"bill" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> I need to sign of this discussion for a week or two; too much going >> on. Perhaps someone else will take it up. >> > Do you have any evidence that the temperature on the venus surface >> > would be lower if it were 5% co2 instead of 95%? >> Obviously, not observational. But the science is much more advanced >> than you give it credit for. The greenhouse effect is understood. > > Science in this instance is a lil bit less developed than you give > it credit for (probably somewhere between you and me). In this > instance, there are no controls in place, no replication capabilities, > no ability to vary 1 variable while holding others constant, no real
Considering the impossibility of what you are demanding, you must therefore believe that no earth science can ever be well developed and advanced. You surely also reject cosmology and evolution and a host of other sciences where controled experiments are very limited or impossible. > understanding of the system as a whole, and no idea what feedback > mechanisms might come into play that are not observable at out current > temperature range, no testing on it's predictive abilities. There is > too much trust placed in incomplete "black box" models. There is certainly alot of truth in this, but it frankly speaks *far* more to the "alarmist" argument than it does for the "que sera sera" people. Uncertainty is not your friend if you advocate not doing anything about this problem. > (the modellers have yet > to produce one that can model the past climate) are vital and central Please see http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/models-are-unproven.html > At best, the IPCC represents the sum > total of the current "science" of climatology. At worst, it represents > a picked political body with an axe to grind. Either way, I'll take a > 500 million year history over IPCC compilations of research papers any > day of the week and twice on Sundays. This is clearly ludicrous. You are here just to provoke it seems. Have you even read the methods section concerning that graph? http://www.scotese.com/climate1.htm > Even under the best cases of IPCC credibility, their conclusions > are based on models which ignore a very great deal of very important > climactic considerations. Among them, cloud feedbacks, surface level > albedo changes, spectrum responses, solar variations, long term cycles > of all stripes, plant species responses (some plant species grow FAR > better than the current mix under high co2 conditions, expect to see > those plants becoming more prevalent), methane release due to melting > permafrost, methane release to to species extinctions, and the > absolutely stupid ghg value that is used for long term methane (it has > an atmospheric half life of 1-2 years, after which it decomposes into > CO2 and water, the stupidity is that in most climate modeling, they > pretend that the water stays in the atmosphere, as though it were > separate water not subject to rain) and that's just the ones I, a > layman can think of offhand. There is a bit of difference form thinking of something offhand and determining it is true. You clearly prefer to just make this leap without a second thought, not very impressive... Coby --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
