Murry Salby responds to critics

milodonharlani says:
“To whatever extent the rise in CO2 since c. 1850 may be humans’ fault, I’m sure that green plants & other terrestrial photosynthesizers & the animals, fungi & microbes which rely upon them thank us.”
And THAT is the central point in the entire discussion, no?
Because if the only measurable effect of the rise in CO2 is a healthier biosphere, then there is no problem at all. That is why the alarmist contingent always changes the subject to model-based arguments, and studiously avoids what happens in the real world.
========================================
Ferdinand says:
“In the Coke example temperature is largely irrelevant”
So we disagree on that point. Fair enough. But even Bill Nye, the *ahem* ‘science guy’ [who I am not citing as an authority, but as a high-school level self-promoter who doesn’t know science from his scrotum] would admit that a Coke at 25ºC would bubble out [outgas] significantly more CO2 at the same pressure than an identical Coke at 1ºC.
Since we do not agree that, as you say, the temperature effect is “largely irrelevant”. I [and most educated folks] would agree that temperature does make a real difference. You do not agree. Fine. Let’s leave it at that, because your mind is made up. We have been over this many times, and I don’t want to get into an endless nitpicking argument about it.
========================================
Next, ‘Nyq Only’ has had his feelings hurt. My apologies. But rather than name-calling [I could certainly do much worse, if I wanted], I was simply making an analogy between runaway global warming believers, and Islamic fanatics. IMHO they are both fanatics. Alarmist blogs do not permit this sort of back-and-forth debate — one true indication of a fanatic. Their religion must never be contradicted, no matter how many verifiable facts are presented. So please, learn the difference between name-calling [your peoples’ “denialists”] and a closed=minded fanatic.
Also, I do not speak for Bart, and vice-versa. Bart has been running circles around you, so rather than debate Bart, you try to debate me with Bart’s words. My suggestion: learn who to debate. All my responses are replies to what people have written about what I said, not about what others say.
========================================
jimmi_the_dalek,
I don’t see how we will ever agree, since you refuse to admit that the empirical evidence I posted, from several different sources, clearly shows that ∆T causes a subsequesnt ∆CO2. If those charts were meaningless as you claim, then you would have no trouble finding equally meaninglesss charts showing the opposite. But despite my constant requests, you have been unable to locate and post any such charts. So instead, you argue using a lot of words that simply do not make your case.
As I have repeatedly explained to Ferdinand and others, I am a “show me” kind of guy. When there is a dispute between models and empirical [real world] evidence, the evidence always trumps the models. It means the models are wrong.
But in your world it is the opposite. You disregard reality, posting lots of words, but which never falsify the reams of empirical observations showing conclusively that changes in temperature consistently lead changes in CO2 on all time scales out to hundreds of thousands of years. That, my friend, is the reason models are universally wrong: they began with a false premise, and as a result every last GCM on the planet totally failed to predict the past 16 – 17 years of no global warming, despite the steady rise in CO2.
I’m sorry that I can’t help you. But your mind is already made up, and as a result you are not able to accept actual, verifiable real world observations. If you want to convince scientific skeptics of your position, then “show us” is a good place to start. But so far, you have produced lots of words, but no empirical evidence to support your belief. None at all.

Jimmi the dalek says:
“I am not trying to prove CO2 drives T, I am pointing out that you need a stronger argument to prove the opposite.”
Good for you. No one else has been able to prove that CO2 drives temperature, either. The only available evidence shows the opposite cause and effect.
As for my argument that T drives CO2, I have posted numerous charts, all based on empirical measurements, which prove exactly that. But for some strange reason you are not able to accept real world evidence, and instead provide a convoluted rationale that real world measurements don’t count.
Believe what you want, but reasonable people who look at the record can see that repeatedly, time after time, for hundreds of thousands of years down to only months, ∆T causes ∆CO2.
You cannot accept observed reality. But don’t feel bad about it, no one in the alarmist cult that demonizes “carbon” can accept observed reality, either. The planet could drop ten degrees in a few decades — which has happened before, and at times when CO2 was both high, and low — and you would still be unable to accept the fact that T strongly influences CO2.
So enough with the endless words, which mean nothing. They are only a conjecture. An opinion. Produce a comparable chart, which I have been asking for constantly, showing that ∆CO2 is the cause of ∆T. If you can do that, you will have my complete attention, and you may even convince me that you’re right. But since you seem incapable of producing empirical evidence showing what you believe, then it remains only a belief.
So show me! Show me a chart based on verifiable, real world measurements, showing that ∆CO2 is the cause of ∆T. Because your convoluted attempts to explain your beliefs are thoroughly inadequate, desperate, and based on belief rather than on real world observations, as are the real world observations that I have repeatedly posted.

j-t-d,
It has been discussed here more than once that those charts are derived directly from empirical data. Sorry you missed those discussions. You are simply squirming around, looking for an out for your inability to produce a similar chart showing that rising CO2 causes rising temperature.

j_t_d,
My interpretation is correct. You are the only one who cannot understand that when a pattern repeats exactly, over hundreds of thousands of years, that any real scientist would conclude that the pattern is real. It indicates cause and effect. As I told you above:

As for my argument that T drives CO2, I have posted numerous charts, all based on empirical measurements, which prove exactly that. But for some strange reason you are not able to accept real world evidence, and instead provide a convoluted rationale that real world measurements don’t count.

You cannot accept testable, verifiable, real world evidence. Got it. Your mind is made up and closed tighter than a drumskin. Got it. So I am not writing these posts and posting these numerous graphs to convince you of anything. Your mind is made up and closed tight. Your position is based on your Belief, not on science. I am writing so that readers who actually want to hear both sides of the issue don’t just hear your obfuscation. You make it easy for them to decide.
As stated, If/when you can post a graph, like the ones I posted, but showing that ∆CO2 causes ∆T, I will sit up straight and pay attention. You may even convince me that you are right. But so far, all of your model-based, wordy rationalizations fail against the evidence that the real world presents. Really, who should we believe? You? Or Planet Earth? Because you cannot both be right.

j_t_d,
Of course I can answer that; I have been immersed in this subject for more than forty years. I worked in a weather-related career, on every type of weather and climate related instrument. We received all the manufacturer’s literature, from when global cooling was the big scare, to global warming.
As usual, you are just cherry-picking what you want to believe. Your graph does not even show temperature. That is because you constantly avoid the cause and effect relationship between T and the consistent, repeated, subsequent CO2 movements. Your attitude is that because the sun rises every day, that does not mean there is any mechanism for it. You ignore cause and effect going back many thousands of years. You are simply a True Believer, and the Scientific Method be damned.
CO2 is rising. Who disputes that? The problem for the alarmist crowd is that T is not rising.
That directly contradicts the incessant alarmist predictions over the past few decades, claiming that rising CO2 would cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe. But the real world is falsifying that belief. In other words, the alarmist crowd was 100% wrong in their predictions, in their certainty, and in their misguided belief. But your ego is so wound up in the alarmist narrative that you cannot disengage. So you argue incessantly — when everyone else can see that your predictions were wrong. ALL of them.
That’s all there is to it, and that fact is confirmed by mountains of empirical [real world] scientific evidence and measurements showing that CO2 does not have the predicted effect.
White is Black, Down is Up, War is Peace, Ignorance is Strength, and CO2 will Cause Runaway Global Warming. All in your fevered dreams.