Be careful regarding 1750 bce.

That predates the industrial revolution by at least 100 years. This indicates
that natural factors are at work.

Petroleum products date from the 1880s. This indicates that natural factors are
at work.

Automobiles date from the early 1910s. This indicates that natural factors are
at work.

Deforestation dates from the mid 1950s. This indicates that natural factors are
at work.

The period of 1700 to 1750 is acknowledged as the end of the 'Little Ice Age',
not the beginning of manmade [man contributed] GW.

There are so many unknown contributors to the earth warming and cooling cycles
that blaming CO2 and other 'greenhouse gases' for the major cause is just
irresponsible.

IMO, GW = K1*d(solar activity)/dt + K2*d(volcanic activity)/dt + K3*d(El
Nino)/dt + K4*d(La Nina)/dt + K5*d(deforestation)/dt + K6*d(radio carbon
decay)/dt + K7*d(many other factors)/dt + Kn*d(n)/dt ...

What is known is that the earth warms and cools. Why? That is still open to
discovery.

/s/ DD

PS: Most Christian Clergy of major denominations agree that the cosmos was
formed between 15 and 20 billion years ago. The 4004 bce calculation is
incorrect and is the result of poor biblical scholarship.

/s/ DD

Mike Coslo wrote:

Dave wrote:



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?



C'mon Cecil, you know the advocates of GW deny it is a natural phenomena.


I don't know of a one who believes that.

The earth has been warming and cooling for a very long time. Pretty
much fact also. Some who believe that the earth was created in 4004
b.c.e might contest that.

The question of whether the so-called greenhouse gases have an
effect on the retention of heat in the atmosphere is just about as plain
a fact as there is. There are laboratory experiments, and comparisons
with other planets in our solar system.

Without "greenhouse gases" we simply wouldn't exist.

But the question is whether the amounts that we have introduced into
the atmosphere will have any effect.Here is a link that lists known
greenhouse gases:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_li...eenhouse_gases

Okay. Does our increase of 87 ppm from 1750 c.e. or the 1045 ppb
increase in methane during the same time period have any effect? Or do
human based sources have no effect, only natural sources

Interestingly, if as Cecil alleges, when we hit ~280 ppmv, we trigger an
ice age. Well, we passed that level some time ago. in 1998 we were at
365 ppmv.


Just wait until the next ice age, even a minor ice age, then they, the
GW advocates, will be demanding more CO2 in the atmosphere. :-)


Considering that another ice age will mean the loss of a good part of
humanity, that idea might have some merit.



- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -