Why would they resort to profane language in attacking anyone who dares to question them? They also have a very small vocabulary.

Oh, and TCO, do you kiss your mother with that mouth? Can you supply anything more substantive than ad hominem attacks?

Cognitive dissonance at its finest.

Isn’t it funny how, when the sun goes down at night, the effect is felt almost immediately? Why was Pinatubo so special that it took a whole year for the full cooling to be felt? But isn’t it also funny that when the summer solstice is passed, it takes a couple of months for the temperature to start dropping? So what’s going on there then?

You don’t have the basic science knowledge to be able to understand climate change issues. You really don’t. Sorry.

Because you also stated “extreme sensitivity.” Duh. Here’s an analogy: My net worth is less than 10 billion dollars. Does that make me “extremely rich”?

“Again, with your talk of ‘hidden heat’, you appear not to understand what heat capacity is. “

Lol. You are dodging the question. Look, you claim that the full effects of CO2 are not being felt in surface temperatures because of the “heat capacity” of the ocean. If this were a scientific claim, there would be a way to measure this effect.

And you would also be able to estimate the number of years in this lag you posit.

And isn’t it funny how the effects of Pinatubo were felt within a few years (according to Realclimate) and yet CO2 is special. It’s effects aren’t felt for . . . well . . . a long time . . . or something like that.

Bottom line: I suggest you go read some literature and educate yourself a little bit.

Again, with your talk of ‘hidden heat’, you appear not to understand what heat capacity is. Please, go and read some literature. It’s not really worth my while trying to explain this to you if you have such basic misconceptions. Your question 2 is really meaningless.

I can see by your reference to 1998 that you either don’t know how to treat the data properly, or are just happy to cherrypick it to match your beliefs. By taking a five year running mean, which any sensible person will do to avoid being confused by annual variation due to weather, and outliers like huge El Niño events, you’ll see that rapid warming is ongoing.

Are you going to wait a century, then, before allowing yourself to be convinced that rapid warming is happening? The temperatures are rising at the rate required for you to believe, so why don’t you believe?

But only after you obfuscated things by stating “I’ll give you another way of estimating climate sensitivity: . . . Voila: extreme sensitivity” If it’s an upper bound, “extreme sensitivity” does NOT follow from your calculation.

“Now does that make sense to you?”

Sure, and I have 3 extremely simple questions for you, one of which is multiple choice:

(1) Approximately how long did it take for the Mount Pinatubo eruption to have the bulk of its effect on global temperature anomaly.

(a) 10 years or more;

(b) less than 10 years.

(2) How would I measure the amount of this hidden heat in the ocean?

(3) How long in years is the lag before atmospheric CO2 has the bulk of its effect on global temperature anomaly?

You say that now because that is what happened. But if any of those things happened you can bet that the AGW crowd would have updated the models and claim they predicted this all along. This is not idle speculation because this is exactly what has happened with other data that did not fit the model. For example, the hansen 1988 model clearly shows that most of antartica would warm faster than the north pole. Instead antartica cooled and the north pole warmed faster and now RC is claiming that is what was “predicted” all along.

Similarily, the slowly warming tropospheric temperatures have provided evidence that AGW is wrong but the alarmists instead claimed that the temperature data is wrong because it has a cooling bias. Which sounds reasonable, except this cooling bias only exists if one assumes that assumptions built into the models are correct! It is an absurd example of circular logic than would be a joke if it wasn’t for the seriousness of the issue.

The next to zero increase in temps since 1998 should have also falsified a hypothesis that predicts warming of at least 0.15 degC/decade. However, the alarmists insist that something must be hiding the heating such as the oceans or aerosols.

When El nino caused a sustained drop in temperatures we have head alarmists claim that it is only temporary and warming will come back even faster in the near future.

I suspect there are other examples but you should see my point. The AGW hypothesis is not falsifiable because the alarmists keep moving the goal posts.

In terms of changing my mind – all the temperatures need to do is rise >2 degC/century which is the low end of the IPCC CO2 sensitivity measurements. I think that is a reasonable goal post that I won’t move. What about you? are you willing to set a reasonable goalpost that would change your mind (i.e. convince you that CO2 induced warming is nothing to worry about)?