Pacific Ocean waters absorbing heat 15 times faster over past 60 years than in past 1

[westwall]

Except that:

1) You did not make that exact statement and appear to want to make it seem that you said something else altogether; and

2) Whether or not you or anyone else has an expectation as to the temperature curve of the planet over time is irrelevant to what that curve actually is. The fact is that the two (CO2 concentrations and global temperature averages over time) are strongly correlated whether or not they meet your expectations.



The only reason people laugh at me, if they do laugh at me, is because they find it funny, if not sad, that I would even bother to try to have a conversation with such a tool as you.

Fair enough -- You're not here to converse with me..

But just for the record -- the history of that comment goes something like this.. You attempted to dismiss poster "tap" with an "argument from complexity" backhand.

Whereby I asserted that Climate Science DESERVES derision for reducing their contributions way below the bar of all available math and science for public consumption. And I supported that observation by remarking that NO system as complex as Earth's climate should ever be expected to cough out a temperature shape that looks exactly like anyone of it's input variables.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...60-years-than-in-past-1-a-28.html#post8285559

I would have to erase everything I know about complex systems and math and science to spend all my time yelling at folks that "that input doesn't match the observed temperature curve".. And YET --- that's the cornerstone of your AGW stone tablets...

Sad situation bud.. True story....

The funny thing about science is that expectations have a way of being unexpectedly defeated by observations. As an example, no one expected such a huge and devastating earthquake and tsunami to occur off the coast of Sumatra in 2004 because there was very little past evidence for such an event even though it was widely known to be associated with a large and potentially dangerous megathrust zone. Today, it is being reported that large tsunami deposits were found in a cave near the western Sumatra coast that extends the history of tsunamis in the region back to the year 1000, and probably further. So we now have a very detailed history of such events in the region. Had we known in 2004 what we know today, we could have based a more reasonable disaster plan on that data, and likely saved many lives.

In this case, you apparently expect that CO2 concentrations and global temperature averages NOT to correlate (though why you would believe such a thing is not explained). Sadly for you and your expectations, they do, in fact, correlate. Next.

Boy. Ain't that true about AGW. Expectations were that with all that increased CO2 temps were going to skyrocket. Then, when that didn't happen the brain trust began falsifying data to support their expectations. Then, when that got found out they had to do a song and dance routine claiming that they didn't say those things all the while having their minions bury them on the internet.

So sad for them that we actually are competent, unlike them, so silly little tactics like that don't work and we dredge up all the things they said that they denied ever saying.

Funny that....observations haven't been kind to you boys and girls at all!

 

[flacaltenn]

Except that:

1) You did not make that exact statement and appear to want to make it seem that you said something else altogether; and

2) Whether or not you or anyone else has an expectation as to the temperature curve of the planet over time is irrelevant to what that curve actually is. The fact is that the two (CO2 concentrations and global temperature averages over time) are strongly correlated whether or not they meet your expectations.



The only reason people laugh at me, if they do laugh at me, is because they find it funny, if not sad, that I would even bother to try to have a conversation with such a tool as you.

Fair enough -- You're not here to converse with me..

But just for the record -- the history of that comment goes something like this.. You attempted to dismiss poster "tap" with an "argument from complexity" backhand.

Whereby I asserted that Climate Science DESERVES derision for reducing their contributions way below the bar of all available math and science for public consumption. And I supported that observation by remarking that NO system as complex as Earth's climate should ever be expected to cough out a temperature shape that looks exactly like anyone of it's input variables.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...60-years-than-in-past-1-a-28.html#post8285559

I would have to erase everything I know about complex systems and math and science to spend all my time yelling at folks that "that input doesn't match the observed temperature curve".. And YET --- that's the cornerstone of your AGW stone tablets...

Sad situation bud.. True story....

