Cecil Moore wrote:
John - KD5YI wrote:

Hey, Mike. The truth is inconvenient for Cecil.


Here's the inconvenient truth:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age

The same thing has happened five times in the past
500,000 years including a few hundred thousand years
before man ever walked the earth. Who caused the
last four global warming cycles?


What are you talking about Cecil? You are presupposing that the "other"
side is saying that all global warming is due to Human activity.

It isn't. Volcanoes can belch out a lot of the stuff. There is a good
chance that methane ice at the bottom of some parts of the ocean can
"let loose" a lot of global warming material.

Of course the obvious answer to your question is "not humans".

And equally of course, the question is not relevant.

There are many answers to your question. No doubt that precession has a
lot to do with it. The Sun itself can vary. I can't imagine that the
Deccan Trap episode of volcanism didn't warm things up after the initial
cooling effect it must have had. Didn't have a thing to do with human
beings.

But your argument has a fatal flaw. That not all causes of global
warming are caused by humans does not mean that none are.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
But your argument has a fatal flaw. That not all causes of global
warming are caused by humans does not mean that none are.

Please stop confusing inclusive assertions with exclusive
assertions.

That is NOT my argument. My argument is that it has not
been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that man has any
primary effect on global warming. "Man-causing-global-
warming" is a religion, based on faith, IMHO. In fact,
it seems more likely that man's CO2 contribution to the
atmosphere will do nothing more than hasten the next
ice age.

Take a look at the slope of the C02 buildup of 120k
years ago just before the last ice age. It is very close
to the slope of the C02 buildup of today. There is evidence
that ~280 ppmv levels of C02 triggered ice ages 120k, 240k,
340k, and 440k years ago. That's about the level of CO2
today. There is reason to believe that another ice age
is poised to happen and the Man-causing-global-warming
religion will no doubt blame man for it.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

But your argument has a fatal flaw. That not all causes of global
warming are caused by humans does not mean that none are.


Please stop confusing inclusive assertions with exclusive
assertions.

That is NOT my argument. My argument is that it has not
been proved beyond a reasonable doubt that man has any
primary effect on global warming.

Please stop changing the argument to serve your own purposes, Cecil!


"Man-causing-global-
warming" is a religion, based on faith, IMHO.

Right. In your opinion.

In fact,
it seems more likely that man's CO2 contribution to the
atmosphere will do nothing more than hasten the next
ice age.

Yeah, Cecil. I read the political-crypto-scientific article in your
link. It wasn't science. It had a political premise, then tried to build
a scientific story around it. Seriously, if the solar system passed
through an arm of the Milky way with extensive star formation, which one
was it? Did an arm of the Milky way come unattached and attack our
particular arm? Celestial mechanics isn't easy to open to political
attack, at least since the Pope pardoned Galileo.

What I am trying to say is "where's the beef?"


Take a look at the slope of the C02 buildup of 120k
years ago just before the last ice age. It is very close
to the slope of the C02 buildup of today. There is evidence
that ~280 ppmv levels of C02 triggered ice ages 120k, 240k,
340k, and 440k years ago. That's about the level of CO2
today. There is reason to believe that another ice age
is poised to happen and the Man-causing-global-warming
religion will no doubt blame man for it.


Sigh... Why do I get the feeling that you are giving me some ready made
arguments for someone else's questions? I'm not arguing whether or not
man is causing global warming, or even if there is such a thing. I want
to know why an increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not warming
the earth, when it should be (experimentally speaking)

No Republican, Democrat, or religion answers accepted. Just science.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
I
want to know why an increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not
warming the earth, when it should be (experimentally speaking)

Something causes an ice age every time the CO2 level
gets up to a threshold of ~280 PPMV, approximately
what it is today.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

I want to know why an increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not
warming the earth, when it should be (experimentally speaking)

No Republican, Democrat, or religion answers accepted. Just science.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

I don't understand. Are you claiming that the earth is NOT warming?

BTW, I, for one, do not agree with the argument that if GW is cyclic,
that human activity is not involved or is not important to it.

(I HOPE Cecil was kidding about the campfire theory of the last cycle.)

If the posters in this NG are really going to spend time refuting the
veracity of GW as a phenomenon, I'm pretty disappointed.

Antennas, anyone?

jawod wrote:
I want to know why an increased amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not

warming the earth, when it should be (experimentally speaking)

No Republican, Democrat, or religion answers accepted. Just science.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -


I don't understand. Are you claiming that the earth is NOT warming?

Oh no, just the opposite.

My point is that when the CO2 percentage of the atmosphere goes up,
more heat is retained. If the increased retention of heat does not
increase the surface temperature of the earth, then something is
happening to keep that from happening.

I have yet to see an attempted debunking of global warming that is not
political in nature.



BTW, I, for one, do not agree with the argument that if GW is cyclic,
that human activity is not involved or is not important to it.

(I HOPE Cecil was kidding about the campfire theory of the last cycle.)

Sure as he believes that Al Gore said he invented the Internet....

If the posters in this NG are really going to spend time refuting the
veracity of GW as a phenomenon, I'm pretty disappointed.

It's party doctrine, they have to! ;^)



Antennas, anyone?

Okay, let us discuss the effects of global warming on the atmosphere,
and therefore on RF propagation?

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Mon, 04 Sep 2006 11:14:42 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:
Okay, let us discuss the effects of global warming on the atmosphere,
and therefore on RF propagation?

Hi Mike,

That would then segue us into HAARP and the Global Warming of the
Ionosphere....

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Mike Coslo wrote:
I have yet to see an attempted debunking of global warming that is
not political in nature.

May I ask exactly who those politicians were when global
warming reversed itself 120k, 140k, 340k, and 440k years
ago?
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

I have yet to see an attempted debunking of global warming that is not
political in nature.


May I ask exactly who those politicians were when global
warming reversed itself 120k, 140k, 340k, and 440k years
ago?
no

I think the major political party was headed by Dino Sauer. He was in conflict
with a king titled 'Rex' ... Tyrannosaurus Rex.

/s/ DD :-)

Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

I have yet to see an attempted debunking of global warming that is not
political in nature.


May I ask exactly who those politicians were when global
warming reversed itself 120k, 140k, 340k, and 440k years
ago?