Ok, Rog, aka “The Loyal Opposition,”
I thought that we had agreed to back off, but if you’re calling me out by name…
I did, in fact , address your point about the CO2 lag. You merely chose to dismiss it with, as I recall, a statement to the effect that “My b_llcr*p detector is trembling.” Very poignant. Especially since Cuffey won an award for that work.
And then you quote Siegenthaler back at me as some sort of refutation. In fact, that paper was merely an extension of the existing Vostok data over a longer time period and sought to prove that the sensitivity between the deuterium and CO2 was stable. They merely wanted to show that the pattern of CO2 and deuterium fluctuations continued over this expanded timespan, but they made no attempt whatsoever to correct for accuracy in the way that Cuffey and Vimeux did. They didn’t even cite Cuffey and Vimeux in their references. (Which would be one hell of an oversight, if they were trying to refute them!) Thus, the two papers aren’t even about the same subject, and Siegenthaler is in no way “proof” that the lag exists.
I would say that I’m through playing this game with you because you are so obviously a True Believer and cannot be swayed, but I guess you did suck me in again.
For anyone else:
1) The CO2 lag, by best scientific information currently available, doesn’t exist. But it might be considered contentious, if one is feeling gracious. So, for the sake of argument…
2) Even most of the scientists who DO believe the lag exists STILL believe in anthropogenic global warming. This is because…
3) The explanation for the lag *amongst the believers* works thusly: One of the many other factors affecting global temperatures starts to raise temperatures. This leads, through a number of mechanisms, to increased atmospheric CO2. The temperature change is relatively slow, but rises much more quickly once the CO2 rises. Some estimates put the CO2 contribution to the rise in these historical examples as high as 5/6.
I would propose that the human race is acting as the “other factor” in the current episode of global temperature rise, by causing increased atmospheric CO2. Witness the Crowley paper, the abstract of which NOAA keeps on its website, and which you keep ignoring (while accusing others of ignoring your data):
Claiming that because other factors than CO2 can cause temperatures to rise somehow discounts that CO2 can cause temperatures to rise, is so logically absurd as to not need further comment. But I will anyway-
What you're saying is "I think that insolation caused these historical temperature changes, thus there is no way that CO2 can cause temperature changes, so we shouldn't worry about greenhouse gas emmissions." That’s like saying "Humans do not require food to live, because they obviously require air to live, and so there will be no repercussions if we stop eating."
And, as I have said, there is no CO2 lag, anyway.
I predict that Rog will now post some biased data “proving” that atmospheric CO2 is stable. Or he’ll go off on a tangent about how poor a greenhouse gas CO2 is, or misrepresent how it takes such large amounts of it to cause any change. Or he’ll ignore all that and post some fringe criticism of Crowley. Or something. Surprise me, Rog. Be anything but repetitious and boring. Because:
To respond to your other challenges: I and others have posted ad nauseum regarding your insistance that temperatures have been falling in the Southern Hemisphere. A belief, as usual, based in irrelevent data about limited local phenomena. You post one set of data, we post another, back and forth ad nauseum. Claiming over and over that we have not addressed your statements does not make it so. Likewise your views about the degree of temperature increase in the Northern Hemisphere. (And ,after all, in your "FOR THE RECORD" statement you granted that global temperatures have been rising.) I simply refuse to go back and forth about it any more, as it is a waste of both of our time.
I'll check back in another month or so. But I really wish you hadn't called me out by name. I am inconceivably bored with this argument, and would rather sit back and let you bash yourself silly against someone else for a while.
P.S. Heartland ?!?
Sorry. I had to get that in there. :-)