On Oct 17, 4:14 pm, "William Connolley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 17/10/2007, Tom Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > I have a denier claiming that CO2 reduction lags temperature reduction
> > at the interglacial not just at the glacial termination.
>
> > Is there any truth to that? I can't find this claim discussed
> > anywhere else.
>
> Its hard to get the gas/ice age sorted out, so the clearest jumps are
> the ones people look at. I very much doubt you could do much within an
> interglaacial. Without some clarification or refs, I'd say this is
> nonsense.
>
> > I assume the log relation of GHG and temp. is an important factor in
> > causing the temperature to stop rising. What are the dynamics at the
> > peak temperature of the interglacial?
>
> You mean, why does CO2 stop at 280, naturally? I don't think we >know.
I really just meant that temp. does not react as stongly to a given
scalar increase in CO2 because of delta CO2 forces log delta temp.
But what you said is interesting, we don't know why the CO2 maxed out
around 280. In the last three or more integlacials, I guess.
>
> -W.
>
>
>
> --
> William M. Connolley |www.wmconnolley.org.uk| 07985 935400
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
