On May 10, 12:44*pm, Marvin the Martian wrote:
Without water vapor, this planet would be a frozen rock, like Mars. Mars
has much more CO2 than earth, but no water vapor. According to your
claim, Mars should be warm and Earth should be a frozen rock. This is not
the case, so your statement is rejected.

Speaking of Mars, you realize there is a GW effect there, caused by
the sun's rays being amplified by Martian atmosphere. And Martian
atmosphere is 95% CO2. So we should have a hotter Martian atmosphere
than expected.

RL

On Sun, 10 May 2009 11:44:59 -0500, Marvin the Martian
wrote:

On Sun, 10 May 2009 06:23:45 -0500, What A. Fool wrote:

On Sat, 09 May 2009 22:38:32 -0500, Marvin the Martian
wrote:

On Sun, 10 May 2009 01:35:10 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote:


CO2 we put in now by burning fossil fuels is rapidly mixed in the
atmosphere. No nothing lag. You can not compare it to the last few
glaciation cycles. However there is a phenomenon climate inertia which
is going to hit us in the future.

This "we're doing it ergo it must cause it" is simply bad logic. It
doesn't follow. To prove we are doing it, you have to prove: 1) We put
the CO2 there.
2) The CO2 caused the warming.

No one has shown either one of these.


You will have to abandon using #1.

No I don't.


There has been no warming except the Arctic.


We add about 2.5% of the CO2 that nature is putting into the atmosphere.


Isn't it obvious that nature can't add CO2 to the
atmosphere unless it comes out of the ground originally?

There may be a lot of CO2 coming from volcanos and
vents, but can it be documented?

I've explained that a warmer ocean shifts the equilibrium between solid
carbonates and CO2 in the ocean to favor the oceans. This explains the
source of the sequestered CO2.


The ocean hasn't warmed, it certainly hasn't warmed enough
to release CO2.


Ergo, by standard chemistry, 97.5% of the CO2 we produce goes into
natural carbon sinks.

Nonsense,

There should be no attempt to claim that nature would
increase the atmospheric CO2, all increases are from burning fossil
fuel, but there is no evidence that extra CO2 cause any of the local
changes seen mostly in the Arctic.

Interesting irrational statement. You are intentionally making an error
defining the carbon system when you rule out ocean carbonate rocks.


Rain constantly absorbs CO2 and carries it to the surface
where it either enters the water or is absorbed by rock.


Before the industrial revolution (the last few millenniums in fact) we
stuck around 280 ppmv. The answer is that it is known that CO2 causes
warming due to IR absorption. Denial of this is simply unscientific
rumble you should directly ignore.

This is a Post hoc, ergo proctor hoc fallacy which doesn't even have the
virtue of being true. All warming cycles in the past had a rise of CO2
that followed.


But what was the cause? Any time vegetation growth is
stopped, atmospheric CO2 increases, so that should be a given, but it
does not mean warming caused it, more likely that ice cover and ice
storms that took down trees and broke tree branches caused it.

Let me get this straight: you're good with saying that CO2 CAUSED the
warming when the CO2 increase comes AFTER the warming, but when the CO2
lags the warming, you claim that it cannot be said that warming caused
the CO2? Aburd!


There hasn't been any warming that correlates with CO2, the
warmest period in the last 100,000 years was 8000 years ago.

Correlation indicates:
1) Random chance that the two events correlated.
2) A causes B. (requires B happens after A)
3) B causes A. (requires A happens after B)
4) C causes A and B (requires C happens before A and B)

Case 1 is highly improbable. Case two, CO2 causes warming, is ruled out
by the causality principle. That means either warming causes CO2, or
something else cause the warming and the CO2.


There has been no warming above what the temperature was
8000 years ago, so the statements about the present being the warmest
ever are false (except for the time after the Earth was formed and
magma was all over the surface.

And yes, CO2 absorbs IR. So does water, and water absorbs in two of the
same IR bands as CO2. Water vapor, not CO2, is the greenhouse gas.


And water absorbs CO2, moreso in the atmosphere because
the water in the atmosphere is comes in contact with more of the other
gas molecules than the ocean does.

The whole reason why the AGW crowd resorted to the absurd positive
feedback "leverage gas" approach is because they physics plainly shows
that the small amount of CO2 in the atmosphere cannot cause the warming.


They can't show that any GHG causes the atmosphere to warm.


The effect of CO2 is like wearing sunglasses under your welding goggles.


It helps cool the atmosphere, just like water vapor, but not
as much, and not in as many ways.

