Mike Davis wrote:Q:
The Vostok data specifically shows that CO2 concentrations FOLLOW temperature changes and continuing to claim the cores provide evidence to support the opposite is taking great liberty with the facts just like James whom you quote.
You don't know what your are talking about. James Hansen never claimed that CO2 concentration lead temperature change. He specifically said the opposite and explained why.
http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/0 ... _jeh2.html
When the temperature, CO2 and CH4 curves are carefully compared, it is found that temperature changes usually precede CO2 and CH4 changes by 500–1000 years on average. This indicates that climate change causes CO2 and CH4 changes. However, these greenhouse gas changes are a positive feedback that contributes to the large magnitude of the climate swings.
The only reason some magic bullet is needed is because James was looking for proof of his pet theory and he manufactured it. With the numbers of parameters that can be tweaked in the models any combination of the 22 + forces involved in climate could have been tweaked to provide the same results and any desired sensitivity would also result in the same results with "proper"Parameter modifications. FYI: Even though you continue to falsely claim that models are in some way representative of historic climate the truth is that they are not because they are guesses of what might have been and may be said to be consistent with observations when they are so far off they are useless. Or should we go back and discuss James 1988 model projections? Should we discuss the reliability of the GISS model runs? Should we discuss the ability of the various models to falsify each other? Should we discuss how using the output of models provides evidence of Pathological science along with the practices in Paleoclimate reconstructions?
Should we get back on track and discuss the evidence provided by the glaciers in the Swiss Alps?
You have made another of your ususal rants based on false information. There are no scientific arguments in the whole thing.