Graham, you are half right. I probably simplified it a bit too much, but the tides and currents in the oceans do their bit to mix things around, so the general principal still applies. Your point about sea levels has some merit. I haven't seen any evidence of it hereabouts. I suspect that there could be a geological cause for the Pacific islands' inundation problems. The increase in atmospheric temperature would work the other way, as warm air carries more water vapour than cold air.

I didn't lay any blame for the increase in carbon dioxide. It is still happening though, whatever the cause. Perhaps Jennifer might care to remind us.

David

Sorry David, but I am 100% right. If you were right there would be no global warming anywhere, and climate science would have even larger problems than it does. The graphs I produce show some warming, but they also show some cooling. Again, disproving your thesis which assumes a steady temperature and no change either up or down.

Need more research about the truth. And when you know the truth, stand for it.

Thank you

All that is required from the BOM is to provide the theory and method behind their calculations, and to demand the same from those holding contrary points of view. It's known as Argument and is basic science.

Being a "radical empiricist" is redolent of the motives the Malcolm Roberts brigade who indeed wants to "muddy the waters" for the AGW consensus.

The empirical evidence argument is usually an excuse to ignore and dismiss evidence in favor of another agenda.

For example, the US Surgeon General didn't ban smoking because there was no "empirical evidence" that smoking caused cancer. Simply, the argument was that not everyone who smokes got cancer and not everyone who had cancer ever smoked.

Smoking may cause genetic damage and genetic damage may in turn cause cancer but there was no proven direct link between the two. That's how one empirical argument was successfully made in the US Courts.

As a result, all anti-smoking legislation is behavioural (advertising, various bans) and not based on strictly scientific evidence with no global consensus. Otherwise tobacco would historically have gone the way of asbestos.

Logically and scientifically there is consensus that it does contribute to cancer but there are still several groups who still argue against it based on interpretations of "empirical evidence".

We accepted the science behind the hole in the ozone layer argument, mainly because the (chemical) industry that caused the problem also provided a solution and nobody seems to be investigating the minutae of that debate.

It's not the "truth" aspect but the underlying motives of looking for ways of generating doubt in spite of overwhelming global evidence that interested me.

Graham, what I am trying to get across is that that because of the effect that I have described, the polar ice will have a somewhat moderating effect. I believe that this what your graphs are showing. It will only take place slowly because of the large masses of water involved. However, hopefully not in our lifetime, but some time in the future, pehaps a few hundred or even thousands of years hence, once all the ice has gone the temperature will rise much faster.

David