Remember me
▼ Content

CO2 Lags About 2,000 Years Behind on Temperature Changes



Page 2 of 3<123>
26-07-2016 20:51
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
LOL!!! A 133 month average is used to illustrate that erm.. well without it the last 18 years has not seen any temperature rise. You are dishonest.


Well, yes, without temperature reading, there would be no temperature rise to illustrate. *shrug*

But you do realize that, without using 5 year averages, you're basically looking at weather, right?

Let's go with the most simple; The increase in plant fertility will not drop if the CO2 level stays the same or increases.

Do you dispute that?


If it stays the same? I can't really say one way or the other.

If it increase, I definitely dispute it.

Oh, you know, basic physics.


What particular kind of basic physics?

Because there have been periods of more CO2 in the air than now and the corral has been fine with it.


Once again, they were fine because those increases of CO2 were gradual in the past, allowing for evolutionary adaptation.

As noted numerous times, the problem with climate change is speed.

Even growing lots faster than now.


Do you have a source for such an extraordinary claim?

The variability of habitats in the oceans means that there will be resevoirs of old species of corral that will thrive in much more CO2 enriched water than most of the ocean's have now.


What evidence do you base this on?

100 years is very much more than ample time for life to sort out taking advantage of increased plant food.


You do realize life requires more than food to survive, right? Even if we assume more plants, which at the very least is an unsupported claim, that doesn't mean life will "take advantage" of it.

I don't know more than experts in coastal errosion. I know more than the dicks who suck up all the bullshit that the alarmist crowd spew out. These are different groups.


You're arguing against the former here, though, not the latter.

You utterly dishonest lying shit!!

Why would you lie knowing that I will simply quote the previous post unless you are an habitual liar and think nobody else has any memory at all.

Given your total lack of any honesty I will end this here.


Huh...

What am I lying about?

Maybe take your anger management pills before you respond.

And, again, please read the quote again and see if you can spot your error. I'll give you a hint: the symbol "±" in statistics is used before a number to indicate an estimated range of error in a particular dataset and after a number viewed as the most likely accurate number.

And, again, it's okay to make an error and be wrong. I've done it many times, including over the past two weeks since I started posting here. Owning up to it and correcting the error is a very effective way to learn, IMO. YMMV, I guess...
Edited on 26-07-2016 20:56
26-07-2016 21:25
spot
★★★★☆
(1018)
I sense frustration.
28-07-2016 07:06
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Leafsdude wrote:
LOL!!! A 133 month average is used to illustrate that erm.. well without it the last 18 years has not seen any temperature rise. You are dishonest.


Well, yes, without temperature reading, there would be no temperature rise to illustrate. *shrug*

But you do realize that, without using 5 year averages, you're basically looking at weather, right?


The statement "The world has not warmed up since 1998" is true. When you use an 11 year floating average to try to refute it you are lying. You know this. It is obvious.

I will not deal with the rest of your drivel due to not wishing to deal with such a dishonest liar's many acts of avoidance.

I will deal with one point at a time only.
28-07-2016 15:26
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
The statement "The world has not warmed up since 1998" is true.


All the evidence says otherwise.

When you use an 11 year floating average to try to refute it you are lying.


1) Didn't notice it before, but you are correct, it's an 11 year average, not 5. There is a very good reason for that number, though: Sun cycles, which also run 11 years.

2) What makes using 11 year floating averages lying?

You know this. It is obvious.


Nope, I do not. Please explain it to me.

I will not deal with the rest of your drivel due to not wishing to deal with such a dishonest liar's many acts of avoidance.


More transference.

There's some really rich irony in you talking about avoidance while avoiding answering most of my questions/comments. *laugh*

In the mean time, I'll say the same about you as you claim in the above quote, and unlike you, I actually have a good point. However, I'm more than willing to continue arguing over every point you make, dishonest or not, as I actually am interested in a proper debate as opposed to picking and choosing my battles to make it seem like I'm winning.

I will deal with one point at a time only.


Why not make it the point where you accidentally mistook the error range in a statistical analysis of tidal shift as the actual shift?

