Max Green.

You claim I am lying.
I ask you for proof of that.
You then tell me to look for proof. LOL

That response is typical of your twisting and ducking to avoid answers that will prove you wrong.

I don't need to tell lies.

Hi JF,
to prove you're not lying:

1. Open the PDF you linked to.
2. "Find" (CTRL F) for algae
3. Copy and paste *any* quotes that indicate algae *causes* warming, and is not a *feedback* of warming.
4. Look for any summary quotes that show how much warming they cause.

It's YOUR argument! It's not up to me to hold your hand and guide you through the process of HOW to argue your case for you! YOU prove that algae has something to do with *causing* warming, and is not just a feedback as I have said. Go on. You're recommending that PDF. You prove it makes your argument for you. Be an adult, for crying out loud! Stop whining, go get some facts, and shove them in my face! Prove to me that you've got a point! I dare you!

I've checked. On page 122 there's a table. It has OCEAN WARMING EFFECTS and CONSEQUENCES.

Last Effect on that table.

"Thermal stress lowers the viability of persistent longlived
seagrass populations with slow growth rates"

The Consequence?
"Replacement of persistent long-lived seagrass species with colonizing, opportunistic seagrass species, macroalgae or bare sediment which provide fewer or no ecosystem services to human populations (e.g., fisheries habitat)"
https://portals.iucn.org/library/node/46254

Your own paper says warming will cause more algae, not the other way around!

In the meantime, you scoff at CO2. We have CENTURIES of PHYSICS indicating the Global Warming potential of CO2, and to deny the basic physics is like denying gravity or insisting the moon is made of cheese. It's just plain mad.

Max,

if you can't understand the simple logic of this I really don't know how to dumb it down even further for you.

Here was the sequence:

1 ant posted some gumph about there being a lot of wet microbursts. I poked fun at that because he used the emotive term "rain bomb" because that's scary to the perpetually alarmed.

2. I then showed that there is no evidence that these things are increasing on a global scale by quoting from AR5. Note the past tense ie there is no evidence that as of now there has been an increase in these extreme events on a global scale.

3. You thereupon, while initially ignoring what AR5 said about the current data, went off on a tangent about what they say about the future.

Nowhere ( and invite you to show otherwise) have I said that they didn't predict future increases. I have said that I'm not particularly interested in what they say will happen, since I'm more concerned with what has happened. Its difficult to know where you're going if you don't know where you've been. There might come a time when people who haven't been born yet might need implement meeasures to overcome future problems, but currently, since there is no evidence that things are better or worse than at any other time in the past, there's little point in us fretting about it. Note the events if you so desire, but don't imagine there's much you can do about it.

Its a basic difference in philosophy. I'll become alarmed when/if things become alarming and will leave it to our vastly wealthier great-grandkids to adopt whatever measures they think appropriate as needs be. You become alarmed when people tell you things will become alarming and want to adopt measures to avoid what may never happen.

mhaze

"Rain bomb" is not a term I invented. It sure is not a funny situation for the families who lost loved ones through drowning, losing cars, having their homes flooded. Businesses have been damaged, but that is all very funny in your eyes.

Very funny isn't it mhaze, to see your vehicle washed ashore on a beach:

http://www.weathernationtv.com/news/cars-washed-ashore-greece-drifting-sea-flash-flood/?platform=hootsuite

It would appear the atmosphere is unstable in relation to other matters:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/11/cost-bumpy-flights-air-turbulence-global-warming-united-airlines

Hi mhaze,
Nice try, but here’s what the text says:

“Climate change, whether driven by natural or human forcing, CAN lead to changes in the likelihood of the occurrence or strength of extreme weather and climate events or both. SINCE the AR4, the observational basis HAS INCREASED substantially, so that some extremes ARE NOW examined over most land areas. Furthermore, more models with higher resolution and a greater number of regional models have been used in the simulations and projections of extremes. {1.3.3; Figure 1.9}

P 134:

“Climate change, whether driven by natural or human forcings, CAN lead to changes in the likelihood of the occurrence or strength of extreme weather and climate events such as extreme precipitation events or warm spells .” (Page 134)

P 916:
“Because most of this large-scale warming is very likely due to the increase in atmospheric GHG concentrations, it is possible to attribute, via a multi-step procedure, some of the increase in probability of these regional events to human influence on climate. We conclude that it is likely that human influence HAS SUBSTANTIATLLY INCREASED the probability of occurrence of heat waves in SOME LOCATIONS.“

As you said, //Always believe the peer-reviewed science...unless it doesn't tell you what you want to hear. In that case go with the self-interested assertion.//

Max.

What paper are you referring to when you say, "your own paper"?