AGWists are sore losers
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Relativity: Einstein's lost frame
Next: DISCOVERY OF BRIGHT GALAXIES IN THE DISTANT UNIVERSE AND A VARIABLE GRAVITATIONAL 'CONSTANT'
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 3 Aug 2007 13:12 On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 10:03:55 -0700, claudiusdenk(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >On Aug 3, 9:58 am, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 09:28:24 -0700, z <gzuck...(a)snail-mail.net> wrote: >> >On Jul 27, 11:57 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >> So throw down on some none lies and irrelevancy on this SIMPLE TOPIC >> >> of the changing temperatures and CO2 levels according to the ice cores >> >> which show the lag of about 900 yrs for CO2 to temperature. >> >> >Sure, that's easy enough for you to say. >> >> Nowhere in his comment does he show any knowledge about the error bars >> in the ice core time measurements. I believe they quite often exceed >> 900 years. Not that it matters, as there wasn't 6 billion people on >> the planet at the time dumping huge quantities of CO2 into the >> atmosphere and no one is arguing that CO2 must always __lead__ a >> temperature rise, back then. > >Uh . . . shouldn't they be. You know, to be consistent? Humans today introduce new elements. Consistency here is that the natural systems have their own responses to these __new__ intrusions. > CO2 levels can (as can CH4 levels) be >> driven by Milankovitch cycles, for example. And none of that takes >> away from the idea that CO2 driven by human activities can also be the >> __lead__ in a rise in temperature, > >None of it indicates why we should believe it does either. Since I already know you cannot either cannot read science with understanding or else are taking an intentionally deceitful position, I can see why you might say that. However, to anyone else there is plenty of reasoning available that is very strong and better than any other reasoning presented so far. Jon > with all the attendant positive >> feedbacks that naturally exist in the mix, as well. >> >> Jon
From: claudiusdenk on 3 Aug 2007 13:37 On Aug 3, 10:12 am, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 10:03:55 -0700, claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >On Aug 3, 9:58 am, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 09:28:24 -0700, z <gzuck...(a)snail-mail.net> wrote: > >> >On Jul 27, 11:57 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >> >> So throw down on some none lies and irrelevancy on this SIMPLE TOPIC > >> >> of the changing temperatures and CO2 levels according to the ice cores > >> >> which show the lag of about 900 yrs for CO2 to temperature. > > >> >Sure, that's easy enough for you to say. > > >> Nowhere in his comment does he show any knowledge about the error bars > >> in the ice core time measurements. I believe they quite often exceed > >> 900 years. Not that it matters, as there wasn't 6 billion people on > >> the planet at the time dumping huge quantities of CO2 into the > >> atmosphere and no one is arguing that CO2 must always __lead__ a > >> temperature rise, back then. > > >Uh . . . shouldn't they be. You know, to be consistent? > > Humans today introduce new elements. Consistency here is that the > natural systems have their own responses to these __new__ intrusions. I'm not understanding. Could you be less vague and more explicit and specific? Are you arguing against uniformitarianism? You know, are you saying the laws of nature (principles of cause and effect) in the past were different than they are at present? Surely you couldn't be making such a specious argument. So please clarify. If CO2 didn't lead temp in the past then why should we believe it does now? Please be explicit in your response. And, please, refrain from the whacko tactic of proof by assertion. If you can't support an assertion then don't assert it. > > > CO2 levels can (as can CH4 levels) be > >> driven by Milankovitch cycles, for example. And none of that takes > >> away from the idea that CO2 driven by human activities can also be the > >> __lead__ in a rise in temperature, > > >None of it indicates why we should believe it does either. > > Since I already know you cannot either cannot read science with > understanding How can I be expected to read and understand something that you have not (yet) presented. I've yet to see any evidence that CO2 can/will have a thermal effect on atmospheric temperatures. There is no shortage of people that will claim that it does. But there is absolutely nobody that can say how or how much. > or else are taking an intentionally deceitful position, > I can see why you might say that. However, to anyone else there is > plenty of reasoning available Keep in mind we don't have access to your imagination. > that is very strong and better than any > other reasoning presented so far. So we're supposed to take your word on this?
