Sun Solar cycles is real, man made global warming is false.

[itfitzme]

Now, that is laughable, that you think you are capable of creating a real climate model.

Wait, I understood that you don't like computer models.

How much abuse did I take on this thread for trying to discuss more accurate modeling in Climate Science based on the tools of various types of System's Theory? And not one poster outside of ItFitzMe even bothered to try to discuss??

New study from Ga Tech posted by Matthew under "Stadium Waves"........

Bottom line first.

You are mistaking abuse for learning.

I would have to laugh at anyone on this forum thinking that they are going to create an accurate (let alone precise) climate model. This includes myself.

Even as a group, there are two reasons the we are unlikely to pull it off. The first is summed up in the old saying about herding cats. The second is simple technical prowess.

And I am quite confident that the most technically capable of us would agree.

I'm not even confident we could pull of creating SimClimate.

If nothing else, we should be a bit realistic.

 

[itfitzme]

BTW, this just in

Study: Climate change to drive annual temps to new highs within years - CNN.com

" Average annual temperatures will start to consistently exceed the highest levels previously recorded in as little as seven years in tropical hotspots and within four decades for the majority of the globe if nothing is done to stop climate change, according to a new study published Thursday in the journal Nature."

That is 2020 to 2053. That is in line with Wyatt's 2030.

 

[flacaltenn]

Now, that is laughable, that you think you are capable of creating a real climate model.

Wait, I understood that you don't like computer models.

How much abuse did I take on this thread for trying to discuss more accurate modeling in Climate Science based on the tools of various types of System's Theory? And not one poster outside of ItFitzMe even bothered to try to discuss??

New study from Ga Tech posted by Matthew under "Stadium Waves"........

Bottom line first.



Holy cow BatBoy.. Damped deterministic system responses to external forcings. Nonlinear interactions... Any of that ring a bell?

Building upon Wyatt's Ph.D. thesis at the University of Colorado, Wyatt and Curry identified two key ingredients to the propagation and maintenance of this stadium wave signal: the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and sea ice extent in the Eurasian Arctic shelf seas. The AMO sets the signal's tempo, while the sea ice bridges communication between ocean and atmosphere. The oscillatory nature of the signal can be thought of in terms of 'braking,' in which positive and negative feedbacks interact to support reversals of the circulation regimes. As a result, climate regimes -- multiple-decade intervals of warming or cooling -- evolve in a spatially and temporally ordered manner. While not strictly periodic in occurrence, their repetition is regular -- the order of quasi-oscillatory events remains consistent. Wyatt's thesis found that the stadium wave signal has existed for at least 300 years.

The new study analyzed indices derived from atmospheric, oceanic and sea ice data since 1900. The linear trend was removed from all indices to focus only the multi-decadal component of natural variability. A multivariate statistical technique called Multi-channel Singular Spectrum Analysis (MSSA) was used to identify patterns of variability shared by all indices analyzed, which characterizes the 'stadium wave.' The removal of the long-term trend from the data effectively removes the response from long term climate forcing such as anthropogenic greenhouse gases.


The stadium wave periodically enhances or dampens the trend of long-term rising temperatures, which may explain the recent hiatus in rising global surface temperatures.

"The stadium wave signal predicts that the current pause in global warming could extend into the 2030s," said Wyatt, an independent scientist after having earned her Ph.D. from the University of Colorado in 2012.

Curry added, "This prediction is in contrast to the recently released IPCC AR5 Report that
projects an imminent resumption of the warming, likely to be in the range of a 0.3 to 0.7 degree Celsius rise in global mean surface temperature from 2016 to 2035." Curry is the chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

wave synthesis producing long-lasting DELAYED climate changes??

spectral analysis to identify periodicities?

oscillatory functions and damped responses caused by combos of positive and negative feedback?

the diff between external forcing functions and internal linear and non-linear functions?


Sounds like maybe Curry et al might have listening eh???
Or MAYBE ---- that's just what the science should be saying and doing..

Anyone want to continue discussing OTHER aspects of climate modeling that have been neglected? Or ya just want to badger, insult and harasss???

No one doubts that there are cyclical processes in the climate that account for the obvious variability upon which increasing temperatures are overlain. This is the whole point that is repeatedly made everytime some denier cherry picks a recent and "short lived" downward trend. The fact that there are cyclical processes at work is the whole point of the current insignificant haiatus the ocean cycle is currently in the ocean warming/atmospheric stable trend.

