(#B) Further dialogues with the disconnected

It wasn't an hour before my pal fired back (If you want to know about the background to this thread, check out the previous post).  

If you're someone who wants to confront climate science contrarian types, this will be worth your time.  I dare say valuable background for your future endeavors.   Others need not waste their time.  

The Global Heat and Moisture Distribution Engine series would be a much better use of your time.  {fixed typos and other edits 2/20/16, 12:45 PM}
_______________________________________________

Dude writes:

I think you're in the mood for battle. I've read your blog post. Nobody with half a brain, outside of yourself, believes carbon dioxide has historically been the primary global climatic driver. Co2 traps a little heat, but it is not the primary driver. 

ENSO is a massive signal in comparison. Maybe we should say ENSO drives climate? 

___________________

CC:  How can you say that considering those were NASAGoddard videos and data, not mine?

"Primary driver", that would be the Sun, but it's been closely observed and it's been very steady for a very long time.

Can you explain the difference between driving weather patterns and the state of the planet's climate regime?

Do you not believe our atmosphere acts as insulation for our planet and the climate system within?

How does ENSO produce or take away heat from the global climate system?

_______________________________________________

Dude:  Some, and I disagree with these, believe that Co2 drives our current climate. Now comes the easy part. Please provide evidence that Co2 drives climate today, but if you stray from  empiracles... You lose.

___________________

That's pretty confusing not sure what you're claiming.  

The whole way you're looking at it seems backwards.  CO2 is an integral part of our atmosphere and is a major regulator of the amount of heat that's held within the global climate system.  The temperature at which our climate engine is running is profoundly tied to the amount of warmth our atmosphere holds, and the way the ocean basins are formed and its waters are circulating, even land masses and plate tectonic behavior, volcanoes, all, and more, interact with our atmosphere.

We are talking about complex systems science that won't submit themselves to your simplistic disingenuous lab bench expectations. 

Where is your empirical evidence showing that experiments establishing CO2's "greenhouse properties" are wrong?

Then perhaps - can you explain why we have dozens of modern marvels that would be impossible without that thorough empirical understanding of how greenhouse gases behave in the atmosphere?