O/T: Up Yours

Page 6 of 11  
On May 22, 10:35 pm, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

Is it your contention that the oceans released carbon dioxide as they warmed?

Is it your contention that greenhouse gases have no effect on temperature?
--

FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's certainly a plausible explanation of why carbon dioxide levels rise *after* temperature rises.

when Han claimed that increasing carbon dioxide levels cause increasing temperatures -- and I pointed out that the increase in temperature comes *first*.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On May 24, 1:28 am, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

Regardless, what is *your* explanation?

Do you always respond to a question with question or only when you don't want to answer the question?
Now, regarding your question, If tachyons exist, yes. The last I heard, there was no evidence that they do. So right now I would say no.
Now, how I'll rephrase so we can see if you evade answering the question again:
Do greenhouse gases affect temperature?
There are people who deny the validity of the greenhouse effect. I don't know if you are one of those, but I would like to know.

No, you pointed out that in the ice core data, it *came* first.
You never addressed what happens if carbon dioxide concentrations were to rise independently of a temperature change.
--
FF



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I'm not attempting to explain the reasons, just to tell you the facts.

Do you?

Greenhouse gases are among numerous factors that *can* affect temperature.

You emphasized the wrong word: the point is that it came *first*.

Irrelevant -- that's not happening.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On May 24, 3:16 am, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

It is a fact that the oceans are a net sink of carbon dioxide, right?

Is carbon dioxide a greenhouse gas?

Regardless you were addressing a putative history, not the properties of carbon dioxide itself.

Wrong, look at the data from ~ 1940 to ~ 1980.
Or you could go back to the time from ~ 1880 to ~ 1910, though the data from then is less reliable than from the mid-1950s to the present.
Further, aside from simple arithmetic, the Seuss effect establishes that the rise in carbon dioxide is anthropogenic, right?
--
FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not relevant to the question of which is cause and which is effect.

Not relevant as to which is cause and which is effect.

Still missing the point: cause and effect.

Perhaps you need to review the meaning of the word "independent".

Irrelevant to this discussion.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On May 24, 7:07 am, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On May 24, 7:07 am, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

Oh? What do you consider to be necessary and sufficient to establish which is cause and is effect?

We disagree. But let's put that aside until we see if we agree as to the answer to the question above.

How so?

I disagree. However I do need you to explain the relevance of the concept in the context of the 1940 to 1980 data. After all, if I assume i understand why you consider it relevant, I may assume incorrectly.

I disagree.
But I do agree that it is premature to discuss why.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Geez, all this discussion and you *still* don't understand the point.
Once again:
"B follows A" implies nothing, one way or the other, regarding the proposition that A caused B. It does, however, contradict the proposition that B caused A.
I see no point in further discussions with someone unable to understand that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On May 24, 7:44 pm, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

Irrelevant.
As you know, I was asking you how you established the causality that you asserted in your statements you excised from your reply.
I repeat them here: Earlier in this thread you wrote, " ...: increasing CO2 level is the RESULT of increasing temperature, not the CAUSE." and "increasing CO2 levels are the result of increasing temperatures, not the cause."
Again, how did you establish that increasing CO2 is the result of increasing temperatures.
I am not interested in what you claim to be *true*, not in what you claim to not be so.

Rather it appears that you are afraid you will be unable to justify *your own* assertions. Take heart, I bet you can.
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Quite the contrary -- that is the *core* of my objection to Han's post.

I did not assert that any causality existed; rather, I asserted that the timeline of which came first shows that the causality that *Han* asserted does *not* exist.

Were you born this dense, or is it the result of years of practice?
Causes precede effects, not the other way around. What happens later *cannot* be the cause of what happens earlier, no matter how ardently you and AlGore might wish it to be so.

