From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon May 26 2003 - 09:12:24 MDT
--- Harvey Newstrom <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com> wrote:
> Mike Lorrey wrote,
> > The problem with this conclusion is that the previous estimate,
> which
> > was significantly larger (by several times) than the observations
> > contained in this study, acknowledged that somewhere between 1/4 to
> 1/3
> > of that estimated change was entirely due to earth orbital and
> solar
> > dynamical causes, and not anthropic in nature. Since this
> acknowledged
> > naturally caused portion is larger than the observed reality, then
> it
> > is logical to conclude that ALL of the observed reality is entirely
> due
> > to non-human causes, and that the earth's ecosphere is stable,
> > independent of what we are capable of doing to it at this point in
> > time.
>
> If their estimate of the whole pie was wrong, how do you hold them to
> their estimate for one of the fractional parts? And if the whole
> pie is shrunk, why do you assume that the part you believe is real
> must now be the whole pie. I am sure the other side believes that
> their fraction is now a bigger piece of the smaller pie. Maybe the
> whole pie shrank proportionally.
No, because the sun didn't suddenly shrink between the time of the
estimate and the time that observational evidence was tabulated. Your
relativist/subjectivist argument is the sort of thing that really
peeves me about those on the left. No insult intended.
Physical law doesn't change, and the portion of the original estimate
that was attributed to it was based on observational evidence of the
past century. The only portion that was under conjecture was the
anthropic portion. This newest study has evaporated the anthropic
portion, and any remaining difference seems to be more a matter of
changing proportions of white and black aerosol particulates (i.e.
carbon soot and sulfates), where white aerosols cool, and black
aerosols warm.
Since black aerosols are caused by incomplete combustion processes
(i.e. open fires, burning of biomass, diesel engines, untuned fossil
fuel burners, etc), then aerosols should be a larger component of any
climate change treaty, but they are completely unaddressed by the Kyoto
treaty. This is because the largest emitters of black aerosols are the
middle east, eastern europe, former soviet states, and communist China.
The good news is that democratization seems to be a force for reduction
of dark soot emissions. With democratization, more public pressure
grows for Clean Air Acts and any warming influence of such soots is
brought under control.
Then we'll have a problem of fossil fuel caused sulfates triggering a
new ice age.... ;)
=====
Mike Lorrey
"Live Free or Die, Death is not the Worst of Evils."
- Gen. John Stark
Blog: Sado-Mikeyism: http://mikeysoft.blogspot.com
Flight sims: http://www.x-plane.org/users/greendragon/
Pro-tech freedom discussion:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/exi-freedom
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo.
http://search.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon May 26 2003 - 09:22:44 MDT