On 17/02/2008, Tom Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Feb 16, 6:22 pm, "William Connolley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 15/02/2008, Tom Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > What is the status of RGW in the scientific community these days? It
> > > is frige alarmist or mainstream?
> >
> > no-one believes it
>
> Why not?
> ...
> BTW, "runaway greenhouse effect" is better term, I think. But, as mt
> pointed out, it's ambiguous. Could be either Venus or the major
> factor in most or all warm periods in Earth's history. Everyone
> believes in the latter.
Fair enough, we all know its been warmer in the past, but RGE doesn't
mean that. To me at least it means a discontinuity in
forcing-response: past a certain (GHG) forcing the response suddenly
jumps to a new state (a tipping point, ha ha, to use a meaningless
phrase) that is *much* warmer. I suppose the methane clathrates might
satisfy this, but they are on the ocean bed where its deep and cold.
-W.
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