The funny thing about science is that expectations have a way of being unexpectedly defeated by observations. As an example, no one expected such a huge and devastating earthquake and tsunami to occur off the coast of Sumatra in 2004 because there was very little past evidence for such an event even though it was widely known to be associated with a large and potentially dangerous megathrust zone. Today, it is being reported that large tsunami deposits were found in a cave near the western Sumatra coast that extends the history of tsunamis in the region back to the year 1000, and probably further. So we now have a very detailed history of such events in the region. Had we known in 2004 what we know today, we could have based a more reasonable disaster plan on that data, and likely saved many lives.

In this case, you apparently expect that CO2 concentrations and global temperature averages NOT to correlate (though why you would believe such a thing is not explained). Sadly for you and your expectations, they do, in fact, correlate. Next.

The fact that they correlate means nothing. In fact, it doesn't even tell you which is the dependent variable -- does it? A complex system like I said has no expectation that the inputs are correlated with the output(s). They are related by a transfer function.. Only the SIMPLIEST of systems have y = Ax + b type of transfer functions. And THOSE imply some order of correlation between input and output.

The known PROPERTIES of the climate system include features that are sure to not fit that 1st order linear type of equation.. As I tried to walk you thru the example of a simple system with storage in it --- you WOULD have found that such a Linear System contains an integral which will allow the output to CONTINUE RAMPING UP in time --- even if the input levels are static.. Not magic -- math and science..

So for instance -- when the jerk squads start whining that the TSI Solar forcing can't POSSIBLY cause continuing INCREASING surface temps if it stopped climbing 20 yrs ago and just idles at a relative high...........

Folks with science and math skills just chuckle and shake their heads..

Give it a decade ---- some VERY SHARP Climate scientists are starting to get it....

 

[PMZ]

Fair enough -- You're not here to converse with me..

But just for the record -- the history of that comment goes something like this.. You attempted to dismiss poster "tap" with an "argument from complexity" backhand.

Whereby I asserted that Climate Science DESERVES derision for reducing their contributions way below the bar of all available math and science for public consumption. And I supported that observation by remarking that NO system as complex as Earth's climate should ever be expected to cough out a temperature shape that looks exactly like anyone of it's input variables.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...60-years-than-in-past-1-a-28.html#post8285559

I would have to erase everything I know about complex systems and math and science to spend all my time yelling at folks that "that input doesn't match the observed temperature curve".. And YET --- that's the cornerstone of your AGW stone tablets...

Sad situation bud.. True story....

The funny thing about science is that expectations have a way of being unexpectedly defeated by observations. As an example, no one expected such a huge and devastating earthquake and tsunami to occur off the coast of Sumatra in 2004 because there was very little past evidence for such an event even though it was widely known to be associated with a large and potentially dangerous megathrust zone. Today, it is being reported that large tsunami deposits were found in a cave near the western Sumatra coast that extends the history of tsunamis in the region back to the year 1000, and probably further. So we now have a very detailed history of such events in the region. Had we known in 2004 what we know today, we could have based a more reasonable disaster plan on that data, and likely saved many lives.

In this case, you apparently expect that CO2 concentrations and global temperature averages NOT to correlate (though why you would believe such a thing is not explained). Sadly for you and your expectations, they do, in fact, correlate. Next.

Boy. Ain't that true about AGW. Expectations were that with all that increased CO2 temps were going to skyrocket. Then, when that didn't happen the brain trust began falsifying data to support their expectations. Then, when that got found out they had to do a song and dance routine claiming that they didn't say those things all the while having their minions bury them on the internet.

So sad for them that we actually are competent, unlike them, so silly little tactics like that don't work and we dredge up all the things they said that they denied ever saying.

Funny that....observations haven't been kind to you boys and girls at all!

"Expectations were that with all that increased CO2 temps were going to skyrocket"

Really? Those must have been your expectations.

The expectations of science have, as you have pointed out, been that a small increase in AGW, would trigger other effects, that, over time, would lead to bigger temperature increases.

Did you think that you'd wake up some morning and all of the polar ice would be gone? That the earth's albedo would make a step function change?

Did you think that the arctic permafrost would melt over night?

Did you think that the oceans would, all of a sudden, become a warm bath?

I don't think that you have any idea of the scale of climate effects. The time constants. The dynamics measured in 30 year increments.

