Paul Barford wrote:
> I was not aware that the annual reports of the Neanderthal Atmospheric
> and Climate Research Institute for this period had survived. Can you
> provide a reference for this statement please?
Sarcasm the lowest form of wit.
> Although throughout the period, carbon dioxide levels fluctuate in ice
> cores (for I assume this is what you are talking about), I was under the
> impression that it has been shown that they are low when the weather was
> cold, and rise only in the interglacials and interstadials. In fact, I
> thought that was one of the factors used to estimate temperature
> fluctuations in the period. Here's a picture I Googled up:
> Is it wrong?
Perhaps you should be taking a look at the global temperatures during
From that you can see we are actually in one of the cooler periods of
the earth's history and warming is bound to occur sooner or later.
I could display many others charts and diagrams some showing the
differences between the estimated effects as opposed to recorded effects
It would make no difference, humans though they do contribute to global
warming will never be able to stop the cyclic nature of global warming
Instead of fighting the inevitable we should be learning how to adapt.
> Are you really trying to tell us that you think that throughout the
> nineteenth and twentieth centuries (because that too is "the past"), the
> production of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels on a large scale
> throughout most of the developed world (and non-fossil fuels in the
> others) has lagged BEHIND temperature rise?
No what I am explaining is in the history of the world CO2 levels in the
atmosphere do not correlate with increased temperature, therefore we
should look for other causes.
I am not saying that there is not some effect but it is not the major
cause of global warming
> So how do you account for the black gunk deposited on the surfaces of
> most nineteenth century buildings in whatever town it is you live near
> if not the products of the same process which has been producing
> greenhouse gases? And then, what about all those analyses done in the
> late nineteenth century to determine the cause of the deterioration of
> buildings and library and museum collections? I suppose you will tell us
> they were just totally wrong (or were they too propaganda)? Its an
> uncomfortable fact for your theory that the pollution of the atmosphere
> was identified even then as having already reached damaging levels. It
> was those concerned with the conservation of the historical heritage
> that were among those that noticed it first and raised the alarm. I
> think though all those people choking and even dying in urban smogs
> might have had something to do with it too.
Straw argument, no-one denies pollution causes damage.
I was addressing the cause and effect of CO2 on global warming.
> No Guy, the levels of greenhouse gases reached a high enough level in
> the atmosphere to cause concern among conservationists well before the
> rise in ambient temperature was noticed/suggested. Its the other way round.
> Paul Barford
Water vapor is on of the more powerful "greenhouse gases". It would
therefore be logical to think if the climate was warmer the seas and
oceans would evaporate more, putting more vapor into the air. This in
turn would make it still warmer.
Except, warm moist climates make more plants grow, plants tend to remove
In addition when the water vapor condenses into clouds the clouds cause
an effect called albedo i.e. they reflect sunlight back into space
before it can warm the earth.
The climate is far more complicated than the politicians would have us
Wakefield, West Yorkshire, England.
http://freespace.virgin.net/guy.etchells The site that gives you facts
http://anguline.co.uk/ Anguline Research Archives