Oh, right, because admitting you made a mistake is too much for your poor little ego to take, especially when you've transferred that inability to the person you're arguing with, even though I've shown complete willingness to correct myself when necessary.

Not that doing such a thing is at all religious...

...Oh, wait...

Edited on 28-07-2016 15:34
28-07-2016 16:19
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Leafsdude wrote:
The statement "The world has not warmed up since 1998" is true.


All the evidence says otherwise.

When you use an 11 year floating average to try to refute it you are lying.


1) Didn't notice it before, but you are correct, it's an 11 year average, not 5. There is a very good reason for that number, though: Sun cycles, which also run 11 years.

2) What makes using 11 year floating averages lying?

You know this. It is obvious.


Nope, I do not. Please explain it to me.

I will not deal with the rest of your drivel due to not wishing to deal with such a dishonest liar's many acts of avoidance.




Including data from before 1998 to try to make it look like there has been warming since 1998 is called lying. Plain and simple.
28-07-2016 17:28
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
How do you show warming in comparison to temperatures from before 1998 without including data from before 1998?
Edited on 28-07-2016 17:57
28-07-2016 18:35
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Leafsdude wrote:
How do you show warming in comparison to temperatures from before 1998 without including data from before 1998?


If you want to say that there has been warming during the period 1998 to now you cannot use data before then. If you do it's lying.

If you want to show what happened before than then fine use whatever data you want. But that would not be in relation to the statement that there has been no significant warming since 1998.

If I say that this week I have earned £400 I cannot include any earnings from before this week in that statement. If I do it's lying.
28-07-2016 18:48
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
If you want to say that there has been warming during the period 1998 to now you cannot use data before then.


Why not?

If you want to show what happened before than then fine use whatever data you want. But that would not be in relation to the statement that there has been no significant warming since 1998.


I'm using a chart that shows warming from 1900-2010. The period from 1998-2010 on that chart shows a warming, showing your claim to be incorrect. Where's the problem?

Other than your being incorrect, of course.

If I say that this week I have earned £400 I cannot include any earnings from before this week in that statement. If I do it's lying.


Sure. That's a faulty comparison, though, since the chart is saying there's been a ~1*C degree warming over the duration of the graph, and a 0.25*C warming since 1998. So it'd be like saying you make £20 800 per year and earned £400 this week. Which isn't a lie. *shrug*
Edited on 28-07-2016 18:57
29-07-2016 10:58
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Leafsdude wrote:
If you want to say that there has been warming during the period 1998 to now you cannot use data before then.


Why not?

If you want to show what happened before than then fine use whatever data you want. But that would not be in relation to the statement that there has been no significant warming since 1998.


I'm using a chart that shows warming from 1900-2010. The period from 1998-2010 on that chart shows a warming, showing your claim to be incorrect. Where's the problem?

Other than your being incorrect, of course.

If I say that this week I have earned £400 I cannot include any earnings from before this week in that statement. If I do it's lying.


Sure. That's a faulty comparison, though, since the chart is saying there's been a ~1*C degree warming over the duration of the graph, and a 0.25*C warming since 1998. So it'd be like saying you make £20 800 per year and earned £400 this week. Which isn't a lie. *shrug*


By using a 11 year mean the chart has an upward slope over the last 17 years. Yes. But that is not looking at the temperature ove the last 17 years it's something else thus you are lying when you use it to challenge the fact on there not being any significant warming over the last 17 years.

Bloody simple!!
29-07-2016 15:22
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
By using a 11 year mean the chart has an upward slope over the last 17 years. Yes. But that is not looking at the temperature ove the last 17 years it's something else thus you are lying when you use it to challenge the fact on there not being any significant warming over the last 17 years.


What, exactly, is it, then?

And, again, we're talking about climate here, not weather. Using raw, real time temperature readings is going to show weather, not climate. Getting an average over an extended period of time will get you climate. And that's not even noting potential biases like solar cycles, El Nino/La Nina's and urban heat island. Therefore, while, yes, 1998's datapoint is going to include readings from 1987, the datapoint itself is still indicative only of 1998 and not of 1987 or any of the years in between, what with the fact that, for example, 1997 includes all the same years plus 1986 and minus 1998.

