Bonmot: Thank you for agreeing that evaporation (E), precipitation (P) and atmospheric water vapour (V) all increase and decrease by a very similar percentage. However, you are very, very wrong when you say this fact is “Not quite but widely accepted in the scientific community.” Not one of the over 20 teams of scientists running the global climate models (GCM) that feed into the IPCC accepts this finding.
The worst of the GCMs are configured so that changes in E & P are only one sixth of changes in V, for the best of the GCMs changes in E & P are only half of the changes in V and for the typical GCM changes in E & P are only a quarter of the changes in V.

This is not a trivial error or oversight. As I explained in my earlier posts evaporation has three times the cooling power of the net outgoing long wave radiation affected by greenhouse gases.

If the GCMs were configured so that E, P & V all increased and decreased by a very similar percentage, then for a mooted doubling of CO2 they would predict a rise in global temperature of under 1°C.

The remainder of your posting is an attempt to change the subject, which every global warming alarmist tries to do when confronted with the findings documented in Wentz et al. (2007).

Thank you also for providing documentary evidence that Frank Wentz is not a global warming sceptic, but an honest and capable scientist.

phil .. No, you have misread my post, I have no problem with ice loss, I do with exaggerated statements that claim massive melting of ice sheets is occurring .. it is not, and how does satellite data show "melting", you have drawn that assumption wildly I assume.

ken, yep agreed, no problem with that .. I do feel I need to push back on obviously misunderstood or misstated science though.

bonmot .. what was the point of that link? Am I supposed to now search the site for evidence? I can't be bothered if you can't.

I'm often wrong, and have no problem admitting it, but the way this debate goes is that skeptics constantly question data while alarmists just spray around feral information, and then are all hurt and offended when it is questioned.

It's interesting that many of the AGW believers who claim to be scientists never bother to correct other misinformed AGW believers. They do them a great disservice by not helping educate them .. I assume you do not correct them because you are so reticent to give a skeptic any perceived leverage .. how weak is that eh? Are you biased, yes of course you are.

lauriec, hey nice backhand there "yada yada documentary evidence that Frank Wentz is not a global warming sceptic, but an honest and capable scientist."

The implication being that a skeptical scientist is not honest or capable?

Spoken like a true believer, thanks for confirming your mind is completely closed and any skepticism is well gone from your career. Are you a scientist receiving grants?

jediprincess, it appears that online commentary sites are somewhat more robust than your constitution allows for. Your insulting vitriol and sanctimonious sneering reflects what you accuse others of. I see you would prefer to only be involved in clubs of the nature that keep the riff raff (and rednecks) out, an elitist. What happened to the site you started? No business eh, wonder why? (that's rhetorical and thus requires no answer .. just helping)

Amicus, word limit - not "feral information", your term. Just trying to point out that there are many research institutions that study Antarctic ice melt. You obviously took offence, a pity. As to the "alarmists" quip, have to disagree. All scientists are sceptics, they have to be. Just because the message is alarming doesn't make them alarmist. On the other hand, most "sceptics" aren't, they just don't know. You'll also find that most scientists just do to sites like this, even if it's just to "educate" (your words) both sides, the reason should be obvious. Besides, there are other ways and sites - unfortunately, most "sceptics", for example, just don't go there. LaurieC is no "scientist" at all, but I take you're point about grants. Gee, some people even think that scientists shouldn't do any research at all, let alone be paid for it.

Oops, "You'll also find that most scientists just do to sites like this" should have read:
You'll also find that most scientists just don't go to sites like this ...

Have to run, bye.

Amicus - You condemn yourself with your own words.

If you are really interested in anything other than abusing others, you might care to look at RealClimate.org- here are a few of the many entries on melting ice. I await to see your equivalent contrary data.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/07/an-icy-retreat/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/03/worldwide-glacier-retreat/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/glacier-mass-balance-equilibrium-or-disequilibrium-response/

And what is the innuendo behind your question:"Are you a scientist receiving grants?" I ran a scientific funding (I don't like the word "grants") program for ten years and never found a harder working, more poorly paid bunch. Just try being a scientist for a living.

..and I would like further explanation of: "What happened to the site you started? No business eh, wonder why? (that's rhetorical and thus requires no answer .. just helping". What is rhetorical about your question? What is helpful about it?

Elitism? If a rejection of intolerance, abuse, innuendo, derision and objectivity is elitist, then I am also condemned by my words. Galileo and Socrates are my heroes- not Alf Garnett and Les Patterson.

Amicus, I knes that satellite data shows increasing loss from ice-sheets and didn't follow up on what processes were involved and made an assumption that direct warming was the reason. But the data does show increasing ice loss - a lot more than what I'd recalled from previous reading. I think your assumptions about where I got that from that were not called for... "AGW/astrology sites" ?
This is just insulting.

What science understands about climate is alarming but I have no reason, especially not the insinuations and misrepresentation embodied in the "Opening Closed Minds" article, to believe the scientific community is engaged in alarmism. The rate of ice loss in Antarctica ought not be passed over as inconsequential in your rush to point out that I made an error.

You complain that those that accept the science from the institutions that study climate (but don't necessarily understand all the detail) - 'alarmists' - don't pull up those who exagerate or make mistakes, however I note that you didn't correct JonJ for example, for talking about sea ice - irrelevent WRT to sea levels rise - when the issue was ice-sheets. Or criticise the abundant misrepresentations of science inherent in the appallingly bad 'Opening Closed Minds' article itself.

I would also point out that you are capable of making sweeping statements that aren't true yourself such as "Water does not "melt" in the Antarctic." Sorry to inform you that every summer the coastal fringes are subject to melting including the glacial flows from ice-sheets reaching the coast.

Whilst I acknowledge that I should rely less on memory and could be more careful with fact checking I think you should refrain from accusing people of getting information from " climate scientology/astrology "science" " sites.