Quote:
|
The data does not support your claim as there is a strong positive correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, they just cannot say exactly which came first is all, changes in temperature, or changes in CO2. However science has unequivocally demonstrated that CO2 is a greenhouse gas in that it allows light energy to pass through it, but reflects radiant heat energy. The data also clearly shows low CO2 levels during major global cooling periods. Furthermore oceans tend to absorb more CO2 when cooler, and less when warmer (this is an simplification though).
|
If the temperature rise precedes the rise in CO2, than what is the relationship? Higher temps mean higher CO2 or Higher CO2 means higher temps. Is the dog wagging his tail or the tail wagging the dog?
The data shows large peaks and valleys. What is it that starts such extremes in temps and CO2 and what reverses these trends? It wasn't man in either case. Why is it that at peak temps it all of the sudden(or not so sudden) reversed and started cooling with the CO2 levels so high?
My biggest question is. The poles are a rather unique places on earth and not very representative of the earth in general. Is polar data really a reliable source of global climate, has this data been check by some other means, perhaps sea bed core samples?? I know that they can't go back that far but there should enough data to compare with recent ice samples.
And to the point of this thread has the data been presented in a full and truthful way? There has been some question about NASA objectivity in this area. I'm not too sure either way on this.
They wright off the European Warming period as just a localized event, why not polar ice samples the same way? Is this data reliable enough to take the steps that they are talking about?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Ice Core Data
Whether the ultimate cause of temperature increase is excess CO2, or a different orbit, or some other factor probably doesn't matter much. It could have been one or the other, or different combinations of factors at different times in the past. The effect is still the same. Nevertheless, the scientific consensus is that GTGs account for at least half of temperature increases, and that they strongly amplify the effects of small increases in solar radiation due to orbital forcing.
I can't get italic to turn off!!!!!!
The ultimate cause of temperature change is VERY important if your spending trillions to try to effect it. The question at hand isn't warming but what part man plays in itand what we can do about it?
Second if GTGs account for only half of temp change and man is responsible for only a part of these and we can only reduce a small fraction of our part just what can we accomplish with all the trillions of dollars they plan to spend?
Neon you present a good case and I appreciate it, you bring out the facts as you see them. Thank you.
Magic