On Jan 17, 8:15 pm, okc chemist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> David:
>
> I have stated several times in this thread that I am not an AGW
> denier. I am just trying to understand why it is nearly accepted as a
> proven fact, when like you say,100moreyearsof research are
> required.
Have you bothered to even look at the "Discovery of Global Warming"
web page that we pointed you to weeks ago?
The first research on CO2-induced global warming was done 150 years
ago by Tyndall.
>There is good evidence that the burning of fossil fuels
> accounts for the additional CO2 in the atmosphere, I am told, yet the
> C14(not 13?) ratio has increased only 0.15% against a normal variation
> of 0.05% Sounds pretty thin to me, in spite of some claiming it's a
> huge amount. It may be tough for me to comprehend, because in my work
> whether a sample contains 10 ppb of CCl4(which now I'm told isn't even
> organic)or 10.015 ppb is not exactly an Earth shattering difference.
> In fact, it would be well within the limits of precision and
> reproducibility and I would be very pleased with the result. By my
> standards, a trivial deviation with all kinds of possible sources of
> error, but still totally irrelevant.
>
> On Jan 16, 5:52 pm, "David B. Benson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 15, 7:49 pm, okc chemist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > I am familiar with both the C13 ratios and the role that GHGs play in
> > > keeping the planet heated to temperatures much more bearable for
> > > humans. ...
>
> > Apologies. I (and so you) meant C14/C12 ratios. I gather that you
> > accept that the excess carbon in the active carbon cycle is of fossil
> > origin, placed there by humans burning fossil fuels. I gather that
> > you accept that additional CO2 in the atmosphere (all else being
> > equal) will warm the planet. Then why do you not accept AGW?
>
> > Once the physics of global warming gases is understood (at least100
> >yearsnow) and once the source of the excess carbon is understood to
> > be anthropogenic, it seems to me that scientific methods directly
> > arrive at the conclusion of AGW.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
