John Beardmore wrote:
In message , Retief
writes
On Fri, 03 Nov 06 11:22:33 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
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.
The article makes that claim, doesn't matter if you can't see the
precise text. The meaning is there nevertheless.
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.
Wrong wrong wrong. The purpose of the "paper" was to point to a remedy
not debate the cause and effect. As I have noted elsewhere, that their
"remedy" is solely related to CO2, and THAT is what defines the "gasses"
as being CO2 alone, irrespective of the use of the plural!
_IF_ it was as you and the AGW Mufti Lloyd say then they have missed
out including the most important of all "greenhouse gases" - water
vapour! Why would they do that if they intended an "equivalent to.."
meaning for all greenhouse gases? I'll tell you why, because it would
have been too blatantly obvious that it is all a SHAM.
-- which is what your "equivalence" implies...
In your dreams I think...
You are unable to arrive a conclusions from a given set of conditions?