"Matt W. Barrow" wrote in
:


"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 18:09:12 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote:


"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 13:32:44 -0700, "Matt W. Barrow"
wrote:


"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in message
om...
On Mon, 14 Jan 2008 20:26:35 -0600, "Dan Luke"
wrote:


"Matt Whiting" wrote:

And CO2 is a by-product of a warming ocean. Please refute the
following
point by point. :-)

http://www.john-daly.com/oceanco2/oceanco2.htm


What's to refute?

"The sensitivity calculation, however, may be very reliable. It
shows that
natural temperature increase cannot be the whole reason for the
increase
of
atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration of about 80 ppm during
this century.
But the question of the `Chicken and the Egg' *for the ice core
measurements*
seems quite clear: First comes the warming, then comes the CO2. "

That has been historically true, but not this time. Now it's the
CO2 leading the temp.

No, it's not - sorry. Try understanding CO2 forcing action.

I understand it quite well, which is why I'm emphasizing the CO2 is
leading. It's the opposite of what you'd expect. IOW we are not
seeing the CO2 forcing. What we are seeing is an *unnatural* rise
in CO2 that is not due to nature.

No, it is not un-natural...otherwise it what would explain the
4000ppm

If you take a look at the legitimate scientific studies you will
see that at present the CO2 rise is ahead of the temperature. Where
did the CO2 come from?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...6/how-much-of-
th
e-recent-cosub2sub-increase-is-due-to-human-activities/

I'd believe realclimate.org about as much as I'd believe
NationalEnquirer.

Whichis what the researchers say about John daly. :-)) Neither side
can understand the other.:-))

At least Daly's work is backed by data that has NOT been refuted or
found to be fraudulent.

We're finding out that the greenies are unmitigated liars.


jesus wept.


Bertie