Or the irreversibility of it all. The momentum of all of the interconnected things that once triggered, can never be undone.

 

[flacaltenn]

Whooooa.. Lemme modify that last statement..

Folks with science and math skills just chuckle and shake their heads..

Give it a decade ---- some VERY SHARP Climate scientists are starting to get it....

Some very sharp climate scientists COLLABORATING WITH physicists, systems specialists and engineers are starting to get it.. The kinda team that Judith Curry has put together at Georgia Tech.

Less snarky tree ring, mud bug, metastudy Global extravaganzas for public consumption and IPCC stage productions -- and a lot more TOOLS of math and science brought to bear..

 

[orogenicman]

Fair enough -- You're not here to converse with me..

But just for the record -- the history of that comment goes something like this.. You attempted to dismiss poster "tap" with an "argument from complexity" backhand.

Whereby I asserted that Climate Science DESERVES derision for reducing their contributions way below the bar of all available math and science for public consumption. And I supported that observation by remarking that NO system as complex as Earth's climate should ever be expected to cough out a temperature shape that looks exactly like anyone of it's input variables.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/envir...60-years-than-in-past-1-a-28.html#post8285559

I would have to erase everything I know about complex systems and math and science to spend all my time yelling at folks that "that input doesn't match the observed temperature curve".. And YET --- that's the cornerstone of your AGW stone tablets...

Sad situation bud.. True story....

The funny thing about science is that expectations have a way of being unexpectedly defeated by observations. As an example, no one expected such a huge and devastating earthquake and tsunami to occur off the coast of Sumatra in 2004 because there was very little past evidence for such an event even though it was widely known to be associated with a large and potentially dangerous megathrust zone. Today, it is being reported that large tsunami deposits were found in a cave near the western Sumatra coast that extends the history of tsunamis in the region back to the year 1000, and probably further. So we now have a very detailed history of such events in the region. Had we known in 2004 what we know today, we could have based a more reasonable disaster plan on that data, and likely saved many lives.

In this case, you apparently expect that CO2 concentrations and global temperature averages NOT to correlate (though why you would believe such a thing is not explained). Sadly for you and your expectations, they do, in fact, correlate. Next.

The fact that they correlate means nothing. In fact, it doesn't even tell you which is the dependent variable -- does it? A complex system like I said has no expectation that the inputs are correlated with the output(s). They are related by a transfer function.. Only the SIMPLIEST of systems have y = Ax + b type of transfer functions. And THOSE imply some order of correlation between input and output.

The known PROPERTIES of the climate system include features that are sure to not fit that 1st order linear type of equation.. As I tried to walk you thru the example of a simple system with storage in it --- you WOULD have found that such a Linear System contains an integral which will allow the output to CONTINUE RAMPING UP in time --- even if the input levels are static.. Not magic -- math and science..

So for instance -- when the jerk squads start whining that the TSI Solar forcing can't POSSIBLY cause continuing INCREASING surface temps if it stopped climbing 20 yrs ago and just idles at a relative high...........

Folks with science and math skills just chuckle and shake their heads..

Give it a decade ---- some VERY SHARP Climate scientists are starting to get it....

I suppose that my earlier pointing out the NON-Linear characteristic of the global climate system went right over your pointy head. I'm not surprised. Go ahead - chuckle. Then you can explain with a more straight face why you ignored this fact and instead went with the "linear" straw man.

 

[westwall]

The funny thing about science is that expectations have a way of being unexpectedly defeated by observations. As an example, no one expected such a huge and devastating earthquake and tsunami to occur off the coast of Sumatra in 2004 because there was very little past evidence for such an event even though it was widely known to be associated with a large and potentially dangerous megathrust zone. Today, it is being reported that large tsunami deposits were found in a cave near the western Sumatra coast that extends the history of tsunamis in the region back to the year 1000, and probably further. So we now have a very detailed history of such events in the region. Had we known in 2004 what we know today, we could have based a more reasonable disaster plan on that data, and likely saved many lives.

In this case, you apparently expect that CO2 concentrations and global temperature averages NOT to correlate (though why you would believe such a thing is not explained). Sadly for you and your expectations, they do, in fact, correlate. Next.