Again, completely irrelevant.
I'm done wasting time arguing with someone who's unable to understand the simple principle that causes precede effects. Keep on yapping if you like, but I'm done.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote in

boring and excessively long, hence my lack of recent participation. For me, the need to work also cuts down on the available time. Nevertheless, let's not let facts get in the way of reason. Whatever the cause for release of CO2 into the atmosphere in the geologically distant past, based on the properties of CO2 it is NOT reasonable to assume that CO2 does NOT increase heat retention by the earth. Hence the assertion that increases in CO2 in the atmosphere did and will increase the earth's temperature.
We probably should pay more attention to the effects of changes in solar radiation, which happen for various reasons, on the earth temperature. However, I don't really see how we can affect that easily, other than by putting some kind of soot or reflective material into the stratosphere or above (a possibility of course, maybe in the form of solar energy collectors linked to microwave transmitting stations). For a whole lot of reasons limiting carbon emissions is good, not the least of which is conservation.
--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

"Let's not let facts get in the way of reason." !!
Begin with the *fact* that ice core data shows that increases in temperature *preceded* increases in CO2 levels.
*Reason* tells us that that if any causal relationship exists there, it *can't* be the one that you asserted.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Miller wrote:

OK, I give up. I suggest that anyone who is interested in paleoclimatology start with Wikipedia for a general treatise on the subject (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core). Then look at some more specific information on the Vostok data at http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data /. Both these sources have excellent bibliographies for further study. Scientific American (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=ice-core-extends-climate ) also presents some interesting information on the subject plus an excellent list for further reading. Should you have a rather more extensive background in climatology or related disciplines, Science magazine presents the research and details of the conclusions presented (start at http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/283/5408/1712?hits &RESULTFORMAT=&FIRSTINDEX=0&maxtoshow=&HITS&fulltext=Fischer%2C+H.%2C+M.+Wahlen%2C+J.+Smith%2C+D.+Mastroiani+and+B.+Deck%2C+1999%3A+Ice+core+records+of+atmospheric+CO2+around+the+last+three+glacial+terminations.+Science%2C+283%2C+1712-1714.&searchid=1&resourcetype=HWCIT or DAGS on '"Science Magazine" ice core data' .
Good luck to all.     mahalo,     jo4hn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jo4hn wrote:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/283/5408/1712?hits &RESULTFORMAT=&FIRSTINDEX=0&maxtoshow=&HITS&fulltext=Fischer%2C+H.%2C+M.+Wahlen%2C+J.+Smith%2C+D.+Mastroiani+and+B.+Deck%2C+1999%3A+Ice+core+records+of+atmospheric+CO2+around+the+last+three+glacial+terminations.+Science%2C+283%2C+1712-1714.&searchid=1&resourcetype=HWCIT

    sorry about that,     jo4hn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

in
You refer to a feedback phenomenon. I get the impression that Mr Miller is desperately trying to avoid awknowledging any facts that support the concept of feedback.
--
FF

>
> We probably should pay more attention to the effects of changes in solar
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On May 25, 1:40 pm, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

I am not so dense as to infer causality from correlation alone. Up until now, I have been assuming the same for you.

If you have no *other* justification for your statement that "icreasing CO2 level is the RESULT of increasing temperature," does the reader have *any* alternative than to conclude that you are inferring causality from correlation alone?

I do not agree that your reasons for making your claims are irrelevant to a discussion of your claims.

I think you have enough integrity, courage, and intelligence to continue.
--

FF



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On May 25, 1:40 pm, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

I'm not discussing your objection to Han's post.
I am questioning you about how you justify your claim of a different causal relationship.

Wrong. You did so twice.
Your exact words were:
" ...: increasing CO2 level is the RESULT of increasing temperature, not the CAUSE." and "increasing CO2 levels are the result of increasing temperatures, not the cause."
If you like, I can provide URLs to the Google archive of your articles in which you made the statements. However I should think you are sufficiently mature as to not require that.

I am not so dense as to infer causality from correlation alone. Up until now, I have been assuming the same for you.

If you have no *other* justification for your statement that "increasing CO2 level is the RESULT of increasing temperature," does the reader have *any* alternative than to conclude that you are inferring causality from correlation alone?

I do not agree that your reasons for making your claims are irrelevant to a discussion of your claims.

I think you have enough integrity, courage, and intelligence to continue.
--

FF




Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I also have enough sense not to. As noted above: I'm done wasting time arguing with someone who can't, or won't, comprehend that causes precede effects, not the other way around. Keep on yapping if you like, but you'll be yapping in a void. I'm done.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On May 26, 8:40am, snipped-for-privacy@milmac.com (Doug Miller) wrote:

How DOES Doug keep getting himself in these situations, eh? Over and Over and Over again? Must be us. We're just not equipped to deal with a semantics warrior like him. I can just imagine what it would be like to be that sanctimonious asshole's neighbour.
r
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.