To use your analogy from your previous post, it'd be like asking someone how much they make based on a monthly average, and them answering, "well, in January I made x on average based on the last 12 months and in June I made y on average based on the last 12 months". So you see, no lying, just answering the question with facts.
29-07-2016 15:34
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Leafsdude wrote:
By using a 11 year mean the chart has an upward slope over the last 17 years. Yes. But that is not looking at the temperature ove the last 17 years it's something else thus you are lying when you use it to challenge the fact on there not being any significant warming over the last 17 years.


What, exactly, is it, then?

And, again, we're talking about climate here, not weather. Using raw, real time temperature readings is going to show weather, not climate. Getting an average over an extended period of time will get you climate. And that's not even noting potential biases like solar cycles, El Nino/La Nina's and urban heat island. Therefore, while, yes, 1998's datapoint is going to include readings from 1987, the datapoint itself is still indicative only of 1998 and not of 1987 or any of the years in between, what with the fact that, for example, 1997 includes all the same years plus 1986 and minus 1998.

To use your analogy from your previous post, it'd be like asking someone how much they make based on a monthly average, and them answering, "well, in January I made x on average based on the last 12 months and in June I made y on average based on the last 12 months". So you see, no lying, just answering the question with facts.


I made no claim that the temperature had not risen before 1998.

To use data about world temperature before the start date is lying.

In the example; If you were asked "how much have you made in the last month?" and used numbers from the last 11 years you would be lying.
29-07-2016 16:11
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
I made no claim that the temperature had not risen before 1998.


So you didn't say:

The statement "The world has not warmed up since 1998" is true.


Then?

Liar.

To use data about world temperature before the start date is lying.


You can say it as many times as you like. I've proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it's not.

In the example; If you were asked "how much have you made in the last month?" and used numbers from the last 11 years you would be lying.


Yes. That's not what's happening here. Saying otherwise only shows your ignorance on what exactly climate is.
30-07-2016 16:50
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Leafsdude wrote:
I made no claim that the temperature had not risen before 1998.


So you didn't say:

The statement "The world has not warmed up since 1998" is true.


Then?

Liar.


I did say that. The 2 statements are not at all contradictory. It is bizzar that I have to expalin this but here goes;

The temperature of the world's climate warmed, in general, between 1979 and 1998. Then it stopped warming up.

This year and last and 1998 are so close in temperature as to be too close to call.

All these statements are true and do not contradict each other.


To use data about world temperature before the start date is lying.


You can say it as many times as you like. I've proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it's not.

In the example; If you were asked "how much have you made in the last month?" and used numbers from the last 11 years you would be lying.


Yes. That's not what's happening here. Saying otherwise only shows your ignorance on what exactly climate is.


The statement "It has not warmed up since 1998" does not include the word climate.

It is lying to include data from before 1998 to try to make it look like it has warmed since then.

If you were asked "what was you anual salery during the last month?" you would include data from the whole year maybe. But that would be a different question to "How much money did you take home last month?"

It very odd that I have to expalin this to anybody at all.
30-07-2016 23:00
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
I did say that. The 2 statements are not at all contradictory. It is bizzar that I have to expalin this but here goes;

The temperature of the world's climate warmed, in general, between 1979 and 1998. Then it stopped warming up.

This year and last and 1998 are so close in temperature as to be too close to call.


Only if you look at raw numbers. Which is stupid to do. Sorry, but it is.

And comparing two years to each other directly will not show you an overall trend. You have to look at the entirety of the period being looked at, and the trend from 1998-2015 is undeniably a warming trend. 1998 was an anomalous year, 1997 and 1999 both had notably lower temperature readings, which, if compared to 2015, show a significant warming. So, basically, if you want to say temperatures between 1998 and 2015 were "too close to call", you have to also say that temperatures in 2015 were notably higher than 1999, and if that's the case, then you have to admit that there's been warming since 1999.

Not saying those positions are correct, because they're all obviously completely misusing statistical analysis, but if you're going to stay consistent, then you have to take them.

All these statements are true and do not contradict each other.


