http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.skepticalscience.com/images/Milankovitch_Cycles_400000.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-lags-temperature.htm&h=221&w=500&sz=16&tbnid=OeFYHz0vSs0XHM:&tbnh=59&tbnw=133&zoom=1&usg=__jzpTdt2rwVbJPMU1tAgk2zBtq6M=&docid=sD8g5_NF0TWzqM&sa=X&ei=vG04UsGsKte44AOxqYHQAw&ved=0CDcQ9QEwAg&dur=1516
. On Tue, Sep 17, 2013 at 10:37 AM, Vivec <[email protected]> wrote: > > Wait wait...Sam....CO2 now is lower. > So you are saying this data that we are seeing is completely wrong. > > Can you show me the data you are referring to that shows that CO2 levels > were significantly higher 200,000 years ago? > I presume that this data will also reflect a cooling or flat temperature > during that period? > > > On 17 September 2013 10:33, Sam <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Take a look at this chart - > > > > > > > > > http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/IceCores1.gifit > > > shows a relationship between CO2 levels and temperature. You can see > > > that even during 'cooling trends' there were 'spikes' where it was > > warmer, > > > but the overall trend was that it was getting cooler. The same can be > > said > > > of the 'warming' periods and 'dips' where it was cooler, but the > overall > > > trend was that it was getting warmer. > > > > > > > > Bad chart. First, CO2 lags behind temperature. Second, CO2 is lower now > > than it was 100k and 300k years ago. I think you need a new source. > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:367121 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
