Greenhouse effect may not cause greater temperature variability after all

Originally posted by humy
I forgot there to mention a third significant explanation:

Yet another explanation for most of the Pliocene period being warmer than the present day ( except the late Pliocene ) is that the albedo of the Earth would have been lower than what it is today due to less glaciers at the poles. Less ice means less albedo which means more solar radiation absorbed at ...[text shortened]... Pliocene had more glaciers as well as less CO2 which at least partly explains why it was cooler.

That doesn't explain how it got warm enough to melt the glaciers. Try again.

Originally posted by humy
That's in every way an infinitely better post than any of Metal Brain's posts.
I enjoyed reading it so much, I did so twice.

Apparently he didn't think so since he deleted it before I could read it.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
That doesn't explain how it got warm enough to melt the glaciers.

I just said "late Pliocene had more glaciers as well as less CO2 which at least partly explains why it was cooler" so I was talking about glacier formation, NOT glacier melting!

+ a rise in CO2 is one possible cause out of several possible causes for any given glacier melting that occurred before Pliocene in case you are now talking about before Pliocene.

-either way, your post doesn't make any sense.

Originally posted by humy
Yes it does; a drop in CO2 is one possible explanation.

No, the drop in CO2 is a possible explanation for glaciers forming.

He said melting, so that would be a rise in CO2, as a possible cause.

Originally posted by googlefudge
...

He said melting, so that would be a rise in CO2, as a possible cause.

Yes, I just noticed he said that. I tried to read that too fast and misread. So, "so that would be a rise in CO2, as a possible cause" is, of course, correct.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Apparently he didn't think so since he deleted it before I could read it.

I was obviously referring to the post that now has no content which is the post we now see. Get it?

Originally posted by humy
Yes, I just noticed he said that. I tried to read that too fast and misread. So, "so that would be a rise in CO2, as a possible cause" is, of course, correct.

If CO2 during the Pliocene was a lot higher than now that might make sense, but that was not the case. You still lack an explanation that makes sense. It isn't nearly as warm as the Pliocene right now (not even close) and CO2 levels are nearly as high. CO2 was clearly not the primary factor driving temps during the Pliocene and you are still ignoring that CO2 lags temps. You are still fooling yourself into thinking temps lagged after CO2 and that is not how it worked. You have it backwards again. Get your cause and effect straight.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
If CO2 during the Pliocene was a lot higher than now that might make sense, but that was not the case. You still lack an explanation that makes sense. It isn't nearly as warm as the Pliocene right now (not even close) and CO2 levels are nearly as high. CO2 was clearly not the primary factor driving temps during the Pliocene and you are still ignoring tha ...[text shortened]... and that is not how it worked. You have it backwards again. Get your cause and effect straight.

You argue that co2 is only one factor when global warming occurs, and even though measurements of the current warming matches co2 this time, you want to know what could have raised temperatures further? If anything this tells us that whatever natural factors was in play during the pliocene (like a permanent El Niño in the early and mid-pliocene, resulting in more water vapour and decreased albedo - but no doubt a combination of factors played a role) is not in play today, because temperatures "only" rise as much as we'd expect if co2 is the main culprit.

You simply can't escape the fact that the current warming, you know, the one that matters, is a good fit for human emitted co2. It is you who needs to explain what it is about our current warming that doesn't fit with co2 emissions, and what other cause there can be. If you can't do that, you can't expect anyone to take you seriously.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
If CO2 during the Pliocene was a lot higher than now that might make sense,

Exactly how much higher is "a lot higher than now"? >1%? >10%? >50%? And why that amount higher rather than some other totally arbitrary amount higher is "a lot" higher? According to what criteria?
Yet again you use totally vague language to avoid logical scrutiny.

If you arbitrary define "a lot" here as much more than whatever the difference in CO2 ppm was then from now, then I can simply say; only a relatively 'small' change in CO2 ppm concentration (i.e. like between that of the Pliocene period and now if we decide to totally arbitrary define that as 'small' difference ) can result in a few degrees change in temperature, just like observed in the Pliocene. Thus it doesn't have to be "a lot higher than now".

You are just playing with vague semantics in a vain attempt to make a non-argument appear as if it is an argument. Try again.

Originally posted by C Hess
You argue that co2 is only one factor when global warming occurs, and even though measurements of the current warming matches co2 this time, you want to know what could have raised temperatures further? If anything this tells us that whatever natural factors was in play during the pliocene [i](like a permanent El Niño in the early and mid-pliocene, resulting ...[text shortened]... t other cause there can be. If you can't do that, you can't expect anyone to take you seriously.

"You argue that co2 is only one factor when global warming occurs"

Wrong again, I never argued that at all. I have been arguing the opposite. CO2 is not enough to explain how warm the Pliocene was and that is my whole point. It is the global warming alarmists that obsessed with CO2 and can't see that it is only one factor among many. I'm trying to prove to humy that CO2 levels alone don't explain the temp differences between now and the Pliocene. There must be other factors, but humy doesn't know what specific natural factors were at play during the Pliocene. Even you have not suggested what triggered the Pliocene warming in the first place and you recently suggested there was a trigger.

I'm suggesting that even if you accept that warming today is not overstated (and there is reason to believe that it is) you are still left unable to explain why it is not nearly as warm as the Pliocene right now. You don't know if you are overlooking natural factors now until you know the climate differences between now and the Pliocene.

I'm not claiming that anyone can explain it. I don't have to. If nobody can explain it they have no right claiming the sky is falling and trying to get everyone to panic. Now I will post a link to show it is debatable how much warming is really happening.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2013/06/18/any-global-warming-since-1978-two-climate-experts-debate-this/

Originally posted by humy
Exactly how much higher is "a [b]lot higher than now"? >1%? >10%? >50%? And why that amount higher rather than some other totally arbitrary amount higher is "a lot" higher? According to what criteria?
Yet again you use totally vague language to avoid logical scrutiny.

