On 10/14/06, bill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> From one of your responses "It seems to me your argument (which
> peculiarly seems perfectly happy with a 7 C increase in mean
> temperature, albeit on an unspecified time scale) remains based on the
> idea that the greenhouse effect saturates."
> Looked rather like a denial to me.
A reasonable person would understand and acknowledge that in this
discussion my intent is not to argue that bands don't saturate. It is
to argue that the surface keeps warming even so.
To claim otherwise does not seem to me like discussion. It seems like
playing to the gallery. If you are a troll, you have succeeded in your
goal of drumming up a technical issue out of nothing, so that casual
readers perceive a real controversy. If you are not a troll, I can't
imagine the basis for that bit of verbal chicanery.
> What else becomes pretty obvious is that from 550 to 1100 ppm co2
> is an almost undetectable difference significantly smaller than the
> difference between 280 and 550. Now, since that's a LOT of co2
> release, and the 550 ppm stabilization is a moot point, since it has
> poorer odds of happening than an extinction level meteor impact, next
> question, and one that hasn't been much looked into, is what's involved
> in an 1100 ppm stabilization?
<Barely restraining self>
On what basis do you have the audacity to claim that "it hasn't been
looked into"? It's in a roughly logarithmic range. As you would know
***if you took the time to read the post you are responding to*** !!!
!
Impacts go up very much faster than linearly with temperature. This
probably more than cancels out the drooping of the curve in terms of
the importance of restraining emissions.
I will not discuss matters further with you until you make a serious,
refutable, quantitative effort to explain the surface temperature of
Venus or withdraw your claim that the greenhouse effect saturates.
You are the one making the extravagant claims here in contradiction to
the considered opinions of leading bodies of scientists. I have played
by the rules by invoking evidence to the contrary. If you are not
deliberately trying to distort the discussion, I suggest you do the
work, address my proposed refutation, and come back with either a
formal analysis or an apology. Alternatively, you could simply admit
that you have no basis for your claims and apologize right away.
As a third alternative, you could just go away.
mt
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
