions of CO2, methane, and other gases are warming the Earth. This rising average temperature increases evaporation rates and atmospheric water vapor concentrations. Those, in turn, result in additional warming. 

The primary reasons why water vapor cannot be a cause of climate change are its short atmospheric residence time and a basic physical limitation on the quantity of water vapor in the atmosphere for any given temperature (its saturation vapor pressure). The addition of a large amount of water vapor to the troposphere would have little effect on global temperatures in the short term due to the thermal inertia of the climate system. The Earth’s thermal inertia, largely due to the enormous amount of water covering two thirds the planet’s surface, is the primary reason why half the Earth does not freeze over every night and bake every day. As a result, different areas warm over the course of years (for land surface temperatures), decades (for ocean surface temperatures), and even centuries (for deep ocean temperatures and ice sheets). 

For the troposphere to sustain higher absolute humidity requires an increase in air temperature. ..." 

{there's much more to learn, check it out http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2008/02/common-climate-misconceptions-the-water-vapor-feedback-2/}

- - - 

Effects of Changing the Carbon Cycle  

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php 

" ...Water vapor concentrations in the air are controlled by Earth’s temperature. Warmer temperatures evaporate more water from the oceans, expand air masses, and lead to higher humidity. Cooling causes water vapor to condense and fall out as rain, sleet, or snow. 

Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, remains a gas at a wider range of atmospheric temperatures than water. Carbon dioxide molecules provide the initial greenhouse heating needed to maintain water vapor concentrations. ..."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Maybe now you will understand why I referred to your original comment about “ .. society has increased that greenhouse-gas component .. ” being pseudoscientific gobbledegook. Perhaps also you will understand why I get the impression that all you can do is parrot what CACC-supporters tell you rather than do your own “due diligence” research. [July 6, 2014 at 11:27 AM]

~ ~ ~

Actually all you've show me is another clever diversion from the all important issue of humanity's insane insistence that we should ignore the physical realities that accompany our skyrocketing greenhouse gas injections into our one and only planet's thin atmosphere.

Pumphandle 2012: Time History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide

CarbonTracker

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA7tfz3k_9A

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Ridley - PART 2 

You say that “ .. our unlikely connection is on account of mutual blogging regarding that fraud John O'Sullivan, though I haven't taken the time to become acquainted with the particulars of their feud .. ”. Are you just confused or is this~  another of your disingenuous comments? 

~ ~ ~
Neither confused nor disingenuous, lousy with names - so we have met.  Excuse me.
Though now that I've looked back on it I will remind you of my last words in that little series.

PS. Richard Alley "CO2 The Biggest Control Knob"

for the longer lecture link:

http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

My records show that our first exchanges were back in 2012 and had NOTHING to do with John O’Sullivan. They concerned Dr. Iain Stewart's campaigning to support the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) hypothesis and its relevance to the CACC-supporting BBC’s claims to impartiality. You had previously claimed that you “ .. do like hearing both sides of a story .. ” so on 16th November 2012 in my comment on your article “BBC Earth The Climate Wars - Dr. Iain Stewart, in 3 parts” (http://citizenschallenge.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/bbc-earth-climate-wars-dr-iain-stewart.html) I gave you another side to Dr. Stewart’s claims in that BBC series. You started off your hasty response to my comment by accusing me of being disingenuous. As I responded then “ .. Maybe 'tis you who is being disingenuous?! .. ”

~ ~ ~
Oh dear the sins we do get hung up on... excuse me for not keeping exquisite records and being a bit casual about all the various characters that I've virtually met over the years.  I have corrected my mistake in the blog you took issue with.  ;- ) 
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I don’t recall being aware of your blog prior to that or exchanging opinions with you again until February this year when someone linked from your article “Principia Scientific Int'l versus Dr. Michael Mann” (http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/principia-scientific-international-v-dr.html?showComment=1349915318849#c8981365077280188124) to my blog. On 25th July 2012 when you posted that article and linked to my blog I had just added sub-section 2.1 “PSI’s CEO and Legal Consultant John O’Sullivan" to my top article “SpotlightON – Principia Scientific International”. In your article you had said “ .. At http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.co.uk/ Pete Ridley is doing a fine job of examining the details of PSI's beautifully worded 'mission statement' compared to the reality of what they do .. ” but I am not aware that we had exchanged any opinions about John O’Sullivan prior to my comment on 24th February 2014. 

~ ~ ~
Thanks for setting the record, now we can all rest easy.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Claiming that you “ .. haven't taken the time to become acquainted with the particulars of their feud .. ” sits uncomfortably alongside your comment on 28th January 2014 “ .. As for my silent pal John O'Sullivan .. check out: http://globalpoliticalshenanigans.blogspot.com/2012/12/curriculum-vitae-for-john-osullivan-2010.html .. ”. You obviously HAD taken time to acquaint yourself with articles on my blog involving John O’Sullivan!!

~ ~ ~
Yea, right, that's what I said, John O'Sullivan was the link to my being aware of you.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Something that puzzles me is why you included that piece about the other John O’Sullivan, one-time editor of the National Review. Were you just confused, trying in some way to be clever or trying to mislead others? As long ago as July 2012 you were clearly aware of Andrew Skolnick’s comment “ .. O'Sullivan claims .. to be a science writer with major articles published around the world including in National Review .. None of that is true. He is an utterly shameless humbug .. ” (http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/john-osullivan-my-hidden-muse.html).

~ ~ ~
What are you going on about? 
And what does any of that have to do with understanding anything about the physics of climate change?
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In my opinion it is prudent for anyone reading your CACC-supporting blog articles, comments and other communications to check and double check what you claim to be facts. As I said in my previous comment about the dishonesty from both sides of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (CACC) debate, you illustrate beautifully that this dishonesty has permeated right down to the level of lay debaters such as we are.

Best regards, Pete

~ ~ ~
You have created quite the impressive argument: 
Because I didn't correctly remember where I first became acquainted with you... the science behind global warming is all a big hoax created by tens of thousands of full time experts around the world - who pretend to do an honest job.

With all due respect Mr. Ridley, now that's what I'd call crazy-making or to use your words pseudoscientific gobbledegook.