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 3 Aug 2007 13:42 On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 10:37:00 -0700, claudiusdenk(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >On Aug 3, 10:12 am, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 10:03:55 -0700, claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >On Aug 3, 9:58 am, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 09:28:24 -0700, z <gzuck...(a)snail-mail.net> wrote: >> >> >On Jul 27, 11:57 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >> >> >> So throw down on some none lies and irrelevancy on this SIMPLE TOPIC >> >> >> of the changing temperatures and CO2 levels according to the ice cores >> >> >> which show the lag of about 900 yrs for CO2 to temperature. >> >> >> >Sure, that's easy enough for you to say. >> >> >> Nowhere in his comment does he show any knowledge about the error bars >> >> in the ice core time measurements. I believe they quite often exceed >> >> 900 years. Not that it matters, as there wasn't 6 billion people on >> >> the planet at the time dumping huge quantities of CO2 into the >> >> atmosphere and no one is arguing that CO2 must always __lead__ a >> >> temperature rise, back then. >> >> >Uh . . . shouldn't they be. You know, to be consistent? >> >> Humans today introduce new elements. Consistency here is that the >> natural systems have their own responses to these __new__ intrusions. > >I'm not understanding. Could you be less vague and more explicit and >specific? Are you arguing against uniformitarianism? You know, are >you saying the laws of nature (principles of cause and effect) in the >past were different than they are at present? Surely you couldn't be >making such a specious argument. So please clarify. If CO2 didn't >lead temp in the past then why should we believe it does now? > >Please be explicit in your response. And, please, refrain from the >whacko tactic of proof by assertion. If you can't support an >assertion then don't assert it. > >> >> > CO2 levels can (as can CH4 levels) be >> >> driven by Milankovitch cycles, for example. And none of that takes >> >> away from the idea that CO2 driven by human activities can also be the >> >> __lead__ in a rise in temperature, >> >> >None of it indicates why we should believe it does either. >> >> Since I already know you cannot either cannot read science with >> understanding > >How can I be expected to read and understand something that you have >not (yet) presented. I've yet to see any evidence that CO2 can/will >have a thermal effect on atmospheric temperatures. There is no >shortage of people that will claim that it does. But there is >absolutely nobody that can say how or how much. I'm not going to be engaged on arguing this with you. You can't even deal with the theory and mathematics in Rasool & Scheider's 1971 paper on the subject, and that's just a highly simplified 1D approach to the question. That you have "yet to see any evidence" doesn't amount to a hill of beans one way or another. It's just noise. >> or else are taking an intentionally deceitful position, >> I can see why you might say that. However, to anyone else there is >> plenty of reasoning available > >Keep in mind we don't have access to your imagination. > >> that is very strong and better than any >> other reasoning presented so far. > >So we're supposed to take your word on this? I'd MUCH rather folks go read the peer-reviewed papers for themselves. Jon
From: claudiusdenk on 3 Aug 2007 14:23 On Aug 3, 10:42 am, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 10:37:00 -0700, claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >On Aug 3, 10:12 am, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 10:03:55 -0700, claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> >On Aug 3, 9:58 am, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > >> >> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 09:28:24 -0700, z <gzuck...(a)snail-mail.net> wrote: > >> >> >On Jul 27, 11:57 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: > > >> >> >> So throw down on some none lies and irrelevancy on this SIMPLE TOPIC > >> >> >> of the changing temperatures and CO2 levels according to the ice cores > >> >> >> which show the lag of about 900 yrs for CO2 to temperature. > > >> >> >Sure, that's easy enough for you to say. > > >> >> Nowhere in his comment does he show any knowledge about the error bars > >> >> in the ice core time measurements. I believe they quite often exceed > >> >> 900 years. Not that it matters, as there wasn't 6 billion people on > >> >> the planet at the time dumping huge quantities of CO2 into the > >> >> atmosphere and no one is arguing that CO2 must always __lead__ a > >> >> temperature rise, back then. > > >> >Uh . . . shouldn't they be. You know, to be consistent? > > >> Humans today introduce new elements. Consistency here is that the > >> natural systems have their own responses to these __new__ intrusions. > > >I'm not understanding. Could you be less vague and more explicit and > >specific? Are you arguing against uniformitarianism? You know, are > >you saying the laws of nature (principles of cause and effect) in the > >past were different than they are at present? No response. > >Surely you couldn't be > >making such a specious argument. So please clarify. If CO2 didn't > >lead temp in the past then why should we believe it does now? No response. > > >Please be explicit in your response. And, please, refrain from the > >whacko tactic of proof by assertion. If you can't support an > >assertion then don't assert it. > > >> > CO2 levels can (as can CH4 levels) be > >> >> driven by Milankovitch cycles, for example. And none of that takes > >> >> away from the idea that CO2 driven by human activities can also be the > >> >> __lead__ in a rise in temperature, > > >> >None of it indicates why we should believe it does either. > > >> Since I already know you cannot either cannot read science with > >> understanding > > >How can I be expected to read and understand something that you have > >not (yet) presented. I've yet to see any evidence that CO2 can/will > >have a thermal effect on atmospheric temperatures. There is no > >shortage of people that will claim that it does. But there is > >absolutely nobody that can say how or how much. > > I'm not going to be engaged on arguing this with you. Why not? > You can't even > deal with the theory and mathematics in Rasool & Scheider's 1971 paper > on the subject, and that's just a highly simplified 1D approach to the > question. I'm well aware of this paper. What aspect of it would you like to discuss? > That you have "yet to see any evidence" doesn't amount to a > hill of beans one way or another. It's just noise. One can only wonder why you suddenly don't want to discuss any of this. > > >> or else are taking an intentionally deceitful position, > >> I can see why you might say that. However, to anyone else there is > >> plenty of reasoning available > > >Keep in mind we don't have access to your imagination. > > >> that is very strong and better than any > >> other reasoning presented so far. > > >So we're supposed to take your word on this? > > I'd MUCH rather folks go read the peer-reviewed papers for themselves. I have. All of them. Don't be shy.
From: Bill Ward on 3 Aug 2007 14:35
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:58:03 +0000, Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 09:28:24 -0700, z <gzuckier(a)snail-mail.net> wrote: > >>On Jul 27, 11:57 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >> >>> So throw down on some none lies and irrelevancy on this SIMPLE TOPIC of >>> the changing temperatures and CO2 levels according to the ice cores >>> which show the lag of about 900 yrs for CO2 to temperature. >> >>Sure, that's easy enough for you to say. > > Nowhere in his comment does he show any knowledge about the error bars in > the ice core time measurements. I believe they quite often exceed 900 > years. Not that it matters, as there wasn't 6 billion people on the > planet at the time dumping huge quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere and > no one is arguing that CO2 must always __lead__ a temperature rise, back > then. CO2 levels can (as can CH4 levels) be driven by Milankovitch > cycles, for example. OK, I'll bite. How can Milkankovitch cycles drive CO2 and CH4 levels without involving temperature? |