As is so often the case, the discussion has two principal flaws. The first is that there are unquestioned assumptions that carbon dioxide concentration is causally proportional to global free energy and that this, in turn, is causally proportional to global temperature. The second is the silly theological debate about textual authority in relation to metrics of second-order effects.

The second is not worth discussing. There is no question that there are many natural phenomena which vary over time. So what?

The first deserves some thought. It is unquestionably true that CO2 absorbs and re-radiates some incident IR at the lower energy (longer wavelength) part of the spectrum, which happens to be in a similar range to the frequency of the IR that the planetary body emits. It is also true that about half of that absorbed will be re-radiated in the direction of the original source, so about half of all the IR emitted or reflected by the planet which hits a CO2 molecule will be effectively reflected back at the planet, while the CO2 molecules will have no net change in free energy. It is also true that almost all energy lost by the planet to space is due to the IR it emits, with a small amount due to the loss of upper atmosphere molecules. These are readily observed facts.

Also beyond dispute is that the free energy of a system is available to do work and that the work can cause the bound energy (entropy and temperature) of parts of the system to change. In a closed system, the net energy will not change, with the energy simply moving from one part of the system to another. In an open system, the work will transfer energy into or out of the system and so the net energy embodied within the system will be changed, either up or down.

So far, so good; any senior school chemistry student should be able to tell us these things.

Unfortunately, it gets harder.

[cont]

"This is all pretty simple and I am struggling as to why you keep claiming it is not so"

I would suggest the struggle is with your reading and comprehension since I said:

"the bins remain discrete, however the average parameters will cause an overlap of the data value of the bins as it moves along the data. I showed how that can produce false results."

Anyway, I showed a graph of a simple 10 year runing mean based on Colarado data:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/28/obama-was-rightthe-rise-of-the-oceans-began-to-slow/

There is plenty of evidence that sea level rate is decreasing; for example the Cazanave and Ablain papers discussed by me at Bolt:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/n/

And TAR showed a decrease:

http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/425.htm

And you haven't explained why sea level rate of rise is not increasing, when according to Poirot's 'stronger' science it should be.

But I want to concentrate on your assertion that the different rates of sea level rise between Newcastle and Sydney is so fatal to Watson's paper. The relevant graph is Figure 2 from Watson:

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/sea-level/sea-level-australia-new-zealand-watson.gif

What is striking about this is the surge in Newcastle rise from the early 1940's to 1960. Watson says this:

"One of the probable reasons for the clear disparity in the
relative water level record from the Pilot Station gauge at
Newcastle is that it is sited on a large area known to be affected by mine subsidence."

Watson goes on to reject the Newcastle record for this reason.

Your criticism of his paper is spurious.

"My argument about Houston and Dean was not that they didn’t include other years of data, but that they started the analysis at 1930."

No. They started their comparitive analysis of C&W then because that is what C&W did; they did longer analyses of the other sites and found the same result!

Please source your assertion about 1930

The net energy of a thermodynamic system such as the one that defines climate is in 3 forms: entropy, heat and unbound, or free energy.

Entropy is a property that is intrinsic to a system and is dependent on the particular conditions of the system. It describes the energy that the system contains which cannot be used to do work (transfer energy into or out of the system) or to change the temperature.

Temperature describes the energy that is held by the system in the form of vibrations of its component particles.

Free energy is what's left and it is free energy which is available to do work, or transfer energy, in or out of the system.

For example, adding energy to water will change its temperature as the molecules absorb energy and it will increase its free energy by making them move around more in relation to each other. Once the free energy of any molecule exceeds the strength of the hydrogen bonds that hold it to the other molecules as a liquid it will do work by stretching the bonds to breaking point to become a molecule of gas with the same temperature that it had before it evaporated. Because it did work to break the bonds, although its net energy is the same as it was before evaporating, some of it has been transferred to itself (absorbed) which increases its entropy.

Everything has entropy, temperature and more or less free energy. The behaviour of different materials to having work done in the form of heating is very different, however, as is the response of the same material to heat energy in different forms.

Still so far, so good. We're doing some first year thermodynamics.

Take home message: all energy is not created equal.

Now it gets easier. Or not.

[cont]

I'll continue tomorrow. The topic is complex and I'm tired.

Antiseptic when you do continue would you please address this fact along with your thermodynamics 101.

As CO2 in the upper atmosphere rises the humidity is falling. This indicates that the CO2 is not adding more of the so called green house gas to the atmosphere, but displacing another, that is replacing water vapor. Increases in CO2 are causing a similar reduction in water vapor.

A few peer reviewed papers have shown this effect, although none have yet any sound reason for it. If it could be taxed I'm sure there would be generous research grants to find out though.

Now I'm sure you would be aware that water vapor is much more efficient at doing the job you are explaining CO2 does, in absorbing & reemitting that radiation.

This being the case, I'm sure you can only draw the same conclusion as those papers, that any increase in CO2 will actually have a cooling effect, if there is indeed any really measurable AGW effect.

I'm sure the global warming gravy train passengers will soon switch their train to the new global cooling scare, seeing as how all the gathered data points to this anyway. It should be a relief for the poor dears, it must pain even them, having to claim that global warming makes it colder.

Any statistics advanced to 'prove' one side of the GW argument or the other must be regarded as suspect thanks to that famous line from Benjamin Disraeli. Big business will always conspire to deflect anything that interferes with its worship of profit & gubmunts will always embrace anything to do with revenue. Unfortunately 'truth' is never a definite fixed quantity but merely something to be created in order to to prove whatever end result is sought.

Regardless of hype, the following are indisputable matters of fact.

* human civilization has been responsible for pumping all manner of crap into the ecosystem ever since neanderthals discovered fire

* 'development' has systematically destroyed much the natural regulation system

* profit is invariably rated higher than sustainability

* gubmunts of whatever colour have always seized on any possible opportunities to create new sources of revenue

* no gubmunt in history has ever had more than fleeting acquaintance with truth

* the scientific community is not, nor ever has been totally independent, it relies on funding from either industry or gubmunt, consequently researchers tend to 'discover' facts that favour their source of funding

Conclusions

* humans are environmental vandals, infinitely more so in the case of big business

* all statistics are full of crap

* we only have one planet available on which to dwell

* logic suggests its sensible to minimize any adverse impact on this planet, at least until we have an alternative

* allowing EITHER profit-centred entities eg big-business & gubmunts, OR rabid tree-huggers to single-handedly dictate environmental policy isn't a particularly smart move