Unfortunately, cycles never account for long term increases. They simply mask the steady upward trend as the negative phase of the cycle offsets that increase. And the problematic part of a cycle is that what one half takes away, the other half gives back.

At this point we can gauge how much that will be and generally when we might expect it. Unfortunately, as nature is a bit messy, being able to say with precision just isn't possible. True sine waves seldom occur in nature. There is, rather, huge "phase noise", where the peaks and valleys are lengthened and foreshortened considerably. It really is this timing issue that makes precise prediction impossible. We know what the total energy is in the system. That can be easily counted. We can count TSI. We can count molecules of CO2.

What we cannot easily count is the timing of the heat moving in waves as it attempts to redistribute itself in a system that is constantly driven by ever changing solar and tidal forces.

The Earth us tilted on its axis, constantly changing the balance of heating, both as the Earth orbits the sun and the Earth revolves on it's axis. As well, the moon orbits the Earth, constantly moving the tide. All this changes where the heat is and where it wants to go. All that thermal energy has momentum and as it moves to cooler locations, it overshoots.

The placement of the continents and oceans are not nicely spaced. The Southpole has a huge lamd mass while the North has none. All of this drives and effects the timing of ocean and atmoshperic cycles is a way that is complex enough to be, for all practical purposes, random in timing.

If the current timing does extend the trough into the 1930's, it won't change the accumulation of heat. It will simply change the timing of when that energy is expressed as atmospheric temperature. And when the cycle gets around to dumping it into the atmosphere, it will do so with a vengance. For every year that temps don't rise, there will be an offsetting year when temps rise at twice the rate. And, we can guarantee that, as that heat has momentum, as it has undershot the mean, it will overshoot the mean as ocean temps drop below the average and the atmosphere overshoots.

Cycles that offset the steady increase are not good on two counts. The first is that rapid increase in atmospheric temps and subsequent overshoot. Crops and species do not adapt all that quickly. The second is the psychological effect that the lull has on people who feel is isn't all that bad.

I am npt sure you are fully grasping the consequences of what these cycles mean.

And yet --- these cycles are USED NOW merely as excuses by your warmer scholars for the hiatus in warming. OR storage in the oceans is SUDDENLY DISCOVERED by those on the ball climate guys..

Instead of using them as excuses for a faulty theory that the ONLY THING that matters to the climate is CO2.. Curry et al are discovering the mechanics for these complex systems. Might even discover a real mechanism for "hiding" all that "missing warming" in the deep oceans..

I think I do understand what's been missing in most of this juvenile climate science. And when Curry et al back up my intuitions and educated guesses -- it makes me hopeful.. Now that the shouting has calmed down a bit.. The REAL scientists are gonna make some progress..

Unfortunately, cycles never account for long term increases. They simply mask the steady upward trend as the negative phase of the cycle offsets that increase. And the problematic part of a cycle is that what one half takes away, the other half gives back.

Your group of data molesters have been counting ALL OF IT as being MY FAULT because I use CO2 to survive. The fact that these other effects can COMPLETELY MASK and UNMASK the warming trend MEANS that they are NOT trivial compared to CO2 warming. Which has been my entire point of "denial" all along.. You're welcome to keep all your eggs in one basket.. But I don't think the results will be happy for you...

 

[itfitzme]

SimCity Reboot Includes Climate Change | Climate Central

SimCity Reboot Includes Climate Change

SimCity, the iconic strategy game that gave rise to a generation of "Sims" games, is getting a 21st century makeover. With the real cities of the world increasingly on the front lines of climate change, SimCity will include a climate change component.

They beat us to it.

 

[flacaltenn]

SimCity Reboot Includes Climate Change | Climate Central

SimCity Reboot Includes Climate Change

SimCity, the iconic strategy game that gave rise to a generation of "Sims" games, is getting a 21st century makeover. With the real cities of the world increasingly on the front lines of climate change, SimCity will include a climate change component.

They beat us to it.

That used to be a New Year's Eve tradition with the wife and I.. We'd build 2 cities and compare on nice 48" monitors.. I supposed I'd win now for sure if I avoided the $8Trill bill for CO2 mitigation.

