16 May 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainI mean that there isn't a clear consensus amongst paleo-climatologists (or whatever the field is called) as to how it ended, whether the ice coverage was complete, or even how photosynthesis could have continued under those conditions.
"By chance I was looking at the Wikipedia pages on long term climate and I think that how the cryogenian era ended counts as a Problem for Science."
What do you mean by "a problem for science"? Do you mean science does not explain the end of the Cryogenian era to your satisfaction?
17 May 15
Originally posted by DeepThought"The problem for now, however, is that we've pumped so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that we may find ourselves past the hysteresis point and have ended the ice age we live in. This is bad news as we are not well adapted to greenhouse conditions. Neither is anything else."
I was thinking of contributing to this debate, beyond the occasional point I've made, but I really don't feel competent to. By chance I was looking at the Wikipedia pages on long term climate and I think that how the cryogenian era ended counts as a [b]Problem for Science. The problem for now, however, is that we've pumped so much carbon dioxide in ...[text shortened]... contributor to our knowledge of the earth's climate, was invented to find fossil fuels to burn.[/b]
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/07/nasa-data-shows-arctic-was-warmer-in.html
Your hysteresis claim doesn't make sense. NASA data shows the Arctic was warmer in the 1930's and warmed 75% faster. If we were headed for Pliocene like temperatures because of higher CO2 we would at least see an arctic warmer that the 1930's.
You need to remember that CO2 has lagged after temps according to ice core data. You can't say that reversing that will lead to the same temps. That has not been established in science and it seems unlikely to me. If that were the case there would have always been runaway heating due to the feedback effect and that has not been the case.
Why do you say we are not well adapted to greenhouse conditions? I'm not sure what you mean by greenhouse conditions, but people do live in Death Valley, California and so do some other species that are well adapted to that hot and dry place.
Originally posted by Metal BrainSince I phrased my statement as a conditional I was not making a claim. That CO₂ has lagged temperature increases under natural conditions should be a matter of concern - this is indicative that there is a feedback effect. As I said earlier, I don't know a vast amount about this so I'm not going to be drawn into debating it further.
"The problem for now, however, is that we've pumped so much carbon dioxide into the atmosphere that we may find ourselves past the hysteresis point and have ended the ice age we live in. This is bad news as we are not well adapted to greenhouse conditions. Neither is anything else."
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2012/07/nasa-data-shows-arctic-wa ...[text shortened]... Valley, California and so do some other species that are well adapted to that hot and dry place.
Edit: After a small amount of thought I don't think you can draw the conclusion you are trying to from the fact that in the past CO₂ levels have lagged behind temperatures. In oscillatory systems a phase difference between the response and the driver is fairly common. For example the current can be advanced relative to the driving potential in some LRC circuits - I'll try and find an example tomorrow.
17 May 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtYou did make claims. That is evident by your assertions and trying to phrase your assertions along with a vague implication of non-participation seems like a tactical escape route as a last resort following a possible undesirable result. In other words, you wanted to participate with the option of claiming non-participation. I'm not going to let you continue that so easily.
Since I phrased my statement as a conditional I was not making a claim. That CO₂ has lagged temperature increases under natural conditions should be a matter of concern - this is indicative that there is a feedback effect. As I said earlier, I don't know a vast amount about this so I'm not going to be drawn into debating it further.
Edit: After a sm ...[text shortened]... relative to the driving potential in some LRC circuits - I'll try and find an example tomorrow.
" In oscillatory systems a phase difference between the response and the driver is fairly common. For example the current can be advanced relative to the driving potential in some LRC circuits - I'll try and find an example tomorrow."
You can provide an example if you wish. I have no problem with that, but if it is not relevant to the subject we are discussing I will notice. I am already skeptical. What does an RLC circuit have to do with how temperature affects CO2 and vice versa? How is that comparable?
