Regards,
Bob...
------------------------------------------
Veritas vos Liberabit
----- Original Message -----
From: "mike.wilson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: 12 December, 2003 4:32 AM
Subject: RE: Way OT:Global warming-was:GFM Attendees (updated)
> Hi,
>
> Bob B wrote:
>
> > If we are in a global warming crisis today, even the most aggressive and
> > costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would
have
> > a negligible effect on global climate!
>
> That assumes the possible change will be proportional.
Every measure we have showes this to be the case for the systems Which
govern the Terra's climate. Krakatoa, Mt. St Helens, massive forest fires,
change in solar energy input to the Terra's surface. Globally, change
appears to be proportional, systems appear to be in stable equilibrum, and
the energy input change necessary to produce long term or perminant climate
change appears to be nearly cosmic in size.
> Equally possible is a "teeter-totter" effect, where a negligible final
input produces a
> dramatic change.
"Teeter-totter" effect, heh, heh, heh. I assume you mean that the Terra's
climate systems may be in unstable equilibrum and that the probably of this
being so, as opposed to stable equilibrum, is ~50%. All evidence is contrary
to this. Barring cosmic sized changes in energy input, Terra's systems
maintain appear to maintain a stable equilibrum.
Example:
CO2 rises
so average temp's might start to rise rise,
which causes clouds to rise,
which, in turn, causes causes Terra's albeto to rise,
lowering temp.
which causes phytoplankton populations to rise,
which convert CO2 back to hydrocarbons and O2
Which lowers the CO2.
This does not mean that changes in global temperatures are not taking place.
There are cosmic sized changes in energy input slowly taking place as we
speak. They have always been happening.
> The problem really is that we (humankind) are working in a blackout.
There is no support for this statement and oceans of support for the
opposite.
> All theories are equally possible because we do not have hard evidence
> of what type of mechanism we are working under.
Not knowing does not make all theories possible. There are a lot of nutty
theories out there, including those involving "aliens." I'm pretty sure that
you don't consider these theories to be equally possible! Yes, we do have
hard evidence of what types of mechanisms we are involved. They are
exceptionaly complicated. We can't describle their interaction exactly, but
we can determine how much energy change would be required.
It would seem sensible
> (and does not, as far as I can see, cause any harm except to business
> interests) to err on the side of caution.
Now that would depend on what you mean by "err[ing] on the side of caution",
wouldn't it? I can see great social and economic upheaval if the cost of
transportation of goods and services were to rise significantly.
