09 Apr 15
8 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainThat is very obviously not what I said/implied and you know it.
...If CO2 alone were enough to raise temps like you imply ...
It is plain for everyone here to see I very clearly implied the exact opposite with the word "BOTH".
Exactly which part of the word "BOTH" or the phrase "...a bit of BOTH..." do you pretend to not understand? Or do you honestly fail to understand what "BOTH" means?
Explain to us all in what way does me saying "BOTH" "imply" one "alone" i.e. one and not the other?....
The current warming period can (and does ) have, without any logical contradiction, a mixture of BOTH natural and man made causes -natural causes determining the exact start time of it (the trigger ) and then the extra CO2 man has introduced into the atmosphere inevitably amplifying it to make it measurably more in magnitude (and therefore much more of a problem ) than what it would have been without that extra CO2. I have never said/implied the contrary and I challenge you to show us exactly where I have!...
I could explain the details of the physical mechanism of that -but won't because you are not interested in the science and you will just ignorantly and arrogantly shout out condescending insults in response as usual.
09 Apr 15
Originally posted by humyI acknowledged it was both a long time ago when this came up before. Now you pretend I disagreed with you? We always agreed on this. I have always said that man was a factor in global warming and that CO2 causes some warming.
That is very obviously not what I said/implied and you know it.
It is plain for everyone here to see I very clearly implied the exact opposite with the word "[b]BOTH".
Exactly which part of the word "BOTH" or the phrase "...a bit of BOTH..." do you pretend to not understand? Or do you honestly fail to understand what "BOTH" means?
Explain t ...[text shortened]... nd you will just ignorantly and arrogantly shout out condescending insults in response as usual.[/b]
My point is that CO2 lags temps according to ice core records. Tying to claim CO2 raises temps in an equal way to temps raising CO2 levels is not real science. You are making the mistake of overestimating how much CO2 causes warming.
Temps have always driven CO2 levels before recent fossil fuel burning. Now that we are increasing CO2 levels by burning fossil fuels the CO2 is not driving temps in an equal correlation. It is possible to increase CO2 levels higher than during the Pliocene without the earth warming nearly as much. CO2 levels are almost to the same point as the Pliocene right now and it is much cooler than the Pliocene. This is why cause and effect is important and should not be dismissed as trivial the way you have been.
It doesn't matter that CO2 causes warming, we already know that and alway have. What matters is how much it causes warming. As it turns out, not enough for you to have a valid point.
I know you said "both", so did I a long time ago. You are failing to understand that it doesn't matter. Falsely accusing me of not knowing the meaning of the word is petty even for you. I know you want to digress away from the facts but it is not working. Do you understand "cause and effect"? Do you honestly fail to understand the importance of it?
09 Apr 15
2 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brain"You are right, this is nothing new. .... It has always been that way. CO2 did NOT change the way it warms the earth."
I acknowledged it was both a long time ago when this came up before. Now you pretend I disagreed with you? We always agreed on this.
(your quote. My emphasis)
09 Apr 15
Originally posted by humyYou are so dense. Once again, I agreed with you on that a long time ago. This is nothing new. Furthermore, when I agreed with you I already knew that. You didn't correct me or anything else that is giving you delusions of grandeur. You can stop pretending you are right and admit you were wrong about the importance of cause and effect.
"You are right, this is nothing new. .... It has always been that way. CO2 did [b]NOT change the way it warms the earth."
(your quote. My emphasis)[/b]
CO2 levels are close to that of the Pliocene and temps are far lower than the Pliocene. Your argument has collapsed into nothing! Admit you were wrong.
09 Apr 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainYou show so clearly that you are so afraid of losing the battle...
You are so dense. Once again, I agreed with you on that a long time ago. This is nothing new. Furthermore, when I agreed with you I already knew that. You didn't correct me or anything else that is giving you delusions of grandeur. You can stop pretending you are right and admit you were wrong about the importance of cause and effect.
CO2 levels are c ...[text shortened]... are far lower than the Pliocene. Your argument has collapsed into nothing! Admit you were wrong.
But, hey, you don't ever lose if you learn new things every day. What have you learned today?
09 Apr 15
10 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainSo you agree with me that CO2 DID change the way the earth's climate was warmed?
Once again, I agreed with you on that...
"...CO2 did NOT change the way it warms the earth."
(your quote. My emphasis)
I very strongly disagree with your above statement and would have always done so. So in what sense do you "agree" with me on that? You are not making any logical sense whatsoever.
I obviously would NOT agree with an assertion that says/implies CO2 does NOT change the way warming occurs during a global warming period and have NEVER done so.