Boy. Ain't that true about AGW. Expectations were that with all that increased CO2 temps were going to skyrocket. Then, when that didn't happen the brain trust began falsifying data to support their expectations. Then, when that got found out they had to do a song and dance routine claiming that they didn't say those things all the while having their minions bury them on the internet.

So sad for them that we actually are competent, unlike them, so silly little tactics like that don't work and we dredge up all the things they said that they denied ever saying.

Funny that....observations haven't been kind to you boys and girls at all!

"Expectations were that with all that increased CO2 temps were going to skyrocket"

Really? Those must have been your expectations.

The expectations of science have, as you have pointed out, been that a small increase in AGW, would trigger other effects, that, over time, would lead to bigger temperature increases.

Did you think that you'd wake up some morning and all of the polar ice would be gone? That the earth's albedo would make a step function change?

Did you think that the arctic permafrost would melt over night?

Did you think that the oceans would, all of a sudden, become a warm bath?

I don't think that you have any idea of the scale of climate effects. The time constants. The dynamics measured in 30 year increments.

Or the irreversibility of it all. The momentum of all of the interconnected things that once triggered, can never be undone.

That's what you clowns have been bleating for over 25 years silly person! "The science is settled, if we continue to pump massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere the inexorable result is run away warming" blah, blah, blah....

That's the AGW mantra. It IS funny to see you trying to run away from it though...it truly is!

 

[flacaltenn]

The funny thing about science is that expectations have a way of being unexpectedly defeated by observations. As an example, no one expected such a huge and devastating earthquake and tsunami to occur off the coast of Sumatra in 2004 because there was very little past evidence for such an event even though it was widely known to be associated with a large and potentially dangerous megathrust zone. Today, it is being reported that large tsunami deposits were found in a cave near the western Sumatra coast that extends the history of tsunamis in the region back to the year 1000, and probably further. So we now have a very detailed history of such events in the region. Had we known in 2004 what we know today, we could have based a more reasonable disaster plan on that data, and likely saved many lives.

In this case, you apparently expect that CO2 concentrations and global temperature averages NOT to correlate (though why you would believe such a thing is not explained). Sadly for you and your expectations, they do, in fact, correlate. Next.

The fact that they correlate means nothing. In fact, it doesn't even tell you which is the dependent variable -- does it? A complex system like I said has no expectation that the inputs are correlated with the output(s). They are related by a transfer function.. Only the SIMPLIEST of systems have y = Ax + b type of transfer functions. And THOSE imply some order of correlation between input and output.

The known PROPERTIES of the climate system include features that are sure to not fit that 1st order linear type of equation.. As I tried to walk you thru the example of a simple system with storage in it --- you WOULD have found that such a Linear System contains an integral which will allow the output to CONTINUE RAMPING UP in time --- even if the input levels are static.. Not magic -- math and science..

So for instance -- when the jerk squads start whining that the TSI Solar forcing can't POSSIBLY cause continuing INCREASING surface temps if it stopped climbing 20 yrs ago and just idles at a relative high...........

Folks with science and math skills just chuckle and shake their heads..

Give it a decade ---- some VERY SHARP Climate scientists are starting to get it....

I suppose that my earlier pointing out the NON-Linear characteristic of the global climate system went right over your pointy head. I'm not surprised. Go ahead - chuckle. Then you can explain with a more straight face why you ignored this fact and instead went with the "linear" straw man.

Well no -- it didn't go over my head.. I just didn't recognize it. I've since looked it up and it's really what I thought it was --- a curve fit to the modern observed temperature graph.. A curve fit only describes the observation. It doesn't explain the system internals or inputs in any way.. BUT ---- You are correct --- that the system shouldn't even be expected to be linear.

Peering into the Black Box Model that contains the climate system -- I'd expect to see both Linear and Non-Linear functions. I'm also sure there's some statistical or stochastic functions in there. Along with the Storage elements, and Delay Elements and all those other constructs of system modeling. The BIGGEST weirdness creating element in a system is FEEDBACK. Which the Climate Black Box also contains. Both positive and negative types.. Can create output OSCILLATIONS and transient behaviours. Really screws with concept of a simple curve matching process between Ins and Outs.