Yes, and both claim that temperature has not risen since 1998. *shrug*

The statement "It has not warmed up since 1998" does not include the word climate.


Not explicitly, but the only inference from that statement, since talking about temperature trends from 1998-2016 fits the description of the word, is that you're talking about climate.

It is lying to include data from before 1998 to try to make it look like it has warmed since then.


Only if you're not talking about climate. Last I checked, we were...

If you were asked "what was you anual salery during the last month?" you would include data from the whole year maybe.


Indeed. That's the analogical question to ask against climate.

But that would be a different question to "How much money did you take home last month?"


And the analogical question to ask in such a case would not show climate but rather weather.

It very odd that I have to expalin this to anybody at all.


It's odd that you're arguing about weather in a debate about climate.
Edited on 30-07-2016 23:06
31-07-2016 13:14
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Just try making statements that are not untrue.
31-07-2016 15:14
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
Feel free to point out how any of those statements are "untrue".

Good luck!
Edited on 31-07-2016 15:17
01-08-2016 19:19
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Leafsdude wrote:
Feel free to point out how any of those statements are "untrue".

Good luck!


You posted;
Leafsdude wrote:

I made no claim that the temperature had not risen before 1998.



So you didn't say:

The statement "The world has not warmed up since 1998" is true.



Then?

Liar.


You have since understood that the two statements are not contradictory. Thus you now understand that the liar bit is false.

Again you have demonstrated, both in the last post and the one I have quoted that you are functionally incapable of understanding what truth is. This is a deeply philosophical point that children normally develope by a young age. To not be able to get it is, I fear, not as uncommon as I would like.

I am often disappointed by human nature.
01-08-2016 22:11
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
You have since understood that the two statements are not contradictory. Thus you now understand that the liar bit is false.


As I noted, your two statements in response were not equatable to the ones you made originally.

So, no, it's not false.

And my challenge to you was to point out which part of my response you refused to reply to and instead only offered ad hominems was false. Since you had to go two posts back and ignore the reply to it instead, you again are lying.

Not that you're a hypocrite or anything.


Again you have demonstrated, both in the last post and the one I have quoted that you are functionally incapable of understanding what truth is. This is a deeply philosophical point that children normally develope by a young age. To not be able to get it is, I fear, not as uncommon as I would like.


Or maybe, just maybe, you can't actually refute my statements and would rather ragequit than actually concede you might be wrong.

The fact that you seem to want to discuss the nature of truth rather than debate the facts of climate change only furthers my impression that you just cannot ever admit you made any kind of mistake. Which is just sad.

I am often disappointed by human nature.


I know, right?
Edited on 01-08-2016 22:17
04-08-2016 13:47
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
There is no proof at all that the world is warming up. Have we forgotten about Climategate? Global warming is a religion.
04-08-2016 16:45
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
Do you really want to bring up ClimateGate?

I don't think you do.
04-08-2016 22:28
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
You two should get on great. Neither does honesty.

The world has warmed up since 1979. Climate does change. Humanity certainly has some warming effect on the world.
04-08-2016 23:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
Buildreps wrote:
There is no proof at all that the world is warming up. Have we forgotten about Climategate? Global warming is a religion.


You are absolutely correct.

It is not possible to measure anything like a global temperature.

First, the problem is one of definition. Do you include atmospheric temperatures at all altitudes? Do you include subsurface temperatures in the oceans? How about subsurface temperatures of the land?

Or do you include only the surface?

Second, the problem is one of error margin and sampling issues.

Statistical mathematics requires a sampling of the data that is uniform and makes use of a random component independent of the data itself. If you fail at this, the results of the analysis are meaningless.

Thermometers are scattered all over the globe measuring surface temperatures. We also have quite a few buoys measuring surface temperature at sea.

These thermometers are not distributed evenly, and there are not anywhere near enough of them. There are no thermometers across most of either polar region. There are none in the mountains away from roads. There are none in jungles except a few automated stations at the head of certain rivers.

There are thousands in a city.

Temperature can vary as much as 20 degrees within a single mile. This can be caused by terrain, pressure waves, cloud cover, proximity to water, etc.

