"Matt Whiting" wrote:


Did you even read the article?

Of course. Better yet, I understood it.

It says "At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2
starts to rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic
temperature during glacial terminations."

What part of "after" don't you understand?

No part. What part of "greenhouse effect" don't you understand?


It is then fun to watch them try to refute the data that clearly
contradicts their opinion about CO2 causing global warming rather than
resulting from it.

There is no attempt at refutation of the data. They *know* CO2 is released
when ice ages end.


"The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000
years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag shows is
that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of the 5000
year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact have been caused
by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core data."

So the causality magically reverses after 800 years, eh? That is truly
funny.

Nothing magic about it. In this *natural* scenario, CO2 is first a
reinforcer, not a cause. Orbital forcing is strong enough to get the ball
rolling for initiation and termination of ice ages, but it is the greenhouse
effect that maintains earth as a liquid water planet. Increasing greenhouse
gases,whether produced by man or nature, increase the temperature.

Are you denying that increased CO2 produces a warmer climate? Do you know
how the greenhouse effect works? Do you understand the importance of CO2
among the greenhouse gases?

The rest of the article is full of "could" and "might" and other waffle
words simply because these "scientists" simply don't want to accept the
fact that the data contradicts their favorite hypothesis.

And you call this science?

Your spin? No.

You are ignoring the fact that the dramatic CO2 rise of the last 200 years
is *ahead* of the temperature rise. Furthermore, we know that the CO2 rise
is anthropogenic; there is an isotopic smoking gun that tells us so.

BTW, I thought you believed there was no such thing as "a hundred thousand
years ago" on earth. Am I wrong about that?