Something that complex and devious enough to "hide heat in the oceans" isn't gonna behave exactly like JUST ONE of its input variables. GuaranDamTeed.

If it DOES -- it would be a rare coinkydink..

The solar forcings act a lot more HVAC furnace. DURATION of power applied determines the room temp --- the magnitude of the heat energy needn't be changing to make the temperature go up.

I've got reasons to be skeptical. And they are not just BELIEFS or WHIMS of fancy. They are not "based on my religion or politics".. Just thought you should know..

 

[orogenicman]

The fact that they correlate means nothing. In fact, it doesn't even tell you which is the dependent variable -- does it? A complex system like I said has no expectation that the inputs are correlated with the output(s). They are related by a transfer function.. Only the SIMPLIEST of systems have y = Ax + b type of transfer functions. And THOSE imply some order of correlation between input and output.

The known PROPERTIES of the climate system include features that are sure to not fit that 1st order linear type of equation.. As I tried to walk you thru the example of a simple system with storage in it --- you WOULD have found that such a Linear System contains an integral which will allow the output to CONTINUE RAMPING UP in time --- even if the input levels are static.. Not magic -- math and science..

So for instance -- when the jerk squads start whining that the TSI Solar forcing can't POSSIBLY cause continuing INCREASING surface temps if it stopped climbing 20 yrs ago and just idles at a relative high...........

Folks with science and math skills just chuckle and shake their heads..

Give it a decade ---- some VERY SHARP Climate scientists are starting to get it....

I suppose that my earlier pointing out the NON-Linear characteristic of the global climate system went right over your pointy head. I'm not surprised. Go ahead - chuckle. Then you can explain with a more straight face why you ignored this fact and instead went with the "linear" straw man.

Well no -- it didn't go over my head.. I just didn't recognize it. I've since looked it up and it's really what I thought it was --- a curve fit to the modern observed temperature graph.. A curve fit only describes the observation. It doesn't explain the system internals or inputs in any way.. BUT ---- You are correct --- that the system shouldn't even be expected to be linear.

Peering into the Black Box Model that contains the climate system -- I'd expect to see both Linear and Non-Linear functions. I'm also sure there's some statistical or stochastic functions in there. Along with the Storage elements, and Delay Elements and all those other constructs of system modeling. The BIGGEST weirdness creating element in a system is FEEDBACK. Which the Climate Black Box also contains. Both positive and negative types.. Can create output OSCILLATIONS and transient behaviours. Really screws with concept of a simple curve matching process between Ins and Outs.

Something that complex and devious enough to "hide heat in the oceans" isn't gonna behave exactly like JUST ONE of its input variables. GuaranDamTeed.

If it DOES -- it would be a rare coinkydink..

The solar forcings act a lot more HVAC furnace. DURATION of power applied determines the room temp --- the magnitude of the heat energy needn't be changing to make the temperature go up.

I've got reasons to be skeptical. And they are not just BELIEFS or WHIMS of fancy. They are not "based on my religion or politics".. Just thought you should know..

None of which explains your "linear" straw man. Care to try again?

 

[PMZ]

Boy. Ain't that true about AGW. Expectations were that with all that increased CO2 temps were going to skyrocket. Then, when that didn't happen the brain trust began falsifying data to support their expectations. Then, when that got found out they had to do a song and dance routine claiming that they didn't say those things all the while having their minions bury them on the internet.

So sad for them that we actually are competent, unlike them, so silly little tactics like that don't work and we dredge up all the things they said that they denied ever saying.

Funny that....observations haven't been kind to you boys and girls at all!

"Expectations were that with all that increased CO2 temps were going to skyrocket"

Really? Those must have been your expectations.

The expectations of science have, as you have pointed out, been that a small increase in AGW, would trigger other effects, that, over time, would lead to bigger temperature increases.