Without water vapor, this planet would be a frozen rock, like Mars. Mars
has much more CO2 than earth, but no water vapor. According to your
claim, Mars should be warm and Earth should be a frozen rock. This is not
the case, so your statement is rejected.

Water cools the surface, and moderates the temperature,
any idea that water warms anything is a delusion. GHGs cool the
atmosphere and water is by far the main GHG.

You buy that junk science?

Without water and water vapor, the atmosphere would be very
warm.

Read the myth again and try to separate the surface from the
atmosphere and the whole Earth.

Too many people read the literature and get the wrong idea.

Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...

In that case post your source for data indicating that we've added
very little CO2 to the atmosphere. The concentration has increased
significantly since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and
we are emitting gigatons of fossil CO2 per year. You show that its
going nowhere. But don't appeal to an authority that's in a position
to know.

One aspect of the supposed anthropogenic climate change is rising sea level.
If you open Google Earth and type in "Smallhythe" ie the "Fly To" box
and go there, then type in "Time Team", you'll see
D - Henry V's naval dockyard,
TEN MILES inland today.

I'm sure that's really interesting but completely unrelated to what
I was saying. I noticed that you modified the follow-ups. Coward!

Sea level is in fact rising in this era, you can talk to climate
historians all you want as to what happened in the time of Julius
Caesar and why. And the reason its rising now is due to thermal
expansion of the oceans and melting of land ice, both due to warming.

"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...

In that case post your source for data indicating that we've added
very little CO2 to the atmosphere. The concentration has increased
significantly since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and
we are emitting gigatons of fossil CO2 per year. You show that its
going nowhere. But don't appeal to an authority that's in a position
to know.

One aspect of the supposed anthropogenic climate change is rising sea
level.
If you open Google Earth and type in "Smallhythe" ie the "Fly To" box
and go there, then type in "Time Team", you'll see
D - Henry V's naval dockyard,
TEN MILES inland today.

I'm sure that's really interesting but completely unrelated to what
I was saying. I noticed that you modified the follow-ups. Coward!

Sea level is in fact rising in this era
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Einstein.
(Notice that I've set the follow-ups to the appropriate newsgroups, ****!)

Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sat, 09 May 2009 22:26:30 -0500, Bill Carter wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2009 21:55:42 -0500, Bill Carter wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Wed, 06 May 2009 22:28:59 +0100, Androcles wrote:

"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Androcles wrote:
"Bill Carter" wrote in message
...
Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 01:41:14 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote:

The same thing in multiple posts, with the only difference being
who gets the gratuitous insult.
This coming from someone who never posts anything with content
worth reading. A few insults and - run awaay!

Which one of those cites you've given points to the proof of
global warming being man made? Even the IPCC doesn't claim to
have that.
What, specifically, would constitute proof?
A constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed
by an
increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar
water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even
distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically,
constitute proof. Any more questions?
Yeah. How, specifically, would that prove anthropogenic global
warming?
Since there is no anthropogenic global warming it wouldn't be
possible,
but if there were, then
a constant, evenly distributed temperature for 20 years, followed by
an increase in CO2 and an evenly distributed rising temperate. Polar
water at -32 F and Mexican Gulf water at 80 F is not an even
distribution, nor is it constant, but it would, specifically,
constitute proof. Any more questions?
They have to show:
1) That CO2 causes global warming. This will be difficult, since in
past warming periods, CO2 lags the warming, thus some sort of tachyon
interaction would have to be involved.
Previously there were not 6 billion people on the Earth extracting
fossil fuels as fast as they can and dumping the burned effluent into
the atmosphere. So that eliminates comparisons to earlier
pre-industrial evolutions of the biosphere as a criteria. This has
never happened before.
Warming and cooling, along with increases in CO2, certainly have
happened before.

Your post hoc, ergo proctor hoc fallacy is noted and regarded as
irrational as well as junk science.

To elaborate, the ice core data proves that: 1) There have been past
warming and cooling periods. 2) CO2 increases have FOLLOWED a warming
cycle.

Since there is no man made global warming hypothesis to test, I can't
say their hypothesis doesn't explain this. All I can say is that their
debunked hypothesis which failed to predict the last decade of non-
warming doesn't explain past warming either.

2) That we caused the CO2. This, too, would be difficult since simple
equilibrium chemistry indicates we've added very little CO2 to the
atmosphere.
Not according to the US Energy Information Agency. See figure 1;
http://www.eia.doe.gov/bookshelf/bro...e/Chapter1.htm
Appeal to authority fallacy is noted.
In that case post your source for data indicating that we've added very
little CO2 to the atmosphere.

