In message , Retief
writes
On Mon, 6 Nov 2006 07:58:09 +0000, John Beardmore
wrote:

The "greenhouse gases" has been defines as "CO2" it is clear as clear
can be! The "equivalent to" refers to "parts per million (ppm)" - a
measure!

"gases" is plural, doofus.

That in no way addresses the challenge to the assertion that CO2 is a
"prototypical greenhouse gas, whose characteristics explain and define
all other GHGs..."

You've put this in quotes as though somebody had said it, but searching
for the phrase suggests otherwise.

Indeed, Lloyd Parker claimed it was "equivalent to"... That has
implications.

Well share them then if you have a point ?


CO2 is greenhouse gas. It doesn't explain and define others however,
but given that the effect of each gas can be measured and characterised,
any given amount of another gas can have an effect which can be
expressed as an amount of CO2 that would have the same effect.

Nonsense. CO2 is quite unlike many other gases.

This statement, while true in many respects, is almost entirely useless.

Given that there are many gasses that trap heat in atmospheres, the
important thing is the extent of that similarity.


-- which is what your "equivalence" implies...

In your dreams I think...

Equivalence often falls in the realm of mathematics. In practice, if
A is equivalent to B (i.e. A=B), then A=B everywhere. If A and B are
curves (e.g. functions: A(X), B(X)), then A(X) and B(X) are identical
(or nearly so) for any value of X.

Even if you wish to use a less demanding definition, the behavior of
these functions had better be quite similar, else claiming
"equivalence" is nonsense.

This is no more difficult a concept that MTOE (Million Tons of Oil
Equivalent) which I'm sure you can understand.

Basically this sort of use of the word "Equivalent" is common custom and
practice that well and widely understood.

If this nitpicking is the best you can do, you don't have much do you ?


It is history and it shows that high levels of CO2 does not correlate to
"human caused" as your dogma recites.

Nobody has ever claimed humans caused the CO2 to go up millions of
years ago,
but we are the cause today.

So what?... Did 6000 ppm exterminate all life on Earth? Oh, that's
right...all life _was_ exterminated, which is why you are NOT arguing
with me now (since all life on Earth died)...

Doesn't mean that modern life / agriculture / ecosystems etc would cope
well.

Neither does that mean that modern life/agriculture/ecosystems, etc.,
will not cope well.

The assertion (from Lloyd and others) has been that they will not
cope. But it is just that, an assertion...

Well, there are lots of good reasons to assume that 6000 ppm would
radically alter human mood and wakefulness, never mind agriculture.

If you think such changes unimportant, I guess you should study
physiology, never mind ecology and climate !


J/.
--
John Beardmore