Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

The effect of Differing amounts of CO2 on atmospheric thermal
retention has been a well documented fact since the 1840's.


Yes, and the 11 year sunspot cycle has been a well documented
fact for thousands of years. Does puny man have any more
control over the 100K year CO2 cycle than he does over the
11 year sunspot cycle.

You have time scales a tad messed up. WE don't have any control over
the log period cycles.



Methinks you (and others) suffer
from delusions of grandeur. Why do you think the CO2 levels
*ALWAYS* drop after they reach ~280 ppmv? Do you think man
can do anything to block that ~100k year drop in CO2 levels?

Cecil, you are making arguments as if I am some kind of dyed in the
wool tree huggin hippie back to the cave days left wingin' democratic
commie leebural.

And yet you haven't provided one single non-political (and not
scientifically flawed) oriented debunking of the CO2 effect upon the
atmosphere.

No delusions Cecil. I await enlightenment. You argue in the same vein
as creationists. If you wanna have an intelligent argument, fine. If
not, fine.

Tell me why the CO2 levels *ALWAYS* drop after reaching 280 ppmv. I
await. Otherwise, I'll allow you to have the last word, and continue on
your way. Science isn't a debate, despite what creationists, Anne
Coulter, and creationists think. It is how things are.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
Tell me why the CO2 levels *ALWAYS* drop after reaching 280 ppmv.

I'm content to observe the geological record and
see that the CO2 levels have always dropped from
that value for millions of years. I also don't
know why the nucleus of an atom contains quarks.
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 22:08:58 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:

I only hope I live long enough to see how they figure out a way to
blame it on the leeburulls!

Hi Mike,

You only have to wait a couple of years for the Republicans to blame
Clinton (her or him, take your pick) for W.

It'll take them a lot longer to come to terms that the Neocon agenda
was an eagerly embraced legacy of Trotskyite commies from New York. If
Republicans can't understand politics, they certainly can't be expect
to understand science.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

May I assume that you believe that glacial cycles are the sole source
of global warming or cooling?


Not the sole source - just the primary source.
120,000 years ago, temperatures peaked higher
than they are presently. These cycles occur in
100k-120k year intervals. CO2 levels always
zoom up and trail off gradually during the peak
temperatures. There is some sort of feedback
mechanism that takes the CO2 levels down.

Everyone, from Ronald Reaqan to George Bush, knows that trees cause
pollution. We need to listen to our leaders. They know more than we do.

GW is a convenient lie. (Bush, that is)

Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

Tell me why the CO2 levels *ALWAYS* drop after reaching 280 ppmv.


I'm content to observe the geological record and
see that the CO2 levels have always dropped from
that value for millions of years. I also don't
know why the nucleus of an atom contains quarks.


Okay, I understand now. You don't actually know, perhaps don't even
care to know, but you do know you don't like any of the proffered
explanations.

Just as a point of info, the "weak sun" solar constant during
Precambrian times is at odds with the temperatures that they were seeing
at the time - keeping in mind that "time" is a vague reference to the
warm periods.

Paleosol data indicates that CO2 concentrations were much lower than
would be needed to offset the solar constant, and that CH4 levels of 100
- 10000 ppmv would have been needed to compensate.

Sooo, CO2 levels by themselves are not a good indicator of "the whole
story". CH4 is an even stronger greenhouse gas. It's also produced by
life forms. Humans, termites, ruminants.

There is something to look into. Perhaps the regulating mechanism is
based on that? Maybe the next leeburull plot will be to take down the
bean industry by banning them! ;^)

I also don't
know why the nucleus of an atom contains quarks.

Quarks are just smaller "points" of matter that make up protons and
neutrons. Nothing mysterious there. I think part of the confusion is
over the goofy names that physicists insist on giving them.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Mike Coslo wrote:
Okay, I understand now. You don't actually know, perhaps don't even
care to know, but you do know you don't like any of the proffered
explanations.

I am satisfied with the geological record that contains
multiple similar cycles. Sudden global warming is always
followed by an ice age which would be particularly hard
on you damned yankees. :-)

Quarks are just smaller "points" of matter that make up protons and
neutrons.

So you don't actually know, perhaps don't even care to know,
why quarks exist? :-)
--
73, Cecil http://www.qsl.net/w5dxp

Cecil Moore wrote:
Mike Coslo wrote:

Okay, I understand now. You don't actually know, perhaps don't even
care to know, but you do know you don't like any of the proffered
explanations.


I am satisfied with the geological record that contains
multiple similar cycles. Sudden global warming is always
followed by an ice age

Incorrect! You state "is always" when the proper statement would be
perhaps "has so far been".

But I don't know if that is even correct, because I don't know what the
definition of "sudden global warming" is.


which would be particularly hard
on you damned yankees. :-)

Brings a new meaning to Blue States......


Quarks are just smaller "points" of matter that make up protons and
neutrons.


So you don't actually know, perhaps don't even care to know,
why quarks exist? :-)

Why yes, I do care to know!

I would think that all the parts of my message that you snipped would
indicate that I am rather curious about the world around me, and yet
very skeptical of arguments that have more than one agenda.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Richard Clark wrote:
On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 22:08:58 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:


I only hope I live long enough to see how they figure out a way to
blame it on the leeburulls!


Hi Mike,

You only have to wait a couple of years for the Republicans to blame
Clinton (her or him, take your pick) for W.

It'll take them a lot longer to come to terms that the Neocon agenda
was an eagerly embraced legacy of Trotskyite commies from New York.

As a woman acquaintance who refuses to recycle anything because "It
will just encourage the liberals", inadvertently pointed out to me,
they'll be against anything the Demoncrats are for. Kinda fell into a
trap they did... Have to find out what the leeburullls believe so that
they can not believe it.


If
Republicans can't understand politics, they certainly can't be expect
to understand science.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

On Sun, 03 Sep 2006 15:37:56 -0400, Mike Coslo
wrote:

It'll take them a lot longer to come to terms that the Neocon agenda
was an eagerly embraced legacy of Trotskyite commies from New York.

As a woman acquaintance who refuses to recycle anything because "It
will just encourage the liberals", inadvertently pointed out to me,
they'll be against anything the Demoncrats are for. Kinda fell into a
trap they did... Have to find out what the leeburullls believe so that
they can not believe it.

Hi Mike,

That won't work. One of the leading "conservatives," Richard Perle,
was an aide to my state's Democratic Senator, Scoop Jackson, who stood
politically just a few feet to the left of Hitler and Stalin (even
Roosevelt's administration referred to us obliquely with "the 47
United States and the Soviet of Washington").

Let's face it, the administration has abandoned the church's teachings
that we are the stewards of creation. Instead, the apocalyptic
message from these nihilists (another Russian hallmark) is nothing
matters because there's not much time left anyway. Such is the belief
system of the neo-cannibals.

73's
Richard Clark, KB7QHC

Mike Coslo wrote:

REDACTED

Quarks are just smaller "points" of matter that make up protons and
neutrons. Nothing mysterious there. I think part of the confusion is
over the goofy names that physicists insist on giving them.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

UP/DOWN, CHARM/STRANGE, TOP/BOTTOM ... Gosh almighty!

Are Quarks really matter? Or highly concentrated clusters of energy? Do they
have mass independent of energy? or, Wavelength?

How would Heisenburg know anything about them?

I think it is time to name a new computer controlled radio TOP/BOTTOM. Wouldn't
that be CHARMing? It would certianly be STRANGE!