Go he
http://www.uwsp.edu/geO/faculty/ritt.../earth_system/
carbon_cycle_NASA.jpg

Add up all the sources of CO2 to the atmosphere.
60 for soils, 60 for forest, 90 for the oceans, 5.5 for humans.

So, we add 5.5 Gtns out of a total of 210 Gtns going into the Atmosphere.

About 2.5%. A small amount.

So you think your source is more authoritative than mine, I guess
fallacies are only for other people. That little graphic isn't designed
for numeric accuracy, it is an uncited illustration from some guy's
textbook. See here for a more comprehensive list of CO2 sources and amounts,
and this one cites where they get their info;
http://tinyurl.com/63sos6

"Human emissions of CO2 are now estimated to be 26.4 Gt per year, up
from 23.5 Gt in the 1990s, according to an Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change report in February 2007"

"Disturbances to the land - through deforestation and agriculture,
for instance - also contribute roughly 5.9 Gt per year."

The ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere to CO2 in the oceans is small. That
ratio is, by the diagram, 750 Gtns/39000 Gigatons = 2%.

So, the human contribution is 2% of 2.5% = 0.05%, a trivial amount.

By simple undergrad chemistry, the only way the ratio of CO2 in the
atmosphere to the CO2 in the oceans could change is by a change in
temperature. A warmer temperature puts more CO2 into the air.

I'm sorry your undergrad chemistry doesn't match with observations. We
aren't talking about a beaker on a burner. The planetary atmosphere and
the oceans are a complex interrelated system that people spend their
lives trying to understand.

Thus, we are not putting the CO2 into the air. A warmed ocean put it
there. CO2 is an effect of warming, not a cause.

The oceans act as a net CO2 sink
(http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...t/305/5682/367)
and are becoming more acidic as a result of increased atmospheric
concentration. CO2 from fossil fuels can be identified via radioisotope
signature and there is no rational denying that we are adding it
to the atmosphere in very substantial quantities.

The concentration has increased
significantly since the beginning of the industrial revolution,

Also, CO2 increased after each warming period dating back a hundred
thousand years.

Your statement is a post hoc, ergo proctor hoc fallacy.

I'm stating a verified fact. CO2 increases in previous eras may or may
not have lagged warming, there is controversy, but we do know it has
increased recently without doubt.

and we
are emitting gigatons of fossil CO2 per year. You show that its going
nowhere. But don't appeal to an authority that's in a position to know.

The simple magnitude of the CO2 produced by humans doesn't mean we put
the CO2 into the atmosphere. AS I have shown, most of our CO2 enters the
ocean.

No, you haven't shown it. You've claimed that the oceans emit CO2 and
that's where the excess comes from. Mysteriously, they also absorb all
we emit.

What is bad, is that on top of an appeal to authority fallacy, you got
it wrong. The cited website gives numbers of "Anthropogenic Greenhouse
gasses", so yes, the proportion of man made CO2 is a large portion of
man made "greenhouse gasses".

Non-man made CO2 amounts to about 20 times what humans put into the
atmosphere.
See, for example, the University of Wisconsin website:
http://www.uwsp.edu/geO/faculty/ritt.../earth_system/
carbon_cycle_NASA.jpg

5.5 Gtns for anthropogenic sources, 90 from the oceans, 121.6 from
vegetation, so 5.5 / (90+5.5+121.6) = 2.5%.

Humans have a small impact on the carbon cycle.
Obvious fallacy. Human CO2 emissions result from the addition of carbon
which was previously interred in the ground and not previously a part of
the carbon cycle.

Yes. As the ocean warmed, More CO2 enters the oceans due to the
equilibrium being shifted to increase the amount of CO2 out of solid rock
and corals.

Right, you claim the oceans have warmed due to cosmic rays and humans
emit only 5.5 gigatons/year.

As the oceans warmed, the ratio between the atmosphere CO2 to ocean CO2
changes. Temperature change is the only way this ratio can change. Simple
chemistry. WE didn't put the CO2 there, it came from sequestered carbon,
but to think that the only source of sequestered carbon is fossil fuels
is a mistake, and the idea that fossil carbon can magically stay in the
atmosphere when all other carbon enters the ocean is voodoo physics.

Nobody is saying that there is only one source of sequestered carbon, and
nobody but denial kooks make a strawman claiming that all fossil carbon
stays in the atmosphere.