A typical attempt at a global temperature uses these thousands of thermometers in cities, giving them some kind of weighting to compensate for areas devoid of them.

This does not satisfy the uniform sampling, and the random element is dependent on the data itself, meaning the random element is now part of the data.

The result of the analysis is therefore meaningless.

Further, statistical mathematics is a great tool for summarizing old or current data, but it has no power to predict the future. This is due to the use of the random variable, and due to the use of statistics as a compression tool only.


The Parrot Killer
05-08-2016 21:08
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
On top of that, we still have the 'problem' that CO2 lags behind. Of course, you can try to explain that with insane complex theories; complexity is an expression of untruthfulness.
This theory I'm referring to only explains the last 20,000 years, and not how this CO2 warming mechanism would work over the full extend of 800,000 years. Please explain me in a few sentences how this works.

CO2 lags behind and is responsible for global warming. How does that work? Is CO2 looking into the future? If you believe that, you believe in miracles. If you believe in miracles, you're a religious fanatic. If you're a religious fanatic, you don't think for yourself, and repeat what the 'pope' told you.

You can say I'm too stupid to understand such a theory, that's fine, but if you cannot explain something simple, you do not understand it either. No links, in your own words: how does this feedforward (looking into the future) mechanism work?

Thanks.
Edited on 05-08-2016 21:09
05-08-2016 22:58
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
On top of that, we still have the 'problem' that CO2 lags behind. Of course, you can try to explain that with insane complex theories; complexity is an expression of untruthfulness.


What is so complex about CO2 lagging when it's a feedback of warming and not lagging when it is a forcer of warming?
06-08-2016 12:17
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
Leafsdude wrote:
On top of that, we still have the 'problem' that CO2 lags behind. Of course, you can try to explain that with insane complex theories; complexity is an expression of untruthfulness.


What is so complex about CO2 lagging when it's a feedback of warming and not lagging when it is a forcer of warming?


You're avoiding the subject. If CO2 is the feedback, what causes the alleged warming then? Can you explain the huge temperature swings of the past one million years?
Edited on 06-08-2016 12:17
06-08-2016 18:10
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
You're avoiding the subject.


Nope, I'm answering the question...

If CO2 is the feedback, what causes the alleged warming then?


First, CO2 can be both a warmer and a feedback. Second, warming has, historically, been caused by: volcanic events, Milankovitch cycles, continental drift (particularly ones that cause significant geographical changes on our planet, such as creating oceans), as well as shifts in levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Can you explain the huge temperature swings of the past one million years?


Sure: Milankovitch cycles. They run over about 20 000-25 000 years. There have been about 10 significant warming and cooling periods over the last million years (all occurring over the last 500 000), while the last 8 000-10 000 years have been relatively stable. The evidence fits the explanation like a glove.
Edited on 06-08-2016 18:15
06-08-2016 19:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
Leafsdude wrote:
First, CO2 can be both a warmer and a feedback.


A logical impossibility. That is like saying the motor powers the gyroscope and the gyroscope powers the motor.


The Parrot Killer
06-08-2016 21:51
Buildreps
★☆☆☆☆
(100)
@Leafsdude:
You've found a mare's nest by believing that CO2 can be a warmer and a feedback. You have a problem with logic and reasoning, which makes you a believer. I hope I don't insult you with that.

Not the Milankovitch cycles fit on the curves climate change, solely the eccentric orbit does. It fits perfectly. The rest (obliquity, precession) is nitpicking, and would only work when earth would be flat. Do you know what happens when eccentricity increases? The average distance to the sun over one year doesn't change. But the tidal forces grow significantly, not the amount of collected solar energy over one year.

Your believe (drift, volcanoes, oceanic currents) might explain about 2 degrees of the change in the temperatures. But they cannot account for a variation of about 8 to 12 degrees C.

BTW: When were 'oceans' created the last 1 million years?

Thanks.
07-08-2016 16:18
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
You've found a mare's nest by believing that CO2 can be a warmer and a feedback.


Perhaps. Doesn't mean it's not true.

You have a problem with logic and reasoning, which makes you a believer.