((We never played with "disasters on" anyway))

 

[itfitzme]

But it's not.. It LOOKS like a correlation because it's the integral of vector product. There are hundred of definitions in physics that look "similiar".. It the PURPOSE of the functions that matter and the prior constraints on symmetry, range, and basis function that make them all different.

Correlation and Convolution are ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME.. Looks almost the same, computes almost the same. Tell me grasshopper --- what is the difference there?

It doesn't just "look like" correlation, it is correlation.

How hard is this to grasp for you? Each cosine and sine term, at integer frequencies, is correlated to original signal, yielding a multiplying factor.

It "look like" because it is. This is how math works. If A=B and B=C then A=B.

And the actual point, the one that Abraham has made repeatedly, is that just because we can come up with a series of functions that, when added together, create the same result as the original function, doesn't mean anything.

We can come up with all sorts of sets of equations that, when correlated to the original signal and added together with the appropriate multiplying constant, duplicate the original signal. We can do it with square waves, triangle waves, sine and cosines. We can even do it with a set of sinc functions that are both shifted in time and are multiples of the fundamental frequency. None of it means anything.

All you are saying, with your ""Fourier combinations of periodic functions causing ramps" is that we can come up with all sorts of imaginary sets of functions that duplicate the original signal.

The problem is one of reality getting in the way. In reality, there isn't some other set of functions that correlate and add up to the signal in question, the temperature rise.

What is that in your Avi? Didn't you find JUST ONE variable that LOOKS like the temperature rise and ASSUMED you solved the problem?

Your problem is now that all your excuses for the departure were never PART of your "correlation".. Things like the ocean and the sun and arctic oscillations.. You have the Sesame Street version of what I'm telling you here.. That including all that shit can still make a ramp come out of the box..

NOT ONE variable.. ONE variable does not a climate model make...

No, I just showed the outline of the process for demonstrating that AWG is correct. And, CO2 alone comes in at a correlation of sqrt(74%) or something about there. CO2 is one of the drivers, not the only driver. That 74% is a pretty substantial percentage. It is the r^2 value or square of the correlation coefficient. Obviously, the sun is the source of the initial energy. So, TSI is also a factor. Taking CO2 alone picks up some of the variability of the sun, but not much. And there is still the remaining 26% not accounted for by a regression on CO2 alone. A bivariate analysis would use TSI and CO2. An even stronger multivariate analysis would use CO2, TSI, H2O, Methane, and whatever else we can figure to stick in there. As the model includes more and more driving factors, the r^2 for each will change. The won't change appreciably. Then, once all that is done, to get a sense of what the complete set of factors is, there is cross correlation to deal with, the fact that temp, CO2 and TSI are going to drive H2O in some fashion.

You are surely aware that the IPCC uses the terms "likely", "highly likely", "extremely likely" etc. in all their firm statements. And, surely you understand that these words correspond to definitive confidence intervals of 90%, 95%, 99%, etc. Those values are the confidence intervals that express the p-value for the statistical test of correlating different driving parameters to the stated parameter. Then, of course, there is a lot of work that the IPCC climatologists do in attempting, and failing, to prove that it isn't CO2. That stuff doesn't get published. It is one of the minor issues with science, that studies which fail to prove something don't generally get published. The punchline just isn't engaging.

I don't have a supercomputer or a PH.D. in climate science, so I am not going to go quite that far. But, that 74% correlation of temp to CO2 at the 95% confidence limit is sufficient to demonstrate that, in fact, AWG is correct.

 

[flacaltenn]

It doesn't just "look like" correlation, it is correlation.

How hard is this to grasp for you? Each cosine and sine term, at integer frequencies, is correlated to original signal, yielding a multiplying factor.

It "look like" because it is. This is how math works. If A=B and B=C then A=B.

And the actual point, the one that Abraham has made repeatedly, is that just because we can come up with a series of functions that, when added together, create the same result as the original function, doesn't mean anything.

We can come up with all sorts of sets of equations that, when correlated to the original signal and added together with the appropriate multiplying constant, duplicate the original signal. We can do it with square waves, triangle waves, sine and cosines. We can even do it with a set of sinc functions that are both shifted in time and are multiples of the fundamental frequency. None of it means anything.

All you are saying, with your ""Fourier combinations of periodic functions causing ramps" is that we can come up with all sorts of imaginary sets of functions that duplicate the original signal.