Then we can get into the issue of "is it bad if the earth warms",
since the medieval warm period was a period of human prosperity,
this, too, would be hard to prove.
A vast amount of online information to the contrary would make your
argument very hard to support.
If it is so vast, then you would have been able to produce it.

You didn't. Nor could you show that the medieval warm period was a
disaster for humans.
The issue, as you stated it, was "is it bad if the earth warms". The
issue is not related to the medieval warm period, a regional phenomena
and not a global one. I'm not going to chase around showing you all the
indications and predictions of harm since you've provided nothing other
than a couple of totally unsupported assertions.

Given that the northern hemisphere is doing most of the warming, the
recent GW (which stopped in 1998) is also a "regional phenomena". If this
warming was caused by CO2, the southern hemisphere should have warmed
just as much; another reason to reject the non-hypothesis of the AGW
advocates.

The goalpost moves with every comment I see. You're abandonment of your
previous position is duly noted. First its not "our" CO2, then maybe its
okay if its warming, and now its not really warming. I'll find no
intellectual honesty with you it is clear. See these charts, warming is
not evenly distributed everywhere on the globe but obviously there is
warming and its measured in many ways;
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2008/

I note that your argument for disregarding the medieval warming period is
that it is not shown that it is world wide. The "appeal to ignorance"
fallacy. Sadly, your fallacy is even flawed; for the medieval warming
period shows that the warmer climate, local or not, was a climate of
prosperity, thus supporting my argument that warmer is good for humanity
in Europe.

Now it goes back to 'warming is good'. For Europe. At that point in time.

This lopsided warming is explained by Svensmark's climate theory, which
shows that global cooling is caused by cosmic rays. Unlike the debunked
CO2 as a greenhouse gas theory, he's shown how cosmic rays reaching the
lower atmosphere cause cloud formations in the lab at CERN, using high
energy particles from the accelerator there to make clouds.

I'll wait until he shows that it actually is cooling, and then he can
do a better job of explaining why;
http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/3/2/024001/

On Sun, 10 May 2009 18:44:48 -0500, What A. Fool wrote:

On Sun, 10 May 2009 11:44:59 -0500, Marvin the Martian
wrote:

On Sun, 10 May 2009 06:23:45 -0500, What A. Fool wrote:

On Sat, 09 May 2009 22:38:32 -0500, Marvin the Martian
wrote:

On Sun, 10 May 2009 01:35:10 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote:


CO2 we put in now by burning fossil fuels is rapidly mixed in the
atmosphere. No nothing lag. You can not compare it to the last few
glaciation cycles. However there is a phenomenon climate inertia
which is going to hit us in the future.

This "we're doing it ergo it must cause it" is simply bad logic. It
doesn't follow. To prove we are doing it, you have to prove: 1) We
put the CO2 there.
2) The CO2 caused the warming.

No one has shown either one of these.


You will have to abandon using #1.

No I don't.


There has been no warming except the Arctic.

"No warming except... "

So, there's warming. I don't dispute that in the 1990s, up until 1998,
there was an increase in the average earth temperature. It sounds like
you don't either, with your no warming except for the warmer parts bit.

We add about 2.5% of the CO2 that nature is putting into the
atmosphere.


Isn't it obvious that nature can't add CO2 to the
atmosphere unless it comes out of the ground originally?

There may be a lot of CO2 coming from volcanos and
vents, but can it be documented?

I've explained that a warmer ocean shifts the equilibrium between solid
carbonates and CO2 in the ocean to favor the oceans. This explains the
source of the sequestered CO2.


The ocean hasn't warmed, it certainly hasn't warmed enough
to release CO2.

All you have to do is google scholar on "ocean warming" and you get
dozens of articles on ocean warming. Basically, as deep as the light
goes, there has been warming.

How small does the warming have to be so that you don't release CO2? The
equilibrium is a continuous function. There is no 'hasn't warmed enough
to release CO2" limit.

Ergo, by standard chemistry, 97.5% of the CO2 we produce goes into
natural carbon sinks.

Nonsense,

There should be no attempt to claim that nature would
increase the atmospheric CO2, all increases are from burning fossil
fuel, but there is no evidence that extra CO2 cause any of the local
changes seen mostly in the Arctic.

Interesting irrational statement. You are intentionally making an error
defining the carbon system when you rule out ocean carbonate rocks.


Rain constantly absorbs CO2 and carries it to the surface
where it either enters the water or is absorbed by rock.