Originally posted by Metal BrainYou can make analogies based on similarities between systems. For instance, you can equate water pressure to voltage and the size of the water pipe to the current and you can therefore make comparisons to water flow and electron flow in a conductor. That is what he is talking about. Making a system of similarities. That is where a science education comes to play.
You did make claims. That is evident by your assertions and trying to phrase your assertions along with a vague implication of non-participation seems like a tactical escape route as a last resort following a possible undesirable result. In other words, you wanted to participate with the option of claiming non-participation. I'm not going to let you con ...[text shortened]... RLC circuit have to do with how temperature affects CO2 and vice versa? How is that comparable?
18 May 15
Originally posted by sonhouseI'm waiting for his reply. I don't see how one would prove the validity of the other, but I'm willing to look at his example if he provides one. Perhaps he will teach me something relevant, but I doubt it. I'm still very skeptical. There are also differences I don't think he can overcome enough to make a valid point.
You can make analogies based on similarities between systems. For instance, you can equate water pressure to voltage and the size of the water pipe to the current and you can therefore make comparisons to water flow and electron flow in a conductor. That is what he is talking about. Making a system of similarities. That is where a science education comes to play.
18 May 15
Originally posted by humyDo you understand that if "X then Y" it doesn't necessarily mean "Y then X " ? Asserting that it does is flawed logic.
Do you understand that "if X then Y", or any other assertion that is in effect of that generic form, doesn't imply Y is true?
Deepthought can show examples that it works both ways here and there all he wants, but he has to show it works with CO2 and temps to have a point.
18 May 15
14 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brainas usual, you are being obtuse with complete irrelevancy. You are obviously equivocating here: "..if "X then Y".." is clearly NOT the same thing as; "... "if X then Y" ...", which clearly has a different meaning.
if "X then Y"...
look up equivocation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation
and then came back to us.
To everybody else here:
I only wish such vary basic logic was compulsorily taught at all schools for all children; then, hopefully, eventually we wouldn't keep getting this crap. It doesn't need to be (and I would say shouldn't be ) to a very difficult advanced level; just only the easy basics of logic which nearly any child can learn without too much difficulty.
Well, that's my opinion anyway.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
18 May 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainYou need to pay closer attention.
Do you understand that if "X then Y" it doesn't necessarily mean "Y then X " ? Asserting that it does is flawed logic.
Deepthought can show examples that it works both ways here and there all he wants, but he has to show it works with CO2 and temps to have a point.
The statement of the form "IF X then Y" is a conditional because it does not say that X is actually
applicable in reality. The fact that you immediately drop the IF from the quotation marks in your response
indicates that you were not paying attention.
And nobody was saying that "X then Y" implies "Y then X".
And DeepThought's point is that there are harmonic systems in which the driver lags the response and thus
you cannot just assume that because historical CO2 levels have lagged behind temperatures that CO2 isn't
a driver of temperatures. And he was/is intending to back it up with examples of real systems in which this is so.
This doesn't on it's own prove that this is the case for the climate system. However it refutes your argument that
the evidence shows that CO2 cannot be a major climate driver simply based on the historical CO2 lag.
If someone makes an unsound argument for X then you don't have to prove ~X to refute their argument.
Well my actual sentence was: "The problem for now is that we've pumped so much CO₂ into the atmosphere that we may have pushed the climate past the hysteresis point.". So, first, I was not making a definite claim, I said it's a conditional because the "may" depends on details about how the climate works and what the thresholds are which are beyond my ken - the conditional is implied, at least to anyone sensible. What I wanted to get across are the stakes involved.
One quick example of a system with a similar behaviour is a phase locked loop - a bit of circuitry throughout microprocessors designed to keep different parts of the circuit in phase despite having space-like separation. Without them the speed of light across the circuit board would have prevented the level of miniaturization of such circuitry. I know there's a simpler example and will post it when I've remembered, but I've got a meeting coming up and can't do it now.