If you arbitrary define "a lot" here as much more than whatever the diff ...[text shortened]... ue semantics in a vain attempt to make a non-argument appear as if it is an argument. Try again.[/b]

Temps during the Pliocene were probably between 3 to 4 degrees C (5.4 to 7.2 degrees F.)

CO2 levels during the Pliocene were probably between 365 and 415 ppm

"only a relatively 'small' change in CO2 ppm concentration (i.e. like between that of the Pliocene period and now if we decide to totally arbitrary define that as 'small' difference ) can result in a few degrees change in temperature, just like observed in the Pliocene. Thus it doesn't have to be "a lot higher than now". "

So you are endorsing the "trigger" theory that C hess mentioned as well. Do you have a source of information that suggests a CO2 trigger that drove temps higher in the Pliocene?

We can all come up with theories. I have my own that I can't prove, but it is equally hard to disprove. My theory is that the sun was shining brighter during the Pliocene. Very little is known about the sun other than short term cycles. It is hard to know what is taking place inside the sun. There must be many elements at the core of the sun. I'm guessing there are more elements at the core of the sun than all of the planets in the solar system combined. The amount only increases over time. How each comet and asteroid affects the solar output is a mystery. Maybe it has little effect. It is hard to know.

We all have theories we can't prove. Do you have something you can prove or at least a very popular theory among climate scientists? I have heard some you have never mentioned yet. It is like you are not trying and I am getting bored because you are not much of a challenge anymore. Let me help you a little. Azolla. You are welcome.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"You argue that co2 is only one factor when global warming occurs"

Wrong again, I never argued that at all. I have been arguing the opposite. CO2 is not enough to explain how warm the Pliocene was and that is my whole point. It is the global warming alarmists that obsessed with CO2 and can't see that it is only one factor among many. I'm trying to pro ...[text shortened]... es.com/sites/larrybell/2013/06/18/any-global-warming-since-1978-two-climate-experts-debate-this/

I see in your postings, best Metal Brain, that you very often write "I didn't say that", or in this case "I never argued that at all." Why is that?

Is it because your posting is not clear, that you open for misunderstandings? Your postings can actually be interpreted in numerous ways, therefore your fellow debatants cannot be sure what you really mean.

One remedy can very well be that you state your opinion, clear and crisp, point after point, as many as needed, and thus give everyone a certain view of your opinions.

You have many enemies, people that don't want to give you the respect you think you earn. On remedy can reduce your number of personal attacks and nasty name callings.
Be friend with us and we will be your friend. Don't be negative to others opinions and noone will be negative to yours.
If you see us as enemies, you will have us as enemies. If you see us as friends, you will have us as friends.

Think of why people see you as arrogant? Noone likes arrogant people. The answer to that can also be the key of how you can change others view about you.

I certainly don't have the same opinions, even religion and political views, that my friends have, but still we are very good friends, and we have many interesting discussions about things that we don't agree with, perhaps of that very reason. All my friends don't share my views about the climate, but we learn from eachother. We are happy and amical anyway. It works!

Is this something to think about?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"You argue that co2 is only one factor when global warming occurs"

Wrong again, I never argued that at all. [...] It is the global warming alarmists that obsessed with CO2 and can't see that it is only one factor among many.

You don't really read posts before you respond, do you?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
...the "trigger" theory that C hess mentioned as well. Do you have a source of information that suggests a CO2 trigger that drove temps higher in the Pliocene?..

Now I know you're not reading my posts. I'm done with you.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
I see in your postings, best Metal Brain, that you very often write "I didn't say that", or in this case "I never argued that at all." Why is that?

Is it because your posting is not clear, that you open for misunderstandings? Your postings can actually be interpreted in numerous ways, therefore your fellow debatants cannot be sure what you really mean. ...[text shortened]... n from eachother. We are happy and amical anyway. It works!

Is this something to think about?

"I see in your postings, best Metal Brain, that you very often write "I didn't say that", or in this case "I never argued that at all." Why is that?"

Because I didn't say that, it is that simple. If you really believe I have anything that can be easily misinterpreted show me what it is. I think I have been very up front about my views. If you choose to be evasive that is not my problem. I think I explain myself pretty well. Maybe you and others just choose to perceive things in a way that you are used to. Maybe it is your way of avoiding the brutal facts you don't want to see. I can't stop your cognitive dissonance, only you can.
I'm not here to make friends. Humy made it quite clear he is the type of person to resort to insults when others do not see his way of thinking. Sonhouse is the same way. They have to be right and if another person challenges their narrow view they want to beat them down in a very selfish way. I experienced this early on. Deepthought does not resort to that. Do you think it is just a coincidence that I have not insulted him ever? The people that have a big problem with me should look in a mirror. They get what they give.
I'm not arrogant at all. You just perceive that because you disagree with me strongly. The fence sitters on here see me as defending my position against several people who want to gang up on me with underhanded tactics. They see the unwarranted criticism from those that are just offended by a person with a better understanding of climate change than they have. If saying 97% of climate scientists don't even claim man is the primary cause of global warming is heresy to you and humy then you both have a problem with facts, not me.

How dare I be arrogant enough to have the facts on my side? That is essentially what you and humy are saying. If you don't think my facts are really facts then challenge them in a fair way. Don't make up crap as you go along and refuse to back them up with a decent source of information like humy does. If you are going to be a cad and do crap like that don't expect any respect from me. You are not getting any because you don't deserve it. Facts are all that matter here. If you won't work with facts then piss off!