Which doesn't prove that "all increases are from burning fossil fuel" and
is so unrelated to that claim that it is a non-sequitor.

Before the industrial revolution (the last few millenniums in fact)
we stuck around 280 ppmv. The answer is that it is known that CO2
causes warming due to IR absorption. Denial of this is simply
unscientific rumble you should directly ignore.

This is a Post hoc, ergo proctor hoc fallacy which doesn't even have
the virtue of being true. All warming cycles in the past had a rise of
CO2 that followed.


But what was the cause? Any time vegetation growth is
stopped, atmospheric CO2 increases, so that should be a given, but it
does not mean warming caused it, more likely that ice cover and ice
storms that took down trees and broke tree branches caused it.

Let me get this straight: you're good with saying that CO2 CAUSED the
warming when the CO2 increase comes AFTER the warming, but when the CO2
lags the warming, you claim that it cannot be said that warming caused
the CO2? Aburd!


There hasn't been any warming that correlates with CO2, the
warmest period in the last 100,000 years was 8000 years ago.

See the Vostok ice core data. You're clearly wrong.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/

1) Warming and CO2 are correlated.
2) The data goes back 400,000 years, so it's pre human.
3) CO2 lags the warming, so CO2 cannot cause the warming.


snip ignorant claims, illogic, and some argumentum ad hominem.

On Sun, 10 May 2009 23:15:24 -0500, Bill Carter wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:
Go he
http://www.uwsp.edu/geO/faculty/ritt.../earth_system/
carbon_cycle_NASA.jpg

Add up all the sources of CO2 to the atmosphere. 60 for soils, 60 for
forest, 90 for the oceans, 5.5 for humans.

So, we add 5.5 Gtns out of a total of 210 Gtns going into the
Atmosphere.

About 2.5%. A small amount.

So you think your source is more authoritative than mine,

Authoritative? I took the numbers from the AGW advocates. Given their
numbers, the amount of CO2 we add is trivial.

If you think this is about authorities, simply get the guy who is telling
you what to think to post here and go away.

I guess
fallacies are only for other people. That little graphic isn't designed
for numeric accuracy, it is an uncited illustration from some guy's
textbook. See here for a more comprehensive list of CO2 sources and
amounts, and this one cites where they get their info;
http://tinyurl.com/63sos6

"Human emissions of CO2 are now estimated to be 26.4 Gt per year, up
from 23.5 Gt in the 1990s, according to an Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change report in February 2007"

"Disturbances to the land - through deforestation and agriculture, for
instance - also contribute roughly 5.9 Gt per year."

The ratio of CO2 in the atmosphere to CO2 in the oceans is small. That
ratio is, by the diagram, 750 Gtns/39000 Gigatons = 2%.

So, the human contribution is 2% of 2.5% = 0.05%, a trivial amount.

By simple undergrad chemistry, the only way the ratio of CO2 in the
atmosphere to the CO2 in the oceans could change is by a change in
temperature. A warmer temperature puts more CO2 into the air.

I'm sorry your undergrad chemistry doesn't match with observations. We
aren't talking about a beaker on a burner. The planetary atmosphere and
the oceans are a complex interrelated system that people spend their
lives trying to understand.

Interesting way of injecting your voodoo junk science and rejecting well
known chemistry principles.

You are a non-scientific crank.

Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sun, 10 May 2009 18:44:48 -0500, What A. Fool wrote:

On Sun, 10 May 2009 11:44:59 -0500, Marvin the Martian
wrote:

On Sun, 10 May 2009 06:23:45 -0500, What A. Fool wrote:

On Sat, 09 May 2009 22:38:32 -0500, Marvin the Martian
wrote:

On Sun, 10 May 2009 01:35:10 +0200, qqq_qqq wrote:


CO2 we put in now by burning fossil fuels is rapidly mixed in the
atmosphere. No nothing lag. You can not compare it to the last few
glaciation cycles. However there is a phenomenon climate inertia
which is going to hit us in the future.
This "we're doing it ergo it must cause it" is simply bad logic. It
doesn't follow. To prove we are doing it, you have to prove: 1) We
put the CO2 there.
2) The CO2 caused the warming.

No one has shown either one of these.

You will have to abandon using #1.
No I don't.

There has been no warming except the Arctic.

"No warming except... "

So, there's warming. I don't dispute that in the 1990s, up until 1998,
there was an increase in the average earth temperature. It sounds like
you don't either, with your no warming except for the warmer parts bit.

We add about 2.5% of the CO2 that nature is putting into the
atmosphere.

