Originally posted by humyYou are being evasive again. Why must I repeat myself?
No, 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 inc ...[text shortened]... y Pliocene was warmer than the modern day?
-see my previous links for my source of information.
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?
Originally posted by humy"and has yet to had time to produce its full climate warming effects"
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.
This is the lag you claimed. What is your source of information? Don't act stupid anymore. You knew I was talking about this. Answer the question.
Originally posted by Metal BrainSo you figure we have a 200 year hiatus in the rise of global temperatures?
"and has yet to had time to produce its full climate warming effects"
This is the lag you claimed. What is your source of information? Don't act stupid anymore. You knew I was talking about this. Answer the question.
Originally posted by Metal BrainWhat has this got to to with the DIFFERENT "lag" of CO2 lagging the START of each warming period according to ice core data? You where clearly not referring to the same lag.
"and has yet to had time to produce its full climate warming effects"
This is the lag you claimed.
The CO2 AMPLIFIES the warming only AFTER the start of each warming period and me saying "and has yet to had time to produce its full climate warming effects" doesn't imply the contrary because that is a DIFFERENT "lag", namely, the lag between the CO2 increase AFTER it has started to increase and its full warming effect not to be confused with, like you are deliberately doing so here with your usual rhetoric, the "lag" between the start of each warming period that came BEFORE the CO2 increase.
So where is the contradiction between the two completely different lags?
-there is nothing here for you to be confused about.
Explain to us all what is the contradiction between something not being the cause of a start of a process but amplifying it once it has started....
Originally posted by Metal BrainLook once more what you write: "Don't act stupid anymore." Is this an intelligent argument do you think? I would say that you show your personality quite well in this. A lonely young man with no friends.
Don't act stupid anymore.
With no friends? Yes, because noone wouldn't like to have friends who think he knows it all, and if anyone say something that goes outside his opinion one is immediately labeled stupid. Would such a person have any friends? I don't think so.
Originally posted by humy"What has this got to to with the DIFFERENT "lag"
What has this got to to with the DIFFERENT "lag" of CO2 lagging the START of each warming period according to ice core data? You where clearly not referring to the same lag.
The CO2 AMPLIFIES the warming only AFTER the start of each warming period and me saying "and has yet to had time to produce its full climate warming effects" doesn't imply the contrary bec ...[text shortened]... something not being the cause of a start of a process but amplifying it once it has started....
Prove your different lag. I proved mine and now I expect you to do the same for yours. I proved CO2 lags temps and you are claiming the opposite. Stop pretending to not know what I am talking about. What is your source of information?
Originally posted by Metal BrainDoesn't Humy have the the first option to interprete his own words?
No, humy is claiming a lag in temps but he didn't say how long. He has yet to prove it.
Why do you so very often read in things in others postings? To be able to win the discussion easier? Do avoid to admit that you case is lost?
6 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainDo you admit it is a DIFFERENT lag thus no contradiction?
"What has this got to to with the DIFFERENT "lag"
Prove your different lag....
As for the proof -that 'proof' is just applying knowledge of basic physics i.e. physical law.
When an extra heat source is introduced into a system, it takes time for the new thermal equilibrium to be reached to bring up the temperature. One of the main reasons for this is because of what is called heat capacity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity
it is the reason why the heating element in your kettle doesn't take just a nanosecond to bring the water the boil but takes about a minute or two.
And it is one of the reasons albeit not the only reason why the heating effect of CO2 takes time to have its full effect on climate. Don't even need climate models to know this but climate models confirm this but also tell us it would take years for the effects of the CO2 we release now to be felt. If you won't an estimate of how many years, look it up yourself. I will not waste my time doing it for you.
Another reason why is because the warming from C02 causes melting of sea ice and, more significantly here because of the greater time delay, some of the glaciers, that then means a drop in albedo around the poles that then causes some further melting there and so on until the new equilibrium is reached. Obviously, this takes time because it takes time for ice to melt esp that from glaciers rather than sea ice.
Yet another reason is because it takes time for warming of permafrost to result in methane release that leads to further warming.
Do you deny any of the above takes time?
If so, now I have shown you my source of information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity ), show us yours....
Originally posted by humy"Do you admit it is a DIFFERENT lag thus no contradiction?"
