Probably, except, I think I might be more inclined to use cosine. Not to be pedantic or anything.
Which thread would be appropriate for making unsupported assertions based solely on one’s self-proclaimed “intuition about dynamical systems”?
-
What exactly do you mean by “AGW”?
-
What exactly should denial-whiners do if warmist-whiners make more than one false assertion?
-
Can you please provide 2 examples of this sudden switch you refer to? TIA
Ah, I see the problem here. Brazil has apparently blocked the people who have eagerly provided the definition. I’d repost it, but I’m also on his block list. So can everyone please link him to post 128, in the hopes that someone isn’t on ignore?
Or, you know, just don’t, and ignore him.
Well then, post it in the right thread. And I may know exactly what you are talking about.
I am not quite convinced that you know what you are talking about.
Is that an insult?
It is an observation of the quality of material you post. Like ranting on about temperature profiles in New Hampshire in a conversation about global warming, as if an obscure patch of .005% of the earth’s surface area should somehow be the earth’s bellwether. Or that we should not speak of global warming resulting in more extreme weather patterns because it is a “myth”. Take it how ever you want to take it.
If there is something you disagree with, or want to argue, then do it. blanket insults about what I know or don’t know isn’t speaking to the argument in any way.
In fact, it’s the very definition of being insulting, rather than addressing the argument.
I highly doubt it, and it’s easy enough to cherry-pick a counter-example. Consider the world energy economy. Let X represent the average price per barrel of crude oil on the largest American commodities exchanges. Let Y represent the price per gallon of gas at the Sunoco Station in Cape May, New Jersey.
If one plots X and Y over the last 50 years, one will observe that they move in lockstep with each other.
Is there positive feedback? Well imagine what would happen if the owner of the Sunoco station in Cape May decided one morning to double what he charges for gasoline. Would it precipitate a national energy crisis? Lol, of course not.
It seems to me that if two quantities move in lockstep over time, it implies that one influences the other. Or that some other quantity influences both. And nothing more.
But I am happy to consider your argument to the contrary.
No doubt. But I don’t think anyone is going to argue with you, nor do I see what these sorts of abstract arguments are supposed to add to a discussion about climate change. Moreover, that has nothing to do with feedbacks. A feedback in the climate context, loosely speaking, is a secondary phenomenon caused by a primary agent of change that strengthens (positive) or weakens (negative) the effect of the primary agent.
I think we all understand that correlation does not imply causation. But some of us also understand that the accumulated theoretical and empirical knowledge about the physical basis of climate change implies a hell of a lot.
This may be irrelevant to the thread topic, but I still believe my point is correct.
If A is the only major influence on B, or vice versa, or some C is the only major influence on both A and B, then A and B can move “in lockstep” without feedback.
BUT, there are major influences on global temperature unrelated to CO2; AND there are major influences on CO2 levels other than temperature. That CO2 and temperature nevertheless move “in lockstep” strongly implies, to me, “lockstep” due to positive feedback. (Of course the mechanism may operate fully in a relatively temperature band, with negative feedbacks at extremal temperatures preventing “run-away.”)
Ok, so you concede that the lockstep pattern under discussion doesn’t necessarily imply positive feedback?
During the time period in question, what were the major influences on CO2 levels besides temperature?
I would like to know this so I can think about your revised claim.
“Science advances one funeral at a time”
–Max Planck
With the retirement of Lindzen and the close to call it quits Spenser, the few skeptic researchers in favor of the denier positions are even harder to find. No easy pickings left indeed.
(Science writer and reporter Peter Hadfield telling us how many of the “experts” are not what they seem and the few remaining skeptical scientists are getting it wrong more often now, they are indeed ready to retire or to die with very very few followers to continue with the flawed models that they use.)
Are you there septimus?
I asked you two simple, civil, reasonable questions and I would really like answers.
-
Do you now agree that the lockstep pattern under discussion (standing alone) doesn’t necessarily imply positive feedback?
-
During the Pleistocene time period, what were the major influences on CO2 levels besides temperature?
You don’t seem to like it when I ridicule your claims, but if you ignore or evade simple, civil, reasonable questions like this, it’s reasonable for me to conclude that your posts are worthy of ridicule.
For me, the science is of interest. I do not claim to be an expert, but I do participate when I have a relevant question, or when I see a claim that is blatantly misinformed. For you, it seems more personal. There are obviously participants here with much greater expertise than you or I. Ask them, if you have sincere questions about the science. I think I explained and qualified my comment about locksteps implying feedback. If my answer was unsatisfactory, you’re free to claim victory. Life is short; I hope it’s not snarky to admit that “debating” brazil84 is not high among my priorities.
If you insist on engaging me further, I respectfully ask you to take it to the Pit.
Nice attack on my motivations – and whitewash of your own motivations.
I asked you a simple, reasonable, civil question – which you have refused to answer.
You asserted, in effect, that during Pleistocene time period there were other major influences on CO2 levels besides temperature.
And yet you refuse to name any of these other supposed influences.
Look, the sky won’t fall if you admit that you just made this claim up in an effort to bolster your failing argument.
Assuming that’s true (and I’m not terribly impressed with the expertise of any poster here) it’s not my responsibility to go looking for evidence to back up your invented claims.
Just admit that you made it up and apologize for wasting my time with nonsense.
We both know that your answer was unsatisfactory; we both know that your original claim was wrong; and we both know that you invented a different claim which was probably wrong too.
I do claim victory. Now please apologize.
Then why did you engage me in the first place? Funny how debating me went down in priority once I shined the spotlight on the holes in your position. How many searches did you do on Google, Wikipedia, and/or Skepticalscienece to try to find anything at all to support your claim? Before finally deciding that debating me is actually a low priority.
I might add a few remarks there. Your position certainly deserves ridicule, particularly in light of your self-proclaimed expertise.
Other influences may themselves be consequences of climate, but so what? Since CO2 influences temperature, if temperature were the only influence on CO2, this feedback would cause the two to move in “lockstep” – precisely the claim you disputed.
Meanwhile, there’s no way to read your comments without concluding that personal argument is your goal, not scientific understanding.
Hope this helps.
I have no idea what this means. What influences are you talking about?
Complete and utter nonsense. Here’s what I said above:
More nonsense. I’m the one who asked you to back up your claim in a polite, civil, reasonable manner. You are the one who responded by evading, misrepresenting, and attacking my motivations.
No, it’s not very helpful when you make up claims; weasel; evade; and misrepresent other peoples’ positions.
Brazil84, at no time is it permissible in Great Debates to accuse another poster of ‘making things up’ or any other variant of lying or being untruthful. If you absolutely feel you must do so, the BBQ Pit is only a few clicks away.
I’m giving you a warning for multiple accusations or lying/making stuff up/untruthfulness. Please don’t do it again.