I will
> thank you for responding to what people say, not to what you want to argue
> against.
Okay, I'll refrain from drawing the obvious conclusions from your
statements.
charming
> As for what you are saying, I believe that there are very big errors both of
> judgement and of fact, frankly.
That's called disagreement. Intelligent people with different
viewpoints sometimes have those.
One big benefit of science is that it has the capacity to eliminate some those viewpoints that are wrong.
You wouldn't know that from what passes for public debate these days, but we are trying to do better around here than they manage on TV.
> >. Any sensible understanding of the carbon cycle supports
> > > the intuitively obvious conclusion: the sooner, the better.
> > You're wrong here, there's a carbon saturation after which it
> > ceases to be a forcing.
> This isn't really true, it turns out. Consider Venus.
Consider Mars which has an atmosphere of 230000 ppm co2 why then
is it not an oven?
Do you understand the concept of optical depth? Please be serious.
I refer you to any elementary textbook in atmospheric physics to study the greenhouse effect before you go making public pronouncements on it.
Simply because there are a great deal of factors at
work other than carbon. Venus isn't a fair comparison due to several
factors, among them, 1) it is closer to the sun.
Not close enough. Do you understand the relationship between the Stefan-Boltzmann law and planetary surface temperature? Again this is first-year stuff.
Us old guys are partial to Wallace and Hobbs, "Atmospheric Science, an Introductory Survey" 1977 but there are plenty of alternatives. I understand that there is a new edition of W&H as of 2006.
2) Our moon has
been shown to have gravitationally "skimmed" our atmosphere such that
there is a very great deal less total volatile volume to work with on
earth.
News to me. Are you making that up? What does that have to do with anything if so? And what do you mean by "volatile"?
I'd just as soon you dropped this unpromising hodge-podge and followed up on optical depth and Stefan-Boltzmann, but feel free to defend it if you can.
Okay, adult, present the alternate source of energy you are
supporting. Or present some evidence that 25% of current emissions
would produce a stable carbon cycle.
Let's try to take our time here. I will just answer this one question, and then we can see how it impacts the rest of your opinions.
I refer you to IPCC WG1 TAR 3, section 2.3.2.2; you can find it at http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/075.htm .
I do apologise if I have been a little snippy, I am newly
transplanted from the land of vitriolic bitterness that is
sci-environment.
Well, then, welcome, but please, don't import the nonsense. There's a reason we're doing the extra work to moderate this group.
If you calm down, lose your attachment to your ideas, respect people who have thought about this stuff for decades, and start thinking, you might make a positive contribution. If you just want to play "flame wars", though, there are plenty of other places on the net that will serve you better.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