Edit: I checked with an electrical engineer and any inductive circuit has this property. Any system which is mathematically similar to an inductive circuit will also have this property. So that CO₂ lags temperature does not show that CO₂ is not the major driver of temperature.
Originally posted by DeepThought"So that CO₂ lags temperature does not show that CO₂ is not the major driver of temperature"
Well my actual sentence was: "The problem for now is that we've pumped so much CO₂ into the atmosphere that we may have pushed the climate past the hysteresis point.". So, first, I was not making a definite claim, I said it's a conditional because the "may" depends on details about how the climate works and what the thresholds are which are beyon ...[text shortened]... ty. So that CO₂ lags temperature does not show that CO₂ is not the major driver of temperature.
It does show that. If what you claim was true there would be runaway warming from the feedback effect. The fact that past data shows no such wide swings proves my point. The CO2 degree of warming has to have been overestimated for our relatively stable climate to exist. Our stable climate proves CO2's warming effect has been overestimated.
18 May 15
9 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainNope.
"So that CO₂ lags temperature does not show that CO₂ is not the major driver of temperature"
It does show that. .
OK. now let me have a go at trying to make you understand some basic logic:
Logically, X lagging Y (such as a temperature increase lagging CO2 ) doesn't logically imply Y cannot amplify X (such as CO2 not able to amplify temperature ). That is because there is no logical contradiction in having BOTH something X lagging Y AND Y amplifying X. And, in logic, if something B being the case (such as X lagging Y ) doesn't contradict something C being the case (such as Y amplifying X) , then B being the case does not logically imply C is not the case.
The only way you can prove that this logic is wrong is by showing us what the logical contradiction is between B and C, which you cannot because there is no such logical contradiction. If you deny this, please tell us what this contradiction is...
No specific examples are need to prove this logic because this is a matter of pure deductive logic. But if you deny logic and have a need for a specific example were both B ( ="X lagging Y" ) and C ( ="Y amplifies X" ) are true, here is just one:
Let
X = the Craving for a drug by a drug addict.
Y = the drug addict giving himself a Dose of his additive drug.
each time there is high amount of X (he is having a lot of craving ), Y generally follows shortly afterward (he relieves his craving by taking a dose of the drug ). So "X lags Y". But, the reduction in the craving is only temporary. And, over the LONGER time period, the more of Y there is (i.e. the more dose of the drug he takes ), the greater X will become (i.e. his cravings for the drug get worse with him wanting greater dosage. That, after all, is what happens in an addiction ). Therefore, Y amplifies X.
So, here I have given an example of where we have BOTH "X lagging Y" AND "Y amplifies X", thus proving your inference wrong. Not that a specific example should needed for that if you only understood vary basic logic, but, sadly, you appear not to. So, there it is for you; as a proof.
18 May 15
Originally posted by humyDo you think this will work? I don't think so.
Nope.
OK. now let me have a go at trying to make you understand some basic logic:
Metal Brain will never accept anything that isn't supported by his views.
Why waste the time? Honestly, why waste good time to someone who doesn't want to learn anything new?
He will never admit he is wrong. He thinks he wins every discussion. He already knows everything and therefore doesn't need to learn anything. When he in fact loses any battle when he insults people and think this is good rhetorics.
So why bother...
18 May 15
7 edits
Originally posted by FabianFnasyou are, of course, right about those 3 things. But I just like to make it continually real hard for him to pretend to be right without looking completely and utterly stupid just like he is; just like I made him look utterly stupid with that post and just as like many of us have already rightly made him look utterly stupid in this forum. I am not sure if he comprehends just how utterly stupid he makes himself look. If he was merely stupid, I wouldn't bother. But he is something worse than that because he condescendingly insults people far more intelligent than himself and people more intelligent than me.
Metal Brain will never accept anything that isn't supported by his views.
...
... ... someone who doesn't want to learn anything new
...
He will never admit he is wrong
..