That obviously means I would AGREE with an assertion that says/implies CO2 DOES change the way warming occurs during a global warming period.
In fact, I have several times very explicitly said that CO2 AMPLIFIES any global warming trend and NEVER said/implies the contrary so I fail to see how it could be much more obvious that I disagree with your assertion of "...CO2 did NOT change the way it warms the earth.".
I don't see how I can make that any more clearer for you and I honestly don't understand the source of your total confusion here. I cannot imagine how one can so totally and completely confuse the concept of agreeing with disagreeing; the two are, after all, opposites.
09 Apr 15
Originally posted by humy"So you agree with me that CO2 DID change the way the earth's climate was warmed?"
So you agree with me that CO2 DID change the way the earth's climate was warmed?
"...CO2 did NOT change the way it warms the earth."
(your quote. My emphasis)
I very strongly [b]disagree with your above statement and would have always done so. So in what sense do you "agree" with me on that? You are not making any logical sense whatsoever.
I obvio ...[text shortened]... completely confuse the concept of agreeing with disagreeing; the two are, after all, opposites.[/b]
No. CO2 is CO2. What are you thinking? You are not making any sense.
You are avoiding my entire point about CO2 levels during the Pliocene. CO2 is clearly not the primary driver of increased temperatures. Your whole position unraveled. You have lost. Admit it.
09 Apr 15
13 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainHow does
"So you agree with me that CO2 DID change the way the earth's climate was warmed?"
No. CO2 is CO2. .
"CO2 DID change the way the earth's climate was warmed"
contradict
"CO2 is CO2"
or imply that CO2 is NOT CO2?
Please tell me and us all here how this statement of yours makes sense (to you )....
CO2 is clearly not the primary driver of increased temperatures.
Sometimes it is the primary driver and sometimes it isn't. That is because there can be MORE THAN ONE cause for something and sometimes it can have mainly one cause and sometimes it can have mainly a different cause -understand?
In fact, the Pliocene period demonstrates this point:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pliocene_climate
it is clear from this link that there are SEVERAL causes determine temperature with CO2 being just one of them.
It also says:
"Carbon dioxide concentration during the mid Pliocene has been estimated at around 400 ppmv from 13C/12C ratio in organic marine matter[12] and stomatal density of fossilized leaves,[13]
..."
-and, thanks to man's input, 400 ppmv has only recently been reached in the modern day and has yet to had time to produce its full climate warming effects so, even if you dismiss/ignore all other natural causes (which I don't ), it still would be hardly surprising the climate was warmer during the mid Pliocene!
The link also said:
"...decreasing carbon dioxide levels during late Pliocene may have contributed substantially to global cooling and the onset of northern hemisphere glaciation..."
-so there is nothing about the Pliocene period that indicates that CO2 concentration was not ONE of the determining factors for temperature, merely that there are MULTIPLE causal factors with CO2 being just one of them -which we already knew of course.
10 Apr 15
Originally posted by humyYou don't make any sense. The answer was no.
How does
"CO2 DID change the way the earth's climate was warmed"
contradict
"CO2 is CO2"
or imply that CO2 is NOT CO2?
Please tell me and us all here how this statement of yours makes sense (to you )....
CO2 is clearly not the primary driver of increased temperatures.
Sometimes it is the primary driver and sometimes it isn't. ...[text shortened]... re are MULTIPLE causal factors with CO2 being just one of them -which we already knew of course.
"400 ppmv has only recently been reached in the modern day and has yet to had time to produce its full climate warming effects"
What is your source of information?
10 Apr 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainDo you ever present your source of information? Yet you demand others source of information all the time. And when you get the source you dismiss it anyway, so what's the point?
You don't make any sense. The answer was no.
"400 ppmv has only recently been reached in the modern day and has yet to had time to produce its full climate warming effects"
What is your source of information?
If you want to learn about the climate, there are numerous scientific sources you can learn from. But do you do it? Really?
10 Apr 15
7 edits
Originally posted by Metal Brain
You don't make any sense. The answer was no.
"400 ppmv has only recently been reached in the modern day and has yet to had time to produce its full climate warming effects"
What is your source of information?
You don't make any sense. The answer was no.
Yes, your answer to "So you agree with me that CO2 DID change the way the earth's climate was warmed?" (my quote)
was “No” but immediately followed by your explanation of “CO2 is CO2” for that “no” answer of why you reject that above assertion of: "So you agree with me that CO2 DID change the way the earth's climate was warmed?", with that ““CO2 is CO2” explanation making absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Thus it is clearly evident I WAS acknowledging your “no” answer but was questioning how that “CO2 is CO2” qualifier of yours can possibly make any sense.
Reminder of what I just said:
“...
