Global Warming Cont...

[saltydawg]

You really should leave the science to the scientists. Look at the graph again. Suncycle lengths wax and wane. The cycle gets shorter for a few periods then it gets longer. It does not bounce around between a period less than 11 years and then a period greater than 11 years. All warming and cooling trends correlate with the graph.

You still have not explained the rise and fall of the ice ages. I can see where sunspots provide more solar energy to the Earth, and their absence means less solar energy, but it all plays out against the backdrop of the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The next time sunspots are at their height it is going to get very warm around here, a lot warmer than it did a 100 years ago. Why? Because CO2 levels in the atmosphere are going to be a lot higher than 100 years ago.

Your statement: "All warming and cooling trends correlate with the graph" is patently false.

[Guisslapp]

You still have not explained the rise and fall of the ice ages.

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/lin....html&edu=high

[saltydawg]

http://www.windows.ucar.edu/tour/lin....html&edu=high

You got to be kidding.

No way in hell that sunspots (or lack thereof) caused the ice ages.

[saltydawg]

Like I said, CO2 does not create global warming. Anyone who believes we're burning up our earth with it is fooling themselves and needs to study geology.

What's creating global warming then if not CO2?

[Guisslapp]

What's creating global warming then if not CO2?

There is no global warming. Haven't you heard - it is getting cooler?

[Guisslapp]

You got to be kidding.

No way in hell that sunspots (or lack thereof) caused the ice ages.

Pretty damn strong correlation between little ice age and the lack of observed sunspots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

[saltydawg]

Pretty damn strong correlation between little ice age and the lack of observed sunspots.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png

The "little ice age" was just 50 years of colder than normal winters in Europe. I'm talking about the ice ages that lasted for thousands of years and had 2 mile thick ice sheets over a lot of North America and Eurasia.

[saltydawg]

There is no global warming. Haven't you heard - it is getting cooler?

Let me know when it snows in July in Ruston.

[Guisslapp]

The "little ice age" was just 50 years of colder than normal winters in Europe. I'm talking about the ice ages that lasted for thousands of years and had 2 mile thick ice sheets over a lot of North America and Eurasia.

Earlier you were concerned about temperature changes of 0.2 degrees F. Now that doesn't concern you?

[saltydawg]

Earlier you were concerned about temperature changes of 0.2 degrees F. Now that doesn't concern you?

Per year?

[arkansasbob]

The "little ice age" was just 50 years of colder than normal winters in Europe. I'm talking about the ice ages that lasted for thousands of years and had 2 mile thick ice sheets over a lot of North America and Eurasia.

are you suggesting that the ice ages were related to greenhouse gases?

[saltydawg]

are you suggesting that the ice ages were related to greenhouse gases?

Not the ice ages themselves but greenhouse gases play a role in prolonging the length of the interglacial periods.

[arkansasbob]

Not the ice ages themselves but greenhouse gases play a role in prolonging the length of the interglacial periods.

how so and by what evidence?

[saltydawg]

how so and by what evidence?

First of all, do you accept the Greenland ice cores contain an accurate record of past CO2 levels?

[Guisslapp]

First of all, do you accept the Greenland ice cores contain an accurate record of past CO2 levels?

Do you?