The problem is one of reality getting in the way. In reality, there isn't some other set of functions that correlate and add up to the signal in question, the temperature rise.

What is that in your Avi? Didn't you find JUST ONE variable that LOOKS like the temperature rise and ASSUMED you solved the problem?

Your problem is now that all your excuses for the departure were never PART of your "correlation".. Things like the ocean and the sun and arctic oscillations.. You have the Sesame Street version of what I'm telling you here.. That including all that shit can still make a ramp come out of the box..

NOT ONE variable.. ONE variable does not a climate model make...

No, I just showed the outline of the process for demonstrating that AWG is correct. And, CO2 alone comes in at a correlation of sqrt(74%) or something about there. CO2 is one of the drivers, not the only driver. That 74% is a pretty substantial percentage. It is the r^2 value or square of the correlation coefficient. Obviously, the sun is the source of the initial energy. So, TSI is also a factor. Taking CO2 alone picks up some of the variability of the sun, but not much. And there is still the remaining 26% not accounted for by a regression on CO2 alone. A bivariate analysis would use TSI and CO2. An even stronger multivariate analysis would use CO2, TSI, H2O, Methane, and whatever else we can figure to stick in there. As the model includes more and more driving factors, the r^2 for each will change. The won't change appreciably. Then, once all that is done, to get a sense of what the complete set of factors is, there is cross correlation to deal with, the fact that temp, CO2 and TSI are going to drive H2O in some fashion.

You are surely aware that the IPCC uses the terms "likely", "highly likely", "extremely likely" etc. in all their firm statements. And, surely you understand that these words correspond to definitive confidence intervals of 90%, 95%, 99%, etc. Those values are the confidence intervals that express the p-value for the statistical test of correlating different driving parameters to the stated parameter. Then, of course, there is a lot of work that the IPCC climatologists do in attempting, and failing, to prove that it isn't CO2. That stuff doesn't get published. It is one of the minor issues with science, that studies which fail to prove something don't generally get published. The punchline just isn't engaging.

I don't have a supercomputer or a PH.D. in climate science, so I am not going to go quite that far. But, that 74% correlation of temp to CO2 at the 95% confidence limit is sufficient to demonstrate that, in fact, AWG is correct.

I've tried to tell ya that you are misinterpreting an r-square correlation.. I could do the same with temperature versus the price of stamps. Too many functions that look like that and the climate answers are FAR more complex than that.

In fact -- you've also shown that CO2 follows Temperature -- an alternate interpretation if you follow Dr. Spencer..

Increasing Atmospheric CO2: Manmade…or Natural? « Roy Spencer, PhD

You're much farther from a solid proof than you realize..

 

[itfitzme]

Here is an example of using Excel and the correlation function to synthesize a Fourier series transform for a square wave.

 

[itfitzme]

This is the global mean data
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/HadCRUT3-gl.dat
And the TSI
LISIRD - Historical Total Solar Irradiance

And the CO2
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_mm_mlo.txt



So, generally speaking, which ones look more like they have the same trend?

The temp anomaly is correlated to the TSI to 1.9779% while temp anomaly correlates to CO2 at 79.3376%.


That is, 79.3 % of the variability in the temp anomaly is accounted for by CO2. 2.0% of the variability in the temp anomaly is accounted for by the TSI.

 

[itfitzme]

These are the scatter plots with linear trend and R^2 values

 

[itfitzme]

An online multivariate linear regression calculator is available at

Regression Tools - Online Multiple Linear Regression

It yielded

Anom = 6.92511589·10-2*TSI + 8.700680905·10-3*CO2 - 97.18853402

The plot of this multivariate regression yeilds



It is perfectly obvious that CO2 is a major driver.