I'd like to see you point out a flaw in my reasoning and logic. Should be funny.

I hope I don't insult you with that.


Bullshit.

Not the Milankovitch cycles fit on the curves climate change, solely the eccentric orbit does. It fits perfectly.


Can you state this again? Your phrasing is off.

The rest (obliquity, precession) is nitpicking, and would only work when earth would be flat.


Source?

Do you know what happens when eccentricity increases? The average distance to the sun over one year doesn't change. But the tidal forces grow significantly, not the amount of collected solar energy over one year.


Source?

Your believe (drift, volcanoes, oceanic currents) might explain about 2 degrees of the change in the temperatures. But they cannot account for a variation of about 8 to 12 degrees C.


Based on what?

And remember, you asked what the cause of climate change was, which is asking what the forcer was. Feedback loops, such as CO2, H2O and other things, amplify minimal initial temperature changes to cause what might initially be 2*C or so into 4*C+.

BTW: When were 'oceans' created the last 1 million years?


When did I say any were?

A logical impossibility. That is like saying the motor powers the gyroscope and the gyroscope powers the motor.


Well, that's nonsensical because gyroscopes don't power things...

But here's a handy graphic on how positive feedbacks work:


Edited on 07-08-2016 16:45
02-09-2016 15:25
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Leafsdude wrote:
Please come up with an intelligent explanation for these obvious facts. Who wants to try?


Oh, me, me!

What about the simple explanation that CO2 isn't the only historical cause for climate change? When other events, such as Milankovitch Cycles, tectonic movement and volcanic activity, cause change climate, CO2 winds up being a feedback effect due to release/absorption from pole caps. When CO2 doesn't lag but instead matches with climate change, it's because it is the cause. We're seeing a match between increasing temperature and CO2 today, probably because CO2 is the cause.

Intelligent enough for you? Probably too much, actually.


Yes, to a point.

Given that you, correctly, say that previous climate change has been as a result of many factors reather than CO2 levels why is the warming period 1979 to 1998 attributed only to the increase in CO2 during that period?

If there are other factors in play and the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 is in fact towards the lower end of the IPCC's perdictions at it's highest do you think there is any chance of a temperature rise due to CO2 of more than 2c by 2100? If so why?


Previous climate change has been the result of many factors INCLUDING changes in GHG levels (not just CO2).

The reason why the warming trend over the last 100+ years is largely attributed to CO2 (plus other GHGs and aerosols) is that all the other factors indicate a very slow cooling trend. The increase in these GHGs explains the discrepancy.

Further the fingerprint of the warming (where, how much, and timing) matches that which would be expected from the changes in our atmosphere, no other mechanism does.
02-09-2016 15:36
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
DRKTS wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:Yes, to a point.

Given that you, correctly, say that previous climate change has been as a result of many factors reather than CO2 levels why is the warming period 1979 to 1998 attributed only to the increase in CO2 during that period?

If there are other factors in play and the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 is in fact towards the lower end of the IPCC's perdictions at it's highest do you think there is any chance of a temperature rise due to CO2 of more than 2c by 2100? If so why?


Previous climate change has been the result of many factors INCLUDING changes in GHG levels (not just CO2).

The reason why the warming trend over the last 100+ years is largely attributed to CO2 (plus other GHGs and aerosols) is that all the other factors indicate a very slow cooling trend. The increase in these GHGs explains the discrepancy.

Further the fingerprint of the warming (where, how much, and timing) matches that which would be expected from the changes in our atmosphere, no other mechanism does.

Following this conversation is just like listening to Christians debate characteristics of the human soul.

Money can't buy this level of imaginative creativity (no offense intended to Christians).


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-09-2016 15:41
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
IBdaMann wrote:
DRKTS wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:Yes, to a point.

Given that you, correctly, say that previous climate change has been as a result of many factors reather than CO2 levels why is the warming period 1979 to 1998 attributed only to the increase in CO2 during that period?

If there are other factors in play and the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 is in fact towards the lower end of the IPCC's perdictions at it's highest do you think there is any chance of a temperature rise due to CO2 of more than 2c by 2100? If so why?