Isn't it obvious that nature can't add CO2 to the
atmosphere unless it comes out of the ground originally?

There may be a lot of CO2 coming from volcanos and
vents, but can it be documented?
I've explained that a warmer ocean shifts the equilibrium between solid
carbonates and CO2 in the ocean to favor the oceans. This explains the
source of the sequestered CO2.

The ocean hasn't warmed, it certainly hasn't warmed enough
to release CO2.

All you have to do is google scholar on "ocean warming" and you get
dozens of articles on ocean warming. Basically, as deep as the light
goes, there has been warming.

How small does the warming have to be so that you don't release CO2? The
equilibrium is a continuous function. There is no 'hasn't warmed enough
to release CO2" limit.

Ergo, by standard chemistry, 97.5% of the CO2 we produce goes into
natural carbon sinks.
Nonsense,

There should be no attempt to claim that nature would
increase the atmospheric CO2, all increases are from burning fossil
fuel, but there is no evidence that extra CO2 cause any of the local
changes seen mostly in the Arctic.
Interesting irrational statement. You are intentionally making an error
defining the carbon system when you rule out ocean carbonate rocks.

Rain constantly absorbs CO2 and carries it to the surface
where it either enters the water or is absorbed by rock.

Which doesn't prove that "all increases are from burning fossil fuel" and
is so unrelated to that claim that it is a non-sequitor.

Before the industrial revolution (the last few millenniums in fact)
we stuck around 280 ppmv. The answer is that it is known that CO2
causes warming due to IR absorption. Denial of this is simply
unscientific rumble you should directly ignore.
This is a Post hoc, ergo proctor hoc fallacy which doesn't even have
the virtue of being true. All warming cycles in the past had a rise of
CO2 that followed.

But what was the cause? Any time vegetation growth is
stopped, atmospheric CO2 increases, so that should be a given, but it
does not mean warming caused it, more likely that ice cover and ice
storms that took down trees and broke tree branches caused it.
Let me get this straight: you're good with saying that CO2 CAUSED the
warming when the CO2 increase comes AFTER the warming, but when the CO2
lags the warming, you claim that it cannot be said that warming caused
the CO2? Aburd!

There hasn't been any warming that correlates with CO2, the
warmest period in the last 100,000 years was 8000 years ago.

See the Vostok ice core data. You're clearly wrong.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/

1) Warming and CO2 are correlated.
2) The data goes back 400,000 years, so it's pre human.
3) CO2 lags the warming, so CO2 cannot cause the warming.

This argument is known as lie #12

see also http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-...emperature.htm

and in partical read: what does it mean,

Q





snip ignorant claims, illogic, and some argumentum ad hominem.

On Tue, 12 May 2009 01:44:41 +0200, Q wrote:


See the Vostok ice core data. You're clearly wrong.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/

1) Warming and CO2 are correlated.
2) The data goes back 400,000 years, so it's pre human. 3) CO2 lags the
warming, so CO2 cannot cause the warming.

This argument is known as lie #12

Childish ad hominem nervously being substituted for a rational argument
noted.

see also http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-...emperature.htm

and in partical read: what does it mean,

"As temperature rises, CO2 also rises but lags the warming by 800 to 1000
years (Monnin 2001, Caillon 2003, Stott 2007)."

So, they admit that it lags, and then they make the leverage gas
argument. Sadly, this isn't even a hypothesis, as every "computer model"
that tried to use it failed to predict the lack of cooling in the last
decade.

Yet, we have Svensmark's theory, which doesn't need Co2 at all, and it
not only predicts the last 10 years, but the 4.5 billion years before
that.

The AGW frauds continue to insist that their claims, which don't fit the
last 10 years, is valid and that the theory who's physical principles
were confirmed by CERN and predicts the last 4.5 billion years is wrong.





--
http://OnToMars.org For discussions about Mars and Mars colonization

On Mon, 11 May 2009 20:34:38 -0500, What A. Fool wrote:

On Mon, 11 May 2009 18:34:52 -0500, Marvin the Martian
wrote:

On Sun, 10 May 2009 18:44:48 -0500, What A. Fool wrote: [snip]
There hasn't been any warming that correlates with CO2, the
warmest period in the last 100,000 years was 8000 years ago.

See the Vostok ice core data. You're clearly wrong.

http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Pre...ning/New_Data/

1) Warming and CO2 are correlated.


Nonsense,

snip

I give you the data showing a pretty good correlation, and you deny it as
nonsense.

:-)