 

[itfitzme]

In case anyone wants to play with the data themselves

Year Irradiance (W/m^2) CO2 Anom
1958 1361.7577 317.1 -0.065
1959 1361.5077 318.15 -0.013
1960 1361.4016 319.59 -0.115
1961 1361.0448 319.77 0.054
1962 1360.8733 320.55 -0.05
1963 1360.8212 321.47 -0.068
1964 1360.8225 321.89 -0.228
1965 1360.859 321.87 -0.182
1966 1361.0427 323.75 -0.07
1967 1361.2392 324.09 -0.162
1968 1361.2893 325.36 -0.133
1969 1361.3725 326.76 -0.029
1970 1361.3675 327.66 -0.073
1971 1361.0829 328.57 -0.247
1972 1361.1774 329.09 0.022
1973 1360.924 332.07 0.109
1974 1360.852 332.12 -0.148
1975 1360.6594 333.4 -0.11
1976 1360.7702 334.06 -0.284
1977 1360.958 336.1 0.078
1978 1361.3996 337.98 -0.127
1979 1361.7597 339.2 0.028
1980 1361.7731 341.26 0.062
1981 1361.82 342.49 0.117
1982 1361.4108 343.78 -0.047
1983 1361.3241 345.52 0.126
1984 1360.9352 346.98 -0.025
1985 1360.7665 348.4 -0.057
1986 1360.7628 349.9 0.044
1987 1360.9148 351.61 0.122
1988 1361.2075 353.68 0.207
1989 1361.7728 355.3 0.067
1990 1361.6782 356.32 0.235
1991 1361.5706 358.1 0.287
1992 1361.427 359.32 0.108
1993 1361.1535 359.52 0.131
1994 1360.922 360.8 0.213
1995 1360.8245 363.22 0.288
1996 1360.737 364.93 0.148
1997 1360.8648 365.59 0.379
1998 1361.227 368.95 0.606
1999 1361.51 370.33 0.263
2000 1361.7903 371.71 0.234
2001 1361.7271 373.18 0.413
2002 1361.8056 375.5 0.474
2003 1361.3077 378.18 0.442
2004 1361.184 379.56 0.347
2005 1361.0049 382.2 0.512
2006 1360.9387 384.09 0.438
2007 1360.8486 386.05 0.384
2008 1360.8217 387.88 0.308
2009 1360.8412 389.45 0.508
2010 1361.0833 392.15 0.541
2011 1361.348 393.72 0.431
2012 1361.511 395.83 0.483

 

[Abraham3]

Don't fooled. Someone has taken the actual measurements and encoded them in those little number symbol thingies. There's no telling what the actual values were now that they've hidden it under those dashes and lines and curlicues. Who knows what '6' is supposed to mean? and is '9' the same thing or something completely different. You'd think that '11' would be twice '1' but its not. This is all a scam. The only reason anyone would go into science is to get unfairly rich and burn the world. We should string them up. And make certain not to listen to anything they say. They're casting evil spells.

 

[Abraham3]

It doesn't just "look like" correlation, it is correlation.

How hard is this to grasp for you? Each cosine and sine term, at integer frequencies, is correlated to original signal, yielding a multiplying factor.

It "look like" because it is. This is how math works. If A=B and B=C then A=B.

And the actual point, the one that Abraham has made repeatedly, is that just because we can come up with a series of functions that, when added together, create the same result as the original function, doesn't mean anything.

We can come up with all sorts of sets of equations that, when correlated to the original signal and added together with the appropriate multiplying constant, duplicate the original signal. We can do it with square waves, triangle waves, sine and cosines. We can even do it with a set of sinc functions that are both shifted in time and are multiples of the fundamental frequency. None of it means anything.

All you are saying, with your ""Fourier combinations of periodic functions causing ramps" is that we can come up with all sorts of imaginary sets of functions that duplicate the original signal.

The problem is one of reality getting in the way. In reality, there isn't some other set of functions that correlate and add up to the signal in question, the temperature rise.

What is that in your Avi? Didn't you find JUST ONE variable that LOOKS like the temperature rise and ASSUMED you solved the problem?

Your problem is now that all your excuses for the departure were never PART of your "correlation".. Things like the ocean and the sun and arctic oscillations.. You have the Sesame Street version of what I'm telling you here.. That including all that shit can still make a ramp come out of the box..

NOT ONE variable.. ONE variable does not a climate model make...