Did you think that you'd wake up some morning and all of the polar ice would be gone? That the earth's albedo would make a step function change?

Did you think that the arctic permafrost would melt over night?

Did you think that the oceans would, all of a sudden, become a warm bath?

I don't think that you have any idea of the scale of climate effects. The time constants. The dynamics measured in 30 year increments.

Or the irreversibility of it all. The momentum of all of the interconnected things that once triggered, can never be undone.

That's what you clowns have been bleating for over 25 years silly person! "The science is settled, if we continue to pump massive amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere the inexorable result is run away warming" blah, blah, blah....

That's the AGW mantra. It IS funny to see you trying to run away from it though...it truly is!

You like to ignore that AGW is an eighth grade physics certainty. Apparently you skipped that day.

Denying reality has never worked out for me, a lesson that you, too, will learn sooner or later.

Probably later for you. Maybe never.

 

[flacaltenn]

I suppose that my earlier pointing out the NON-Linear characteristic of the global climate system went right over your pointy head. I'm not surprised. Go ahead - chuckle. Then you can explain with a more straight face why you ignored this fact and instead went with the "linear" straw man.

Well no -- it didn't go over my head.. I just didn't recognize it. I've since looked it up and it's really what I thought it was --- a curve fit to the modern observed temperature graph.. A curve fit only describes the observation. It doesn't explain the system internals or inputs in any way.. BUT ---- You are correct --- that the system shouldn't even be expected to be linear.

Peering into the Black Box Model that contains the climate system -- I'd expect to see both Linear and Non-Linear functions. I'm also sure there's some statistical or stochastic functions in there. Along with the Storage elements, and Delay Elements and all those other constructs of system modeling. The BIGGEST weirdness creating element in a system is FEEDBACK. Which the Climate Black Box also contains. Both positive and negative types.. Can create output OSCILLATIONS and transient behaviours. Really screws with concept of a simple curve matching process between Ins and Outs.

Something that complex and devious enough to "hide heat in the oceans" isn't gonna behave exactly like JUST ONE of its input variables. GuaranDamTeed.

If it DOES -- it would be a rare coinkydink..

The solar forcings act a lot more HVAC furnace. DURATION of power applied determines the room temp --- the magnitude of the heat energy needn't be changing to make the temperature go up.

I've got reasons to be skeptical. And they are not just BELIEFS or WHIMS of fancy. They are not "based on my religion or politics".. Just thought you should know..

None of which explains your "linear" straw man. Care to try again?

There's some disconnect here.. Should we just drop it? Or you want to tell me where I insisted about any REAL climate system model being "linear"? The only simplistic "linear" assumption is that the temperature record has to MATCH EXACTLY any climate input.

 

[Abraham3]

what the science says about CO2 lead/lag, because you clowns need it work BOTH WAYS for your disaster scenarios to manifest.

What the science says about it and what you say about it are two different things. But that's not why I'm here.

Please explain why you believe (as I'm assuming you do) that CO2, physically, can NOT lead temperatures upward. And I want no history. I want physics.

Any chance of a response here? This was originally addressed to FlaCalTenn, but I'll take a response from anyone who wants to take the opposing position. You'd be arguing FlaCalTenn's implication, that the CO2/temperature lag/lead function only works in one direction; that we are clowns to expect it to work in both directions. Any takers?

Alternatively, of course, I'd take an admission that the physics does allow CO2 to lead temperature upwards.

 

[PMZ]

what the science says about CO2 lead/lag, because you clowns need it work BOTH WAYS for your disaster scenarios to manifest.

What the science says about it and what you say about it are two different things. But that's not why I'm here.

Please explain why you believe (as I'm assuming you do) that CO2, physically, can NOT lead temperatures upward. And I want no history. I want physics.

Any chance of a response here?

You ask a question whose answer reveals the fundamental hole in denier science. The answer is that no science supports any reaction other than global warming as a consequence of increasing atmospheric GHG concentrations.

What they offer is politics in the absence of such science. And obfuscation of the science. Great huge schools of red herrings.