Previous climate change has been the result of many factors INCLUDING changes in GHG levels (not just CO2).

The reason why the warming trend over the last 100+ years is largely attributed to CO2 (plus other GHGs and aerosols) is that all the other factors indicate a very slow cooling trend. The increase in these GHGs explains the discrepancy.

Further the fingerprint of the warming (where, how much, and timing) matches that which would be expected from the changes in our atmosphere, no other mechanism does.

Following this conversation is just like listening to Christians debate characteristics of the human soul.

Money can't buy this level of imaginative creativity (no offense intended to Christians).


.


Once again no substance
02-09-2016 16:01
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
Leafsdude wrote:I'd like to see you point out a flaw in my reasoning and logic. Should be funny.

Pick me! Pick me!

You are correct that the fact that you BELIEVE temperature can increase without additional energy, without compressing the volume and without any chemical reaction, is deliciously funny.

Leafsdude wrote:And remember, you asked what the cause of climate change was, which is asking what the forcer was. Feedback loops, such as CO2, H2O and other things, amplify minimal initial temperature changes to cause what might initially be 2*C or so into 4*C+.

This is too funny. You are so indoctrinated into the WACKY religious warmizombie cult that you think your dogmatic gibber-babble is actually science.

If you were to face actual science, you would flee in terror, read: EVADE

...and here's the kicker ... I hope I'm not insulting you by pointing this out.

Awesome!


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-09-2016 16:02
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
DRKTS wrote:Once again no substance

Once again, no science.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-09-2016 18:52
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
IBdaMann wrote:


.


The full stop is about the most cogent argument you have made so far.
02-09-2016 19:34
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4267)
DRKTS wrote:The full stop is about the most cogent argument you have made so far.

I think that this quote of yours contains the fewest errors to date.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-09-2016 05:36
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
Pick me! Pick me!

You are correct that the fact that you BELIEVE temperature can increase without additional energy, without compressing the volume and without any chemical reaction, is deliciously funny.


Interesting how you just resort to ad hominems instead of actually addressing my points.

It's completely logical and entirely defensible by experimentation that limiting the energy out can have as much an impact on temperature as increasing energy in. The fact that you believe that the former cannot happen (and yes, in your case it is clearly a belief, as no documentation supports the claim) only shows that you refuse to even consider the possibility you're wrong.

This is too funny. You are so indoctrinated into the WACKY religious warmizombie cult that you think your dogmatic gibber-babble is actually science.

If you were to face actual science, you would flee in terror, read: EVADE

...and here's the kicker ... I hope I'm not insulting you by pointing this out.

Awesome!


Again, no actual refutation, just ad hominems. It's almost as though you can't actually counter my arguments with actual logic.

Feedback loops exist. I even posted an image that metaphorically showed how they happen. They don't violate any law of physics.
Edited on 03-09-2016 05:37
03-09-2016 13:31
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(166)
Leafsdude wrote:

Feedback loops exist. I even posted an image that metaphorically showed how they happen. They don't violate any law of physics.


Just ask them whether they have ever heard a microphone / sound system saturate when the loud speakers are too close to the mic or the gain is set too high.

That's a feed back loop - so they do exist.
03-09-2016 21:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8642)
DRKTS wrote:
Leafsdude wrote:

Feedback loops exist. I even posted an image that metaphorically showed how they happen. They don't violate any law of physics.


Just ask them whether they have ever heard a microphone / sound system saturate when the loud speakers are too close to the mic or the gain is set too high.

That's a feed back loop - so they do exist.


Who said there is no such thing as a feedback loop?

Looking back through the posts, I can see no one that was saying that.


The Parrot Killer
03-09-2016 22:40
Leafsdude
★☆☆☆☆
(141)
Then what was the "gibber-babble" you were referring to, and what made it so?
Page 2 of 3<123>





Join the debate CO2 Lags About 2,000 Years Behind on Temperature Changes:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
CO2 increase10019-08-2019 09:18
How does radiation heat CO2615-08-2019 05:38
Earths Temperature114-08-2019 20:08
Greenhouse effect of CO22713-08-2019 17:11
CO2 saturated water409-08-2019 06:43
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact