“are you saying … are you saying … are you saying …”

Answer:

All we are saying is, most of us use a killfile script for commenters like you.

Are you saying that ice core data does not indicate that atmospheric CO2 concentrations lag Earth’s temperature over the past 150,000 years? *The heart of my argument!) I have personally spoken with Dr Richard Alley, an AGW believer and a leading geoclimatologist, who has done that research and confirms this is indeed THE FACT, not a denier’s talking point. This FACT has been confirmed on every glacier which has been tested to date, without exception! Tell my just one of your computer models which has even remotely foecasted Earth’s mean temperatures for the past 30 years since Hansen began this hysteria.

[JR: This lame argument of yours has been debunked on every single climate website for years. The best evidence says that in most (but not all) cases external forcing (such as a change in the earth's orbit) precedes the CO2 increase. THEN that CO2 increase warms the planet more, acting as a major amplifying feedback, which is why the temperature record over the past 800,000 years shows periods of incredibly fast warming followed by much slower cooling, typically. As Alley no doubt told you -- assuming you bothered to listen to a full lecture -- the human-generated GHG forcing can easily replace the natural forcings in magnitude. Hansen's predictions have been "remotely" accurate, as has the IPCCs. Indeed, you bothered to read this website or the scientific literature, you would know that in most impact areas, the climate models have underestimated climate change.]

Are you suggesting that the PDO does not have a measureable impact on Earth’s climate and it has not moved from cool cycle to warm cycle twice during the periods I mentioned in my previous post? NASA recently confirmed that the PDO switched from its warm cycle to its cool cycle in 2006, which corresponds very nicely with Earth’s recent cooling. What does it take for you to accept that CO2 is not the biggest new driving force today, it isn’t even a driving force. Earth would have already experienced runaway global warming if CO2 was the significant climate driver you claim, but that has never happened thoughout geological history? Warming and cooling, ice ages and interglaical periods have happend repeatedly long before man had any impact. CO2 levels have been higher in the past than today, long before man began burning fossil fuels. But we’re supposed to believe your fairy tale that this time it is different, this time we’re the cause!

[JR: The PDO is neutral with respect to total planetary warming, but yes it does overlay the human-caused warming trend, as do aerosols and volcanic eruptions. When you factor in all of the known forcings, human-caused and natural, you get the funny shaped, but ultimately steadily rising temperature trend we have seen in the past century -- as Hansen and many others have shown. If you take out the human-caused forcings, however, you can't explain the temperature trend.]

If you don’t accept these facts, then you are correct – I am on the wrong site and wasting my time; science is not discussed here, just religion.

[JR: it is you who have succeeded in wasting my time. And it is your anti-scientific views that border on religion.]

By the way, how do you make a living, who are you indebted to and is that why you support AGW? I have made my fortune investing in NG and oil stocks but I have never accepted one dime from “Big Oil” or anyone else in the fossil fuel industries. Can you say that your livelyhood does not depend on AGW (and the funding it has generated for research) or the CO2 cap and trade schemes?

[JR: How I make a living is well known to anybody who reads this blog or spend a nano second on the Internet checking. My "livelihood" depends on making accurate statements and predictions that turn out to be true -- based on my understanding of science and technology. It is only people like you who keep repeating long-debunked disinformation that ever think others would willfully and shamelessly do the same.]

Bill

[JR: William -- You have come to the wrong site. The points below are all denier talking points that have been debunked years if not decades ago in the scientific literature -- and repeatedly on this website. The fact that you talk about the satellite data as indicating anything other than warming shows that you are stuck in the 1990s. Spend some time to RealClimate where folks will humor your claims to scientific literacy. Hint: Human-caused CO2 is NOT the only forcing, just the biggest new one today and outpacing all others rapidly.]

Please enlighted the huddled masses and explain why a lagging indicator can be the only possible explanation for the Earth’s temperature changes from 1975 to 1998, to the exclusion of the PDO, solar cycles and other natural climate drivers. All of the data gained from the analysis of every glacier tested shows that CO2 lags Earth’s temperature changes by centuries (200-800 years). Yet the AGW crowd says that it has now become a driving force which is the one and only reason that the Earth warmed from 1975 to 1998. (to say that the Earth has not cooled since 1998 is to totally ignore the satellite data and show both your bias and ignorance!) Also please explain how the Earth’s atmosphere had CO2 concentrations several times higher than our current 385 ppm several million years ago without run-a-way greenhouse warming.

So tell us, Oh Enlightened One, how that can be the case for a trivial trace gas in our atmosphere (CO2) which happens to be absolutely essential to all life on Earth. I don’t want links to other sites, I want a detailed explanation from you without the bombastic personal attacks you dish out to fellow “skeptics”.

Bill

For the record, I have an MS in Aerospace Engr with a major in space dynamics and control theory. I also have 30+ years of experience in Industrial Instrumentation with emphasis on process control and sensor techonolgy and application. I know that lagging indicators are not system drivers; in economies, process control or climate systems. I know that CO2 has consistently increased from 1900 to present day which does not correlate with the warming from 1900 to 1940, the cooling from 1940 to 1975, the warming from 1975 to 1998 and the cooling that began just a few short years ago.

related, Jennifer Ouellete via Mooney –
“…while the constant snark directed at science in movies and TV might be entertaining to those in the “geek clique,” it is not, in the long run, constructive, or conducive to fostering change in how science is portrayed in Hollywood. …”

The point I made was with regard to the Antarctic and Greenland ice
sheets. I posed the question about what happens to the water level
when an ice cube is placed in a glass which is then filled to the brim
and the ice melts. The correct answer is the water level drops because
the space occupied by the ice is greater than that occupied by the
water it contains. Water expands when it freezes.
I then applied that analogy to Antarctica and Greenland since a
majority of that ice is already in the water. Lettinga identifies them as
land-ice, which is technically correct, but they are grounded on the
land below sea level for most of their area. His claim about portions
of the ice slipping into the oceans and raising sea levels is speculative
nonsense as is his claim there is already evidence this is happening.

“All I did was apply my “analogy” (which is wrong) to something I couldn’t apply it to even if it were correct.”

The thing is, Tim Ball, like the late Michael Crichton, does not go anywhere to reason or discuss anything, so inconsistency and outright nonsense is actually part of his assigned task. It’s “climate filibustering.”

Oh yeah. Tim folded.

It’s all related to an increase in “R”.

As pirates increase, so does “R” (also sometimes spelled “Arrr”) and as “R” increases, so does the correlation between pirates and global warming (and pirates and everything else, for that matter)

Everyone who visits Anthony watts’ site understands this.

Erika Lovley is a young writer, of some talent (as indicated by her editorship of the UMass Amherst Collegian and her subsequent 7-month stint with the Wall Street Journal) and little or no knowledge of the science underlying her reportorial beat (as indicated by her 2006 Jounalism / PoliSci degree, not to mention the multiple howlers in her articles).

It is to be hoped that getting banged around like this will in time make her a more careful, thoughtful writer — and not a bitter, fact-resistant hack. We have enough of those.

And — James, Craig, joletaxi, Jim, jerome — being criticized as not knowing what you are talking about is not necessarily a sign that your critic is an ideologue — it may just be that you do not know what you are talking about.