November 8th 06, 11:46 PM
posted to alt.global-warming,sci.environment,sci.geo.meteorology,uk.environment
|
|
external usenet poster
|
|
First recorded activity by Weather-Banter: Aug 2006
Posts: 19
|
|
Stern Review on the Economics of Climate Change
Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article ,
Orator wrote:
Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article ,
Retief wrote:
On Wed, 01 Nov 06 11:32:08 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:
Then we go to p3 where they claim "430" ppm of "greenhouse gases", which
they limit to only be "CO2". Then they use the 'conventional' figure of
"280ppm before the Industrial Revolution", for CO2! So now we know they
have padded the figure by some 70 - 80 ppm from the more accepted figure
of 350 - 360 ppm for CO2!
That's a lie. It's 360 now, man!
Hey, would you look at that! Lloyd got an answer CORRECT! Yes Lloyd,
it's about 360 ppm now, but the article claims that it's 430 ppm... So
Lloyd (and Orator) are correct, in stating that the article:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/h...6_exec_sum.pdf
....has lied about the concentration, by claiming it is 430 ppm...
No, it says: "The current level or stock of greenhouse gases in the
atmosphere
is equivalent to around 430 parts per million (ppm) CO2, compared with only
280ppm before the Industrial Revolution. These concentrations have already
caused the world to warm by more than half a degree Celsius and will lead
to
at least a further half degree warming over the next few decades, because
of
the inertia in the climate system."
All the GH gases are equivalent to CO2 of 430 ppm.
Man, talk about spin-doctoring! How much are you getting paid for this?
You know, most communities have adult literacy programs.
I quoted the article. You lied about it.
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.
See my message on the 7th, the one you have studiously ignored!
|