 

[flacaltenn]

what the science says about CO2 lead/lag, because you clowns need it work BOTH WAYS for your disaster scenarios to manifest.

What the science says about it and what you say about it are two different things. But that's not why I'm here.

Please explain why you believe (as I'm assuming you do) that CO2, physically, can NOT lead temperatures upward. And I want no history. I want physics.

Any chance of a response here?

You snipped so much of my response that I have no idea what the context was. But I'm CERTAIN --- that I never said CO2 couldn't lead temperature..

This argument starts everytime one of you AGW zealots starts denying that CO2 EVER leads temperature (like during the Glacials) -- and we have to remind you that your Armaggedon scenario DOES depend on having it BOTH ways..

 

[Abraham3]

You said:

what the science says about CO2 lead/lag, because you clowns need it work BOTH WAYS for your disaster scenarios to manifest.

I see no other way to take that other than that you believe we are "clowns" to believe it works in both directions.

If you're having trouble remembering what you said, feel free to look it up. It isn't that far up the thread.

 

[Abraham3]

Here's your entire statement.

Again -- it's hard to compare a massive glaciation to what we have NOW.. Certainly it could take a 100 years to thaw thru a mile thick glacier to the permafrost... But it's good you took a remedial look at what the science says about CO2 lead/lag, because you clowns need it work BOTH WAYS for your disaster scenarios to manifest.

Really anticipating your guess about what that simple system with internal thermal storage does temperature wise to a flat-lined but IMBALANCED heating/cooling rate scenario...

 

[flacaltenn]

Here's your entire statement.

Again -- it's hard to compare a massive glaciation to what we have NOW.. Certainly it could take a 100 years to thaw thru a mile thick glacier to the permafrost... But it's good you took a remedial look at what the science says about CO2 lead/lag, because you clowns need it work BOTH WAYS for your disaster scenarios to manifest.

Really anticipating your guess about what that simple system with internal thermal storage does temperature wise to a flat-lined but IMBALANCED heating/cooling rate scenario...

Truely man.. I need an interpreter here. You ranting about demanding physics and claiming I meant something other than what is written there? ANYONE LEND AHAND HERE? Is there a shrink in the house?

 

[westwall]

Here's your entire statement.

Again -- it's hard to compare a massive glaciation to what we have NOW.. Certainly it could take a 100 years to thaw thru a mile thick glacier to the permafrost... But it's good you took a remedial look at what the science says about CO2 lead/lag, because you clowns need it work BOTH WAYS for your disaster scenarios to manifest.

Really anticipating your guess about what that simple system with internal thermal storage does temperature wise to a flat-lined but IMBALANCED heating/cooling rate scenario...

Truely man.. I need an interpreter here. You ranting about demanding physics and claiming I meant something other than what is written there? ANYONE LEND AHAND HERE? Is there a shrink in the house?

A shrink would prescribe a rubber room and a hose.

 

[flacaltenn]

Is the problem that I pointed out you were clowns? Or that we have to constantly remind you that it works both ways? Cause sure as hell someone will say that temperature led CO2 during the glacials and one of you will surely run out into traffic claiming that cant be.

 

[Abraham3]

Here's your entire statement.

Again -- it's hard to compare a massive glaciation to what we have NOW.. Certainly it could take a 100 years to thaw thru a mile thick glacier to the permafrost... But it's good you took a remedial look at what the science says about CO2 lead/lag, because you clowns need it work BOTH WAYS for your disaster scenarios to manifest.

Really anticipating your guess about what that simple system with internal thermal storage does temperature wise to a flat-lined but IMBALANCED heating/cooling rate scenario...

Truely man.. I need an interpreter here. You ranting about demanding physics and claiming I meant something other than what is written there? ANYONE LEND AHAND HERE? Is there a shrink in the house?

Is there some reason you can't provide a simple explanation of what you meant? I simply want to know if, as you appear to be saying,you believe there is some physical reason that prevents CO2 from leading temperature.

 

[Abraham3]

A shrink would prescribe a rubber room and a hose.

Are you threatening me with violence? Or do you perhaps not know what the guards actually DID with the rubber hoses?