"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Michael Coslo wrote:
...still waiting for a scientific refutation of the heat retaining effect
of increasing percentages of CO2 in gaseous media......

Every time it has happened in the past, an ice age
followed. One might argue that a certain level of CO2
actually triggers an ice age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:V...core-petit.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...emperature.png
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

----------

Yup. Kind of hard to refute the geological data on that one.

Ed, NM2K

Ed Cregger wrote:
"Cecil Moore" wrote in message
...
Michael Coslo wrote:
...still waiting for a scientific refutation of the heat retaining effect
of increasing percentages of CO2 in gaseous media......
Every time it has happened in the past, an ice age
followed. One might argue that a certain level of CO2
actually triggers an ice age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:V...core-petit.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...emperature.png
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

----------

Yup. Kind of hard to refute the geological data on that one.


Only it isn't the CO2 level triggering the ice age, it is one of the
effects of that warming brought about by the increased CO2.

We have to be careful of going into a pick and choose mode. It is
disingenuous at best to say that CO2 warming doesn't exist. But it
causes global cooling.


Heck if it does, that will be one whole awful lot worse than global
warming. Glaciers don't support a whole lot of life..


Now onto that data.

The present interglacial is a tad cooler than some of the others (note
they say "at this site". That is important because it's a big world.
It's been a miserable cold spring here in Pennsylvania. That doesn't
mean it's been miserable and cold everywhere else.

So here we have an apparent cycle.

Is there a reason to attach more credence to benthic foraminfera than to
CO@ heat retention? ( I believe it is fairly compelling, but I'm not
arguing against the point.

Isn't that 5 Million year plot interesting?

Which all brings up one of the most frustrating parts of the GW debate.
The uncertainty. There is so much data coming in. We humans love to look
for patterns, so we tend to find them. Some of the things in those
patterns may be involved, some may not. Certainly in that one plot, the
temperatures have had an upward trend. Coupled with all that is the
random factor. Suppose that a modern day version of the Deccan traps
occurs. At that time, our contribution to atmospheric CO2 and other
greenhouse gases will be moot.

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

then we are really boinked.




- 73 de Mike N3LI -