How does
"CO2 DID change the way the earth's climate was warmed"
contradict
"CO2 is CO2"
or imply that CO2 is NOT CO2?
Please tell me and us all here how this statement of yours makes sense (to you )....
...”
Where am I implying in the above that I am questioning that your answer was “no”? I am clearly questioning your “CO2 is CO2” reasoning FOR your “no” answer, NOT that your answer was “no”.
Yet again, you make no sense whatsoever.
"400 ppmv has only recently been reached in the modern day and has yet to had time to produce its full climate warming effects"
What is your source of information?
It took me literally only seconds to find this:
http://climate.nasa.gov/400ppmquotes/
“The global concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – the primary driver of recent climate change – has reached 400 parts per million (ppm) for the first time in recorded history, according to data ..”
http://400.350.org/
“The world's most important CO2 monitoring station is recording short term CO2 concentrations above 400 parts per million -- the highest levels found on earth in millions of years. “
This was for April last year i.e. in year 2014, the levels of CO2 broke the 400ppmv mark for the first time in recorded history -see graph at:
https://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/tag/co2/
-you should just try and see for yourself first but I guess you were and are not really interested in the facts which is why you couldn't even bother taking a few seconds to look it up for yourself but rather ask me to do it for you.
What is your sources of information that 400 ppmv has NOT recently been reached in the modern day?....
10 Apr 15
Originally posted by humyAll I was saying is CO2 is not changing it's properties. You misunderstood what I was saying. You are just confused and I have noticed that you misinterpret things a lot. For example, I was asking you what your source of information was for why CO2 has not reached it's full effects and you oddly thought I was asking about the 400 ppm as if I was not aware of it. I would think it would be obvious to you that I already knew that. After all, I was the one who pointed out that CO2 levels were close to that of the Pliocene. How could I possibly not know the CO2 levels of both now and then? It seems you have no common sense much of the time. It is as if you don't remember the context of anything. I have considered the possibility that you are doing it intentionally to avoid giving a source of information though. It does seem like nobody could be as clueless as you pretend to be. If that is the case man up and stop being evasive. Nobody likes a coward who writes lengthy messages with a bunch of edits and still doesn't answer simple questions you would expect anyone to ask.You don't make any sense. The answer was no.
Yes, your answer to "So you agree with me that CO2 DID change the way the earth's climate was warmed?" (my quote)
was “No” but immediately followed by your explanation of “CO2 is CO2” for that “no” answer of why you reject that above assertion of: "So you agree with me that CO2 DID change the ...[text shortened]... s your sources of information that 400 ppmv has NOT recently been reached in the modern day?....
I established that CO2 lagged temperatures according to ice core data. You are now claiming that temperatures lag CO2 as well. What is your source of information?
10 Apr 15
How many postings in these climate threads is actually about climate? Most of the postings is more about how to (more or less) deliberate misunderstandings about what the other wrote or not wrote.
Why not discuss climate and climate only. If you cannot express your arguments clearly, then this is what should be thought of. If we read literally instead of reading of what the other really mean with his words, then we can confuse eachother quite a lot.
Be clear, stay on-topic, be friends. If we follow these three rules, then we can actually learn from eachother.
10 Apr 15
Originally posted by humyIn addition to higher sea levels, the chemistry of the oceans is changing which has the potential for devastating effects on plankton, without which life in the sea will be decimated.
I would personally guess that, at least potentially depending on the magnitude of sea level rise, higher seas are much worse given that many of our major cities and much of our most fertile food-producing land is very close to sea level.
I don't like the sound of this:-
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/10-feet-of-global-sea-level-rise-now-inevitable
Bu ...[text shortened]... et quite that bad for the next ~100 years so there is plenty of time to adapt (if we are smart )
10 Apr 15
8 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainNo, I am claiming, like I always have done and done repeatedly again and again, that other causes other than CO2 determine the exact start time of each warming period i.e. the initialize of each warming period but then, i.e. after the initialize of each warming period, CO2 amplifies it thus making the warming greater than what it would have been without any increase in CO2 and I have never once said/implied anything to the contrary.
...CO2 lagged temperatures according to ice core data. You are now claiming that temperatures lag CO2 as well.
This conclusion is because of the ice core data.
Do you understand?
What is your source of information?
Ice core data + other data + climate models + basic physics.
In other words, science.
Do you now accept that I have good source of information that 400 ppm atmospheric CO2 has only recently been reached in the modern day and the higher CO2 concentration (above 400 ppm ) was one of the reasons (but not the only one and I never claim that CO2 is the only cause of warming, because it isn't ) why Pliocene was warmer than the modern day?
-see my previous links for my source of information.