No, I just showed the outline of the process for demonstrating that AWG is correct. And, CO2 alone comes in at a correlation of sqrt(74%) or something about there. CO2 is one of the drivers, not the only driver. That 74% is a pretty substantial percentage. It is the r^2 value or square of the correlation coefficient. Obviously, the sun is the source of the initial energy. So, TSI is also a factor. Taking CO2 alone picks up some of the variability of the sun, but not much. And there is still the remaining 26% not accounted for by a regression on CO2 alone. A bivariate analysis would use TSI and CO2. An even stronger multivariate analysis would use CO2, TSI, H2O, Methane, and whatever else we can figure to stick in there. As the model includes more and more driving factors, the r^2 for each will change. The won't change appreciably. Then, once all that is done, to get a sense of what the complete set of factors is, there is cross correlation to deal with, the fact that temp, CO2 and TSI are going to drive H2O in some fashion.

You are surely aware that the IPCC uses the terms "likely", "highly likely", "extremely likely" etc. in all their firm statements. And, surely you understand that these words correspond to definitive confidence intervals of 90%, 95%, 99%, etc. Those values are the confidence intervals that express the p-value for the statistical test of correlating different driving parameters to the stated parameter. Then, of course, there is a lot of work that the IPCC climatologists do in attempting, and failing, to prove that it isn't CO2. That stuff doesn't get published. It is one of the minor issues with science, that studies which fail to prove something don't generally get published. The punchline just isn't engaging.

I don't have a supercomputer or a PH.D. in climate science, so I am not going to go quite that far. But, that 74% correlation of temp to CO2 at the 95% confidence limit is sufficient to demonstrate that, in fact, AWG is correct.

You mean AGW. ;-)

 

[Indofred]

This recent info about man made global warming is all false. The Sun goes through what is
called a "Solar cycle", this is what is really heating up and cooling down the Earth. Man has
nothing to do with it. This has been going on for thousands of years. Increased Sun spot activity has been linked to this increased heating up of the earth. NOAA has documented this.

This talk of man made global warming is all a money making scam, aimed at charging
people throughout the world carbon fees.

Solar cycles is real, man made global warming is all false.!

The solar cycle is 11 years - please explain how that effects global warming in the long term.
When I did some work with radio communications, we were trained in these things and I can assure you'you're talking uneducated bollocks.

 

[Indofred]

 

[itfitzme]

You mean AGW. ;-)

Yeah... Thr funny one is I repeatedly refer to PSTD instead of PTSD. I'm always getting letter bassackwards.

 

[itfitzme]

I will try to get CO2 before 1960.

The obvious fact is that the Sun drives temperature. It is demonstrated that CO2 absorbs IR and therefore drives temperature. The bivariate regression is little more than fancy counting. The Sun comes in at 2% with CO2 coming in at 74%. So either the sun doesn't heat the atmosphere or CO2 is a major driver. The idea that the SUN doesn't heat the atmosphere is ludicrous. So the only sound conclusion is that CO2 does and AWG is correct.

The denial camp woumd have us believe that the CO2 correlation is purely coincidental. But there in are numerous problems. First off, the Sun is obiously not coincidental, and it is only counting for 2%. The probalility of CO2 being coincidental is less than the sun. It is highly unlikely. And, lastly, the simple questions that must be answered simultaneously are 1) So then what else is it, if not the Sun and CO2. 2) As CO2 is an absorber, if not accounting for 74% then how much and how is it so oddly coincidental?

The problem is that there is nothing else, no answer to the more complicated scenario of "something else".

If you hit your thumb with a hammer, and it hurts, it is pretty stupid to say that it must be a coincidence.

 

[flacaltenn]

You need to do a LONGER time series and REMOVE the periodic components from the TSI..

Just like the yearly and multi-yearly variations are removed from you CO2 graph..

Also -- What did you use to normalize the functions? What was in the denominator?

And why do YOU think that the answer of what is the forcing function needs to correlate exactly with the output temperature? Do you believe that all systems operate like that? Or just extremely simple ones.

TSI has approximated a step function.. Rose for 200 years and then flattened.. Good enough for a step function.. The existence of just ONE INTEGRAL in the transfer function of the behaviour of climate system will turn that step into a nice ramp or hockey stick.. True fact grasshopper...

Want an integral that's IN THE climate black box?? Heat storage in the oceans. That's an integrator function right there.

Create a TOA to Surface imbalance and the temperatures continue to climb. Even with a constant power balance diagram..
At least for awhile..

 

[Abraham3]

I don't believe he thinks that the response has to match the forcing, but there's a strong likelihood of it and if you have two choices but one matches far, far better than the other, guess which one logic tells you to pick?

Asking questions is not a refutation unless you ask the right questions.