Do you admit it is a DIFFERENT lag thus no contradiction?
As for the proof -that 'proof' is just applying knowledge of basic physics i.e. physical law.
When an extra heat source is introduced into a system, it takes time for the new thermal equilibrium to be reached to bring up the temperature. One of the main reasons for this is because of what is called h ...[text shortened]... wn you my source of information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity ), show us yours....
I never claimed it was a contradiction. That was something you made up out of thin air. I don't know if you are paranoid or are incapable of telling one person from the next. Your memory is poor like sonhouse. He is 73, are you old like him? Why is your memory so poor?
I established CO2 lag and you have failed to establish the Temperature lag you claimed. You must do that or you have failed to make your case. Heat capacity is an inept claim in this context. If there is a lag as you claim, give us your source of information and the estimated lag time. If you cannot do this it is clear you are just making up stuff as you go along in an effort to obfuscate.
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainJust like you. You have no information on your own since you are just another Meyer apologist.
"Do you admit it is a DIFFERENT lag thus no contradiction?"
I never claimed it was a contradiction. That was something you made up out of thin air. I don't know if you are paranoid or are incapable of telling one person from the next. Your memory is poor like sonhouse. He is 73, are you old like him? Why is your memory so poor?
I established CO2 la ...[text shortened]... nnot do this it is clear you are just making up stuff as you go along in an effort to obfuscate.
BTW, my memory is good enough for me to be pulling in 80K+ a year working full time in a very technically oriented job. How about you? You never answered my question as to what your degree is in, atmospheric sciences or some such? Is YOUR memory getting so weak you didn't remember that question?
11 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainNo, not "made up" but based on what you said which was:
"Do you admit it is a DIFFERENT lag thus no contradiction?"
I never claimed it was a contradiction. That was something you made up out of thin air. .
"I established that CO2 lagged temperatures according to ice core data. You are now claiming that temperatures lag CO2 as well...."
If you are not implying by the above that there is some kind of logical inconsistency in the two different lags, why did you mention the two lags one immediately after the other like that and with that "You are now claiming" and "as well"?
Surely the two things are irrelevant to each other (meaning, the truth or falsity of one is independent of that of the other ) if they are DIFFERENT lags, yes? So why assert them together?
+ incidentally, what is it with this arrogant condescending "I established that ..."?
It was NOT you but rather, excluding myself of course, a few of us scientists that observed and proved that lag and I and a few scientists here had already noted it and established it by mentioning it with a link long before you mentioned it -you cannot take any credit whatsoever for "establishing" that lag in any sense.
As for my source of information, I just gave you it and includes basic understanding of physics including heat capacity.
If you want to understand that, just look it up yourself. If you do not want to understand it, that is your problem, not mine. Don't expect me to do anything about that.
Originally posted by humy"If you are not implying by the above that there is some kind of logical inconsistency in the two different lags"
No, not "made up" but based on what you said which was:
"I established that CO2 lagged temperatures according to ice core data. You are [b]now claiming that temperatures lag CO2 as well...."
If you are not implying by the above that there is some kind of logical inconsistency in the two different lags, why did you mention the two lags one immed ...[text shortened]... ant to understand it, that is your problem, not mine. Don't expect me to do anything about that.[/b]
If I was implying a logical inconsistency I would not be asking for your source of information. If I was implying a logical inconsistency I would not have implied both could happen. You failure to provide a source of information in the context of global warming says a lot though.
If you have so much faith in climate models you should be able to come up with an estimate of any lag time so we can test the prediction. If the climate models fail again you will know not to tout them as proof again. Your evasiveness shows how little faith you have in them already.
How long is the estimated lag time? If you can't answer the question it only proves my point that there are too many variables for climate models to be accurate. It also shows how little your physics background helps you with this particular subject.
Originally posted by Metal BrainI have asked you several times what YOUR physics or other science background you have and you have not deigned to answer. Is it because you have none but instead only rely on other people to do your thinking for you? Just like certain fundamentalists I know.....
"If you are not implying by the above that there is some kind of logical inconsistency in the two different lags"
If I was implying a logical inconsistency I would not be asking for your source of information. If I was implying a logical inconsistency I would not have implied both could happen. You failure to provide a source of information in the con ...[text shortened]... curate. It also shows how little your physics background helps you with this particular subject.