> The obvious downward line even as population and farm output increased prove your argument was completely false. That’s as much as I care to prove. Do some da

> The obvious downward line even as population and farm output increased prove your argument was completely false. That’s as much as I care to prove. Do some damn research. "The obvious downward line" is not relevant since it's for a time period that is only starting to affect todays climate. I was previously talking about time periods which would already be affecting the climate today. What if through the use of modern machinery and fertilizer the land use started trending down slightly in the 80s, and rose rapidly before then? We don't know, which is why your statistic is fully irrelevant to this discussion. I'm not interested in simplifying complex systems like historical agriculture to "line goes down now, line must have been going down before". Maybe "do some damn research" that looks at the content in the context of the discussion. > Hell no. I am saying if the level of greenhouse gasses drops there will be lag in the other direction. There’s nothing special about the direction of lag it’s simply a delay before equilibrium. I really, really think you should try to re-read my previous comments. This doesn't make any sense. Let's play through it with numbers - maybe you'll show me I've been a complete idiot. Let's define a starting point of greenhouse gases and temperature, both start at 0. We are in an equilibrium. Now we increase greenhouse gases to 1, and after some time temperature will also increase to 1 (arbitrary values). Then we decrease greenhouse gases to 0 (previous equilibrium). It will take some time until the temperature goes back to 0. Referring back to the comment I was replying to: where do we get colder compared to a reference earth without increased gases? That's my whole argument, it's what I've been writing the whole time. The increased greenhouse gases lead to a higher temperature, which will (until it goes back to equilibrium) be increased compared to if there was no increase in greenhouse gases, and it will stay increased for a while after greenhouse gases are at equilibrium. What exactly are you arguing against? It seems you're taking stabs at whatever sentence you feel is incorrect, but I haven't seen a coherent argument.